1. 2005 OBP Biennual Peer Review
Summary of Fuels Effort
Thomas Foust
NREL Biomass Program
November 15, 2005
Platform Level Technical Outcomes
Is the Platform performing well?
Is the Platform managed in a way that facilitates reaching its end goals?
Do the Platform goals support the Program’s goals?
Are there any outlying projects that do not seem to support the Program’s goals?

2. Overview
Objective: Overall Barrier to Deployment is the inability to compete on an economic basis with petrochemicals.
The Fuels economic targets are based on reducing the cost of ethanol production in both existing and future lignocellulosic facilities.
Existing facilities
“recalcitrant” starch utilization
Utilization of all available five carbon sugars
Target cost reduction - $0.13/gallon of ethanol based on an estimate of current production costs of $0.90-$1.00/gallon.
Developing lignocellulosics facilities
Directly link with Biochemical Platform goals
Reduce ethanol costs from $2.26/gallon to $1.07/gallon
Develop new strains to utilize all biomass sugars
Target Cost Reduction - $0.39/gallon of lignocellulosic ethanol
The purpose of this slide is to provide some context for evaluating the current work in this barrier element focusing on accomplishments. The information in the left column describes the magnitude and timing of the investment this area. The information in the right column describes the players.
Please indicate the degree to which the work on this barrier supports the Platform’s goals and objectives of the Multi-Year RD&D plan.
Please indicate the relevance to Platform Objectives

3. Budget & Funding Partners
Current Funding Partners
Budget
Corn Refiners Association
National Corn Growers Association
NREL
Biodiesel project participants
West Central Cooperative
The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research:
42 Universities,
12 Affiliated Universities, and
35 Companies.
They have selected 88 companies to be co-investors/customers. It is a putative earmark for FY06 and so no budget numbers are included in the FY06 total to your left.

4. Products Platform

5. Products Platform R&D 4.0 Products Platform 4.1 Fuels 4.2
Chemicals & Materials
4.3
Combined
Heat & Power
4.4
Analysis for Products
4.1.1
Biological Conversions
4.2.1
Biological Conversions
4.3.1
Thermochemical
Conversions
4.4.1
Biorefinery
Integration
4.1.2
Chemical Conversions
4.2.2
Chemical Conversions
4.3.2
Demonstration Projects
4.4.2
Product
Opportunities
4.1.3
Hybrid Chemical/
Biological Conversions
4.2.3
Hybrid Chemical/
Biological Conversions
4.3.3
Separations
4.1.4
Separations
4.2.4
Separations

6. Fuel Products R&D Agreements
4.1
Fuels
4.1.1
Biological Conversions
New Yeast Fundamentals
Engineering Thermotolerant
Biocatalysts for Biomass
Conversion to Products

7. Strategic Fit With Program Elements/Pathways
Thermo Chemical
R&D
Feedstock R
& D
Biochemical
Integrated
Biorefinery
Corn Wet Mill
Improvements
Corn Dry Mill
Agricultural
Residue
Processing
Energy Crops
Pulp
Paper
Mill
Forest
Products Mill
Corn
Other Grains
Corn Stover
Wheat Straw
Rice Straw
Perennial Grasses
Woody Crops
Mill Wastes
Wood
Systems -
level demonstration
validation of technologies to
improve corn wet milling facilities
using corn grain feedstock by
2008
improve corn dry milling facilities
utilize agricultural residue
feedstocks in existing or new
facilities by
2009
utilize perennial crops in existing
or new facilities by
2012
improve pulp
paper mill
facilities and /
or produce
additional products from wood by
improve forest products mill
additional products by
Products
New Products from C 5 6
Sugars
Products from Oils
New Products
from
Products from C ,
Lignin
Synthesis Gas
New
Process Intermediates
Products from BL Syngas
Products from Synthesis Gas
Products from Bio
oil

