EPA Increases RFS Blending Mandates for 2013

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released the proposed Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) for the 2013 calendar year. Not surprisingly, the blending targets for all four biofuel categories recognized by the EPA (cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, renewable fuel) have increased. However, the new targets for cellulosic biofuel (client registration required) especially have been a major source of controversy.

The EPA issued a $6.8 million penalty on blenders for failing to meet the 6.6 million gallon cellulosic biofuel mandate for the year 2011. This fine was met with considerable resistance by the oil and gas trade group, American Petroleum Institute (API), because the EIA estimated that there were no known commercial production of cellulosics in 2011, making it impossible for refiners to meet those requirements. The 2012 blending mandate for cellulosics was 8.65 million gallons, a number refiners didn’t meet given that the EPA estimated that the total cellulosic biofuel production in 2012 was just 21,000 gallons. In response to the lack of supply, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA cannot fine refiners for not meeting the blending mandates with biofuels that don’t physically exist.

Many cellulosic producers blame the unreliability of RFS mandates for its slow growth. However, in order to ultimately compete in the fuels market, cellulosic producers need to prove that its fuel can compete on a cost basis to first generation ethanol as well as fossil fuels. The U.S. government has already created a $30 billion market for biofuels through its blending mandates, an enormous opportunity that cellulosic producers have yet to penetrate thus far, because capital and operating costs are too high.

After the ruling, it is not surprising that API was unhappy with the subsequent proposed cellulosic biofuel blending mandate of 14 million gallons for 2013. Cellulosic biofuel production is beginning to ramp up, and if producers such as Kior and Abengoa progress on schedule, blenders should have the ability to meet the RFS. However, delays are expected, and it is likely that the supply will again not meet the regulated demand (client registration required). Cellulosic biofuels producers are on the clock for the next two years, and the outcome of these first production facilities will set the tone for possibly more permanent cellulosic blending regulations in the future.

Steven Chu steps down at U.S. Department of Energy, leaving a mixed legacy

Last week brought the widely expected news that Steven Chu will be stepping down as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Chu has been a hero to scientists and clean energy advocates, but on his watch the DOE has made some questionable decisions, particularly from a commercialization and business standpoint. That said, Chu has also laid the groundwork for a strong legacy of energy innovation – if those initiatives produce results, he may justly be regarded as one of the most important DOE Secretaries since the department was created in 1977.

Unfortunately for Chu and DOE, the name “Solyndra” will appear in the first paragraph of most appraisals of his term – the DOE’s ill-fated $535 million loan guarantee (client registration required) to the Silicon Valley solar panel maker became a rallying cry for opposition to the Obama administration’s clean energy investments. Other recipients of DOE loan guarantees and other largesse, including A123 Systems (client registration required), Beacon Power (client registration required), EnerDel, and Abound Solar (client registration required), have also filed for bankruptcy. While there was a case for deploying government funds when private investors largely stopped lending during the financial crisis, the DOE loan guarantee program mixed investments in reliable projects, like solar power plants using established technologies, with funds for firms like Solyndra that faced steep technical and market risks. It was highly likely that several would fail, but DOE either underestimated the risks or wasn’t well prepared for the political fallout (or some combination of both), and arguably hurt the cause of government support for new energy technologies – previously a point of bipartisan consensus.

Chu’s DOE also showed commercial naïveté in its claim that it could help bring 1 million electric vehicles to U.S. roads by 2015 – and President Obama personally cited Chu’s assurances in defending the administration’s focus on electric vehicles. While the DOE target included plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) like the Chevy Volt, as well as all-electric vehicles (EVs), only around 250,000 such vehicles will realistically be in operation in the U.S by the end of 2015 (see the report “Small Batteries, Big Sales: The Unlikely Winners in the Electric Vehicle Market” — client registration required). Anemic sales to date of PH/EVs also belie such optimism, and just before Chu stepped aside, DOE began publicly backing away from the goal – suggesting that DOE’s EV enthusiasm may not have been the best use of its resources.

What’s more, DOE has largely been on the sidelines of the most important energy story of Obama’s first term – the phenomenal boom in domestic gas and oil production, driven by technologies like hydraulic fracturing. To some extent that’s only right – by the time the technology (which had benefitted from DOE support in decades past) was ready for prime time, the industry hardly needed further help from DOE. However, given the impact this production will have on the energy and climate picture in the U.S., and the remaining technology and policy needs to help access these resources safely and make the best use of them, it’s surprising how little focus they’ve received (barely meriting a mention in Chu’s review of his term in his resignation letter).

