I, Science, the science magazine of Imperial College London

The Exxon, the Venter, and the Algae

"What will ExxonMobil benefit from more- green biofuel, or publicity?"

Fungal Fuel

"Perhaps this has the beginnings of a wonderful story: an accidental discovery of a new species leads to solutions for the most pressing energy problems facing mankind today.  Our salvation was found in the rainforest’s biodiversity."

Future Still Green for Biofuels?

"It was the stuff you had to scrub out of fish tanks, and that you thought might kill you if you went swimming in lakes filled with the blue-green variety. It was around and irreversibly changing the Earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago.  Algae."

The Exxon, the Venter, and the Algae

"There is really nothing ExxonMobil can bring to that whole biofuels issue. We don't see a direct role for ourselves with today's technology." 
Rex Tillerman, current CEO of ExxonMobil, speaking at Oil Day, Feb 13, 2007. 

One is the largest of the non-state owned energy companies, owner of 38 oil refineries in 21 countries, and of an environmental rights record blackened by spills, fines and climate-scepticism.

Another is a prominent cell biologist who ran a privately funded rival project to the official Human Genome Project, successfully built an artificial chromosome in 2007, and aspires to create synthetic life in the near future. 

The last are tiny, green, non-sentient, and were the original creators of the oxygen-rich atmosphere that we enjoy on our planet. 

Now, these three forces are coming together to combat the problems of dwindling petroleum, the drive for cleaner fuel, and the climate-change inducing problem of carbon emissions. Exxon-Mobil will provide the money. Craig Venter will provide the science. Algae, ultimately, will provide us with biofuel.

In July 2009, the energy corporation signed a $600 billion dollar multi-year partnership with Venter’s biotechnology company, Synthetic Genomes, which is the largest and most serious investment that has been made, so far, in the field of commercial algae biofuel. 

Yet what will Exxon benefit from more- green biofuel, or publicity? 

The Algae

Biofuel has been slowly edging its way into modern fuel and energy policies, yet the problems of biofuel production are becoming rather well known. The term ‘biofuel’ can refer to bio-ethanol, an alcohol which substitutes for petrol, or biodiesel, or biogas, or any form of biological, combustible material, usually derived from plants. If a plant was grown to be a biofuel, and burned, it would release only the carbon that was absorbed during its lifetime, making it effectively carbon-neutral. Whereas burning reserves of coal, oil, or gas releases carbon stores that were built up over the long history of the Earth.

But growing crops for fuel takes away arable land which could be used to grow food, and converting crops into fuel raises food prices. This has a particularly negative effect in developing countries, where those living in poverty already struggle to reach the daily recommended calorie intake. Deforestation to generate land quashes local biodiversity. Economically, when subtracting the time, money, and energy invested in growing, processing, and extraction, biofuels can be expensive to produce. Ironically, for the same reasons, they may not be markedly carbon-neutral, either.

All in all, these factors give biofuels a dappled image. They are still a poorer economic choice than petroleum. Yet in principle, they are more ethical and environmentally-friendly than burning coal, petroleum oil, or gas. Crucially, they are also a renewable fuel, which means we will surely be forced to rely on them more and more to meet the world’s growing energy demand. 

The problems of biofuels are reflected in the reluctant integration of biofuels into commercial and political policies. Mixes of biofuel and petroleum fuel are available, yet hardly widespread. In 2007 the EU declared they would increase the share of biofuels used in transport to 10% by 2020. This figure was reduced to 6% in 2008, owing to fears of a food crisis. A similar story played out in the UK, where the proposed rise of a 5% required biofuel content in petrol was changed from 2.5% to 3.3% this year.

Corn, oil palm, and soybean have become the main biofuel crops, because of the existing global infrastructure to farm these crops, and the amount of fuel that can be extracted from them. Yet any organic material that can be made to yield combustible matter is a form of biofuel, and this is not limited to the higher plants. 

Algae do not need arable land to grow on. Like other plants, they require carbon dioxide, sunlight, water, and management, but they could grow suspended in tanks of water over any terrain. They can reproduce rapidly- some strains divide every few hours. They produce and store oil- some strains can produce oil yields of 20-50% of their bodyweight. Compare this to soy bean, one of the most prominent biofuel crops, which produces an oil yield of 20% of its bodyweight. Finally, the remaining unknown species of algae are so vast that their number defies accurate estimates. Even hardier, even higher yielding species could exist, somewhere.

