A series of recent policy-related developments within the biofuels industry may have set the stage for what could prove to be a significant shift in biofuel geopolitics over the next decade.

To recap: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) affirmed an earlier ruling that held the imposition of carbon taxes on flights touching down or taking off on EU soil did not infringe international law or the Open Skies Agreement; a U.S. District Court ruled that California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) violates the U.S. Constitution; and the long-standing U.S. ethanol producer credit (aka “VEETC”) slipped quietly into the history books.

Where do these developments leave the industry?

While the inclusion of airline emissions in the EU’s ETS indicates that the buzz around aviation biofuels won’t fade anytime soon, the threat of costly trade wars by the United States and China in response to the ruling could put a crimp on the expansion of international biofuel trade flows.

Meanwhile, just as the expiration of VEETC eliminates an estimated $6 billion worth of annual subsidies to the ethanol industry, the lucrative California fuel market is (at least for now) once again open for Midwest ethanol producers, and likely at the expense of Brazilian ethanol (more on this below).

On the whole, the decisions are generally good for advanced biofuels and corn-based ethanol alike.

Aviation Biofuels Lack Production Volumes, Not Willing Buyers

In the case of advanced biofuels, the decision to uphold the carbon fee suggests that international carriers will not escape the added costs associated with doing business in Europe, adding further incentive to integrate carbon-cutting technologies. As I discussed in an earlier blog, the combination of impending offset purchases and high oil prices appears to be forcing the aviation industry’s hand when it comes to fossil fuel alternatives, which has been signaling strong demand for sustainable advanced biofuels in recent years (note that first-generation biofuels lack the performance characteristics necessary to power commercial and military aircraft).

Although expected, the ruling is generally good news for energy feedstock producers looking to commercialize next generation feedstocks like camelina, jatropha, switchgrass, and algae, and seeking reliable markets and off-take contracts to offset the risk associated with growing relatively unknown crops.

But the advanced biofuels story is not about lack of demand, which suggests that the ECJ decision may actually not have much impact at all. In the case of the aviation industry, rising oil prices mean that demand for biofuel alternatives is deep, durable, and widespread. Even without the EU tax, assuming adequate supply, price parity with petroleum-based fuels, and sufficient distribution logistics, aviation fuel buyers would be clamoring to lock-up every last drop of advanced biofuels production.

Meanwhile, with the threat of trade wars from the United States and China among others, costly tariffs and other punitive measures could actually stifle biofuels development, an unintended consequence of the aviation tax.

Corn-based Ethanol Gets a Boost

Over on the other side of the pond, Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill’s December 29 decision declaring California’s carbon fuel standard unconstitutional represents a significant victory for Midwest corn ethanol producers (see my 2010 article on the LCFS and Green Federalism for more on the legal issues). The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) policy, introduced in 2007, aims for a reduction in the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of fuels consumed in the state by 10 percent over the next decade. Due to corn ethanol’s inherent inefficiencies, the policy excludes most of the corn-ethanol produced in the United States from one of the world’s largest fuel markets.

Implementation of the policy had led to the peculiar situation where Midwest ethanol producers were shipping their offending product 6,000 miles to Brazil to make up for a shortfall in sugarcane ethanol production. Midwest corn’s exclusion from California, coupled with a national blending wall policy, put a serious constraint on U.S. producers’ scale-up ambitions. The ruling may put corn ethanol back in the domestic driver’s seat, at least for now.

Looking Beyond 2012

As discussed in Pike Research’s report, Biofuels Markets and Technologies, we expect the production of conventional biofuels – namely corn- and sugarcane-based ethanol – to increase steadily over the next decade as demand for alternatives to petroleum-based fuel outstrips advanced biofuels production volumes. The corn-based ethanol industry appears to have established viability, and even without the VEETC, we foresee an increase in production as access to markets like California and the likely raising of U.S. blend walls (e.g. implementation of E15 or expansion of E85) opens up new opportunities for producers.

The key question raised by these decisions: where will the production go over the next decade? As corn-based ethanol ventures beyond VEETC, the industry will need to fight for market access at home and abroad despite this most recent victory. Meanwhile, the EU may be positioning itself as the primary market for advanced biofuels at the expense of U.S. and China.

Article by Mackinnon Lawrence, appearing courtesy the Matter Network.