Despite these stumbles, history may well look kindly on Chu’s tenure, because programs he’s championed have the potential to create a generation of impactful new technologies and keep the U.S. a center of innovation in energy. Through the network of 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers, and especially the new Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), the DOE is funding research on really novel technologies with a breadth, depth, and purpose beyond its previous basic science efforts. ARPA-E, in particular, is well-positioned to help fill a void left by venture capitalists that are (wisely, by their financial standards) increasingly reluctant to invest in early-stage energy technologies. If these programs help shepherd along impactful energy technologies that that come to the market over the next decade, they’ll have a greater impact than even a successful Solyndra would have, and will validate Chu’s initiatives.

Given the ups and downs of Chu’s tenure, who should Obama tap to replace him? Some favor another academic, like Shirley Jackson of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, or Ernest Moniz of the MIT Energy Initiative, to continue to build DOE’s innovation efforts. Others argue that DOE’s commercial blind spot argues for a businessperson like Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers. While a course correction is needed, and energy business acumen at DOE would be welcome, a utility executive may not be the best steward of Chu’s innovation legacy (and may sit uneasily atop what’s still largely a scientific agency). A business leader with more innovation experience could serve admirably – GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been floated, though seems unlikely to serve. Otherwise, given the controversies DOE has weathered and the need to defend its budget in an era of sequestration and discretionary spending cuts, a more seasoned politician might also be a wise choice to follow Chu. Someone like former (moderate) Republican governor and EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman or past North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan could serve to consolidate Chu’s gains in long-term innovation, but would still be inclined to pivot the agency more toward the pressing issues of the day.

The Road to Accelerating On-Site Generation Technology Adoption Runs Through Internal Capex Reduction

Diesel generators’ vice-like grip on the building on-site generation market is loosening as emerging technologies increase in scale and maturity, and Fortune 500 companies commit to more sustainable operations. High-capacity factor options, such as fuel cells, will generate much higher volumes of electricity and heat than other options like solar and wind. However, solar and wind have lower upfront costs, and generate energy more economically. Broadly, each technology has its shortcomings – and struggles in a “base” scenario without incentives.

Multiple looming factors make the prospect of on-site generation increasingly attractive to adopters whether for commercial, industrial or residential purposes. Chief among them? Taxes on carbon dioxide emissions, capital expenditure reductions for generation equipment, and rising energy prices. Broadly – though not always the case – the strongest determinant of improved economics is lowered equipment capital expenditure. Given the lack of scale for fuel cells and biomass boilers, in addition to the price free-fall in solar, added potential for cost reduction should provide optimism for potential adopters that selective decisions today will lead to business-positive economics. Even small wind,  which ranges from 2 kW to 40 kW in size, has potential from an economic perspective, although in the on-site aspect makes ‘not-in-my-backyard’ a quite literal adoption barrier. In fact, most emerging technology options can become viable within a short time frame, and for industry stakeholders, technology innovations remain critical. Those without a focus on cost reduction (or performance improvement at constant costs) will find themselves without a foothold in a market.

Plenty of bad decisions will still be made given that deployment of a viable technology in the right application and in the right geography are each required to drive adoption. Above all, executing on cost reduction is pivotal but, assuming this is delivered, developers and potential adopters should have confidence that selective decisions today will lead to business-positive economics tomorrow.

Battery electric vehicles will face serious competition in the race to reach 54.5 mpg

The U.S. government has announced much stricter fuel efficiency standards for the future, requiring a 54.5 mpg average for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025. This would nearly double the fuel efficiency that vehicles must currently achieve by law. The standards will scale according to vehicle footprint: 61.1 mpg will be required of an average compact car by 2025, while large pickup trucks will be allowed 33.0 mpg. The announcement also includes special provisions for large hybrids, and for vehicles powered by electricity, natural gas, and fuel cells. Among these is the ability of alternative-fuel car-makers to sell credits earned by exceeding the standards. Major carmakers were involved in discussions with the government prior to its decision, and mostly support the 54.5 mpg target. However, in order to boost fuel efficiency, they will incur significant research and production costs, which will be passed on to car buyers.