8. Platform Cost History and Targets
What are the platform’s targets
how where they defined
what is the timeline for reaching them = f(funding)
where are we today (progress)
Conversion costs include everything except feedstock & enzyme contributions; includes:
Variable operating costs.
Fixed operating costs.
Capital costs. (Annualized using a DCFROR calculation – Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return)
Taxes.
10% rate of return.
State of Technology values:
Best estimates for the cost of ethanol production from an integrated corn stover to ethanol process.
Residues used for CHP (Combined Heat & Power). Excess power exported to grid as co-product.
Conversions demonstrated in laboratory & pilot unit. Extrapolated to integrated process.
Feedstock costs based on best estimates from INL for baled corn stover available in sufficient quantities to run 2,000 tons/day year round.
Cellulase/enzyme costs based on public statements from Genencor & Novozymes (as per the enzyme subcontracts).
2001 to 2004 values recently “back cast” to take into account knowledge after the cases were originally developed. These include:
Uniform $53 per ton feedstock costs.
Enzyme cost consistent with Jim McMillan chart (from 1st International Biorefinery Workshop).
Sugar losses in conditioning of solids after pretreatment but prior to saccharification (Overliming).
Xylose conversion to ethanol in co-fermentation.
2010 Budget Target:
Consistent with 9.5¢ per pound cost for intermediate sugars.
Ethanol value dependent upon cost improvements in fermentation. With no fermentation improvements cost is as high as $1.90 per gal.
Market Target:
Conversion & other cost targets as documented in the 2002 Aden et.al. design report.
$1.07 per gal estimated as value required to get competitively get into the fuels market without the need of a subsidy. Specified in 2000 based on historical trends for ethanol price.
Fuel alcohol values reported in Chemical Economics Handbook Marketing Research Report “Ethyl Alcohol” (2002) are in the range of $0.81 to $1.81 from 1984 to 2001.
Remaining research targets:
Lower cost feedstocks delivered to plant gate.
Higher conversion of hemicellulose to simple sugars via thermochemical or enzymatic routes. High conversions with little production of degradation products (e.g., furfural)
Cellulase enzymes that are more thermal tolerant – faster conversion at higher temperatures.
Robust fermentation organism. High conversion of ALL sugars. Thermal tolerant – faster conversion at higher temperatures.
Values for the chart:
Year MESP Feedstock Enzyme Conversion
2001 $5.66 $0.82 $3.11 $1.72
2002 $4.13 $0.82 $1.61 $1.70
2003 $3.13 $0.91 $0.86 $1.35
2004 $2.49 $0.78 $0.57 $1.14
2005 $2.26 $0.81 $0.32 $1.13
2010 $1.73 $0.60 $0.22 $0.91
2020 $1.08 $0.33 $0.10 $0.65

9. Barrier Cost Targets Fundamental yeast understanding is necessary to:
-Enable the biomass industry (mid-term)
-Contribute to advanced, consolidated process development (long-term)

10. Barriers/Technical Targets
Barriers Supporting Platform Objectives and Economic Targets
Description of Barriers:
Fuels Organism Development
Production of liquid fuels, primarily ethanol, but possibly butanol or other alcohols in the future will require significant improvements in current ly existing organisms. The primary improvements are the development of organisms that are capable of utilizing all the sugar components from biomass hydrolysate. Specifically, organisms need to be capable of utilizing 5 carbon sugars, namely xylose and arabinose. The target yield is 80-90% utilization of five carbon sugars. The five carbon sugars constitute a significant portion of biomass (10-30%). More efficient utilization of these sugars could substantially lower the overall cost of alcohol production by as much as $0.18/gallon. It would be desirable for the organisms to be capable of utilizing five carbon sugars, preferably simultaneously with six carbon sugars, derived from hydrolysate. The organisms must be robust with respect to impurities generated during hydrolysis. Impurities tend to slow fermentations or lead to incomplete utilization of sugars which can lead to the need for costly purification. The productivity of organisms utilizing five carbon sugars should be comparable to the current organisms which utilize glucose or the capital costs will be significantly higher. Current productivity targets are between 1.5 and 2.3 g/l/hr. Finally, these organisms should be comparable in product tolerance/inhibition. The organism should be able to produce alcohol at levels consistent with existing glucose fermenting organisms.
Fuels Catalyst Development
The development of robust catalysts for the upgrading of pyrolysis oil for the production of liquid transportation fuels is critical to an economically viable process. The catalysts must afford high selectivity to the desired end product and must have high conversion rates and long lifetimes. The specific targets for selectivity are currently being developed, but it is likely that at least 90% selectivity will be required to be economically viable. These catalysts must be robust with respect to the impurities of the pyrolysis oil in order to achieve reasonable catalyst lifetime that will enable viable capital costs.