Related posts:

• As Saudi Crude Flows to China, U.S. Need for Biofuels Grows
• AHRI defeats the City of Albequerque, Complicating Matters for Local Governments
• Betting on Algae and Big Oil?
• Advanced Biofuels Face Uncertain Financing Future
• Stewart Brand Raising Eyebrows in Supporting Nuclear Power

In previous posts I discussed the patent infringement suit brought by Danish biotech Novozymes against its rival Danisco (recently acquired by DuPont).

Specifically, Novozymes sued Danisco in May 2010 in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,713,723 (’723 Patent).

The ’723 Patent is entitled “Alpha amylase mutants with altered properties” and is directed to variants of certain alpha amylases that exhibit altered stability under high temperatures, low pH and other conditions. The patented variants can be used for starch conversion in ethanol production.

In May 2011 the court denied Danisco’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, ruling that the defendant did not meet its burden of proving insufficient written description as a matter of law.

Shortly thereafter the court granted partial summary judgment that Danisco’s Spezyme Alpha WB, GC 133, and Clearflow WB enzyme products infringe the ’723 Patent (Novozymes_Infringement_Order).

The jury recently awarded Novozymes about $18.3 million in damages for the infringement, including $16.7 million for lost profits for certain enzyme products and $1.6 million in reasonable royalties for other products for which Novozymes did not prove lost profits (Novozymes_Verdict).

The jury further found that Danisco’s infringement of the ’723 was willful, although it found Novozymes did not prove infringement of Danisco’s whole broth products.

Biofuels patent litigation has been heating up recently. GreenShift has been the most active, asserting an ethanol processing patent against a host of ethanol producers in eleven cases consolidated in Indiana.

There has been tremendous growth recently in enzymes, processing technologies, and genetically-engineered microorganisms for biofuels. Like those microorganisms, I’m sure the green patent battles will continue to multiply.

Eric Lane is a patent attorney at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps in San Diego and the author of Green Patent Blog. Mr. Lane can be reached at elane@luce.com.

Related posts:

• Novozymes Ethanol Enzyme Patent (Barely) Survives Summary Judgment
• Second Generation Biofuel at Danish Gas Pumps
• Solannex Strikes Again, Accuses Nanosolar of Patent Infringement
• Technology Advances in Cellulosic Ethanol
• Valence Victorious in Canadian Advanced Battery Patent Suit

A recent study, released on 11 October, “Biofuel and Technologies” released by Pike Research states that the global biofuel market will double within the next decade to $183.3 billion from its current level of $82.7 billion, with ethanol production accounting for $78 billion of future worldwide biofuel production, while predicting that biodiesel production will reach $25.5 billion. Perhaps not surprisingly, Pike Research predicts that the US will become the world’s leading biofuel producer, accounting for 71 percent of alternative fuel by 2021.

Colorado-based Pike Research on its website defines itself as “a market research and consulting firm that provides in-depth analysis of global clean technology markets.”
How realistic a prediction is this? Many in the media are utilizing the company’s press release on the gist of the report, as one has to be a user to login even to find out the price of the report, which the website helpfully notes, contains 144 “Tables, Charts, Figures.”

So, is America about to go ever more green to raise ethanol?

Recent history would not seem to indicate so.

Biofuel production is now receiving substantial attention from the executive branch of the federal government. Shortly before his inauguration in January 2008 President-elect Obama promised to invest $150 billion over the next decade to develop biofuels, plug-in hybrid vehicles, renewable energy production and a skilled work force for clean technologies.

Obama has now made clean energy a centerpiece of his administration’s policy – during his State of the Union address on 25 January he said, “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.

Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – (applause) – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people. Already, we’re seeing the promise of renewable energy.”

Agro-fuels first rose to national prominence in the U.S. in the aftermath of the second oil crisis in 1980. Seen as a renewable energy source, many policy makers in Washington supported increased production of biofuels as a substitute for imported oil. In the last few years, with increasing political instability in the Middle East, and rising oil prices, biofuels are once again being promoted aggressively, but the majority of U.S. biofuel production remains largely ethanol. Another factor promoting ethanol production – perhaps more important than rising oil prices – was the farm crisis. In the wake of the decline of the Midwestern agricultural sector, the ethanol industry was seen a way of revitalizing Midwestern economies. As a result, given the important political interests involved, the ethanol industry received strong bipartisan political support in the U.S. Senate.

