As I pointed out when Luca withdrew its IPO filing, the hope that there was a greentech IPO revival brewing is now officially debunked. An investor in BrightSource, DBL Investor’s Nancy Pfund, lamented in an op-ed this week the sad state of a society and marketplace that won’t allow a solar thermal to go public at the valuation it wants, but in the same week can support a large secondary offering from Dunkin’ Donuts.

Solar inverter company Enphase Energy was the only greentech company that had intended to go public in recent weeks, and which actually did. On May 30 the startup sold nearly 9 million shares at $6 a piece, raising about $54 million. The company is currently trading at $6.86 per share, slightly above its debut price.

Enerkem is a Canadian company, founded in 2000, that develops technology that turns waste into biofuel. The company has won federal government backing — a conditional commitment for an $80 million loan guarantee from the USDA — and also counts giant trash hauler Waste Management, oil refiner Valero, Rho Ventures, Braemer Energy Ventures and the Westly Group as investors.

Enerkem gasifies various forms of waste — everything from old telephone poles to mixed municipal garbage — and then turns that syngas into various fuels including methanol and ethanol. Enerkem has inked non-binding agreements with Waste Management and Valero to sell its equipment, and those deals give Enerkem the option to co-own refineries with Waste Management and Valero.

Since 2008, Enerkem has been running a pilot plant in Sherbrooks, Canada, that can process 4.8 metric tons of feedstock a day, and its demonstration plant, in Westbury, Canada, was built to produce 1.3 million gallons of fuels per year. The company is now building a commercial refinery, located in Edmonton, Canada, that will be able to make 10 million gallons per year. It expects to get ready for producing methanol at the Edmonton facility in the first quarter of 2013; ethanol production should follow in the second half of 2013, says the company.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The growth and promise of the LED market
• Key steps for successful renewable-energy permitting
• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1

However, despite the lack of results, next-gen biofuel companies continue to receive a significant amount of both government and investor support. At what point will the funding transform into advanced biofuels being produced at scale and fueling our vehicles?

Biofuel funding still flowing

Last Friday, Spanish engineering giant Abengoa said its biofuel arm, Abengoa Bioenergy, has received a conditional commitment for a $133.9 million federal loan guarantee from the Department of Energy to build a cellulosic ethanol plant. The loan, backed by the DOE’s guarantee, will come from the Federal Financing Bank, and Abengoa Bioenergy says now that it has the guarantee, it will start building the plant in Stephens County, Kan., “in the very near future.”

Other recent biofuel recipients of the loan guarantee program include cellulosic ethanol startup Coskata, waste-to-energy company Enerkem, Diamond Green Diesel, a joint venture from oil giant Valero and Darling International, and corn ethanol company Poet. The USDA also recently offered a $75 million loan guarantee to INEOS Bio and its partner New Planet Energy to build an advanced biofuel plant near Vero Beach, Fla. (Update: Diamond Green Diesel later found its own funding and didn’t accept the DOE loan guarantee deal).

Private investors continue to back these companies, too. Coskata announced on Friday the first close of its Series D round, and investors included The Blackstone Group, Khosla Ventures, Total’s investing arm, ATV, Globespan Capital Partners, General Motors, Arancia, and Sumitomo. Earlier this year, biofuel maker KiOR decided to put its loan guarantee application on hold and said it was confident that in 2012, it would be able to find loan terms at least comparable to those offered by the DOE.

Flawed subsidies

But next-gen biofuel subsidy programs haven’t seemed to have worked, and I am skeptical that the loan guarantee program will make much of a dent in helping these next-gen biofuels reach commercial scale. The Renewable Fuel Standard, maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency, has certainly failed to live up to expectations.

Every year for the past couple of years, the EPA has had to readjust the estimated volumes of cellulosic biofuels produced. Originally in 2010, the EPA estimated the industry could produce 100 million gallons, but basically it turned out to be zero. For 2011, five companies were estimated to be able to produce about 6 million cellulosic ethanol-equivalent gallons and it’s unclear if they are going to make that estimate.

For 2012, the EPA previously estimated that the cellulosic ethanol industry would have a capacity to able to produce 500 million gallons. But in June the EPA quietly proposed to reduce that volume estimate to 3.5 million to 15.7 million. The EPA counts DuPont Danisco, Fiberight, Fulcrum Bioenergy, INEOS Bio, KiOR, KL Energy, Terrabon and ZeaChem as companies that will be able to produce small volumes of cellulosic biofuel in 2012. The EPA thinks that by 2012, “advanced biofuels” will only make up 1.21 percent of the fuel supply, and cellulosic biofuels will make up as little as .002 percent of the fuel supply.

