Mascoma Proves Its Consolidated Bioprocessing for Ethanol Really Works
By Candace Wheeler
GM Technical Fellow, Global Energy Systems
The complex process of making ethanol from cellulosic materials like wood chips and corn stalks just became a whole lot easier and less expensive.
One of our strategic cellulosic ethanol partners, Mascoma Corp., has found the holy grail of biofuels production, a process known as consolidated bioprocessing, successfully works in the laboratory. This is a big deal because it allows ethanol production from non-food based materials in a simplified “one pot” process. This has long been viewed as the ultimate low-cost solution for biochemical production of ethanol. Until now, however, this process has been more theoretical than real.
Making ethanol from cellulosic biomass traditionally requires first breaking down the cellulose and hemicellulose materials into five and six carbon sugars, a process referred to as hydrolysis. Then the sugars are fermented into ethanol. Each step occurs at different temperatures and process conditions, and requires the addition of expensive enzymes.
Mascoma has demonstrated that it is possible, using its specially developed strain of yeast, to produce the required enzymes, hydrolyze the cellulose to sugars, and to ferment both the C5 and C6 sugars to ethanol in a single step. This process significantly reduces the operating costs, improves the throughput of the process, and lowers the capital costs required to build the plant.
We thought CBP – though unproven – was a major advantage when we decided to invest in Mascoma last year and accepted its invitation to join its Scientific Advisory Board. Mascoma deserves congratulations for its revolutionary breakthrough, which brings next-generation ethanol one-step closer to commercialization and to providing a cost-effective, renewable source of ethanol for the growing number of flex-fuel vehicles – more than 3.5 million and counting – that we manufacture.
We continue to believe that biofuels, like the next-generation ethanol Mascoma is working on, are the most significant near-term solution to offset rising vehicle energy demands and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Together with the Department of Energy’s proposed investments announced this week, the next-generation of biofuels seems a lot closer to reality.
I look forward to your comments.
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
There are existing also some E85-pumps in Germany as well. To my knowledge the Chevy HHR is declared as E85-capable in the US, at least it has a E85 EPA-rating. As I strongly presume, the 2.4-engine in the US is the same like in those HHR’s, which are sold over here in Europe. Why aren’t these vehicles officially declared as E85-capable in Germany as well? E85, after all, is about 30% cheaper here than gasoline…
“Mascoma Corp., has found the holy grail of biofuels production, a process known as consolidated bioprocessing, successfully works in the laboratory. “
Whoa there Candace ~ “Holy Grail” is a mighty big claim. It’s great that it works in a laboratory, but contain your enthusiasm a bit until they prove they can scale it up to industrial production and work out the complex and daunting logistics of moving millions and millions of tons of not-energy-dense biomass into a processing plant.
The logistics of moving biomass to a processing plant would indeed be daunting. Just as an example, it would take 40,000 truckloads to move the 1.2 million tons of corn stover a typical biomass ethanol plant would use per year. Do you know how much diesel fuel those 40,000 truckloads would use? Do you know how big a storage yard it would take to stockpile — dry, free of insects and pests, and safe from spontaneous combustion — a million or more tons of stover, ready to be used at a biomass ethanol plant? (Baled corn stover weighs about 9-12 pounds per cubic ft depending on moisture content. 1.2 million tons of stover would fill a volume of 200 to 268 million ft3 at 12 lbs per ft3, or 7.4 million cubic yards.)
Figuring out the process to convert corn stover to ethanol is only part of the problem. The logistics of the processing plant will be even bigger.
And did you know, corn stover is essential to maintaining the health of the soil in which the corn is grown? Any farmer who continually strips all the stover from his fields would soon find himself with dead soil without sufficient tilth to grow a crop. The soil would quickly die and be nothing more than a sterile matrix for holding the tons and tons of synthetic fertilizers and ag chemicals a farmer would then need to consume.
Good News!
Hope it makes the use of the many sources of biomass effective and affordable for fuel production and stops this Energy x Food fear.
Even though Ethanol has only 70% of the energy content of the same volume of gasoline, both pack nearly 100 times more energy than the best batteries, and are refilled a lot faster and easier.