But the ongoing recession is impacting all aspects of federal spending, including such previously sacrosanct programs as defense and agricultural subsidies, and the future is murky indeed.

Aside from ethanol production, the U.S. federal government has been involved in promoting alternative fuels for slightly more than a decade. In 1998 biodiesel fuel use credits were included in the alternative fueled vehicle requirements for government and state motor fleets established in 1992. In 2000 USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation Bioenergy Program was implemented. The 2002 Farm Bill included an Energy Title for the first time encompassing several biofuel provisions, including expanding CCC Bioenergy Program and Biodiesel Education Program. The same year Minnesota enacted U.S.’s first biodiesel mandate requiring at least 2 percent biodiesel in diesel fuel sold in the state by 2005.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 established the first national tax credit for biodiesel at $1 a gallon for oil crops and animal fats and 50¢ a gallon for recycled fats and oils. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated the renewable fuels standard (RFS) and included several biofuel provisions, including a 10¢ per gallon income tax credit for small agri-biodiesel producers, lasting to December 2008; a 30 percent tax credit for installing fueling facilities for “Alternative Fuel Vehicles,” including vehicles that run on at least 20 percent biodiesel and an extension of the national tax credit for biodiesel to December 2008.

The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” set a “mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard,” requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
In October 2008 the federal interagency Biomass Research and Development Board issued its National Biofuels Action Plan while in June 2009 the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a margin of 219 to 212. The 1,200-plus-page H.R.2454 bill mandated an economy-wide carbon dioxide emissions cap 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below by 2030 and 83 percent below by 2050.

In May 2009 the Department of Energy announced plans to invest $786.5 Million in Recovery Act Funds in biofuels. Two months later the DOE announced $85 million funding for development of algae-based biofuels and advanced, infrastructure-compatible biofuels while at the end of 2009, the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture awarded approximately $600 million in biorefinery funding, the bulk of it earmarked for pilot and demonstration-scale projects to help accelerate the commercialization process.

While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 aggressively mandated biofuels to replace 20 percent of the U.S. petroleum gasoline consumption, or 36 billion gallons, Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass a comprehensive energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession.

The well established corn ethanol industry agricultural lobby remains at present in the driver’s seat of U.S. renewable policy and is heavily subsidized. For years, the livestock industry was the main buyer of cheap and plentiful U.S. corn. With the 2005 ethanol mandate the government required that Americans use about 13 billion gallons of ethanol in 2010 and now, nearly one-third of U.S. grown corn is used in ethanol production, which in turn has had a significant impact on raising food prices.

So, is ethanol a good deal? Currently, its production consumes more energy than it generates.

Dr. David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn. Pimentel added up all the energy used in growing corn – the fertilizer, the tractor fuel and tractor manufacturing, etc., plus the energy used by ethanol plants and found that making one gallon of ethanol uses the equivalent of about 1-1/3 gallons of oil. Given the rise in oil prices since 2005, the cost would be higher now. Pimentel concluded, “Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation’s energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment.

Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits.”

Nor is corn-derived ethanol cost effective.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, producing enough corn ethanol to match the energy contained in a single gallon of conventional gasoline costs taxpayers $1.78. Even with those subsidies, which total about $7 billion per year, corn ethanol still only provides about 3 percent of America’s oil needs, hardly enough to wean America from its dependence on imported oil.

U.S. biofuels production has also become hostage to a massive anti climate change campaign, underwritten by America’s oil and coal, whose political influence has precluded Congress from passing any clean energy/climate bill.

So, is U.S. biofuel production about to double in the next decade?

The evidence seems against it at present.

Article by John C.K. Daly, appearing courtesy OilPrice.com.

photo: silk cut.

Related posts:

• China is Interested in Biofuels – Why Not the West?
• EU Biofuel Targets Encourage Unethical Practices Worldwide, Study Says
• Betting on Algae and Big Oil?
• Russia Decides to Take a Step Forward with Biofuels
• Is a Global Renewable Energy Standard Wishful Thinking?

A previous post reported on the consolidation of a number of patent infringement suits brought by GreenShift and its New York subsidiary, GS Cleantech, against a host of ethanol producers across the midwestern United States.

GreenShift has accused the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858 (’858 Patent), entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems.”

The ’858 Patent is directed to methods of recovering oil from byproducts of ethanol production using the process of dry milling, which creates a waste stream comprised of byproducts called whole stillage.