There are multiple reasons why battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will not benefit significantly from the mandate. First, 54.5 mpg will be achievable even with the smaller batteries of micro-hybrids, mild hybrids, full hybrids (HEVs), and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs),
especially when coupled with the use of lightweighting technologies (client registration required). The shift to BEVs is driven more by strict policies like California’s zero-emission vehicle standard, however strict regulations such as that remain few and far between. Secondly, the ability of BEV companies like Tesla to sell credits to others is not a business model: credits can boost revenues modestly, but will not save a company or make a vehicle line profitable. Furthermore, the final version of the standard allows competing natural gas vehicles to qualify for the credit, as well. Finally, as the incumbent internal combustion engine powered vehicle approaches 54.5 mpg, it will erode two key selling points of the electric car – lower fueling costs and lower total cost of ownership.

Therefore, clients looking for winners from the new standards should track three other spaces. The first are incremental improvements to today’s vehicles, including turbochargers, efficient transmissions, and lightweight materials. Next, in the hybrid space,
manufacturers of small and medium-size lithium-ion packs will see increased volumes due to growing adoption of HEVs, PHEVs, and potentially micro- and mild hybrids (see the report “Every Last Drop: Micro- And Mild Hybrids Drive a Huge Market for Fuel-Efficient Vehicles” — client registration required). Finally, leaders in natural gas and fuel cells stand to benefit: in the U.S., Honda is the only carmaker offering a commercially-available compressed natural gas passenger vehicle. The company is also a frontrunner in fuel cell development, along with Toyota, GM, Daimler, and Hyundai.

Terrabon files for bankruptcy, as strategic investors re-evaluate portfolios

Waste-to-fuels company Terrabon filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in September. Terrabon CEO Gary Luce said that the firm was “unable to obtain additional funding,” and approximately 60 employees were laid off. The company had a history of missing key milestones, and we flagged this nearly one year ago in our last profile of the company (client registration required.) Two years ago, the company was expecting a $25 million funding (client registration required) round in the first half of 2011.

Terrabon was developing a multi-step process to convert wet waste into drop-in gasoline and jet fuel. The process features bacteria fermentation, pyrolysis, then a catalytic conversion into gasoline. In this multi-step process, yield loss was a significant factor, and Terrabon expected a yield of 70 gallons per ton of dry feedstock, much lower than fellow waste convertors like Enerkem (90 gallon/ton) and Fulcrum (120 gallon/ton). Terrabon, however, was targeting different feedstocks than most other waste convertors, focusing on wet waste. Terrabon focused on a mix of municipal solid waste (MSW), sludge, and biomass, and its feedstock was 30% solids, much lower than that of its competitors.

Among its investors, Waste Management and Valero decided not to give out the big dollars necessary to keep the company afloat and build its first commercial facility. Looking first at Valero’s portfolio, it becomes clear the rocky track record Valero has in this space. First and foremost, Valero is the third largest ethanol producer in the U.S. (client registration required) behind POET and ADM, though recently it idled a 110 MGY facility in Nebraska (client registration required.) Valero also invested in biofuel failure Qteros (client registration required), behind-schedule producers Enerkem and Mascoma, and cellulosic ethanol company ZeaChem. Beyond cellulosic ethanol, Valero is scaling up a renewable diesel facility in a joint venture called Diamond Green Diesel.

Terrabon’s other strategic investor, Waste Management, similarly has several waste-to-fuel companies in its portfolio (client registration required), including Enerkem, Fulcrum, and Agilyx. Most recently, WM invested in pretreatment company Renmatix, capping off its $75 million Series C. While the recent Renmatix investment (and investment in Genomatica before that) shows that WM isn’t pulling out of the fuels space altogether, we do expect to see strategic investors like WM continue to pare down portfolios. This doesn’t mean that strategic investment will go away, or even decrease, just that new companies and technologies may take the place of current investments. Oil giant Shell, for example, significantly downsized its relationships with Iogen and Codexis (client registration required) this year.

Corporate investment in this space boomed in 2007 and 2008, see the report “Hedging Bets with Flexibility in Alternative Fuels” (client registration required), and the partnering web expanded most rapidly in 2008 and 2009, see the report “Mapping Empires, Goldmines, and Landmines in the Alternative Fuels Network” (client registration required.) Over the past four to five years, strategics funded innovation at these start-ups, and now these producers need to perform commercially. Missing technical and project scale milestones won’t cut it anymore, and the corporate parents are kicking their kids out of the house, to sink or swim on their own. Expect to see more relationships falter in this space, but even more form as innovative companies continue to emerge, promising new sources of fuels and novel conversions, and new types of organizations partner their way into the alternative fuels arena.