No doubt it’s a shorter term achievable solution to many problems ecological, geopolitical, and now probably even economical!
While battery technology evolves, if and until they become a competitive energy storage solution for the mobility, vehicle electrification will have to rely on denser mediums i.e. ICE and BioFuels, as in the extended range electrical vehicles (EREVs).
In my view GM should lead and make ALL it’s cars Flex-Fuel capable, not only in the USA (and Brazil), but in ALL it’s markets.
Mr. Gereon,
GM has long history of E22 and E100 engines in Brazil, and for many years already of FlexFuel E20-E100. Most of Brazilian autos from GM, VW and Fiat (~20% market share each) are based on european models and are flex-fuel capable. Ford, Toyota, Honda, Peugeot, Renault-Nissan also offers Flex-Fuel engines.
Many suppliers, including Bosch, Delphi and Magnetti Marelli offer versions of their Engine Management Systems (ECUs, SW, injectors, rails, pumps, filters…) in flex-fuel capable versions.
GM sell’s in Brazil Chevrolet Corsa, Astra, Vectra with family I (1.0, 1.4, 1.8) and family II (2.0-2.4) SOHC engines, using both Bosch motronic and Delphi ECUs, based on older european (or global) platforms of those same Opel nameplates.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_1_engine ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_II_engine )
Technology is readly available in Germany and the rest of Europe, but there has been a great lobby against Ethanol, and a lot of misunderstanding about it’s production and use. Sweeden (Saab) seems to be an exception. Shell may be going in this same direction ( http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/08/shell-ceo-electric-cars-are-old-news-biofuels-are-the-future/ ).
In Brazil, Ethanol is produced from sugar cane, and distributed by the same oil companies as gasoline, notably Petrobras. Infrastructure is very similar, and adaptation is quick.
Here in Brazil, there is a tax break favoring Flex vehicles, and more than 90% of the sold vehicles are Flex-Fuel, capable to run any mixture from pure gasoline (E22 in BR) to pure alcohol (E100 sold on our pumps).
> Why aren’t these vehicles officially declared as E85-capable in Germany as well?
> E85, after all, is about 30% cheaper here than gasoline…
All those Ecotec engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_II_engine#Ecotec) are similar around the world, but may require specific integration and testing to conform to local legislation. Those engines are used not only on Chevy but on many Opel cars too. Making them flex-fuel capable would cost very little. Probably less then 400US$ as some say.
Excellent news. Keep up the great work.
http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=273764
Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Committee passed an amendment authored by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) to require automakers to make 80 percent of their vehicles flex fuel compatible by 2015. Cantwell offered the measure as an amendment to a fuel economy bill she and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced in January. The Commerce Committee approved the amendment, as well as the overall fuel economy bill.
/just in time!
I would have thought the “Holy Grail” of ethanol biofuel would have been to eliminate the mpg penalty associated with eth. Disregarding the extra costs associated with producing ethanol fuels compared to petroleum the current 20 cents advantage of E85 only just covers the mpg penalty.
Here’s an idea for you at GM, have you ever thought about not asking the government for bailout money & ask for the American people to recieve that money? Hey if we had just $50,000 per working person, we could afford to go out & boost the economy! We would be able to purchase the new car we need, pay off some bills that we’ve not had the money for! We the American people are hurting worse than GM could imagine. It doesn’t matter how much money GM recieves, if we don’t have the money to buy your product, it’s not gonna help you to pull out of this decline! Step back & look at it from our point of view. If you went in & ask that money be given to each household, based on 2008 tax return, You’d not only jump start the economy in a big way, but you’d win over the american people once again. As if now, we have no faith in GM!
Hi, Bill Joe.
This is Candace, and I would like to thank you for your insightful comments. The logistics of harvesting, transporting, and storing biomass as well as the sustainable removal of biomass, whether that is corn stover or purposely grown energy crops, are critical issues faced by all of the cellulosic ethanol technologies out there. We are aware of these issues and are working with several groups to understand and mitigate these issues. Researchers, such as those at Idaho National Labs and Iowa State University, are working alongside equipment manufacturers to produce harvesting systems that require only one pass through the field minimizing both time and fuel. They are also looking at methods of densifying the material, which is key as you pointed out. Some methods such as pelletizing or pyrolyzing the biomass serve to densify the material making it both easier and more cost effective to transport as well as improve storage. Understanding what fraction of the biomass can be removed sustainably as well as the potential use of cover crops to minimize soil erosion, conserve moisture and essential nutrients is also important. Many energy crops, such as switchgrass and other prairie grasses, could actually improve soil carbon and restore the quality of overused or marginal lands over time.
