Green Revolution is On!

The Age of Microbiofuels

2010-01-08T22:45:00.000+02:00

Even though we all have different backgrounds and not all of us have learned about it in school, we somehow know that soil is a strategic resource for our planet, and maybe the most important one for the humanity. Apart from the aquaculture (i.e lakes, seas and oceans), the soil is the only resource we could use to produce food. This is the reason why the soil preservation is a keystone in many developed nations' regulations.

Peak-Oil or Peak-Soil?

Living in the Post-Oil era, we all gradually become aware of the concepts of renewables, biofuels, green technologies and sustainability principles. But how green is the green actually? Take for example the biofuels - their emergence in the last decade provided a good example of how we could finally deal with oil and at the same time save the environment. But is this true? Well, partially.

At some point there was an insight that cultivating technical crops on arable land is giving us at least two major problems: a) biofuels are boosting the food prices, due to decreased production of food/feed crops, and b) the topsoil layer of the soil is being damaged, which take up to 600 years to regenerate. So, there was the problem we thought we solved, emerging again - we simply shifted from one natural resource demolition to another.

Is there an alternative solution?

Is there a way to create energy for keeping the civilization functional, while at the same way, we do not harm or exhaust the environment? The term biofuels evolved a lot for the last 20 years - there are several generation of biofuels currently known.

Biofuels produced from technical crops on arable land are the first generation biofuels. Their limitation, mainly in terms of food vs. oil competition, led to the development of second generation biofuels, derived from combustion of organic waste. While burning the waste already generated by us, is not the smartest thing to do, it is helping to reduce our environmental footprint. However, main limitation of second generation biofuels will be the lack of organic waste in the future.

Subsequently, third generation of biofuels was developed, based on microorganisms and specifically on microalgae. Third generation biofuels are biofuels based on microorganisms and microbiorefineries, producing different types of biofuels - biomass, biodiesel, bioethanol, with strongly increased yields in comparison with first generation of biofuels described above. Fourth generation biofuels are known to be also microorganism based, but in the sense of artificially created biorefineries. Currently fourth generation biofuels are in early research stage.

What are microbiofuels?

Along with this, Greon has introduced the term microbiofuels and suggested for its definition an extension of already well established and quite popular terms 3rd and 4th generation biofuels. The term unites the 3rd and 4th generations of biofuels, as they are both based on microorganisms (bacteria, cyanobacteria, microalgae, fungi, etc.)

Microbiofuels uses state of the art biotechnologies for biofuel production;
Microbiofuels technology implements high yield production methods based microbiorefineries, i.e. microorganisms placed in specific environment.
Microbiofuel technology could be used for recycling industrial waste, incl. gaseous waste as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, etc., and producing valuable biofuels by biotransformation.

Why based on germs?

In nature, when the scale decreases, the production yield increases dramatically. For example, one well developed tree is absorbing about 6 kg of CO2 per year, but for development of only one kg of dry microalgal biomass about 4.4 kg of CO2 is absorbed. A tree requires about thirty years to grow to achieve the rate of about 6 kg CO2 absorption, while microalgae in general has extremely fast growth. This is an example of how microscaled organisms could give enormous increase of yield in comparison to macroscaled ones, which leads us to the conclusion that the best biofuel yields will be recovered from the smallest known organisms, like cyanobacteria, microalgae, bacteria, fungi etc. Of course, our favorite species will be fed on industrial waste in the form of CO2, NOX, SOx, and will produce massive amounts of lipids. But is it possible?

The question "Is this possible?" is more or less inadequate, since these are species that survived millions of years on the surface of the earth, underground, underwater and in extreme environments. The adequate question is: How their biochemical processes could be developed in a way that will be economically sustainable on a large scale biotechnological production?

It is all about knowledge and its implementation

The technologies are rather simple. For example, one of the technologies for production of microbiofuels is based on photosynthesis - a process everyone has learned in primary school. The process is the base of life for most of the organisms on this planet.

Actually, as for every biochemical pathway, nothing is simple when precise control is attempted, and if control on production of high tech microbiofuel technological process is not implemented, the process cannot be taken to industrial scale . However control is possible, and in this case it is called metabolic engineering - when minor changes of the microorganism environment stop some metabolic processes and start others. For example, it is well known fact that limiting the nitrogen source for particular species of microalgae, will lead to increased production of lipids.