Automotive Partnership Ecosystems Emerging Today Dictate Success Tomorrow

The automobile is at a turning point, unprecedented in its 100+ years of history. Rising gas prices, stricter fuel economy standards, a progressively more environmentally conscious customer base and forward-looking business models are all breaking the traditional automotive ecosystem. In response, OEMs are evolving their partnership webs in order to endure and compete.

This week’s graphic comes from a recent Lux Research report in which analysts examined the growing web of cross‐cutting industry relationships to see how automakers compared on the Lux Partnership Grid. Companies were scored on two metrics, partnership strength and technology diversity. Based on these scores, each automaker fell into one of the four quadrants in the graphic above.

Lone Wolves represent OEMs that are continuing business as usual, and have little footprint in the emerging technologies that threaten the status quo. The Dilute ecosystem quadrant encompasses automakers with a few partnerships scattered across a variety of technologies. The Siloed ecosystem includes OEMs that are putting their faith in a few, or in some cases one technology, while the Expansive ecosystem hosts OEMs who average nearly 16 partnerships apiece, representing an average of eight unique technologies.

A review of the partnership grid reveals multiple trends:

  • Small companies tend to cluster in the Lone Wolves region, while large corporations partner ambitiously in a variety of areas so they group more in the Expansive quadrant. One exception is Fiat-Chrysler, which has only three, unsubstantial partnerships to its name.
  • Daimler, GM, and Toyota lead the pack. All have formed strong partnerships in pursuit of technical diversity, placing them squarely in the Expansive ecosystem. Daimler has developed partnerships that span multiple key emerging technologies, including a JV with Toray to make carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) (Client registration required), a JV with Evonik (Li-Tec) to make Li-ion batteries (Client registration required), and participation in Europe’s Clean Energy Partnership for establishing fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
  • Meanwhile, General Motors (GM) has emerged from a low point in its corporate history to emerge as a future looking company by partnering in a variety of technologies, and investing in companies at a variety of stages. It has invested in battery start-ups like Envia Systems (Client registration required) and Sakti3 (Client registration required), and in the fuels space with ethanol companies Mascoma (Client registration required) and Coskata (Client registration required). In the materials space, GM also sees value in CFRP, forming a JV with Japanese materials company Teijin.
  • Lastly, Toyota is leveraging its leadership in hybrids, to position itself for advances elsewhere, such as advanced electrification (via its investment in Tesla). It also retains activity in hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure, where it teamed with Air Products and Shell to install the first pipeline-fed hydrogen station in the U.S. In materials, Toyota has partnered with Toray to source CFRP initially used for the hood and roof of one of its Lexus models. As with Daimler and GM, these activities will prepare Toyota to profit from an ever changing landscape where the vehicle of tomorrow may not look like anything conceived today, but will no doubt carry key technologies in the areas of energy storage, increased connectivity, and new materials.

Source: Lux Research report “Under the Hood: Mapping Automotive Innovations to Megatrends.”

Amyris’s Shake up: A True Housecleaning or Sign It’s Desperate to Partner to Grow Demand?

Just days before its quarterly earnings call this month, Amyris sparked a sell-off of its stock when it announced that President and CEO John Melo would keep his job as three other executives leave: Mario Portela, former President of Global Operations and COO; Tamara Tompkins, former Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary; and Neil Renninger, former Chief Technical Officer. We interviewed Neil for Lux’s recent profile of Amyris (Client registration required), just before the announcement of back-peddling on earnings and production targets. Neil will remain a member of Amyris’s Board of Directors, which isn’t a surprise since he was among the original co-founders.