11. Milestone Hierarchy Corn Wet Mill Pathway
A-level
B-level
Ethanol Production From Mixed Sugars
Demonstrate and validate economical conversion of mixed sugars to ethanol in a wet mill ($X/gal EtOH) by 2008
C5 or C6 or mixed C5/C6 Sugars conversion to Chemical and Material Products
Demonstrate and validate economical new products from C5 or mixed C5/C6 sugars in a wet mill ($/lb product) by 2008
Demonstrate and validate economical new products from C6 sugars in a wet mill ($/lb product) by 2008
Miscellaneous
Demonstrate and validate economical new products from corn-derived oils in a wet mill. ($/lb product) by 2008

12. Milestone Hierarchy Corn Dry Mill Pathway
A-level
B-level
Biomass Fractionation with Sugar Production
Demonstrate and validate economical residual starch conversion in a dry mill ($/lb fiber) by 2009
C5 or C6 or mixed C5/C6 Sugars conversion to Chemical and Material Products
Demonstrate and validate economical conversion of mixed sugars to products in a dry mill. ($/lb product) by 2008
Demonstrate and validate economical new products from C6 sugars in a dry mill. ($/lbs product)
Ethanol Production From Mixed Sugars
Demonstrate and validate economical conversion of mixed sugars to ethanol in a dry mill. ($/gal EtOH) by 2009

13. Milestone Hierarchy Ag Residue Processing Pathway
A-level
B-level
C5 or C6 or mixed C5/C6 Sugars conversion to Chemical and Material Products
Demonstrate and validate chemical building blocks,
chemicals, or materials from 5 biomass sugars
that are economically viable (multiple cost targets for specific products) ($/lbs product)
Ethanol Production from Mixed Sugars
Demonstrate and validate ethanol from 5 biomass sugars that are economically viable (multiple cost targets for specific products) ($/gal EtOH)
Lignin Intermediates/Residue Conversion to Products
Demonstrate and validate high value chemical
and material products from lignin intermediates ($/lb product)
Demonstrate and validate fuel products from lignin intermediates ($/gal)
Demonstrate and validate combined heat & power
from lignin intermediates/residues ($/KwHr, $/Klb Stm)
Clean Syngas Conversion to Products
Demonstrate and validate products (i.e. ethanol from mixed alcohols) from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $0.60/gal by 2025
Demonstrate and validate H2 production from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $xx/kg by 2025
Demonstrate and validate CHP production from lignin or biomass derived syngas by 2025

14. Milestone Hierarchy Energy Crops Processing Pathway
A-level
B-level
Ethanol Production From Mixed Sugars
Demonstrate and validate ethanol from 5 biomass sugars that are economically viable – similar to agro. residues with different biorefinery opportunities ($/gal EtOH)
C5 or C6 or mixed C5/C6 Sugars conversion to Chemical and Material Products
Demonstrate and validate products from 5 biomass sugars (need multiple cost targets for specific products) – similar to agro. Residues with different biorefinery opportunities ($/gal EtOH)
Lignin Intermediates/Residue Conversion
to Products
Demonstrate and validate high value chemical and material products from lignin intermediates ($/lb product)
Demonstrate and validate fuel products from lignin intermediates ($/gal)
Demonstrate and validate combined heat & power from lignin intermediates/residues ($/KwHr, $/Klb Stm)
Clean Syngas Conversion to Products
Demonstrate and validate products (i.e. ethanol from mixed alcohols) from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $0.60/gal by 2025
Demonstrate and validate H2 production from lignin or biomass derived syngas for $xx/kg by 2025
Demonstrate and validate CHP production from lignin or biomass derived syngas by 2025
Advanced Biomass Fractionation
and Conversion
Demonstrate and validate products from new fractionation/consolidated process intermediates