Is the system able to be fixed (or worth fixing)?

While next-gen biofuels have stalled, corn ethanol has morphed into a massive, albeit unsustainable business, thanks to the federal government’s 10 percent fuel mandate. According to Scientific American, corn ethanol produced 13 billion gallons in 2010, and received subsidies north of $5.68 billion that year. Corn ethanol also contributes to global riding food prices, and is a naturally inefficient way to produce energy (particularly compared to sugar cane ethanol).

While next-gen biofuels and cellulosic ethanol are supposed to be far more sustainable, they have struggled to get their costs down. The Scientific American article notes:

Breakthroughs remain possible, and the scientific quest for a better biofuel continues, but investors and politicians might be wise not to stake much money or policy on a high-risk bet.

Robert Rapier offers up a more concrete suggestion to fix the system: Instead of the renewable fuel standard and loan guarantees, why not offer a direct per gallon subsidy for product that is sold. That way companies could receive government support for a product they can (and are) producing, not for the hope that one day they can produce it.

What do you think?

Images courtesy of Amyris, Dogpath Biofuels, KiOR, and GigaOM.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Ups and downs for cleantech in Q1
• Cleantech first-quarter 2013 analysis and outlook
• After Solyndra: analyzing the solar industry

Earlier this month, I wondered if huge returns for VCs from social media IPOs could help make up for large bets on capital-intensive greentech companies that haven’t (yet?) delivered returns. My example was NEA and its potentially massive Groupon win (NEA’s Groupon share could be worth $2 billion on paper, or a 135 x multiple), in contrast to some of its capital-intensive green investments like fuel cell maker Bloom Energy, solar company HelioVolt, smart grid company GridPoint, and solar firm Konarka.

Connie Loizos at peHUB digs into this theme, too, in a column Tuesday night pointing out how a potentially giant return for Kleiner Perkins from an IPO for game startup Zynga could help make up for its tied-up greentech investments.

“[T]here’s no question that Kleiner was losing its footing, and that it’s about to be saved by Zynga,” writes Loizos.

Zynga reportedly could raise up to $2 billion in an IPO as soon as this week, valuing the company as high as $20 billion. That’s twice Zynga’s valuation when it raised its most recent round of $300 million last Summer. If Kleiner owns even 3 percent of Zynga, its stake could be valued at $600 million, writes Loizos.

Kleiner’s previous return that was that solid was its nameplate Google win where Kleiner put in $25 million in 1999 for a 20-percent stake. And we all know the end of that story, or the start of Kleiner’s fame: an eventual $2 billion return for Kleiner’s investors.

Kleiner has some weak, some OK, and some decent greentech bets. Smart grid company Silver Spring Networks was supposed to IPO last year, but still hasn’t, though I’ve been hearing that it might go sometime soon. Electric car maker Fisker Automotive is also supposed to IPO shortly, though hasn’t yet started selling its first car, the Karma. Kleiner made money on biofuel company Amyris’ IPO, and will make money on the IPO of solar inverter maker Enphase Energy.

Oh, those were some of the more promising ones. Bloom Energy is one of the most capital-intensive companies in the Valley and recently started offering an Energy-as-a-Service model, which seems like it would require more money raised (from banks likely) for installations. Alta Rock has struggled with its geothermal projects, and I haven’t heard anything from carbon capture and recycling company GreatPoint Energy in a couple of years. Biofuel company Mascoma delayed its commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant, though finally got an investment from Valero.

As Loizos puts it:

“The reality is that Zynga represents the first — and potentially only — tangible opportunity for Kleiner to hit the cover off the ball as it did with Google.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The fourth quarter of 2012 in cleantech
• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back
• Social third-quarter 2012: analysis and outlook

Enerkem gasifies various forms of waste — everything from old telephone poles to mixed municipal garbage — and then turns that syngas into various fuels including methanol and ethanol. Valero is on one side of Enerkem’s supply chain, and could work with Enerkem on commercial relationships to process and sell the fuels. Waste Management is on the other side of Enerkem’s supply chain, and we could envision Enerkem working with Waste Management’s trash supply.