According to the ’858 Patent, whole stillage contains valuable oil but prior processes for recovering this oil have been expensive or inefficient.

GreenShift’s patented method includes mechanically separating the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage and then running the thin stillage into an evaporator to form a concentrated byproduct, or syrup. The syrup is fed through a second centrifuge, which separates usable corn oil from the syrup.

In September 2010 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted GreenShift’s motion to consolidate the 11 actions in the Southern District of Indiana.

Recently, the court issued a “Markman” decision (GS-Markman-Order), a claim construction order that provides the court’s interpretations of key disputed terms of the patent claims.

There were several terms of the ’858 Patent claims at issue, the most important of which were ”concentrated byproduct”, “concentrate”, “thin stillage concentrate” and ”concentrated thin stillage” (collectively construed by the court as “the Concentrate Terms”), as well as ”mechanically processing”.

In one instance, the court adopted the defendants’ narrower proposed construction. In the other, it went with GreenShift’s broader proposed definition.

The question in interpreting the Concentrate Terms was essentially what the byproduct or concentrated substance is. GreenShift argued that it is any product consisting of water, oil and solids, while the defendants contended it should be limited to a syrup.

The court agreed with the defendants and construed the Concentrate Terms to mean “syrup containing water, oil, and solids resulting from the concentrating or evaporating process.”

According to the court, this interpretation “naturally aligns” the claim language with the description in the ’858 Patent, which uses the terms “concentrate” and “syrup” interchangeably to identify the composition described by the Concentrate Terms.

The court construed the term “mechanically processing” to mean “to subject to a mechanical device (or devices) to effect a particular result.” Despite defendants’ contention that the term means “processing with a centrifuge,” the court agreed with GreenShift that the plain meaning of the term requires a broader construction.

As discussed before in this space, the claim construction phase of patent litigation is extemely important, often leading to settlement or dismissal on summary judgment.

With what appears to be a mixed ruling leaving no clear winner, it will be interesting to see what happens next in this major biofuels litigation.

Eric Lane is a patent attorney at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps in San Diego and the author of Green Patent Blog. Mr. Lane can be reached at elane@luce.com.

Related posts:

• Novozymes Wins $18 Million Jury Verdict in Biofuels Enzyme Patent Suit
• Toyota Tends Gardner with Hybrid Vehicle Patent Win
• LED Litigation Goes Tubular: Altair Targets LED-O Light Tubes
• Taiwan Supremes Affirm Revocation of Nichia Design Patent
• Green Law: Supreme Court Decision on Wastewater Dumping

Biofuels remain the orphan child of western energy interests – like adopting children, everyone agrees that it’s a good idea, but not many want an alien rugrat in the house.

Now China, arguably the world’s most influential and dynamic economy, is beginning to eye renewables as a partial solution to its voracious and growing energy needs. If Beijing determines that biofuels represent the future, expect to see the current modest western investment field to change dramatically.

As yet, China’s involvement is modest. According to a PetroChina company official, the firm intends to increase its production of biofuels by 2015 to 1.1 million tons and import and additional 470,000 tons. PetroChina, a traditional hydrocarbon company, is clearly thinking outside the box to increase its alternative energy portfolio.

According to PetroChina’s Petrochemical Research Institute deputy chief engineer Fu Xingguo, China is looking at generating 933,000 tons annually of fuel ethanol and 165,000 tons of biodiesel.

According to Fu, China is looking to import biofuel from countries such as Brazil, the world’s largest producer of ethanol, which will then be blended with regular hydrocarbon-derived traditional fuels and sold to southern Chinese provinces.

Looking towards the future, Fu added that some PetroChina Jet A-1 civilian aviation biofuel will be used in a test flight next month, but gave no further details, such as the feedstock used to produce the fuel.

Finally, Fu noted that China has around 1.52 million tons of fuel ethanol capacity, which mainly use grains as feedstocks.

In those accustomed to reading between the lines, Petrochemical Research Institute deputy chief engineer’s last comment is the most significant.

Grains as feedstocks.

The United States now devours approximately one-third of its corn output to produce ethanol, thanks in large part to a bloated bureaucracy and an influential farm lobby sucking down subsidies.

China has no such luxury to shift agricultural land from food production to renewables, as its arable land is needed to support the appetites of approximately 1.3 billion people.