In this blog, I was merely pointing out the tremendous break through which Mascoma has accomplished on the conversion side by proving that consolidated bioprocessing – something which has long been talked about but which had not been realized – is possible. They are currently focusing their efforts on the next hurdle, which is scaling up their process in their pilot facility at Rome, NY. And, while they will be using wood residues for their first commercial plant in northern Michigan, it will be important to consider all of the logistical aspects as they, or any other cellulosic ethanol producer, move the technology forward to commercialization. I am looking forward to the day when GM’s customers have the choice and ability to fuel their vehicles with a low cost, renewable, sustainable, alternative to petroleum such as the one being developed by Mascoma.
Thanks,
Candie
How does this process relate to creating bio diesel and ethanol from algae? Ref. the website: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4213775.html. This process also looks really promising. Takes the food supply and farms out of the equation and is compact and efficient.
Hi Celso,
thank you very much for your response. Actually I have no doubt, that filling up a Chevy HHR in Germany would not do any harm to its engine as well. The only problem: When I am reading the model’s brochure, there’s clearly written, that there’s no E85-release for this vehicle. This means that I presumably would have to fear, that the warranty may be void, if I’d fill up this vehicle with E85 despite of the notification. An ethanol fueled HHR would be quite enticing over here, since I would combine its E85 capability with an LPG-conversion. In Germany and other European countries LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas – mostly a mixture of 60% Propane and 40% Butane) is clearly the most inexpensive fuel to run a car, also due to its environmental advantages. Together with E85-use I finally could say “good bye” to gasoline. So far I still need some gasoline (for about 20 seconds up to 2 minutes, depending on the engine’s temperature when started. Then the system automatically switches to LPG). So I hope, GME still will release the HHR for E85.
The first time, when I was driving in an E85-vehicle, was during a business trip to Sweden. It also was clearly cheaper than gasoline there. Well, I think FFV’s still have a hard time in Germany, due to the “Diesel-Lobby” as I call it.
Best regards to Brazil.
Biofuels and cellostic ethanol are the way to go. Ethanol has a much higher energy density than lithium ion batteries. That makes it the most practical and cost effective too. Besides batteries are for toys. Flex fuel is for transportation.
The E-85 Flex fuel revolution is underway. Its much bigger than anyone understands yet.
A flex fuel capable Buick Lucerne actually gets 173 miles per gallon of gasoline (that is 26/.15 = 173). However, the the government limits flex fuel credits without any statutory warrant to do so.
The auto companies have Constitutional rights.
CAFE itself arguably amounts to an unconstitutional Sumptuary law (a law which regulates the moral spending choices of consumers). The framers specifically denied sumptuary power the government at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 by a near unamimous vote (the George Mason amendment was voted down). To illustrate, prohibition (which was repealed) required an Amendment to give Congress the power to regulate it. Congress was arguably not given the power under the Constitution to pass a CAFE law.
The intent of the Clean Air Act only gives the government the right to regulate pollutants, not clean fuel. Ethanol is a clean fuel, not a pollutant. The government discretionary limits on flex fuel allowances for CAFE calculations are not in the statutes or the Constitution. Under CAFE, Congress technically only authorized regulation of gasoline miles per gallon, NOT ethanol miles per gallon. E-85 fulfills the automakes good faith obligations under CAFE and the Clean Air Act for goal of Congress to reduce dependence on foreign oil and regulate air pollutants.
