Carbon-negative biobutanol for $2 per gallon? ITRI says its ButyFix technology has the right stuff

Seeking low-carbon fuels, even negative carbon? Or, looking for a low-cost, cellulosic renewable fuel? Or, in search of a capital-light, bolt-on technology to drive better economics for first-yen ethanol plants?

Well, what about all three, at one time, with one technology? Taiwan’s ITRI says its early-stage ButyFix technology checks off all three ways.

The Digest investigates.

There’s good news out of Taiwan this week — a new biobutanol technology, early-stage — with an update from Taiwan’s non-profit Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), that its newest biobutanol technology can increase carbon utilization from typical sugar fermentation from 67 percent to 94 percent.

If you’ll recall — one of the barriers in biofuels — both from the point of view of economics and emissions — has been that traditional sugar fermentation releases roughly one-third of the underlying biomass in the form of CO2, when converting to an alcohol. It’s for that reason that ethanol plants are a highly suitable source of concentrated, pure CO2 for algae growth among others uses.

The Two Excitements: economics and emissions

To express it in economic terms, when you are making ethanol from, to use an example, $4.50 per bushel corn, for every $100 you spend on corn, $33 goes towards producing CO2, which has a street value of around $18. So, you start with a 15% fiscal deficit that drags on the economic performance of the remaining products — ethanol and distillers grains.

As it happens, ITRI is floating a production cost of $2 per gallon for its biobutanol — though details have been sketchy to date about the input costs and the yields by which they come up with that figure. But, it’s bound to raise eyebrows both among the skeptics who don’t much like “per gallon” claims coming from pilots, as a rule, and without input costs likewise declared.

On the other hand, ITRI isn’t populated with a bunch of crazies popping out of some previously unknown gopher hole — so there will likely be significant interest in looking at the technology under NDA. In fact, ITRI is picking up an R&D 100 award for the technology from R&D Magazine on November 7.

Meanwhile, ITRI is touting the high-value markets as well. Chemical agents, raw materials, intermediates, or solvents for the production of paints, adhesives, and detergents — and as a feedstock for butyl acrylate production.

To express it in emissions terms, in using corn ethanol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in road transport— one of the reasons that you end up with only a 20% emissions reduction when using a carbon-neutral cycle of carbon fixation and release is that fermentation releases 18 pounds of CO2 with every bushel.

So, a jump from 67 percent to 94 percent carbon utilization has — on the face of it — enormous promise. In fact, ButyFix is being touted by ITRI as the first carbon-negative biobutanol production technology using cellulosic feedstock. Yep, carbon-negative. That’s a quality that, in the current marketplace, only Cool Planet is making a claim to among all other biofuels technology developers.

Now – there are some elements to add into the mix.

The Six Howevers

First of all, this is a cellulosic process — meaning that you are not starting with that $160 per ton corn, you are using the $55-$75 per ton (we think) cellulosic biomass. Our understanding from Taiwan is that the enzymatic technology works with cellulose and hemicellulose. There’s going to be a lignin fraction left over, which will drag to some extent on the economics.

Remember what they say about lignin, you can make anything from it except money.

Second, we have heard from ITRI that the technology can be bolted on to conventional ethanol production facilities — it’ll probably come clear in the coming weeks how exactly that will pan out in terms of the cellulosic biomass collection — which conventional ethanol plants do not in most cases undertake.

Third, this is a biobutanol process, not ethanol. The good news there is that you have a higher blend rate with gasoline — at least 16 percent, instead of a cap between 10 and 15% for non-flex-fuel vehicles as we have with ethanol.

Fourth, biobutanol has an energy density much closer to gasoline, and does not require the infrastructure changes that ethanol does to pipes, tanks and vehicles. Also on the positive side, biobutanol has a higher street value.

Firth, with biobutanol are few but there are a couple to keep in mind. First, you are producing a four-carbon molecule instead of a two-carbon molecule, so the yields are lower per ton of biomass. Another place where that boost in carbon utilization will help. Another limitation on biobutanol is that it has a low octane rating — so the strategy used by oil refiners with ethanol (blend high-octane ethanol with cheap, 85-octane gasoline to produce a standard 87-octane unleaded fuel) doesn’t work.

Sixth — it’s a technology that has still to go through a demonstration at scale on a path towards commercialization. So, think 3-5 years before it is on the street, even if the technology pans out.

The China card

Here’s an interesting thought to consider.

Now, we generally know a number of reasons for Taiwanese technology to head for the US as opposed to China. One, as a bolt-on technology, there are more opportunities to partner with the large first-gen fleet on the Eastern side of the Pacific. Plus, there generally has been a stronger investment flow to biofuels projects in the US, as opposed to China.

However, as US investment slowed, China’s interest in biofuels has increased — though they are generally apoplectic about using corn as a feedstock, since they have to import it. Corn in China is expensive, roughly double the Chicago Board of Trade spot price at this time.

So — the interesting part is that there is a much bigger spread between the cost of corn and the cost of cellulose in China — as much as $275 per ton. That gives some real cost advantages to cellulosics — one of the reasons that Green Biologics is over there (to name another cellulose-loving biobutanol technology. Also, TMO Renewables has been over there quite a while with its magic microorganism — and COFCO and Novozymes are actively developing a project. Even Accelergy — which has generally been focused on coal-to-liquids as opposed to biomass-to-liquids, of late — is over there and likes the China biomass market.

So, add that to the mix of variables.

The technology itself

How does ITRI do it? From a technology point of view, they say they have modified the microorganism to grab and use the carbon that would otherwise bonded with oxygen and released as CO2. As R&D Magazine highlighted in its R&D 100 award:

“The technology produces butanol by first fermenting sugars to produce butyrate. To create butanol from butyrate, ITRI uses proprietary processes to regulate certain genes in specially adapted microorganisms and re-directs carbon dioxide generated during fermentation to the desired pathway where the carbon dioxide can be re-utilized, achieving a high yield of butyrate. ITRI has demonstrated that ButyFix generates a solvent yield of 0.70g/g-sugar—a 94% conversion of carbon. this result corresponds to a 57% increase over traditional ABE processes.”

The state of play

Right now, the ITRI is seeking tech transfer opportunities — and, ultimately, partners for the demonstration phase. ITRI hold four patents and six pending patents internationally on the ButyFix technology.

You can learn more about it right here with a short YouTube video.

And there’s more via the ITRI site, here.