Chinese indigenous production of domestic biofuel will accordingly remain marginal at best.

That said, should China determine that renewable biofuels are an important future component of the country’s diversified energy portfolio, the fiscal resources that it could throw at the issue would completely transform global biofuel production, particularly in the Third World.

A number of issues are blunting the introduction of increased biofuel production in developed countries.

First and foremost is that no one has yet figured out how to produce biofuel on an industrial scale that could compete with oil prices, even at $100 a barrel. Like solar and its kilowatt issues, biofuels at present remain a more expensive option.

Secondly, particularly in the United States, the biofuel market has been captured by the ethanol lobby, which provides farmers not only with subsidies, but crop insurance as well.

Last but hardly least is the fact that no single potential biofuel feedstock has emerged as a clear winner, although camelina seems to moving increasingly into first place.

That said, even in the U.S., a slow groundswell of support for renewable biofuel production is emerging, with both the Carlyle Group and Goldman Sachs selectively investing in various projects. Neither firm is overly adventurous in risk-taking, which indicates that eventually biofuels will receive the funding which it currently lacks.

Should China exercise its immense fiscal clout, particularly in the developing world where it has spent decades cultivating governments and contacts, the picture could change quickly. A major focus of Chinese investment over the past decade has been Africa, and if Beijing decides that biofuel is the way to go to diversify is energy portfolio, given the land constraints within China itself, expect to see a major drive to produce renwables on the Dark Continent.

Furthermore, expect to see China completely ignore environmentalists’ concerns about shifting land from food production to biofuel.

Amongst China’s many economic accomplishments, an overriding signal concern for human rights, either in China or in the countries it invests in, is notable by its absence.

Article by John C.K. Daly, appearing courtesy OilPrice.com

Related posts:

• The U.S. and China – Advancing Clean Energy Research Through Cooperation
• New Chinese Rail Line Said to be Fastest High-Speed Train
• China Versus US in Commitment to Renewables — How Much is a Trillion?
• As Saudi Crude Flows to China, U.S. Need for Biofuels Grows
• Exporting Pollution

Cargill is an American private multinational corporation that is involved in a number of businesses, including agricultural commodities, sale and manufacturing of feed and livestock, food ingredient production such as glucose syrup, starch, and vegetable oils and fats used in processed food applications, and steel and energy trading. Cargill believes in the sustainability of the environment and doing all that it can to protect the environment from numerous challenges. Here is a list of some of the highlights associated with Cargill’s clean technology and sustainability endeavors.

1) Cargill Produces and Markets Ethanol and Biodiesel from a Variety of Feedstocks. In North America, Cargill offers refiners and blenders with a very reliable source of top-grade ethanol. In Europe, Cargill offers CFlow Biodiesel, which is beneficial because it does not block systems, it can be mixed with other types of biodiesel, and it is an improved cost. In Cargill’s El Salvador ethanol dehydration facility Cargill looks to make biodiesel using sugar cane.

2) Carbon Trading and Reduction. Green Hercules Trading Limited is a wholly owned Cargill Holdings subsidiary. Green Hercules Trading has made a lot of progress when it comes to building a diversified carbon dioxide portfolio encompassing a number of projects from different sectors as well as countries. This trading scheme has made Cargill one of the top ten buyers in the world in carbon trading. Green Hercules Trading benefits from, “Receiving the full internal and external support of Cargill’s global network and physical presence; extensive experience in commodities trading and markets; conservative and meticulous approach to portfolio creation and managing risk thereunder, through Cargill’s risk management tools; [and] reliability, particularly in relation to contract performance and the honoring of our obligations.”

3) Ocean Transportation. In Cargill’s long history, they have developed expertise in ocean chartering, logistics, trading and risk management. The ocean freight solutions offered provide global coverage with a reduced rate of carbon dioxide emissions than planes.

4) Cargill Partners with Shell to Fund Biofuels Startup. In June 2010, Cargill and Shell invested $46.6 million into Virent Energy Systems, a biofuels startup company. Virent developed a new technology called bioforming – “a thermochemical process that catalyzes sugars into hydrocarbons, creating molecules similar to those produced in oil refineries.” Virent stated that this new process, which was developed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is able to use a variety of different feedstocks, such as cellulose, starches and sugars, and that this technology will assist in creating bio jet fuel, diesel and gasoline, and produce hydrocarbon.

