« Back to the top page
Venture Beat
Like the story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

Sequesco joins a growing list of startups that are using synthetic biology to custom-produce advanced biofuels. But unlike competitors SunEthanol and Amyris, which are engineering microbes to make cellulosic ethanol from various plant biomass sources, it uses waste carbon dioxide as its primary feedstock.

The idea is to pump CO2 from large emitters like coal plants or biorefineries into the firm’s bioreactors, in which large colonies of bacteria would use the greenhouse gas and a nutrient broth to produce ethanol, biodiesel and other valuable byproducts. The protein-rich byproduct could be sold as animal feed or fertilizer, while the lipid-rich byproduct could be converted into bioplastics.

This is similar to what GreenFuel Technologies, a Cambridge, Mass.-based algal biodiesel maker, has been doing. It pipes in CO2 from power plants or industrial processes through large ponds filled with algae to make them grow and then harvests them. Sequesco’s business model can best be described as a hybrid between what GreenFuel and Amyris are doing.

Sequesco’s bacteria grow 10 times faster than most algae raised for biodiesel, and because they are non-photosynthetic, they can be grown 24 hours a day, rain or shine. Area isn’t a constraint for the bugs (only volume is), so they can be cultured in conventional, low-cost bioreactors. Since space isn’t an issue, there’s great potential for scalability, and the bioreactors can be installed almost anywhere.

One of the technology’s main benefits, CEO Lisa Dyson tells me, is that it makes biofuel production a two-step process: CO2 to biomass and then to ethanol/biodiesel. This helps keep costs in check and dramatically speeds up the process — which will come in handy when the firm transitions into commercial-scale production.

Over time, the firm plans to further modify the microbes to coax them into producing more lipid- and carbohydrate-rich biomass — which, in turn, would mean more biodiesel and ethanol. Its long-term goal is to make it a one-step process: CO2 to biofuel.

Dyson thinks combining sequestration with biofuel production will also help give her firm an edge over rivals. Piping in waste CO2 from emitters lets the company reduce its carbon footprint and would, through a cap-and-trade system, allow it to earn revenue by selling carbon credits.

With the ethanol backlash still going strong — a leaked World Bank report recently concluded that biofuels have caused food prices to increase by 75 percent — money has been pouring into algal biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. Sapphire Energy and Aurora Biofuels, both algal fuel producers, have raised major funding rounds — to the tune of $50 million and $20 million, respectively — over the past few months. EdeniQ, an Encino, Calif.-based cellulosic ethanol startup, raised $33 million in May and claims to be hard at work on bringing the cost below $1.50 a gallon in the near future.

While still a young firm — it was started this February — Sequesco has already set some ambitious targets. Dyson said it planned to have a demonstration facility up by the end of 2010, to be followed in short succession with small and large commercial-scale plants in subsequent fiscal years. It may appear later this year at CopenMind, a cleantech event which aims to help universities market their licensable technologies to VCs and other investors.

At this stage, the firm is looking for seed funding and has already talked to several private investors.

Reprinted with permission from VentureBeat. Story copyright 2008 VentureBeat Inc. All rights reserved.

Comments

It is a good idea, but in the end doesn't the CO2 still end up in the atmosphere (after the biofuel is combusted)? To me it seems that you are getting two uses for the CO2 (one for the first power generation and the second for biofuel) so that is good. If the CO2 can help lower the cost and other environmental impact of biofuel production (not chopping down more forrest to produce biomass) then this still has real merits. I would like to see a CO2 "balanced equation" or comparison to really understand how much CO2 would be conserved.


CO2 is not the problem, Greg. Where does the system get its energy? Most algae systems use sunlight, which is "free" energy. Where does Sequesco get its energy? From a "nutrient broth?" What nutrients are those, and where do they come from?

It is the energy equation that must balance, not the CO2 equation, which is clearly beyond most modern humans' ability to calculate.


In the beginning they are taking fossil fuel CO2 and recycling to grow bacteria. If no more fossil fuels are used to produce CO2, then you have a carbon neutral world because your not producing new CO2 just recycling the old, again and again. As long there are no other elements creating new CO2, nature will start absorbing the excess. Maybe in the far, far future we will need to find ways of making new CO2 because we cleaned the air of too much of it. I hope so!


I agree with Greg D's comment that this technology does not make the fossil fuel-emitted CO2 disappear (like sequestration does - CO2 from underground coal and oil is stored back in the ground). In Sequesco's case the CO2 derived from fossil fuel is reconverted into a fuel and then spit back into the atmosphere. If the amount spit back is less than the amount released by burning the fossil fuel then there is some small sequestration happening. Presumably the CO2 saved takes a non-decaying form so as to keep that CO2 stored.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Respectful debate is welcome, but comments that are defamatory, indecent, abusive, or in violation of any law will be removed.