The legislative purpose of the statutes is similarly vague with claims to about energy policy, regulation of pollutants, and so on. But the intent is clear enough that it does not authorize regulation of clean fuel econony capable vehicles equipped for E-85. Auto companies are not fuel makers and are arguably not responsible for which fuel is used in an E-85 vehicle. [Baughman v General Motors, 780 F2d 1131 (1986) ]. The government has created an regulatory structure that creates an undue burden on the auto companies. These undue burdens amount to a “regulatory taking” (Fifth Amendment) of potential auto company profits forgone which has actually slow the flow of technology to the consumer and raise the cost of vehicles. The legislate purpose to reduce dependence on foreign oil is fully accomplished by E-85 flex fuel cabable vehicles. The auto companies have met their obligation under the legislative intent of Congress with E-85, and under the Constitution. The government should offer incentives to fuel makers in order to complete its goal.
GM vehicles which often have the highest mpg in class even use 87 octane, while imports often use 93 octane to achieve their mpg – an example of the government’s regulatory structure which discriminates against American business.
The American auto companies should start displaying 173 miles per gallon of gasoline for every 26 mpg EPA estimate on the window sticker and get a declaratory right in court to use the higher figure for the unconstitutional CAFE law.
The government should get off the auto industry’s backs and give incentives to fuel producers to make E-85.
Let’s see if the swing vote on the Supreme Court can get this right.
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE,
SUBTITLE VI.
General.–In this chapter–
(1) “alternative fuel” means–
(A) methanol;
(B) denatured ethanol;
(C) other alcohols;
(D) except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a mixture containing at least 85 percent of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols by volume with gasoline or other fuels;
(9) “fuel” means–
(A) gasoline;
(B) diesel oil; or
(C) other liquid or gaseous fuel that the Secretary decides by regulation to include in this definition as consistent with the need of the United States to conserve energy.
(K) any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits.
(10) “fuel economy” means the average number of miles traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator under section 32904(c) of this title.
———————————–
As we see from a plain reading of the excerpted applicable portions statute, Congress authorized the government to regulate “fuel economy,” but not alternative fuel economy. “Fuel” is defined as “gasoline,” while alternative fuel has a separate definition implying a benefit. A plain reading of the statute shows that Congress intended “alternative fuel” to be consistent with the national goal of conserving energy according to a plain reading of the statute. Note that section K states, “benefits.” Thus Congress deemed by implication E-85 to be a benefit toward the national goals and accomplishing the legislative intention of the statute. A contrary Administrative rule may well render the rule unconstitutionally vague and a due process violation or even an abuse of discretion.
Once again, the Government has no warrant to regulate E-85 capable fuel economy under the statute and arguably lacks the Constitutional authority to deny a full credit for alternative fuel economy.
26 mpg of gasoline is actually 173 mpg of gasoline in an E-85 Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) under a plain reading of the statute.
An erroneous equivalent fuel rendering by the “Administrator” would render that portion of the statute unconstitutionally vague or even an abuse of discretion by the Administrator.
Greater use and production of beneficial alternative fuels E-85 achieves the goal of energy conservation. The government has no rational basis to regulate alternative fuel economy under the statute or find it equivalent under the statute. An admistrative finding which regulated alternative fuel economy should violate a even a rational basis test of review.
American auto companies have free speech rights to inform consumers that the an alternative fuel vehicle AFV achieves 173 mpg of gasoline. An intermediate level of scrutiny may apply to an EPA rule limiting Automakers free speech rights to inform consumers that an AFV achieves 173 mpg of gasoline.
CAFE applied to AFV’s is contrary to the legislative purpose of the Clean Air Act and the CAFE law. E-85 AFVs fulfill the goal of energy conservation and thus should NOT be subject to regulations applied to petrol.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap321-331.html
Have a comment to say about the other alternative solution – hydrogen.
Not only the energy required to produce hydrogen is important but the rated capacity of the “engine”.
A thermal engine is rated at like 15-20%.
If the fuel cell propulsion system is rated better – Could end-up burning gas in plants more efficient than 15%, transforming it to hydrogen and end-up having a better mileage if consider the entire chain.
And anyway, burning the fuel in a distant plant and have the cars run on no pollution in cities would be a great achievement.
So, fuel cell rated at 50%, fossil fuel power plant rated at 40%-60%. So, if combine power plant burning gas with fossil fuel plant, the efficiency is 50% * 50% = 25%.