15. R&D Approach
Potential feedstocks considered in the Products Platform are derived from the outputs of the Sugars and Thermochemical Platforms, along with the already-existing outputs of the current biomass industry.
The basic feedstocks from the Sugars Platform and existing biomass industry include C5 and C6 sugars, lignin, oil, and protein. The feedstocks from the Thermochemical Platform include syngas and pyrolysis oils
Within the barrier hierarchy for transportation fuels there are two major technical elements that need to be addressed to reduce the cost of liquid transportation fuels
The MYPP outlines the specific research needs within each barrier that need to be addressed to meet the established economic target.
Recommended time for this slide: 1 min
(General)

16. R&D Portfolio for Fuels
Project Title
Barrier Addressing
Yeast/Strain Fundamentals – Arjun Singh/Min Zhang, NREL (formerly known as “Development of L-Arabinose Fermenting Yeast - NCGA Arabinose Yeast CRADA Project”)
Biological/Organism Development
Engineering Thermotolerant Biocatalysts for Biomass Conversion to Products – Dr. K.T. Shanmugam, University of Florida
EARMARKS related to Fuels
Center for Catalysis, Iowa State – Dr. Victor Lin, Iowa State University
New Biodiesel Feedstocks**
Energy from Biomass Research and Technology Transfer Program Project – Dorin Schumacher, Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, Inc
Give a synopsis of the project (maybe use your project slides as your notes for this) but don’t have to go into too much project specific detail since these projects were part of the Interim Stage Gate Review (except of the Mathmatical…b/c it should have ended in FY04)
Need to list other earmarks related to fuels – like the biodiesel earmarks and comment on those.
**Not currently an OBP Pathway

17. Products Interim Stage Gate Review August 9-10, 2005
Objectives:
Evaluation of technical progress
Alignment with program goals, barriers, and milestones
Plans forward
Commercialization pathway and any preliminary business plans
20 projects reviewed- 18 funded by DOE/OBP and 2 funded by USDA
3 technical areas reviewed: Analysis, Chemicals and Materials, and Fuels.
Review Panel
Martha Schlicher, National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center
John Houghton, USDOE Office of Science
Frances H. Arnold, Cal Tech, Chemical Engineering
Richard J Higgins, Ceramem Corporation
Christopher Guske, Tate and Lyle

18. New Yeast Fundamentals Arjun Singh, NREL
Technical Target – Improved yeast pentose fermentation performance by metabolic pathway and transporter engineering
Critical Issues Addressed in Biocatalyst Development for Lignocellulosic Biomass Conversion to Ethanol
Improved Fermentation
Ethanologen tolerant to inhibitors in concentrated hydrolysates (>20% solids)
High ethanol yield (90% or above)
Complete fermentation of hexoses and pentoses
Minimize byproducts
High productivity (>1 g/g/hr for pentose)
Efficient sugar transport
Rapid pentose metabolism
High ethanol concentration
>10% (w/w)
Stable and robust biocatalyst