Enerkem has a couple of facilities in the works. One in Westbury, Quebec, which at one point was expected to produce about 1.5 million gallons per year of methanol from old telephone poles, with ethanol next on the list of biofuels to produce. Another plant, which is expected to cost $70 million and could crank out about 10 million gallons of ethanol per year, is being planned with Greenfield Ethanol, Canada’s largest ethanol producer, right next to an Edmonton, Alberta municipal composting facility. And there’s also a 10 to 20 million gallon per year, $200 million plant, in the works in Pontotoc, Miss., adjacent to a municipal waste dump, which Enerkem expects to break ground on this year.

Enerkem has received significant U.S. government support for that last Mississippi plant. In January, the USDA awarded Enerkem a conditional commitment for an $80 million loan guarantee to build it, which also followed on a $50 million Department of Energy grant. With this latest funding, Enerkem has raised about $130 million in equity funding, and received $130 million (combo of grant and loan guarantee) from the U.S. government. Trash to fuel technology seems to have gotten more attention in 2011, compared to making cellulosic ethanol from energy crops and agriculture waste.

However, even with this bright funding spot, the next-generation of biofuel production has been creeping forward. There have been three biofuel IPOs in the last 12 months — Gevo, Amyris and Solazyme — but these three companies are not yet producing biofuels at scale, and are instead making sales either off of specialty bio products like cosmetics, or reselling standard corn-based ethanol.

It will ultimately be the giants like Valero and Waste Management that will be able to get these biofuel products to scale. Both Valero and Waste Management are investing in quite a few biofuel and waste product companies. Valero has backed Mascoma, and has also taken stakes in algae fuel maker Solix Biofuels, and cellulosic ethanol maker ZeaChem.

Waste Management strategically invested in German company Agnion Energy, which invented a waste gasification process based on something called the heatpipe-reformer design. Waste management has backed startup Agilyx, which has developed technology that can turn plastic otherwise headed for the landfill, into a synthetic crude oil. And earlier this year, Waste Management announced a partnership with Genomatica, a San Diego, Calif.-based startup with a platform to create genetically modified organisms to turn biogas into a variety of industrial chemicals.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The perils of cleantech investing: KiOR and the long-term, high-risk view
• Cleantech first-quarter 2013 analysis and outlook
• A 2011 Green IT Forecast

Coskata has gotten a letter of intent from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for a $250 million loan guarantee to build a plant to make ethanol from woody biomass. The plant will have the capacity to make 55 million gallons per year. Coskata’s plant plans seriously stalled during the recession, and Coskata has been waiting for this loan guarantee to come through. The company is well-known for touting a $1 per gallon production price and its backers including Khosla Ventures, General Motors, and Advanced Technology Ventures.

The USDA also awarded Enerkem a conditional commitment for an $80 million loan guarantee to build a 10 million-gallon-per-year refinery for making ethanol out of municipal solid waste. Enerkem, which uses a thermochemical trash-to-syngas process, was already awarded a $50 million Department of Energy grant, and also raised funding from trash giant Waste Management, Cycle Capital, Rho Ventures, Braemar Energy Ventures and BDR Capital.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is awarding a $241 million loan guarantee — its first for a biofuel plant — to Diamond Green Diesel. The guarantee will help Valero build a plant in Louisiana that will make 137 million gallons of biofuel per year primarily from animal fats and used cooking oil.

The USDA said it’s not done doling out financial help to biofuel producers. It plans to announce new rules “soon” that will make more money available from the loan guarantee program, which originated from a 2008 Farm Bill.

Lining up money to build refineries has been a huge hurdle for a slew of biofuel companies in the past two years. The recession is only partly to blame. Many of these companies have encountered technical problems for converting plants and wastes into fuel. Investors once flocked to these startup companies, especially when the federal government announced goals to gradually increase the nation’s supply of renewable fuel until it hits 36 billion in 2022.

Well, hitting the goals has proven a lot more difficult. Congress initially set 100 million gallons as the 2010 target for cellulosic biofuel, but the Environmental Protection Agency cut that to 6.5 million gallons. It appears the industry might have produced less than 1 million gallons last year, reported ClimateWire, citing an estimate by a government analyst.

Just last week, reports emerged that Range Fuels, backed by venture capital firms such as Khosla Ventures, was laying off workers and shutting down its refinery in Georgia in order to tackle technical problems and raise more money. Colorado-based Range Fuels received an $80 million loan guarantee from the USDA to help fund its refinery, which began production by making methanol instead of ethanol last year.

Perhaps the USDA will see quicker success from its latest bets. Aside from Coskata and Enerkem, the agency also touted a loan guarantee conditional commitment for a $75 million loan guarantee to INEOS Bio and its partner New Planet Energy, which it first announced a few weeks ago.