A thermal engine burning gas directly has 15%-20%.
So, hydrogen could actually be good solution overall.
Actually,…there is a “1 in a million chance” to be wrong, could use a comment. thank you
Ms. Wheeler,
Thanks for your considered reply.
Actually, there are reasons to think biofuels can never supply all of our energy needs. In the 1500’s, England almost stripped their countryside bare of trees using them for firewood and to power the rudimentary iron forges of the time. It wasn’t until they discovered that something called “coal” was a compact source of energy, that they were able to start reforesting their green and pleasant country. Had they not discovered coal would burn and that their country had a large supply of it, England probably would have become a desert and there would have been no Industrial Revolution.
If England couldn’t use biofuels in the 16th century to supply what were then the meager energy needs of their country, what chance is there that in the 21st century biofuels can supply the huge energy needs of the entire world?
On the tropic of corn stover, you should know that in the early days of farming on the Plains and in the Midwest when firewood was the principal source of energy, farmers and pioneers would not bother to go into their corn fields to collect corn stalks to burn because of its low heating value. They would rather hitch up a team and go 20 or more miles to the nearest cottonwood grove to collect wood, than to gather corn stalks from their fields. (And everyone knows what lousy firewood cottonwood makes.) Only in the most desperate situations would they gather corn stover to burn to heat their homes.
What many people fail to realize is that coal and oil are the original biofuels. Both are made of organic matter (biomass) that grew millions of years ago, and through time, heat, and pressure were transformed into a concentrated, compact, dense, and convenient source of energy.
The challenge companies such as Mascoma and Coskata face is finding an economic way to compress the millions of years of free heat and pressure Mother Nature provided into a few days. It’s going to take lots of energy and money to replace a process that was free but that took millions of years.
I’ve often jokingly told my corn farmer friends that the easiest way to turn corn into fuel would be to bury it and wait 75 millions years.
Bob Lutz Had the vision of turning Cadillac into a trully a world luxury brand , It’s unforturnate that a really a competitive Alpha car that would actually made a profit never made the starting grid. The US Zeta/ Alpa products could have been money makers if GM was not worried so much about CAFE..The Mexican/ Korean/ Chinese built cars and a few profitable cars the Silverado/ Esclalade would round out the product mix. If GM would have combined the developement of both the Astra/Cruze, Insignia/Saab 9/5 and/Buick Lacrosse, into world cars, it would be much easier and cheaoer to settlte on 4 corparate brands
…
So, hydrogen technology not yet mature and no extended infrastructure.
?Could work to have city infrastructure and cheap enough hydrogen cars for people to buy them as commuter only cars. (suburbs – downtown and back) like more than >100m range.
Or to have fuel cell cars with some range extender. (Since Volt has a range extender)
The extender being simple gas engine. (fuel cell + gas engine powertrains) and a hybrid transmission, and 2 fuel tanks, well.
Thy
Volt – electric drivetrain. Said could have hydrogen fuel cell + gas engine and hybrid transmission as Tahoe on small cars, with the hydrogen “battery” having more range, like a plug-in electric car.
Mike,
Denmark has hydrogen fueling stations going up. There are Hydrogen internal combustion engines too called H2 ICE.
Prohibition required its own amendment. Congress technically has no authority to regulate clean fuel or clean fuel vehicles like E85 or restrict its choice as a use by consumers through CAFE regs. Gov’t Administrators are simply legislating without a warrant to do so and its only a matter of time before they are called on it. [cf. EPA v. American Trucking Association].
Even by enviromentalist’s own standards CO2 is insignificant – Methane is in theory would be a greater influence than real amounts of C02 and vehicles emit almost no methane.
There is no rational basis for the EPA regs on CO2 as they relate to autos.
Answer to Edwin,
Regulating car emissions in order to decrease world pollution or world green house effect may not make sense. There are a lot of coal power plants in the world.
But having cars pollute less help reduce e.g. smog in cities at high-traffic hours and this may justify requirements.
Anyway, imposing impossible emissions requirements on gas engines may not be the way, but instead achieve less pollution by promoting alternative fuels\ technologies – biofuels, hydrogen. And this at the possible\natural pace.
This would be just my opinion.