5) Cargill Invests in Biochemical Venture. In May of 2008, Cargill backed Elevance Renewable Sciences, a biochemical venture that uses corn, canola and soy feedstocks in the production of a number of materials and chemicals. With Cargill’s large access to a wide variety of feedstock crops, it could greatly assist in increasing the production of biofuels.

6) Cargill Starts Selling Palm Oil. In July of 2011, Cargill made the announcement that it is going to start selling palm oil to various countries, including the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia by the year 2015. The palm oil being sold by Cargill is to be certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Cargill is currently collaborating with the United States branch of the World Wildlife Fund, to look at the entire progress its suppliers of palm oil in Indonesia are making with applying the principles stemming from the Roundtable.

7) Cargill’s New Waste-to-Energy System to Increase Renewable Capacity. Cargill’s Canadian branch made the announcement in August of 2011 that it is looking to invest $37.8 million ($36 million in Canadian dollars) to a new waste-to-energy project in its beef processing facility located in High River, Alberta. This new system is expected to boost the plant’s ability to generate the energy it needs for production by 80 percent. The project, once complete, is expected to generate 1.4 megawatts and eliminate approximately 21,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions yearly. This system will utilize organic waste that would most likely end up in landfills and will combine with the existing methane gas capture system at the facility.

8 ) Cargill Partners with Local Communities for Waste-to-Energy Projects. Cargill partnered with the North Dakota city of Fargo to assist in new environmental innovations that used current technologies. Fargo had already installed a system used to collect gas produced from decomposing garbage. The system was initially designed to burn off methane and reduce the odor as well as mitigate negative environmental impacts. However, Cargill took the system one step further to see about burning the methane to meet the thermal energy needs of one of their plants that were located in close proximity to the landfill. This would reduce Cargill’s dependence on natural gas. A 1.5 mile pipeline was created with both groups looking to recoup the capital investment and then generate further revenue.

9) Cargill’s Idaho Dairy Farm Digester Produces Electricity. In March 2010, Cargill’s Idaho dairy farm illustrated how environmentally-based innovations can assist in solving programs such as climate change and livestock manure. Cargill built and currently operates an anaerobic digester that converts manure from the 6,000 cows into one million kilowatt hours of electricity monthly. The electricity is sold to a local power grid. ”We look to environmental innovation as a way to preserve and protect the environment,” said Jay Ritzen, managing director, Cargill Environmental Finance, “that includes using energy and resources more wisely in our own operations and helping our customers’ shrink their environmental footprints.”

10) Carbon Credit Initiative. Cargill’s Carbon Credit Initiative was designed to assist in preserving the Amazon Rainforest. Cargill gave $3 million to The Amazon Forest Carbon Partnership and Columbia University to assist in reducing deforestation and degradation through the establishment of a reliable, sturdy standard for forestry carbon credits. “The main goal is to create a platinum standard for forestry carbon credits to ensure they are sustainable, permanent and environmentally friendly across the board,” said Cargill Global Emissions and European Power & Gas (GEEPG) general manager for structured carbon, Michael Dwyer, who steered Cargill’s participation in the partnership.

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com

Related posts:

• Coming Attractions: CleanTechies Events Highlights
• The Bull is Bullish on CleanTech… So?
• Fuel Cell Startup EnStorage Raises $15M Series B Financing
• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?
• ‘No More Nuclear’ Germany Will Maintain its Cleantech Edge

Researchers at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) have made a discovery that could increase the production of ethanol and lower its costs.

They say they have pinpointed the gene that controls ethanol production capacity in a microorganism, which could be the missing link in developing more efficient and cheaper biomass crops.

Current methods to make ethanol from a type of biomass found in switchgrass and agricultural waste require the addition of expensive enzymes to break down the plant’s barriers that guard energy-rich sugars. The gene discovered controls ethanol production in a microorganism known as “Clostridium thermocellum”. With it scientists will be able to experiment with genetically altering biomass plants to produce more ethanol.

“The Department of Energy relies on the scientific discoveries of its labs and research centers to improve the production of clean energy sources,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “This discovery is an important step in developing biomass crops that could increase yield of ethanol, lower production costs and help reduce our reliance on imported oil.”

The Clostridium thermocellum has been studied for decades, but scientists so far had been unable to determine the genetic basis for its ability to tolerate higher concentrations of ethanol.

