Cobalt Biofuels Opens Plant; Biobutanol the Next Thing?
Individual biofuels — algae fuel, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, corn ethanol — have all had their day in the sun over the past few years. Is it time for everyone to cheer for the alternative version of butanol, biobutanol? This morning Mountain View, Calif.-based startup Cobalt Biofuels, which produces biobutanol, opened up its first pilot plant for a tour by Arnold Schwarzenegger, followed by a press conference that featured the California governor, Silicon Valley heavyweights from local trade groups and other local clean power startups that have set up manufacturing in the state.
We watched the event live, during which Cobalt Biofuels CEO Rick Wilson told the audience that now that the company is producing biobutanol at its pilot facility, it will be able to scale up to a commercial facility within the next two years, and “multiple facilities” by 2014. Wilson said that the company’s fuel, which can reduce carbon emissions by 85 percent compared to gasoline, already costs below the price of petroleum to produce and can be blended with any fuel — gas, diesel, ethanol — or can be used as a bio alternative to chemicals.
Biobutanol is more chemically similar to gasoline than ethanol, meaning it can be burned in existing car engines and transported in the current gas pipelines. There is also a large market for cheap biobutanol in industrial chemicals. Cobalt uses non-food sources to make its biobutanol, including woody biomass.
So if biobutanol is so spectacular and flexible why haven’t more companies been focused on it? Well, previous production processes have been prohibitively expensive. The New York Times points out that use of biobutanol “was abandoned after widespread use in the first half of the 20th century,” because of the high price.
Cobalt says it has brought down the cost through three processes: microbe development, fermentation management and fluid separation. Cobalt says it can tailor its microbes for different regionally available feedstocks, optimizing its process for deployment anywhere. It’s also trying something novel, that of forgoing the standard batch fermentation process and instead managing the fermentation process at peak production for long periods, boosting output and cutting operating costs.
The company has raised at least $25 million from backers including LSP, Pinnacle Ventures, Vantage Point Venture Partners, The Malaysian Life Sciences Capital Fund, @Ventures and Harris and Harris.
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
Good stuff! They should also license the microbes and patented processes in addition to manufacturing their own brew….This would help the industry scale up far more quickly…
I thought DuPont was doing something with British Petroleum involving butanol as well. what happened to that initiative?
It is high time we said NO to Islamic Petroleum, who fund hate through our money.
Re: “NO to Islamic Petroleum”. That’s basically what a university teacher who led my thesis said to me privately in…1990. He was trying to develop not fuel, but water-based engine lubricant. I have no idea what it was made from, my part was to measure its lubricating properties. Which were a bit better than normal motor oil, if memory serves. In any case, it’s been 20 years and haven’t heard about non oil-based engine lubricants since.
NO on AB 118 (Logue) unless amended.
A random ‘Smog Check’ inspection & repair ‘secret shopper’ audit, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFE credit can cut California car impact over 50% in 2010.(Prevent Over 2000 tons per day of sulfur, PM, HC, O3, NOx, CO & CO2.) Improved performance of AB32 at reduced cost. (support H.R. 1207)
http://www.imreview.ca.gov/correspondence/governor_49percent_report_8.25.09.pdf
Does Paul Jacobs, chief of enforcement for mobile sources for the California Air Resources Board want Porsche crushed at 10 years or 100,000 miles which ever comes first, not just Porsche but all makes and models?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/18/MNGBRKMAO.DTL
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=353445
Was Dr. Russell Long/REAP 2002 CA tailpipe bill for fuel ethanol, Bill Jones’ Pacific Ethanol business?
Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline ethanol fuel cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.
Some folks believe ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit
Ethanol uses lots of California water
A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact 50% in 1 year. Dr. Jeffrey Williams, Acting Chair of the California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee (IMRC), has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed.
An ethanol waiver could stop $ billions of California Big oil welfare program.
Should a grand jury consider the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Friday, January 29, 2010
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )
C/o Lisa
RE: Sierra Research Report SR 2007-04-01
Dear Mr. Governor
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and The Department of Consumer Affairs/ Bureau of Automotive Repair DCA/BAR have contracted with Sierra Research for a Report of Smog Check performance.
Sierra has informed me the report was final in March 2009 and released to CARB.
CARB, BAR, IMRC, and the California Legislature are using the Report for public policy but refusing to release the publicly funded Report.
Mr. Governor, I’m confused, can you refer me to someone who might help?
Cc to interested parties
From: Charlie Peters
Clean Air Performance Professionals
cappcharlie@earthlink.net
(510) 537-1796 – fax: (510) 537-9675
CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net
Money available to clean air and improve smog program
Charlie Peters, The Daily Review / MY WORD, August 14, 2002
The smog check issue has been under continuous legislative debate since 1993. AB 2637 by Dennis Cardoza is an opportunity to improve program performance and public support.
We at the Clean Air Performance Professionals propose “reasonably available control measures” to improve California Smog Check performance. Consider a Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) quality audit (secret shopper) to improve smog check performance.
We propose using the CAP cars and funds to provide random quality audit of smog check providers. Audits that result in the car’s not being in compliance should be handled similarly to the former Consumer Repair and Education Workforce program. The Bureau of Automotive Repair program did not fine the licensees nor did it involve coercion. But when the question of “what would you like to do?” was asked, the shop took care of business and usually elected to fix the car.
The average smog check failure repair is about $ 150.00 statewide. The motorist pays about the same at the average repair station and the CAP station The average CAP repair is about $350.00. Many cars are not brought into compliance.
To level the smog check failure repair playing field so more cars meet standards after repair, the whole smog check market should be subject to a CAP (secret shopper) random audit.
Around 1985, BAR started a “missing part” audit. In 1991 that program was stopped,
The difference was a 300 percent change in result in finding the missing part.
When BAR ran fewer than on audit per station per year, the result was a change in behavior that started at more than an 80 percent rate, but moved to less than 20 percent rate of noncompliance.
The difference was a 300 percent change in result in finding the missing part. If the CAP audit was addressing the issue of repair compliance rather than just finding a missing part, the results may be the same or a 300 percent improvement in compliance.
With the missing part program, a follow-up audit with increasing demands lift the stations no options but to find the missing part or be removed from the game.
There are huge inconsistencies from smog check station to station and with BAR representatives. For BAR to decide a car is not in compliance, rules of smog check must be clarified. Money is available for the CAP program. It can be used for contracted scrap and repairs, or some of the funds can be used to evaluate and support improved
Performance of licensed small business. The cars and funds are the same, but the results may be credit for 2,000 tons per day in pollution prevention credit in the State Implementation Plan, rather than our current credit of fewer than 100 tons per day.
The governor and state Legislature would get the credit for improved performance. Performance improvements would be accomplished at a cost of less than $500.00 per ton. And program illusions would be reduced in 1 year.
Charlie Peters is president of Clean Air Performance Professionals. 510.537.1796
(retyped from original)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl-Nrep74qg
Wooden Nichols
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=353445