INEOS Bio (which is the biofuel arm of petrochemical giant INEOS) and developer New Planet Energy say they will use the loan guarantee to build the “INEOS BioEnergy Center,” near Vero Beach, Florida, that will produce 8 million gallons of advanced biofuels and 6 MW of biomass power from plant waste and trash per year. The companies say the center will begin producing biofuels and bioenergy in 2012, and will create 175 jobs during the construction process and 50 jobs when the center is completed.

Loan guarantees are important awards for companies looking to build plants for these next-gen biofuel projects. A loan guarantee essentially is a promise by the government to back a loan if the company can’t pay it, and it enables companies to finance projects with a better interest rate and at a lower cost.

For more research, check out GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Report: Cleantech’s Third Quarter Growing Pains
• The Real Reason Google Is Buying Wind Power
• An Assessment of the Lighting Controls Market

Six-year-old Mascoma has long been one of the more promising cellulosic ethanol startups. Lux Research went so far as to give Mascoma “top chef status” in a biofuel ranking report last year, citing Mascoma’s “strong financial support from investors,” and “potentially cost-cutting” process for breaking down cellulose and fermenting the sugar with a single microbe.

That strong investor support includes close to $100 million (before Valero) from a long list of investors including Khosla Ventures, Flagship Ventures, Kleiner Perkins, VantagePoint, General Catalyst Partners, Atlas Venture, Pinnacle Ventures and car company General Motors. In addition to private funds, Mascoma has received numerous grants from the DOE totaling more than $30 million and also state grants from New York and Michigan of over $30 million.

Still, with all that support, Mascoma’s commercial-scale ethanol plant in Kinross was originally planned to begin construction sometime in 2009, with cellulosic ethanol production starting perhaps by 2011. Now, according to the release this morning, the facility will break ground in 2011. Pretty much every cellulosic ethanol company has had to delay commercial-scale production due to a variety of factors like the economy, and an inability to get the manufacturing costs low enough.

The Environmental Protection Agency didn’t include Mascoma in its short list of cellulosic ethanol producers that would produce fuel in 2011 — that list included Range Fuels, DuPont Danisco, Fiberight, KL Energy, and KiOR. Though the EPA says that many more companies, including 20 plants, could produce potentially 300 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2012.

Valero has turned out to be one of the more aggressive oil firms in biofuels. The oil refiner took stakes in algae fuel maker Solix Biofuels, and cellulosic ethanol maker ZeaChem, and also bough up the the corn ethanol plants of bankrupt ethanol producer VeraSun. Other oil companies that have shown an interest in biofuels include Exxon (and its Synthetic Genomics deal) and BP, which bought up Verenium’s biofuel business.

Related Content From GigaOM Pro (subscription required):

• Top 10 Greentech Companies of 2010
• 7 Things That Spell Growing Pains for Greentech in 2011
• Green IT 2011: China Marches Towards Greentech Dominance

Enerkem told us in January that it was looking for more money to build a second plant to turn trash into ethanol. Looks like they didn’t have to search very long — not bad, considering the gloomy climate for raising capital for big projects. The company’s core technology is centered on gasifying various forms of waste — everything from old telephone poles to mixed municipal garbage — and then turning the syngas into various fuels.

Its first facility, in Westbury, Quebec Ontario, has now operated for about 1,000 hours since it started up in late 2009, and expects to produce about 1.5 million gallons per year of methanol from old telephone poles, with ethanol next on the list of biofuels to produce. The company’s thermochemical trash-to-syngas process is only half of the equation — making the syngas into usable liquid fuel is another important test to pass. Other companies want to turn trash into syngas, using various methods and aimed at various end uses — examples include Coskata and Ze-Gen.

Enerkem’s Wednesday fundraising is aimed at a second plant, which is expected to cost $70 million and could crank out about 10 million gallons of ethanol per year. It’s being built with Greenfield Ethanol, Canada’s largest ethanol producer, right next to an Edmonton, Alberta municipal composting facility. The idea is to gasify municipal waste that can’t be composted — paper, textiles, plastics, fibers and the like — and turn that syngas into ethanol. Having deep-pocketed partners will be important for biofuel technology startups, analysts agree, given the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to build and operate fuel refineries.

Enerkem isn’t limiting its sights to Canada. In March it said it was eyeing a 20 million gallon per year, $200 million plant in Pontotoc, Miss., again adjacent to a municipal waste dump. In December it got news of a $50 million Department of Energy grant for its U.S. subsidiary, Enerkem Corp. to help those plans along.