19. New Yeast Fundamentals Strengths and Weaknesses
Performance targets and metrics identified.
Did give show stoppers and risks and showed what they were.
Threshold for success was a useful way to look at it.
Engineering done on strain was good.
Suggestions and/or Weaknesses
Metrics or data from literature, even though have industry partners.
Two industries out there now claiming to have yeasts working fine. Therefore, why do we need to continue this in a limited funding scenario?
Success of FY08 solicitation not dependent on this.
Need to do a better job justifying work on arabinose vs. xylose.
Didn’t address competition at all.
Don’t agree with development vs. discovery argument. This is detailed investigation/exploratory research.
Suggest to have another outside review of the fermentation of 5C sugars effort to determine what is really important. Need fermentation colloquy updated.
PI Responses to Reviewer comments:
Although some in industry have claimed to have yeast that ferment pentose efficiently, we have not seen proof justifying these claims. Technical hurdles and issues raised in earlier yeast colloquies still remain. Regardless of the type of lignocellulosic biomass feedstock, pretreatment method, and route chosen to release sugars from the treated feedstock, a successful commercial biorefinery is unlikely without a robust ethanologen. Our proposed research enhances rather than competes with the efforts of others
Our past work was a CRADA project with CRA and NCGA, and these partners did not think that it was appropriate to have advisors from outside the sponsoring organizations. Because arabinose is a significant component in their feedstocks of interest (corn fiber and DDGs), the CRADA partners asked us to work on arabinose fermentation only.
The partners played a crucial role in every aspect of the project. All the research directions and results were reviewed by the technical board of the CRA and NCGA every quarter, and often there were reports and consultations in between the quarterly meetings.
Our past CRADA partners (particularly CRA members) have very extensive biotech expertise. We hope to attract partners for the future work that have considerable biotech expertise as well. Unfortunately, NREL is contractually restricted in its ability to approach potential partners, but the demonstration by NREL of significant advances in pentose utilization will certainly provide incentive for potential partners to approach us.
Many technically and scientifically competent people from the companies represented by CRA and NCGA were on the review panel. We will seek the opinions and guidance from other appropriate customers.
Others are mostly focused on applied strain development, not on elucidating the mechanisms underlying the poorer performance on pentoses in hydrolysates. Our efforts will not compete with their development work. Instead, the proposed Yeast Fundamentals core research project will support industry by providing essential data on hydrolysate toxicity/resistance and on extant bottlenecks in pentose metabolism and transport.
Because of the CRADA requirements, we only worked on arabinose fermentation and developed strains that yielded >75% of the theoretical maximum of ethanol from arabinose. However, the arabinose utilization is slow and incomplete, and strain performance on hydrolysates is untested. We recognize that xylose is a much more significant part of the OBP’s feedstocks of choice, and we will work on the critical issues (low ethanol and stress tolerance, poor efficiency of mixed sugar fermentation in lignocellulosic biomass hydrolysates at realistic sugar concentrations) that need to be dealt with to achieve efficient fermentation of all sugars in biomass. Our goal is to provide the fundamental knowledge that will lead to the development of yeast strains yielding 90-95% of the maximum theoretical yield of ethanol from pentose sugars under process-relevant conditions. Furthermore, recent advances in handling high-solids streams at NREL could improve biorefinery economics by increasing the final ethanol concentration. Such concentrated hydrolysates further raise the bar for efficient ethanologens. So far, strains demonstrated to ferment pentoses efficiently do so only under dilute conditions.
We plan to hold a workshop in the spring of ’06 to update our data on the progress in academic and commercial labs and on the evolving needs of the industry. Our recent feedback from industry, however, confirms that cost and yield are of paramount importance, and these factors can be addressed directly through understanding hydrolysate tolerance, pathway flux, and pentose transport. Two yeast producers have indicated in informal discussions that the technology and the lignocellulosic ethanol industry were not sufficiently advanced for them to enter the market at this time.

20. Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion
Engineering Thermotolerant Biocatalysts for Biomass Conversion to Products
Dr. K.T. Shanmugam, University of Florida
Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion
Technical Target - Construct Novel Thermotolerant Biocatalysts (Second Generation) that Function Optimally with Fungal Cellulases (50°C, pH 5.0) for Ethanol Production from Biomass-derived Sugars
Replace the lactate pathway with ethanol pathway
Achieve 90% yield from hexoses and pentoses
Achieve ethanol titer of 4% or higher
Reduce fermentation time to 24 h
Further metabolic engineering and process development, as needed
Evaluate the biocatalyst at the pilot plant level
Critical Issues Addressed in Biocatalyst Development for Lignocellulosic Biomass Conversion to Ethanol
Simultaneous fermentation of glucose and xylose
Fermentation duration of <72 h
Cellulase requirement – ~5 FPU/g cellulose
Development of genetic exchange system
Ethanol yield of >90%
Ethanol concentration in the broth > 4%

21. Engineering Thermotolerant … Strengths and Weaknesses
Thermophile offers good potential to overcome barriers, reduce costs.
Very good understanding of their competitive position.
Clear build on their first project.
Carbon economy is good.
Use of genomics and sequencing information may lead in the long term to higher upside potential.
Good critical metrics.
Suggestions and/or Weaknesses
Need to incorporate industry in project to understand their willingness to use the organism – industrial need.
Not enough attention to contingencies.
Need to say more about economics – initial estimates.
No show stoppers identified (e.g. recombination success, industrial need, getting fermentation times down).
Goals seem to be optimistic based on resources.
Need to continue to consider up stream issues (hydrolysate, inhibitors)

22. Center for Catalysis Victor Lin, Iowa State University
Technical Targets
To construct a catalytic system that will produce biodiesel from high free fatty acid-containing feedstocks without any pretreatment.
Explore the feasibility of using ionic hydrogenation to convert glycerin into 1,3-propanediol, a component in polymers.
Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion
Partnership with West Central Cooperative
state-of-the-art, 9,000 square foot facility
12 million gallons of biodiesel annually
largest biodiesel plant in the US
Pilot-scale catalyst evaluation
Reaction scale-up
Evaluate process economics for the glycerol work
Critical Issues Addresed
Biodiesel Catalysts
Synthesis of materials with both general acids and bases.
Identification of optimal catalysts for biodiesel generation from soybean oil.
Functionalization of the exterior surface of the materials with catalytic groups for the esterification of free fatty acids.
Identification of optimal catalysts for making biodiesel from fat.
Investigation of recyclability of optimal catalysts.
Glycerol Conversion
Optimize the conversion of glycerin
Scale up optimized reaction to a kilogram scale.
Evaluate process economics of the optimized reaction
Go/No Go Decision Points
Is cost of catalyst lower than homogeneous catalyst?
Can the Conversion of Glycerol process be scaled up?

23. Center for Catalysis Strengths and Weaknesses
For the two projects presented
Good quality resulting research of the two presented.
Total overall potential is good for producing biodiesel.
Great involvement of commercial entity that is engaged in metrics.
Willingness to license
If approach for these two projects is representative for all selected projects, then the technical barriers are well defined with a clear path forward.
Novel use of silicon chemistry.
Suggestions and/or Weaknesses
Can’t comment on Center for Catalysis process implementation because not presented.
Would like to know more about the other 7 projects – don’t know if the two presented are representative?
DOE should be included in technical review of the proposed projects (not on the selection committee)
Limiting it only to Iowa limits the capabilities that could be brought to a center of excellence since it’s receiving Fed$ not state funds.
For the two projects presented:
No global show stoppers identified in projects presented.
Suggest additional validation by other companies
Is industry partner cost sharing and to what degree?

24. Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion
Energy From Biomass Research and Technology Transfer Program Dorin Schumacher, CPBR
Technical Targets
Future Plans and Partners Involved in Completion
Bring together industry, academia, and federal resources to conduct research in plant biotechnology.
Facilitate technology transfer of the research results.
Facilitate the commercialization of the results.
Improve the utilization of plants as energy sources.
Facilitate the replacement of petroleum by plant-based materials.
Create an energy supply that is safer in its effect on the environment.
Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research
42 Universities, 12 Affiliated Universities, and 35 Companies
88 companies selected to be co-investors/customers.
Critical Issues Addressed
Technical: Exploratory research is high-risk. Peer review mitigates risk.
Equipment reliability: University and Matching company provide equipment.
Business: Matching company determines.
Market: Matching company determines.
Environmental: NEPA review process. 
Legal: University and matching company handle.
Intellectual property: Handled between university and company.

