Comments on: WTF Are Fourth-Generation Biofuels?

By: Agro Showdown to Shape Next-Gen Offsets, Biofuels

Agro Showdown to Shape Next-Gen Offsets, Biofuels — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:01:27 +0000

[...] surrounded it all — represent some of the final showdowns in a high-stakes fight over how first-generation biofuels that use agricultural crops for feedstock and agriculture-based carbon offsets will figure into, [...]

By: Jeremy Abramowitz

Jeremy Abramowitz — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:29:27 +0000

Crank! I was tooling around on the Internets reading about different generations of biofuels and stumbled upon your work. It is very nice to see that you are still involved in the business and continuing the good work you did in developing the Big Green Bus and other environmental initiatives from our student years. I work in technical programs for the Solid Waste Association of North America so my work involves research on waste-to-energy systems that are very similar in scope and process to advanced biofuels.

As far as third vs. fourth generation biofuels I would assume the biggest difference is the modification or engineering of the biogenic feedstocks themselves. So in a third generation system the distinguishing feature is the use of photobioreactors and other systems to cultivate autotrophic microorganisms, while a fourth-generation system might be characterized by an algae or cyanobacteria breeding program to select for especially useful qualities such as high hydrocarbon content or enhanced carbon storage. A photobioreactor can also be injected with exhaust, produced by combustion for energy production, for CO2 enhancement to as a way of increasing the efficiency of any fuel-based system. In other words: third- and fourth-generation biofuel systems can be retrofitted onto combustion power plants for CCS and an additional layer of fuel production with zero negative impact on existing sequestration (from accumulation in forests, soils, wetlands etc)

Kudos and keep up the good work!

-Jeremy Abramowitz

By: Drewster

Drewster — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:40:47 +0000

Third generation biofuels are considered to be produced from Algae biomass and not modification of feedstock sources. What you propose to be third generation biofuel is still biofuel from cellulose even though the source has been modified. Therefore I think that calling the further modification of these cellulose producers to store more carbon can still be considered second generation. Fourth generation biofuel could be biofuel from a different source such as the conversion of chitin from shellfish waste. Chitin is after cellulose the second most abundant biomolecule on earth.

By: Venter’s Synthetic Genomics Adds $8M for Palm Oil Research « Earth2Tech

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:33:51 +0000

[...] Synthetic Genomics eventually wants to use carbon dioxide as a feedstock for its “fourth-generation biofuels,” it will likely be work in feedstocks like palm oil and jathropa that yield positive cash [...]

By: nika

nika — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:04:26 +0000

Rory’s question is the same as mine.

The carbon is going into the sugars which then go to EtOH, Butanol, or other carbon compounds. I am not certain how this is anything but zero sum at best.

I have seen mention of “below soil” carbon sequestration which I am imagining is root biomass that is left behind and being added into the equation to try to semantically offset the carbon that is being pushed downhill into more combustion.

Every moment we burn fossil fuels (ancient carbon sequestration) we skew the equation further in the direction of increased carbon in the atmosphere and climate warming. Any use of biofuels (nascent carbon sequestration) is simply recycling the carbon we have on the surface of the earth. Because its not going into long term living beings (old growth forests) and is being pumped through the feedstock-to-fuel cycle very quickly, there is really no appreciable “real” impact to this very temporary carbon sequestration. Hope that makes sense.

Any serious biofuel discussion (development, investment, etc) should start from one simple question (mantra) - where is the nitrogen going to come from.

By: Web

Web — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:59:23 +0000

Green energy is definitely the best solution in most cases. Technology like solar energy, wind power, fuel cells, zaps electric vehicles, EV hybrids, etc have come so far recently. Green energy even costs way less than oil and gas in many cases.

By: Biocarburanti: La rapida evoluzione dei biocarburanti. 4 generazioni che si susseguono, dal mais ai batteri geneticamente modificati::.| Biodiesel,biocarburante,biofuel,bio carburanti,generazioni |

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:48:00 +0000

[...] Earth2Tech [...]

By: Craig Venter at TED: Replacing the Petrol Industry « Earth2Tech

Craig Venter at TED: Replacing the Petrol Industry « Earth2Tech — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:08:06 +0000

[...] biology, designing and synthesizing life, and creating “fourth generation biofuels” (WTF are those by the way?) at the TED conference recently. TED organizers just put the clip up on the site, and we’ve [...]

By: Roundup: Wordpress to launch BuddyPress, Craig Venter gets rid of Co2, and why Google’s click-throughs flattened » VentureBeat

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:08:29 +0000

[...] Craig Venter’s 4th generation biofuels? — Scientists are working on the next generation of biofuels, including a process to capture and sequester CO2 as biofuels are produced. This makes them a carbon negative source of fuel. Scientist Craig Venter says he can design organisms that will inhale CO2 and excrete sugars, and that he to do this in 18 months. There’s a good discussion at Earth2Tech. [...]

By: Hans

Hans — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:09:43 +0000

Wow, you got me raging on the title, but this is actually a really good read. In Germany bio-fuels have been mainstream since 10 years at least. The fact that we cannot simply fuel up on bio-diesel here is still crazy. Anyways, we are indeed on the fourth generation, and North America is just a little bit slow!!!! (sorry to hurt any feelings)

By: Rory Gawler

Rory Gawler — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:14:19 +0000

By the way, I think this is a comprehensive and highly interesting and relevant article.

By: Rory Gawler

Rory Gawler — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:13:47 +0000

Would feedstocks designed to inhale additional carbon be higher in energy content as well? Otherwise, wouldn't they just slightly delay climate change as all the extra carbon they inhaled was exhaled during their combustion?

What are Mr. Venters direct-to-sugar plants going to do with this carbon? It doesn't just disappear...