The technologies for producing microbiofuels are now emerging. It is estimated that industrial installations will be deployed somewhere in the period of 2015 - 2020. The main reason for this delay, and the biggest barrier to entry the microbiofuels market is the lack of interdisciplinary knowledge - biotechnological processing, metabolic engineering, production vessels design, etc.

Greon has profoundly analysed the current situation in emerging microbiofuels market. Based on this analysis, we could state that lack of knowledge is and will be the main reason why many companies will not enter the microbiofuels market niche, or will enter the niche and will not survive. The main problem connected with knowledge of bioprocesses and their control is not associated with the microorganisms as such. The problem is connected with the interdisciplinary status of the biotechnologies, the extreme environments that the microorganisms are grown in (for example smoke stack gases), and the economical viability of the system. Having in mind the perspectives in front of the microbiofuels niche, and the barriers to enter the market, we have developed the Greon Knowledgebase, which combines data, information and knowledge from different scientific domains, both theoretical and experimental. This solution will decrease the barrier to entry the microbiofuels market for small and starting up biotech companies as well as for the established corporations.

Should I be worried, when biotech is selling the oil?

The good news, when discussing microbiofuels, is that things are much simpler - these microorganisms were here, long before us, and had evolved some remarkable traits, which we could use. The hard task is to make available smart technologies economically sustainable, publicly accepted and environmentally friendly.

Steps on the road

2009-12-16T10:07:00.002+02:00

For the last 24 months, identified from the sky-high oil prices in 2007 and 2008 and the development of different technologies for carbon capture and sequestration, biotechnologies, based on algae research and development, have been emerging on different parts of this planet. Simultaneously, many industrial plants, facing the reality of paying environmental fees and taxes, competing with production from rivals based in a lower wage economies and confronting the growing social displeasure about industrial carbon footprint, began to implement a socially responsible environment oriented strategies.

A part of these strategies are:

Lower carbon footprint, focused at carbon neutral economy,
Establishment of renewable sources of energy for independent and sustainable consumption and growth,
Environmental awareness and responsible behaviour of a corporate citizen,
Increased monetary outcome, based on environmentally friendly technologies, not the vice versa.

Several industries have already found that algae based technologies could be a step in the action plan to implement such as strategy. Not a single step, but nevertheless a step on the road. Whether they are based on open ponds or are grown in a photobioreactors, capture solar energy, or use artificial light in a specific spectral range, fix atmospheric carbon dioxide or CO2 derived from flue gases, employ natural strains or strains developed in a laboratory to fulfill a specific goal, algae technologies are here to stay and to prove economically viable in the next 5 to 7 years on a grand industrial scale.

Are these the high risk takers, or the early adopters of a disruptive technology, armed with a competitive advantage only the future will show. However, don’t rush to judge prematurely, as

Carbon recycling and regeneration is the golden standard in nature: life on earth is based on photosynthesis and it was going on and on for billions of years
Innovations have traced our long and successful evolution as species
Recovery of valuable substances in industrial waste is achievable goal with the help of microorganisms living in extreme environments

Opportunities exist, and it is a matter of creativity, knowledge and guts to go and to take them.

Yes, we can!

Fast track, please!

2009-10-23T17:25:00.005+03:00

William Gibson once said "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed." And he is quite right, since there is no cohesion between the countries in respect to fast implementation of best available environmental technologies. The formal presence of fancy strategies in every country in regard to biodiversity, carbon footprint reduction, climate change, etc., simply is not enough. The governments should motivate and support the movement towards better understanding by the industry of what should and needs to be done, supported by investing in greater acceptance of these measures by the public. Every other formal effort to play "green" would not be justified by the next generations.

Technologies, that could ease the difficult transition to the new green economy are already available and their implementation is not expensive. However, these emerging, high-tech technologies are not well advanced and propagated, and they are still not subject to standards and/or regulations. Therefore governments and international funds should not only improve their recognition of these technologies, providing timely reaction and support, but also should establish routes for their fast commercialization, through specifically designed measures.