In addition to the departures, several other executives will change positions or join Amyris. Highlights include Peter Boynton, formerly of Tate & Lyle – one of Amyris’s partners – and who’s been with Amyris since late 2009, will now lead business development (See the report, “Solving the Bio-Based Chemicals Partnership Puzzle.” Client registration required.). Paulo Diniz, who has been leading Amyris Brasil, will add strategic partnerships to his responsibilities. Gary Loeb, eleven-year veteran of Genentech before joining Amyris in mid-2011, will take the lead as Amyris General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. Steve Mills brings three decades of experience at ADM to his new role as Chief Financial Officer. Mark Patel shifts from VP of Strategy to Senior VP of Commercial Operations, concerned with products strategy and sales growth. Ramesh Raman was promoted from VP Global Supply Chain Operations to Senior VP of Global Manufacturing, responsible for manufacturing and supply chain.

In light of Amyris’s recent changes in earnings and production guidance, it’s no secret things need to change there. But no evidence of show-stopping technical challenges exists. Given that, a drastic management shake-up is not warranted, if the existing team can accelerate demand growth.

In addition, what’s striking about this “shake-up” is how little it changed things. Minor alterations to titles and “promotions” from VP to Senior VP. The exits of the former COO, CTO, and General Counsel and addition of the ADM veteran CFO reflect housekeeping rather than full house-cleaning on the part of CEO Melo and the Board. Melo retains the Board’s support, taking an approach of scapegoating a few, rather than starting from scratch and reflects no decisive change in strategy – except to focus on growth.

Though Amyris could potentially be the next casualty in the unquestionably harrowing world of bioproduct commercialization, the Board may realize in the face of possible bankruptcy it should allow Melo to focus on growing demand, rather than hiring another management team. Adjusting to more austere times and doing the hard work of increasing demand is the new normal for Amyris, and this may be the best time to invest with an equity stake and partner with Amyris, ever. The question remains, however: Can Amyris build or access sufficient markets to bring in substantial revenue with its farnesene-based platform?

The Lux Top 10

During the fourth quarter of 2011, Lux Research analysts profiled 262 companies across 12 different emerging technology domains in the fourth quarter of 2011.Here are the 10 they thought were the most compelling. Some, such as Proterro, stand out for their disruptive potential. Others, such as Diamon-Fusion, made the grade with well-executed business strategies. The competition for a Top 10 spot will only get hotter as we expand our portfolio of coverage domains to include Energy Electronics and a broadened green buildings portfolio.

1. Diamon-Fusion International – Positive – Advanced Materials

With its transparent silicone film used to coat silica-based substrates, Diamon-Fusion is one of the few startups in the protective coatings space with a strong track record in both technology and business execution.

2. Proterro – Wait-and-see – Bio-based Materials and Components

Proterro is commercializing a strain of photosynthetic organism that produces sugars at levels ten times more productive than sugarcane and in a configuration that could deliver the holy grail of “five cent” sugars (i.e. five cents per pound). But it will need funding and downstream partners to scale its potentially breakthrough technology beyond a lab prototype.

3. Topell Energy – Positive – Alternative Fuels

Working with German utility RWE, Topell Energy scaled its first commercial torrefaction facility in 2011 to convert wood waste into bio-coal pellets. Topell is a leader in the torrefaction space and is positioned to capitalize on healthy incentives in the EU for coal/bio-coal co-firing.

4. Spirae: Wait-and-see – Smart Grid

With the growing grid penetration of renewable energy sources and the inherent difficulty in managing their fluctuating inputs, Spirae could be in a prime position to support utility infrastructure with its comprehensive control and management system – if it can prove its concept on a large scale and secure long-term utility contracts.

5. eIQ Energy – Positive – Solar Systems

One of the few DC/DC optimizer companies staying with stand-alone hardware, eiQ partners with engineering, procurement, and construction companies that can realize its technology’s value in the strong commercial market segment.

6. Pervasive Displays – Wait-and-see – Printed Electronics

Using a technology honed for the One Laptop Per Child Program, Pervasive Displays produces low-power electrophoretic display modules that target application developers for warehouse signage and electronic shelf labels. While Pervasive has power advantages from its control functions, it will need to drive its costs down to compete with more established competitors and access a broader market.

7. Kurion – Positive – Water

A high-risk but high-profit U.S. nuclear contamination control company that rapidly scaled to clean up the Japanese Fukushima radioactive cooling water problem. The work generated massive windfall profits when no one else on the planet was prepared to deal with the problem.

8. Hycrete – Wait-and-see – Green Buildings

Hycrete’s water barrier technology improves the durability of concrete infrastructure at prices significantly cheaper than the incumbent membrane-based approach. But it will need to establish partnerships with well-known infrastructure or chemical companies in order to gain market access in the conservative infrastructure segment.