The research team used a multi-disciplinary approach thanks to the various types of expertise from those involved. The team’s results were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the invention is available for licensing.

Article by Antonio Pasolini, a Brazilian writer and video art curator based in London, UK. He holds a BA in journalism and an MA in film and television.

Related posts:

• Fungus May Be the Key to Cheaper, More Efficient Biofuel
• LanzaTech Produces Important Chemical Component from Industrial Waste Gases
• More Funding For Cellulosic Ethanol Research
• Iowa Plant Receives U.S. Backing To Convert Corn Waste into Motor Fuel
• Cellulosic Ethanol Expected to Surge in 2013

Biofuels may soon be produced quickly, efficiently, and at a cost comparable to gasoline thanks to a discovery from researchers at the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center. The research team has identified several genes that improve yeast’s ability to digest the natural sugar xylose. This means that it will soon be possible to efficiently produce bio-ethanol from cellulosic biomass–waste matter such as the stalks, leaves, and husks of plants, wood chips, sawdust, and dead trees–as opposed to land-intensive crops like corn. The unlikely source of the genes: fungus living symbiotically with bark beetles.

Cellulosic materials cost about half as much as corn per ton, but are historically more difficult than corn to convert to ethanol. Current strains of yeast used industrially for the purpose of converting cellulosic biomass to ethanol have difficulty fermenting the plant sugar xylose, and can do so only after all glucose is exhausted. As xylose makes up nearly half of all available plant sugars, this marks a great loss in ethanol yield.

The team chose bark beetles on account of their woody, xylose-rich habitat. By comparing the sequencing of two xylose-fermenting fungi that live alongside the beetles–Spathaspora passalidarum and Candida tenuis–the researchers was able to identify several genes that effectively increase fermentation of the sugar.

Ethanol can be used as a fuel for cars, but is usually used as a gasoline additive to increase octane and improve vehicle emissions. Production of corn-based ethanol in the United States is just over three billion gallons per year. While biodiesel offers a fossil energy ratio of 5.54 to 1, there is still apprehension about its production and use. These concerns are linked to increased food prices because of the large amount of arable land required for crops as well as the energy-intensive production process (especially corn-based fuels). With available US cropland diminishing, the ability to convert woodier waste will be an important factor in keeping bio-ethanol part of the alternative fuels discussion.

As bark beetles and their related fungi are devastating forests from the northern Rockies to the Czech Republic, it’s nice to know they may provide some great ecological benefit alongside the destruction.

Article by Allison Leahy, appearing courtesy Earth & Industry.

Related posts:

• Green Ideas: Eco Plastic From Mushrooms
• New Whiskey Biofuel Is Developed by Scottish Scientists
• Cellulosic Biofuel Needs More Support, Says Environmental Agency
• Trash and Bacteria Remain Supreme in Biofuel Manufacturing
• That Shot of Tequila May Come With a Biofuel Chaser

Slowly but surely, an extraordinarily important new industry is slowly taking shape, with the potential to transform the global economy.

After years of existing largely as an environmentalist’s fantasy, commercial production of biofuels for the world civil aviation industry is slowly becoming a fact, with production starting up across three continents.

The leading contenders for biofuel feedstocks are jatropha and camelina, both of which have their fervent supporters. While currently neither is capable of production at a price approaching that of Jet A1 civil aviation fuel derived from hydrocarbons, research and extensive investment are nevertheless investigating the possibilities.

While little is certain in the emerging picture, it is increasingly clear that despite the United States being one of the leading producers currently of renewable energy in the form of ethanol, that the United States nevertheless will be an also-ran in these developments.

In January 2010 Qatar Airways revealed plans to work with Airbus and other Qatari state entities to draw up “a detailed engineering and implementation plan for economically viable and sustainable biofuel production.” At an event marking the launch of the Qatar Advanced Biofuel Platform consortium, airline chief Akbar al Baker hailed its European project partner as “more proactive than Boeing in experimenting with alternative fuels.”

Fast forward to this March, when a European consortium of Airbus, Romanian state-owned airline Tarom, Honeywell’s UOP and CCE (Camelina Company España) announced plans to establish a bio-fuel production center in Romania to manufacture civil aviation fuel, using camelina as a feedstock.