The establishment of Emission Trading Schemes under the Kyoto protocol is a step towards the definition and implementation of a motivation mechanism for the carbon intensive industries. Unfortunately, these mechanisms are still inadequate for the needs of the innovators. The emission validation/certification methodologies are used only on paper and present abstract results as they rely upon the amount of fuel purchased by or delivered to the industrial installation, but not on the direct measurement of flue gases emissions. There are green technologies to offset carbon footprint that can demonstrate their economic value, applicability and efficiency, only if direct measurement of stack gases is applied to GHG emissions verification and validation. All this is discussed, bearing in mind the vast amount of funds, already invested by the EU for evaluation and possible implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which is too expensive and too risky to be applied... ever. There is a profound need for examination not only of a single technology related to climate change, but exactly the opposite ought to be done - the EU should support the generation, collection and analysis of as much as possible data, information and knowledge for the multitude of available technologies that could have positive effect on the environment.

The problem of being in the middle of a crisis that have never happened before is not its extent, but the lack of a reference point. Even if properly measured, the data could not be properly analysed and evaluated without a correct model. In the case of climate-range crisis, like the one we are now in, the model, could be defined only as wide interval of assumptions. But all of the models, based on fake assumptions, will fail in predicting our future. On the other hand, the problem with failing models is not an exception in model theory, except that in this specific crisis nobody will understand on time which was the incorrect trend. The fact is that we could not be further from answering the following question: "Is it just a crisis or is it a catastrophe?". This is why, just in case, green technologies should be defined as strategic resource and a matter of international security for the people of this planet. And this is why we need a fast track for green technologies.

Green Reasoning

2009-06-24T17:33:00.002+03:00

Why should you invest in new (smart and green) technologies if the existing ones are up and running, you have already calculated the costs for environmental fees and charges and you are (still) a profitable business owner or a corporation? These questions are addressed by virtually any business in today's turbulent times, when the economy is on the downward spiral and future seems anything but bright.

One of the answers is hidden in the timing: for how long we can afford to proceed like this and to rely on obsolete technologies? It is possible to redefine a new business zone in the times of a financial and economical crisis. A zone for you, where more and more of consumers' needs are identified and served, profits are growing, business operations are sustainable processes, and developing and performing disruptive innovations are considered vital part of the firm strategy for success.

Another answer is connected with the speed limit across the downward spiral: whether hitting the deflection point of the breakeven point will speed the business upwards or will extinguish the business in times of reduced consumption and decreased budgets. When the money are short and the investments in new technologies are constrict to a non existent number, it is virtually impossible to convince an investor or an executive officer, that the existing technology has to be shred and new, more environmentally friendly technologies have to be ventured. However, wiling to do so, can propel the business in an eco-dimension: both economical and ecological.

But the real question is how fast can you become a part of the new, green economy as your competition's ultimate goal is to get there and thrive? From its answer, you define your place on the map: today and tomorrow. The clock is ticking and there is not much time and much choice left to do otherwise, especially if your competitors are already there.

Yes, you also can!

In search for reasons to go green. Disruptively green.

2009-04-02T15:07:00.000+03:00

We have already discussed in this blog, that our ultimate goal is to bio-transform industrial waste into renewable sources of energy, such as the third generation of biofuels. In its multitude of facets, this is a major disruptive innovation, that encompasses:

molecular biology research,
biotechnology process and design,
industrial processes' engineering and equipment,
greenhouse gases cap and trading,
environmental regulation compliance and political policy adoption,
marketing of smart technologies and green alternatives,
sales to customers, able to foresee both the environmental impact as well as the major financial incentives and benefits that follow the early adoption of such innovations.

It is not a single day job, this is for sure. For example, the existing solutions how to handle industrial gaseous waste have focused the value network on carbon capture and storage, electrofiltration, flue gas desulfurisation, etc. However, solutions like these are addressed only by large installations and are quite expensive to implement and to maintain. Their major goal is sequestration of greenhouse gases and toxic by-products rather than utilization of waste. The future stands with something smaller, cheaper, and beneficial in many perspectives, tailored to specific operational cycles and able to recycle the waste, reuse the fuel and reduce the environmental threat.