Houston-based Waste Management, of course, would love to find more ways to turn trash into money. Its Wheelabrator Technologies subsidiary is burning about 7 million tons of waste per year into about 836 megawatts of electricity, and its other landfill gas-fired power projects now generate enough electricity to power about 160,000 homes.

Burning methane — natural gas by another name — to generate electricity is nice, but turning it into a shippable transportation fuel could expand the markets for the byproduct of rotting garbage that also happens to be a very potent greenhouse gas. Waste Management has also invested in Texas A&M spinout Terrabon, along with oil refining giant Valero (pdf), and is working with global gases company Linde to turn landfill gas into about 13,000 gallons of liquefied natural gas per year to fuel its trucks. The company wants to double its renewable energy production and triple the amount of recyclables processed by 2020.

Given the amount of money pouring into these technologies from both public and private sources, how can we distinguish between the likely winners and losers? Based on factors like revenue per employee, patents, performance metrics, production capacity and other data, Lux has identified gaps between long-shot ventures that would make risky investments and weak partners, and companies with disruptive core technologies and other key characteristics that make them promising targets for mergers, acquisitions or licensing deals.

One thing’s clear from the analysis: While many startups generate buzz when they raise new funds, high profile investors hardly put them first in line for market viability. Lux offers a sobering statement for young fermentation ventures, including those working on cellulosic ethanol, butanol, propanol and methanol. Put simply, scale trumps tech (see our map of companies racing to build cellulosic ethanol plants in the U.S.):

“Right now, all of these companies are in a heated race to achieve that low cost [competitive with petroleum counterparts], which can only happen at commercial scale; companies that get there first — due to favorable funding, government assistance, or operational excellence — will have the best prospects even if their technology isn’t the absolute best in class.”

This puts Canada’s Iogen, backed by oil giant Shell in a strong position. Founded in 1974 and producing small amounts of cellulosic ethanol for the last six years at a demonstration plant in Ottawa, Iogen uses specialized enzymes to convert straw feedstock into sugars, which it then ferments and distills to make cellulosic ethanol.

But while Iogen earned top marks from Lux based partly on its age and maturity, Mascoma, at less than five years old, also scores well in Lux’s rubric, joining Iogen in achieving “top chef status.” Lux cites “strong financial support from investors” (who include a number of Silicon Valley venture firms, such as Khosla Ventures, Kleiner Perkins and VantagePoint Venture partners, as well as General Motors), and Mascoma’s “potentially cost-cutting” process for breaking down cellulose and fermenting the sugar with a single microbe.

Qteros, on the other hand, backed by billionaire investor George Soros, as well as BP, Valero and Venrock, has a tough climb ahead. Lux notes that although the startup, founded in 2006, “is young and still has opportunity to prove its mettle,” progress has been “steady but slow,” delivering only lab-scale production and lacking high-profile partners. The next two years, Lux predicts, “will decide the company’s fate.”

Other high-profile biofuel startups didn’t score quite as well as we would have expected. Government-backed Range Fuels, which is one of the companies closest to producing cellulosic ethanol commercially, garnered a “wait-and-see” rank, as did ZeaChem, Coskata, Ze-gen, Solix Biofuels and algae gorilla Sapphire Energy – reflecting “significant unknowns” about the companies’ tech or markets.

Algae technologies, given their very early stage, show the most variation of any other tech category. They still have plenty of skeptics, including aggressive cellulosic biofuels backer Vinod Khosla. Lux writes, however, that “While the majority of companies are still trying to decide upon end markets to pursue,” collaboration, cross-licensing and joint ventures between developers of algae tech tied to particular local conditions (deserts in the Southwest vs. salty inland lakes, for example) will deliver commercial success for some combination of today’s technologies.

Some of the strongest players in Lux’s ranking include Phycal, Algenol and Solazyme — a 7-year-old startup that had one of the first development deals with an oil company and expects to be able to commercialize its technology in the 2012-2013 time frame.

For genetic modification tech, energy and agricultural giants such as Shell, Chevron and Monsanto represent the most promising exit strategies for startups, according to Lux. “Though the production of energy crops for fuel is economically questionable, this family of technologies” can be used for agriculture, “a market that will never run dry.”

Image courtesy of Coskata.

Who are you and what do you do?