25. Energy from Biomass… Strengths and Weaknesses
Open to all states, universities, and companies.
Cost share significant. Industry/commercial partners upfront.
Scientific scrutiny of technical merit and budgets.
Repeat industrial customers.
Suggestions and/or Weaknesses
Not mission oriented to DOE-OBP. Needs to relate CPBR’s broad based research so that it is relative to their mission.
What does research incubator mean?
Scientific peer review should be open to scrutiny for its rigor.
DOE should be included in technical review of the proposed projects (not on the selection committee)
Research results not presented. Success of CPBR unknown. Ultimate commercialization tracks unknown.

26. Energy From Biomass…… Milestones and Metrics
Most are two-year projects funded one year at a time
Scientific progress report after 6 months
Second year application:
Scientific progress report for Year One
Objectives for Year Two
Matching company’s evaluation of scientific progress, satisfaction with communication with PI
Final scientific reports and company metrics
Quarterly fiscal monitoring, including expenditures of matching funds
Accomplishments to date (Selected)
Mark Eiteman and Elliot Altman – “A metabolic engineering approach to improve protein production”
Eric A. Grulke and Jose Collucci - “Ultrasonication for improved biodiesel production”
Sue N. Nokes and Herbert Strobel -“Development of novel technology for in situ saccharification and biomass conversion”
Galen Suppes, Fu-Hung Hsieh, Rakesh Bajpai - “Highly functional polyols for polyurethanes derived from vegetable oil”
Kelly A. Rusch, Chandra Theegala, Todd Monroe, and Ioan Negulescu - “Degradation behavior characteristics of bioplastics”
S.T. Yang - “A spouted bed bioreactor for solid state fermentation to produce enzymes”

27. Biodiesel Earmarks Overview
Organization
R&D or Demonstration
NextEnergy
Earmark
Demonstration
VT Sustainable JOBS Fund
AgraPure
McMinnville Electric System
Mississippi State University
University of Nebraska
Energy & Environmental Research Center
MS Soybean Association
Advanced Carbon Materials Center
University of Minnesota
Total Funding: DOE Portion $6,391,000, matching $2,509,570 Total Project Cost $8,900,570
Pathways Addressed: None – OBP currently does not have an oils platform
Stage Gate Review Comments: A review was held on June 8, 2005 in Golden, Colorado – all ten projects gave a 20 – 30 presentation
Achieving and improving biodiesel standards are a necessity
Meeting was positive and resulted in better communications and will be continued

28. Summary and Future Work
Program has several specific projects that are addressing the barriers identified in the multi-year technical plan
Barriers are identified within each project and progress is monitored project by project to ensure progress towards overall program goals
Project portfolio is well suited to support the biorefinery concept-several projects are poised for commercial success
In the future, product specific projects will be rolled up into the biorefinery program
Core research directed at overcoming major barriers will continue
Continuation of projects will be based on likelihood of success, commercial potential and availability of funding
Recommended time for this slide: 1 min
Purpose: Describe what will be done in the remainder of this year and in the coming year.