The process of establishment of a new green disruptive technology for the existing value network is described below. The earlier we get to the tipping point, the better for the world. For the specific example of waste management for greenhouse gases the paradigm of the new, green value network will be:

To identify customer needs, matching them to the expectations of society

Let us face it: industry produces waste. This has been an axiomatic principle ever since the great industrial revolution. However this axiom is going to change in the upcoming years/ decades. It is imperative to figure how profit (as an ultimate goal for every business there is), has to go hand in hand with lean thinking principles while fits into no carbon directives. Industry also requires energy, and carbon energy supply is far from infinite. If industrial plants are able to provide for their own needs while bio-transforming their waste into renewable sources of energy, offsetting cost is on the go and achievement of greater market shares is possible.

To solve customer problems, increasing its public acceptance and confidence.

Waste is a problem: governmental regulations on its type, quality and quantity, payment of environmental fees and charges for disposal, elevated social and public pressure and many businesses can get into the rat race: someone, somewhere can produce it cheaper than you. If the scarcity of carbon fuel distribution on this planet is acknowledged as well, energy accessibility and its price can become a problem as well.

To procure knowledge-based and engineering input, bringing the future in daily life.

If we all aim to knowledge based economy, transfer of state-of-the-art techniques and technology that are both scalable and economically efficient on large scale, we need to claim the risks of research and development. We are entitled to the benefit of the doubt: incremental and disruptive innovations might not bring the desired progress, nevertheless, the sooner we start procuring more molecular expertise and nanoscale know-how in everyday life, the better off we are going to be.

To react to competitors proactively.

The niche is now developing, there is place for many, join us! We can be smart, green, environmentaly friendly, yet cost effective and extremely profitable, benefical both to society and the environment, and the corporations.

And to strive for profits, while not forgetting about common green goals

For every ton of CO2, about 0,6t of biomass can be produced. It is the biggest task in front of us all today: how to reuse the carbon, refurbish the waste and revive all the resources available, as they rarely multiplicate with time. Moreover, to take the advantage, that those sources that multiplicate provide for us.

Yes, we can.

What if I plant a tree?

2009-03-09T15:04:00.000+02:00

It's a recycling fashion. Or a state of mind for many of us in 21^st century. But let's look at the facts and figures, and then meet the real problem.

Here's an example: a tree absorbs between 7.5 to 13 kg CO₂ per year. Of course no one could еstimate whether it is more, less or enough. But everyone could estimate the efficiency of a tree, if we mention the yearly CO₂ footprint of a milk cow - about 5 000 kg CO₂ eq. Hence my question: how many trees we need to plant, just to cover the yearly emission of one cow?

Well, recycling is good, isn't it?

Actually, it's not a matter of recycling the stuff you bought, but now you don't need. It's a matter of not buying that stuff at all. When we look back to the production and distribution chain, we will see why recycling of packages is not helping too much.

The industry is manufacturing products, while emitting enormous volumes of toxic waste (both liquid and solid) and green house gases. Then the product goes to the consumer and he fashionably recycles the packaging. The thing that should worry you as a consumer is that for every recycled garbage can, the industry produces 70! Yes, seventy garbage cans full of waste!

What about the industrial waste?

Industrial waste is the real problem that should be solved. The trend here is called "waste management", which is actually the only way to go on large scale. Waste management includes toxic gas sequestration, CO₂ mitigation and utilization, wastewater treatment, solid waste recycling, etc.

A lot can be done, in utilization of, otherwise toxic, nitrogen oxides. There are plenty of biological species that can survive in variety of extreme environments. Examples of extreme environments are toxic industrial wastewaters, high temperature CO₂ airflows, heavy metal rich solid waste, etc.

There is a biological solution for every problem that humankind have created so far. There are microalgae, able to survive in extreme concentrations of cadmium or chrome and bacteria that thrive in strong mineral acids and boiling liquids.

We could finally say, that there is a matter of consumer behaviour, that could help save our environment, but let's face it - the real problem is coming from the industrial waste. Industrial plants should realise their corporate responsibility and do the implementation of best available technologies in waste management.

Green innovation is not a matter of choice anymore

2009-02-18T15:00:00.000+02:00

The term disruptive innovation was nailed by Clayton Christensen in the late 90s and is ever since enriched with various examples from broad spectrum of industries, such as education, telecommunications, semiconductors, aviation, healthcare, etc.