My name is Jennifer Woofter and I run Strategic Sustainability Consulting (SSC). We’re a boutique consulting company that works with small- and medium-size organizations that want to “go green.” I spend about one-third of my time on billable sustainability consulting work (green audits, carbon footprinting, coaching and training) and about two-thirds of my time running the business — made up of three in-house staff, between four and six interns, and a freelance network of more than 450 sustainability experts.

What’s a typical day like for you?

I’m a night owl, and since I usually go to sleep in the wee hours, I’m rarely awake before 9 a.m. Since I work from home, that’s not a problem — I just walk downstairs to my office (stopping in the kitchen for a cup of coffee) and am ready to work by 9:05. I try not to schedule any meetings until 10 a.m., which gives me just enough time to check email and catch up on my RSS feeds before diving into the day. I focus on client work in the morning, then work in the afternoon on business development. My evenings are spent with my husband and two puppies in front of the TV, where we play “dueling laptops” as we both try to cram in as much additional work as possible in between episodes of “House Hunters” and “Chopped.”

What gear and software do you use, and why?

I have a desktop computer (Dell Inspiron) for daily work, a laptop (HP Pavilion) for evening work, and a new netbook (Toshiba NB205) that I use when I travel specifically because I get over nine hours of battery life. Tech gadgets that I use frequently include a webcam for videoconferencing (Logitech Quickcam), a digital voice recorder (Sony IC Recorder) for keeping track of my crazy ideas, and a Flip Mino HD camcorder for shooting quick video. I have a special relationship with my iPhone that I think might threaten my husband.

On the software side, I use GoToWebinar at least once a day for web conferencing (staff meetings, client presentations, and our weekly webinars and online training).  I use Audacity for SSC’s podcast interviews with sustainability experts, and we put up video through our newly created YouTube channel. Our entire company uses Skype for instant messaging and telephone, and I use Tweetdeck to manage my Twitter account (@jenniferwoofter).  I’m a huge fan of 5 pm project management software, Highrise for contact management and Google Docs.

What’s your favorite web working tip?

Set up a remote back-up system that allows you to synchronize file-sharing between different computers. I was spending a huge amount of time before each trip (whether it was a coffee meeting in the next town or a week in Hawaii) copying files that I thought I might need onto a flash drive for use with my laptop. Not to mention the time and confusion of sending files back and forth to my remote team — we were never sure who had the most recent version of a document we were collaborating on, and Google Docs only goes so far. A couple of months ago we switched over to Dropbox, and it was like the clouds parted and angels started singing. Not only is it 100 times easier to manage our workflow and document control, but I don’t have to worry about backing up my materials since it automatically does it for me.

If you would like to be profiled on WWD, get in touch with me at simon (at) gigaom (dot) com.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Personal tools lead to practical business
• Millennials in the enterprise, part 1: strategies for supporting the new digital workforce
• A 2011 NewNet Forecast

Today 3-year-old Solix Biofuels, which has some similarities with GreenFuel (it uses closed photobioreactors to grow algae, then turns it into biofuels and feedstocks for the chemical industry), shows it, too, is bucking up in the downturn — adding another $1.3 million to its Series A financing round, and announcing plans to start a commercial-scale demonstration of its technology within two months (“late summer”) in southwestern Colorado.

These new funds — bringing the company’s total Series A to $16.8 million — come from international investment group Shanghai Alliance Investment Ltd., or SAIL, and point to expansion in Asia. That’s the plan, anyway, according to Solix CEO Doug Henston. In a release this morning, he said a relationship with SAIL will help Solix deploy its technology internationally, particularly in Asia.

Before SAIL’s $1.3 million investment, Solix already had some heavyweight backers — notably the largest U.S. oil refinery operator, Valero Energy — as part of an unusual mix. The first set of investors, announced back in November 2008, also included Southern Ute Alternative Energy, which manages clean power investments for the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, plus I2BF Venture Capital, Bohemian Investments and Infield Capital.

Solix’s Series A hardly matches the scale of last year’s record-breaking boom, when a $50 million round for Sapphire Energy helped bump the total investment in algae startups to $84 million during the second quarter. But it could give us an example of how players in the next generation of algae biofuel startups find — or ignore — lessons from GreenFuel about mismanagement of risky, high-cost projects in a nascent market and down economy.

For a full list of algae startups, check out our 15 Algae Startups Bringing Pond Scum to Fuel Tanks.

Graphics credit Solix

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Flash analysis: the Fisker debacle and its implications on investing, innovation, and government incentives
• Building energy management systems: overview and forecast
• Cleantech first-quarter 2013 analysis and outlook