In recent years, with more pressure and funding into alternative fuel research, scientists have begun to seriously study their biofuel potential. This potential appears, to say the very least, encouraging. Conservative estimates of algal biofuel production provide figures such as 30,000 - 50,000 litres of oil per hectare per year, compared to the 1,300 - 2,400 per hectare per year for typical biofuel crops. Because the plants would grow well when supplied with concentrated carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, algae biofuel refineries could be built alongside current power plants to make use of their waste gases. The remaining dry weight of the algae could be used as fertiliser, feedstock, or burnable fuel. 

Algae biofuel clearly has a lot of potential, but potential requires development. This form of biofuel has not been developed to a point where it could compete commercially with petroleum fuel- the FT estimate for producing algae biofuel in July 2009 was set at $33 per gallon, compared to the $2 per gallon of Middle-East crude oil. 

How could this gap be lessened? Answers include cost-effective government policies, lower taxes, waiting for the inevitable rise of petroleum prices, and improving the way in which the algae are grown and harvested. 

However, the best answer would be to increasing the algae oil yield, and this is where Venter and Exxon-Mobil come in. Algae species could be genetically engineered to increase their oil yield. This will take many years of research and development, but it is a task which Craig Venter is determined to undertake.

The Scientist

Craig Venter is a cell biologist who has become well known through some impressive and controversial scientific achievements. Applying himself to formal study of science after a short tour of duty in the Vietnam War, he achieved recognition and success through his progressive work in enzyme and genetics sequencing. But Venter really hit the headlines in 1998, when he was hired by Celera Genomics to provide a rival sequencing effort to the public-funded Human Genome Project. At that time, the Human Genome Project was three years into a 10-year plan, with a planned cost of $5 billion dollars. Venter boldly claimed that he could complete the genome in a fraction of that time, and a fraction of that cost. At a time when no one could quite decide what would be permissible for patents, Celera Genomics also proposed to commercialise parts of the human genome, a move which attracted fierce criticism. Eventually, the White House stepped in to order the two projects to make a joint announcement of the completed genome, and to make it freely available for scientific research.

Although painted by some as arrogant, profit-driven, and a ‘maverick scientist’, there are quite a few points in Venter’s favour. He actually was able to sequence a human genome at a lower cost and lower timeframe, as he had done before with a bacterial genome. Successful scientists in general, it must be said, are rarely known for being shrinking violets. Venter insists he was fired by Celera Genomics after the completion of the genome, because he assisted in making the genome publicly available. Venter claims he is in science for the science, not the money, and that his decisions to work for private companies are solely based on his desire for funding.

In 2006 he opened the non-profit genomics research company, J. Craig Venter Institute, and in 2005 he co-founded Synthetic Genomes, a privately-funded biotechnology company. Unlike academic research laboratories, the company is not reliant on public funding, or academic regulations. It is this company which will focus on developing algae biofuel.

The Investors

Exxon-Mobil’s investment has dwarfed all previous investments into developing algae biofuel. Other prominent investors have included the UK government, who provided the independent company The Carbon Trust with £4 million of funding in 2008, for an Algae Biofuels Challenge. This aims to commercialise an algae-oil based biodiesel by 2020. In 2008, the U.S. military also signed two deals worth $35 million to develop algae biofuel. Meanwhile, a handful of independent algae biofuel companies have developed here and there throughout the US. 

But critics suggest this latest move from Exxon serves a dual ploy. Environmentalists have labelled Exxon as one of the least progressive of the major oil companies, because they have little history of worthwhile investments in alternative energy sources. Exxon already spends over $600 million a year on basic research. Yet each year it makes tens of billions of dollars of profit. In 2008, it made a record-breaking profit of $40.16 billion. Against such figures, their investment in algal biofuel is a meagre drop of their money.

The most prolonged source of discontent about Exxon comes from their funding of climate change denial groups. According to a 2007 report from the (bluntly named) Union of Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations which "seek to confuse the public on global warming science". Unfavourable comparisons were drawn by the Royal Society, between Exxon's choice of funding, and the shady tactics of the tobacco industry in the 19th century, who sought to deny and disguise the link between smoking and cancer. Despite declaring they would cease funding for some such organisations in 2006, Exxon continued to fund over 40 climate sceptic groups till almost 2008. Consequently, critics say that this latest deal may serve more to greenwash the tarnished environmental reputation of the corporation. 

