Yet another biofuel startup has filed for an IPO this week, and this time its backers are Silicon Valley heavyweights. On the heels of PetroAlgae filing its S-1, Gevo, which is backed by Khosla and Virgin Fund, plans to raise up to $150 million in an IPO.

Yet another biofuel startup has filed for an IPO this week, and this time, its backers are Silicon Valley heavy weights. On the heels of PetroAlgae filing its S-1 earlier this week, synthetic biofuel startup Gevo has filed to raise up to $150 million in an IPO and plans to trade under the symbol GEVO on the Nasdaq. Gevo has been backed by Vinod Khosla’s Khosla Ventures and Richard Branson’s Virgin Green Fund among others.

Using technology developed at Caltech, the 5-year-old Gevo has been working on engineering enzymes that can convert waste and other cellulosic feedstocks into alternative fuels like isobutanol, which can be used in the existing petroleum supply chain. Like ethanol, isobutanol is an alcohol compound, but with four carbon atoms instead of two; the different chemical structure gives it characteristics that make it more compatible with existing infrastructure. Gevo wants to sell its product as a blend for fuel as well as a blend for plastics, fibers and other polymers.

Like PetroAlgae, Gevo has weak financials. The company is in a pre-commercial stage, and in 2009, generated $660,000 in revenue with a net loss of $19.89 million. Of that loss, Gevo spent $10.51 million on research and development in 2009.

Gevo says in its S-1 that it converts ethanol plants to produce its alternative fuel, which it says is a lower capital way to scale up production. The company is hoping to commercialize its product in the first half of 2012, and says it has “letters of intent” from customers including chemical company Lanxess, Total Petrochemicals USA (an affiliate of oil giant Total) fiber and plastic maker Toray Industries, airline company United Air Lines, and CDtech, a company that makes technology for the oil industry.

Back in February, Lux Research put out a report ranking biofuel startups on their market viability and technology innovations. Here’s what they said about Gevo:

Because their [Gevo and Amyris] products are both drop-in replacements to existing petroleum-based fuels, and since both firms are currently running demonstrationscale facilities, Gevo and Amyris achieve high key metrics and technology/solution value scores, combining to high total technical value ratings. However, what really separates the two firms from the field is their “retrofit” approach to building up scale. . . . Both companies have strong management and multiple high-profile partnerships with low barriers to growth, accruing high marks on business evaluation, as well.

Look for a longer post on their S-1 later today.

For more research on cleantech financing check out GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

Cleantech Financing Trends: 2010 & Beyond

  1. This is a great company and i would expect them to turn this into a billion dollar business soon.

  2. What You Need to Know From Gevo’s S-1 Friday, August 13, 2010

    [...] Biofuel and biochemical startup Gevo, which is backed by Khosla Ventures and Virgin Green Fund, filed to raise up to $150 million in an IPO late yesterday. Here’s what you need to know about Gevo’s financials, its [...]

  3. The biofuel world is VERY confusing to most investors and the general public as well. Gevo’s ‘isobutanol’ is a branched 4-carbon molecule. It is different than (n) butanol or normal butanol which is a straight-chain molecule, not a branched chain alcohol as i-butanol is.

    Simply ask petroleum refiners a loaded question. Which alcohol do they prefer?

    I think you’ll learn that it is NOT the branched “i”-version which Gevo will inefficiently produce with biobugs. Do some critical research here before you invest your own hard-earned dollars in another “pacific ethanol” deal where the lead dogs in this IPO scam did a pump and dump and left the common shareholders holding the bag.


    1. Wise words indeed. I think Gevo intends their iso-but to be used in the chemical industry rather than as a fuel sub so maybe the branching is less of an issue there.

  4. What a stupid waste of time, money and energy. Burn coal and oil for as long as they last, then let the free market create efficient alternatives rather than government-subsidized junk like this.

  5. Any person who believes that oil, gas, and coal are operating in ‘free market’ should review the evidence (for example, as pertains to oil:


    Not trying to be argumentative here–I just want to make sure we are all playing with a full deck. Is that level playing field we keep hearing about?

Comments have been disabled for this post