Robert Rapier analyzes the recent KiOR announcement — another Vinod Khosla biofuel venture. I recommend Robert’s analysis which includes a nice layman’s derivation of the mass balance of gasoline production from hydrocarbons (80%) or from biomass (20%). Here’s Robert’s conclusions:
(…) Conclusions
Does the process have potential? Yes, I would have to say that it has potential and this is one of the more promising approaches that Vinod Khosla has helped to develop. Is there a lot of hype and misinformation in the press releases? Yes, there is. What I have attempted to do in this essay is explain some of what is going on, and also to point toward the questions to ask when evaluating the process. Ultimately, the factors that will determine their success are the logistics of getting biomass into the plant and getting their oil processed into transportation fuel, the quality of the oil they produce, and the capital cost of the plant. (FCC units aren’t cheap, and this process adds steps to the conventional FCC process).
Can they compete with well-established companies like Ensyn or BTG-BTL companies that already have operating units? Ensyn has a big advantage in this space, having run pyrolysis units for over 20 years (one of which I have visited in Ontario). With Ensyn’s partnership with UOP to upgrade their pyrolysis oil — and over 20 years of pyrolysis oil experience under their belts — they are several steps ahead of KiOR in the path to commercialization.
On the other hand, KiOR’s use of catalytic cracking is a different spin on conventional pyrolysis, and success versus an Ensyn will ultimately be determined by any economic advantages of the oil KiOR produces. Both Ensyn and KiOR require further upgrading of their oil to transportation fuel, so the cost of upgrading KiOR’s oil will have to be substantially less to warrant the extra capital outlay for the catalytic cracker.
Recent Comments