Indeed, Exxon's pattern of denial and acknowledgement of the climate change problem has been confusing. In 2007 Exxon's vice-president for public affairs, Kenneth Cohen, said that the corporation was aware now "...that the risk is serious and action should be taken.". Whereas his predecessor Lee Raymond had staunchly denied climate change, the current CEO, Rex Tillerson, both publicly acknowledged man-made global warming while declaring there would be no alternative to the continuing and growing dominance of oil and gas into the future. The corporation was detached from the problem, and as for biofuels- well, what about biofuels? 

In a July 2009 letter to The Guardian, Nick Thomas, the director of corporate affairs for ExxonMobil, protested against reports of his corporation’s continual funding of climate deniers, saying that this funding was only intended to promote discussion on issues relevant to ExxonMobil, and that obviously the corporation had no control over what such organisations eventually had to say. He also added ExxonMobil was currently researching emission-reducing car technology, sponsoring alternative ‘breakthrough research’ in solar power as well as biofuels, and putting $100 million into technology to separate carbon dioxide from natural gas. This is fortunate news, as it has been estimated by the Union of Concerned Scientists that company operations alone expel over 135 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, plus the likes of, for example, an estimated total combustion production of 1,047 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions in 2005. 

Venter has already described hopes of genetically engineering the algae to actively pump out oil, so that harvesting the oil will not kill the algae. This is in contrast to other approaches to algal biofuel, which have focused on improving the efficiency of growth, maintenance, and extraction. When asked if he was concerned regarding Exxon’s poor environmental record, he replied that such a change in fuel type could not happen without the oil industry. "They have a reputation for studying things for quite a while and acting in a large fashion once they become convinced of an approach,” Venter said, in a July interview to New Scientist. “I don't see how it can be bad news if somebody makes a major change in direction for the benefit of the planet." 

If Venter succeeds and patents his genetic work, this will surely give Exxon a powerful position on the market for future algae biofuel. Yet it is true that, while they will benefit in profit, the world could benefit immeasurably from carbon-neutral biofuel. For all of their mixed reputations, the world will be watching Venter, Exxon, and the algae with interest- and hope.

Bibliography:

Chisti, Y. (2007) Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotech Adv (25) pp. 294-306
Li et al., (2008) Biofuels from microalgae. Biotech Prog 24 (4) pp. 815-20
Schubert, C. (2006) Can biofuels finally take centre stage? Nature Biotech 24 pp.777-784
Williams, P.J (2007) Biofuel: microalgae cut the social and ecological costs Nature 450 pp. 478 
(Correspondence)

[Originally published on 17 November 2009, for www.conservationtoday.org ]

[Originally published in the April edition of I, Science, Imperial College Science Magazine]

Fungi Fuel?

"Perhaps this has the beginnings of a wonderful story: an accidental discovery of a new species leads to solutions for the most pressing energy problems facing mankind today.  Our salvation was found in the rainforest’s biodiversity."

Oyster mushrooms are not only tasty but also capable of breaking down petroleum in polluted land into harmless products. With an estimated diversity of 1.5 million species of fungi, the odds are good that there are more fungal species which could prove useful to environmental technologies. And indeed, a species of fungus which produces a diesel-like fuel has been discovered. Will this be the beginning of a new age- petroleum that you grow yourself?

A team of researchers, led by a professor from Montana State University, found the fungus Gliocadium roseum while surveying the rainforests of Patagonia, South America. The discovery caused a stir when tests showed it produced a gaseous, diesel-like fuel from cellulose and starch sources under limited oxygen conditions. Dubbed ‘myco-diesel’ (myco-, Greek for fungi/mushroom), the substance contains many of the same hydrocarbons found in diesel made from crude oil. Researchers in government agencies and private industries intend to study the fungus further to identify the nature of the myco-diesel production process.

In the best case scenario, the fungus could become an organic, living biorefinery of diesel fuel. As the mycodiesel is produced by digesting organic matter, it could generate fuel from agricultural or biofuel by-products.  This means the fungus could be cultivated in biofuel refineries to recycle waste biomatter. By identifying the genes and enzymes responsible, researchers hope to refine their action to industry-level efficiency.

Even at this early stage, the diversity of medium-chain hydrocarbons produced by Gliocadium roseum set it apart from other microbes, and indicate its potential for commercial use. Perhaps this has the beginnings of a wonderful story: an accidental discovery of a new species leads to solutions for the most pressing energy problems facing mankind today.  Our salvation was found in the rainforest’s biodiversity.

[Originally published in February 20th, 2009 edition of Felix, Imperial College student newspaper]

Future Still Green for Biofuels?