29. Backup slides

30. Not all barriers fully addressed
The program recognizes that it currently has major technology gaps in the area of converting sugars to liquid transportation fuels.
The primary gaps are in the utilization of five carbon sugars and the overall robustness of available organisms.
The following is a list of the specific areas of R&D required to meet the goal of reducing the cost of ethanol production by $0.18/gallon.
Biologically derived production of ethanol
Conversion efficiency
Pentose utilization
Hydrolysate toxicity
Advanced metabolic engineering tools development
Organism robustness
Separation and purification
Thermochemical conversion to produce fuels: the primary gaps are in the development of robust catalysts that afford high selectivity to the desired products. The specific research needs to achieve an economically viable fuel is given below. The overall economics are still being developed and will lead to a specific cost target for conversion.
Chemically derived fuels from pyrolysis oils
New catalyst systems
Effective catalyst design
Selectivity and yield
Catalyst lifetime

31. New Yeast Fundamentals Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:
May have a fit but needs a bit better rationalization of the need for this work. Q&A point out they had a yeast colloquy that highlighted needs and requirements and they claimed these haven’t changed.
Could have used more direct customers on tech advisory versus corn refiners/NCGA only dry grind plants
What role are partners truly playing (i.e. metrics from published data not industry partners)
Need true commercial partner with biotech expertise
Customers need to be on review panel
What is distinct about their approach versus others?
Reasonable explanation of progress versus plans and performance targets. Would like to have seen how the performance metrics are being met. Are they 50% on the path to the goal or 30%?
Need some feedback from the strain development industry on the ability to turn this into a commercial strain and what needs to be done. Not clearly articulated beyond cost and yield
PI Response
No proof justifying industry claims that yeast ferments pentose efficiently - technical hurdles and issues raised in earlier yeast colloquies still remain
A successful biorefinery will require a robust ethanologen. Our proposed research compliments other efforts
Past CRADA work with CRA and NCGA, were interested in arabinose because arabinose it is a significant component of corn fiber and DDGs

32. Engineering Thermotolerant … Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:
Need to incorporate industry in the project at least understand the willingness to use the organism. Could be a showstopper
No feedback from industry to justify this approach. However, they have good arguments to justify their approach.
PI Response
BC Intl. and Purac have expressed an interest in these organisms for ethanol and lactic acid production, respectively.
We are working closely with BC Intl. in developing these biocatalysts for biomass to ethanol conversion.

33. Center for Catalysis Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:
Can only judge projects presented – would have been nice to see process of overall selection and review
The specific projects presented here seem to have made good technical progress; however, they did not refer to quantitative performance milestones aside from economic targets. Difficult to determine how competitive the process was
Disappointing that it is limited to Iowa State researchers: should solicit best projects for biocatalysis worldwide to be truly worldwide
Not clear on overall strategy and approach of center
It is uncertain that all of the current and future projects funded by this group are aligned with the goals of OBP.
The competitiveness of their process with other diesel production methods has to be considered. Their technical approaches have significant innovation, but the ultimate technical feasibility is still highly questionable.
Not a clear set of economics using glycerol cost sensitivities although they did acknowledge it. Still in early stages of R&D for getting numbers, but have demonstrated the concept.
If cannot overcome catalyst operation cost vs basic methanolysis then this will be a problem.
Showstoppers not well addressed.
Dependent on continued DOE funding (earmarks)? Alternatives?
PI Response covered in Poster Session…

34. Energy from Biomass… Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments DOE Requested Responses/Follow up from PI:
Difficult to determine alignment with DOE objectives
Would be good to have DOE a part of review process
Not clear how projects are measured or criteria against which they are measured
(Critical Success Factors and Showstoppers) Not addressed – but assume addressed by company
What level is DOE funding this program on an annual basis?
It is very important that CPBR systematically track any follow-on R&D, and commercial development that evolves from the “seed projects” that they have funded.
Significant cost-sharing by industry members implies that there is both commercial relevance and good technical competence in the projects, and some anecdotal information supporting this point was presented. But was this cherry-picking?
Hard to obtain info from industry on real applications, but should continue to seek information on that front from industry.
Said had funding from EPA. Does that mean money from EPA or more earmarks?
Disappointed that didn’t bother to even make slides of the research results. Very vague quotes of research plans and results.
Presentation so far from the scope of the review that the “project” was difficult to review.
PI Response covered in Poster Session…