Farther east, last month China National Petroleum Corp. announced that it had delivered 15 tons of jatropha oil to help Air China operate the country’s maiden biofuel-powered test flight, tentatively scheduled for later this year. According to a posting on its website, CNPC, Asia’s largest oil producer, is proving that it has the ability to produce biofuel from non-grain feedstocks to clean up the environment.

On Monday, Mozambique’s Agencia Informacao Mocambique news agency announced that Sun Biofuels Mozambique, a subsidiary of U.K.-based Sun Biofuels, has exported the first batch of 30 tons of jatropha oil produced from its fields in the central Mozambican province of Manica to Germany’s Lufthansa airline.

The biggest single impetus to the development of biofuels for civil aviation occurred on 8 June, when the international standards certifying body ASTM International announced its approval of its BIO SPK Fuel Standard, to be made official later in the year, allowing the use of hydro-treated renewable jet (HRJ) Jet A-1 fuel in commercial aviation.

Currently these biofuels are “drop ins,” and must be blended in a 50-50 mixture with Jet A-1 fuel derived from traditional fossil fuel kerosene.

The biggest single independent meant at present to a wide scale production of jet biofuel is its inordinate cost. Biojet fuel delivered last year to the U.S. armed forces for evaluation cost more than $70 a gallon to produce, a price which obviously makes it at present supremely uncompetitive with fuel derived from traditional hydrocarbon sources. Supporters of biofuel production argue that processing costs will decrease in direct proportion to rising volumes of production.

Both Brazil and the United States have viable biofuel production in the form of ethanol, in the case of Brazil derived from sugar cane, in the United States, produced from corn.

Ironically it is the very success of this production in the United States that will limit the near term growth of an alternative renewable fuels industry, because the ethanol lobby has ensured the farmers not only receive significant subsidies, but crop insurance as well, neither of which is available to other farmers wishing to dabble in the production of biofuel from camelina or other assorted feedstocks. These limitations exist despite the fact that the U.S. is the world leader in camelina research.

What is clear at this juncture however is the fact that renewable biojet fuels have been certified, and furthermore, that production is beginning, albeit at on a limited scale with relatively high production costs.

As noted earlier in this article, a critical momentum is building on three continents to advance production of biofuels, and when major players such as Airbus become involved, the viability of such projects is no longer in question, only the timeline.

Last but not least, an additional benefit of biofuels in a world concerned about global warming and emissions of greenhouse gases is that biofuels reduce carbon emissions by jet aircraft by up to 80 percent.

The technology is in place, the product has been certified, and at the end of the day, one is talking about an agricultural product which, depending on where it is sown, can produce one or even two harvests a year.

While discussion rages about the production of biofuels in poorer nations having the possibility of diverting land needed for food production, in terms of energies impact on the environment, biofuels are certainly more benign than other more traditional forms of energy as evidenced in the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill, or more recently, in the March nuclear debacle in Japan.

Biofuels are clean, green, and… for the moment, expensive.

Article by John C.K. Daly, appearing courtesy OilPrice.com.

Related posts:

• That Shot of Tequila May Come With a Biofuel Chaser
• China is Interested in Biofuels – Why Not the West?
• Trash and Bacteria Remain Supreme in Biofuel Manufacturing
• Aviation Biofuels About to Take Off
• As Saudi Crude Flows to China, U.S. Need for Biofuels Grows

Dow Chemical is planning construction of a bioplastics plant in Brazil that the company says will produce plastic from sugarcane in volumes competitive with plastics generated from petroleum.

Later this year Dow, in a partnership with the Japanese firm Mitsui & Co., will start building a plant capable of producing 240 million liters of ethanol; by early 2012 Dow, which is already growing sugarcane across 42,000 acres of agricultural land in Brazil, will adapt that plant to convert that ethanol into hundreds of thousands of metric tons of polyethylene, the world’s most widely used plastic, using a dehydration process.

While most large-scale chemical production comes from petroleum — including about 80 million tons of polyethylene produced annually — high oil prices have driven up the costs.

In Brazil, government support for sugarcane ethanol production is expected to make biochemical production even more cost-competitive.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Wait a cotton-picking minute, and listen to BioSolar’s plans
• Researchers Develop Revolutionary “Perfect Plastic”
• Brazil Pumps More Funds Into Ethanol Research
• Albatrosses Eat Plastic! – Plastic Diet Day 12
• Bioplastics Market: Still Small but Growing