"It was the stuff you had to scrub out of fish tanks, and that you thought might kill you if you went swimming in lakes filled with the blue-green variety. It was around and irreversibly changing the Earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago.  Algae."
Last week Felix reported that biofuel crops may not be worth the effort, and rank high on environmental impact. The key word is may, because indeed this may be true.  It depends on many variables.  Which crops?  How many crops?  What production costs?  What alternatives?  A general case can only be made using the most common and shared problems of biofuel crops.  Generally, biofuel crops must be grown upon arable land, fertilised, nurtured, protected from pests, harvested, and processed. That’s a lot of costs and investment of energy.  But perhaps a new development in biofuel trends will upset the general case.  For members of Kingdom Plantae may yet save our combustion-energy hungry lifestyles.

Look under the swaying palm oil plantations, below the rolling green cornfields. Look to the greenish sludge choking up the water-filled ditch and the weed-flecked stream. There lies another carbon-neutral version of plant-based fuel. It was the stuff you had to scrub out of fish tanks, and that you thought might kill you if you went swimming in lakes filled with the blue-green variety. It was around and irreversibly changing the Earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago.  Algae. 

Before I ramble on further, allow me to summarise, simply, for the lecture-weary of you, how biofuel is extracted from plants. Plants photosynthesise carbon dioxide and water into glucose and oxygen. The glucose is used for energy and also reassembled by the plant into anything else it needs, including proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids.  Lipids, or fats, are essentially burnable fuel. Therefore a plant contains oil, and if the oil can be extracted, it can be burned for energy. Currently, oil is extracted from nut-like crops such as palm.  But the other main method is to extract carbohydrates from plants, and use them to make ethanol for biofuel. The leftover plant matter can be used for fertiliser or animal feed. 

Enter algae. Enter a plant of single or few cells that lives in water, reproduces rapidly, and produces oil. It does not need tracts of arable land to grow upon and it can double in volume in a single day under the correct conditions.  Some strains can produce a 50% body weight yield of oil.  In contrast, soybean, the current leading biodiesel crop, has a yield of 20% and a far longer maturation time. With tens to hundreds of thousands of current and undiscovered species, finding higher yields is not unlikely.  Careful genetic modification could further improve yield. Researchers estimate that one acre of algae could produce up to 10000 gallons of oil per year.

So far so good, but even if algae don’t need arable land, it is clear that they will require cleverly designed refineries to grow vats of algae and harvest the oil.  These things are entirely possible with human ingenuity. The 18th century economist, Thomas Malthus, famously placed exponential limits on maximum crop production by pegging crop output to available land.  The 20th century economist Ester Boserup removed this limitation by theorising that human ingenuity and technology would respond to demand.  Though Malthus can probably still claim greater recognition, in agriculture Boserup has been largely proven right.

Several algae biodiesel plants are already running in the US, while engineers design better of sealed growth vats, stirrers, gas venters.  In 2008 the U.S. military signed two deals worth about $35 million to develop biodiesel made from algae.  Imagine a slew of algae biodiesel plants being built in rocky land inhospitable to crops, but perfect for water-dwelling plants that only need sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water. Imagine algae biodiesel plants constructed alongside traditional power plants to utilise the concentrated waste carbon dioxide.  Such things are being planned. 

The UK government has provided the independent company The Carbon Trust with initial funding of up to £4million for a Algae Biofuels Challenge, which is ultimately intended to commercialise an algae-oil based biodiesel by 2020. Final project costs are anticipated to be 15-23 million, of which half will be funded by the Carbon Trust.

Undoubtedly, you are now waiting for the “But…”  All this optimism sounds too good to be true.  It can’t be that easy- after all, researchers knew that algae could be a source of biodiesel in the 1980s. Why has the world been violently panicking about petroleum costs, then, why did anyone bother to revive and design electric cars? Hate plants?  Dull day at the lab? The truth remains that the cost of petroleum-derived fuel has just been too cheap in comparison. Prior to the credit crunch, the production cost of algal oil was still at about $2.80 / L, while petroleum diesel was lurking around $0.48 / L in the US. It just wasn’t cost-effective to go green. 

Now, though?  No Mad Max style riots at petrol stations over dwindling fuel?  No fighting for foreign oil?  No nuclear or hydrogen power taking centre stage?  Fewer electric cars, even, or the development of cold fusion pushed further into a theoretical future.  Nothing is for certain. There’s plenty of scope for the future to surprise us.  But I would be willing to bet that algae is the biofuel of the future.