What concern us, though, are the threats and the opportunities green disruptive innovations create in our world, and the green solutions they have yet to offer to the business and society in the 21st century.

What we face today is economical crisis, coupled hand in hand with environmental crisis. Our major concern for decades has been the limited fuel supply and the indefinite demand for energy sources. The due diligence on climate change and pollution, it was not us to take care of that: the future generations were expected to clean the slate and to find the exit from the labyrinth. Wrong we were. Acceleration of demand, brought us closer to the edge than ever anticipated. The aim to reduce the rate of climate change is not good enough anymore. Low carbon economy is not good enough aim anymore. The ultimate target are zero emissions or zero carbon economy. Pioneer states, such as Iceland and Sweden have established their own goals in this direction. It is already late for whatever has to be done is, so change and action are needed. NOW.

We need to innovate in order to solve numerous problems. How can the two different routes can lead us to zero carbon economy, shed a light on the path to non-carbon industries and past-carbon businesses? A direct comparison follows.

Disruptive vs. Sustaining Innovations

Sustaining innovations would be Carbon Capture and Storage for CO2 (the shore countries of North Sea shelf has been quite keen supporters of that idea already); improvement of wastewater treatment techniques based on physical and chemical filtration; research and development on more efficient and more effective nanofilters for capture of greenhouse and toxic gases. To reduce the enlargement of The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, we need to do the greatest sustaining innovation of all: to reduce our waste, to reuse some of it and to recycle the rest, with special attention paid to plastics and toxins.

Disruptive, however, will be those innovations that will not only solve our growing energy requirements, but will also provide for the environmental issues, such as pollution, wastewater and solid waste disposal, climate change, greenhouse and toxic gases mitigation. Innovations that are cheap and easy to implement, will address our individual consumer needs and will fulfill our drive for simpler, yet profitable carbon-independent enterprises.

Those innovations deliver for our ever-growing energy needs cheaper and more effective technology for biofuels and then deliver the biofuels themselves. They do not endanger the local and global food supply on the expense of the fuels and alleviate the inheritant social conflict and debate around fuel vs food. Green Disruptive Innovations successfully handle the environmental concerns as they mitigate greenhouse gases via photosynthetic fixation of CO2 into biomass, hence to biofuels of third generation. Clean, Smart, Renewable (CSR). Surely, fit for socially responsible corporations. Do you have one of those?

While this idea might be sci-fi to many of our readers, some C-suite executives among you will think of these incentives:

you can reduce your business’ environmental impact and carbon footprint,
and simultaneously increase your profit and economical status.

Can you imagine the new market niche: one that provides the ability to recycle your industrial waste and to biotransform it into fuel for the industrial plant own operational and technological cycle input?

Yes, you can.

In a series of blog posts we will further elaborate on the CO2 mitigation via a biotechnological system as an example of a disruptive technology (it is not merely an innovation any more), with a detailed analysis of its opportunities and risks, current and future competition and the strategic choices that need to be taken on many levels in between.

Crisis as an opportunity for green technology implementation

2009-02-15T14:42:00.000+02:00

The last twelve months were maybe not so great for your business. You could blame the financial crisis or the consumption decline. But actually, it doesn’t matter, because the question is whether your business will survive or not.

After the financial crisis many things will not be the same, many (used to be) stable businesses will be gone. They will be gone, not because of the crisis itself.They will suffer from their own rigidity and lack of adaptation skills for the new green consumer era.

The need for reduction of non-renewable energy sources was obvious even for the much criticized autocrat - Shah of Iran in the early ’70s. Now, forty years later, are you still not convinced that the industrial processes should go in greener direction?

Even though renewable energy technologies are applicable, these are still thought of as some exotic fruit, a fashion may be. Yes, many of them need a few more years to be viable and to make sense to your business, but it is not only the CSR that counts. Let’s take, for example, the algae biodiesel technology - it is a quite simple concept, but it took over thirty years to be applied in pilot plants. It is not that expensive (after all you need only water and sun, and the hole in the ground), and you get several times more biofuel compared to average plant source of oil, based solely on CO2 mitigation.

Crisis is a moment of evaluation and hard decisions, but you could make it a time for green technology implementation and good decisions. Now is the exact moment for real business model re-evaluation. Do you think you could end up greener and in addition survive the crisis?

Yes, you can.