 

9. Citic Guoan MGL – Wait-and-see – China Innovation, Electric Vehicles

In the sea of Chinese lithium-ion battery developers, state-owned MGL stands out for its traction in China’s electric and hybrid-electric bus market. Its strong government relationships could provide ready channels to market for would-be foreign technology partners. But competition with other domestic firms such as China Aviation Lithium Battery Corporation (CALB) will be fierce.

10. Ablynx – Wait-and-see – Formulation and Delivery

Ablynx engineers its “nanobodies” – therapeutic proteins derived from antibodies in camel blood – to specifically deliver small molecule drugs to a target site. Despite stiff competition in the saturated antibody field and a multitude of emerging targeting strategies (such as DNA aptamers), Ablynx has snagged more than its share of heavyweight partners (Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Norvartis, Pfizer), and is generating tens of millions in revenue to assist in its own healthy development pipeline.

Our Take on Recent Headlines about SG Biofuels, CoolPlanet, and Joule Finance Deals

What the media reported about SG Biofuels: SG Biofuels recently completed a $17 million Series B funding round – the first funds raised for the company since a $9.4 million Series A in September 2010*. SG Biofuels said the funding will “advance commercialization efforts,” and that it has customers for 250,000 acres of jatropha.

What we think: SG is developing advanced jatropha to produce oils for biodiesel production. It claims its technology doubles the natural jatropha yield, and is targeting marginal, and otherwise undesirable, land for cultivation. Like other potential energy crops, jatropha has a very limited production capacity and, today, agricultural, municipal, and forestry waste are available in much larger quantities, and thus represent stronger near term options for next generation biofuels (see the report “Biofuels’ and Biomaterials’ Path to Petroleum Parity“*).

Aside from the lack of scale, jatropha faces issues* associated with crushing facility infrastructure, transportation, as well as toxicity. To overcome these key hurdles, SG has several strong partnerships positioned throughout the value chain, including Bunge, Life Technologies, and Flint Hill Resources. The latter two invested in the recent round. Because of these key relationships, SG is in a good position to be a leader in the jatropha-based fuels space, and companies looking to develop oil crops should engage, with the aforementioned key hurdles in mind.

* * *

What the media reported about CoolPlanet BioFuels: Before the new year, CoolPlanet BioFuels raised an undisclosed amount of Series C funding round that included old investors GE, Google Ventures, ConocoPhillips, NRG, and new investor BP. CoolPlanet raised its $20 million Series B in March 2011.

What we think: With this new investment round, CoolPlanet continues its push to amass capital and world-class strategic investors. The company is developing small-scale (1MGY), portable pyrolysis units to convert agricultural waste such as wood chips and corn stover into a gasoline replacement.

The small-scale facilities open up niche markets for the units, while making it easier for the company to raise the necessary capital, collect the biomass, and attain the permits for construction. Though further data is necessary to affirm the efficiencies and economics of CoolPlanet’s small-scale production, the company is uniquely positioned as it is producing ethyl BTX, a gasoline equivalent and drop-in fuel.

For both SG and CoolPlanet, the key investors are also strategic, and such relationships will be essential as both companies scale. As start-ups continue the ongoing hunt for capital, corporate investors are leading the push while institutional investors withdraw from the industry (see the report “Hedging Bets with Flexibility in Alternative Fuels“).

* * *

What the media said about Joule Unlimited: Joule Unlimited recently raised $70 million in private equity investment, bringing in over $110 million over the lifetime of the company, which broke ground at its first production site in 2011.

What we think: Though its fundraising to date has been impressive, we maintain our skeptical view on Joule due to the company’s inability – or unwillingness – to provide details on its lofty claims* In our previous conversation, CEO Bill Sims was unable to answer basic questions* about its Dutch subsidiary and fundamental cost metrics, among other items.

However, the real concern with Joule, underscored by the recent news item, is its lack of commercial partners. The company’s recent funding round, unlike SG’s and CoolPlanet’s recent rounds, did not feature any corporate investors. Though Joule’s ability to raise money in an environment where institutional investors are turning elsewhere does warrant some praise, its lack of commercial partners will hurt the company as it scales up its novel technology and faces a myriad of technical challenges. Companies and investors should approach with caution.

* Client registration required.

Alternative Fuels: Rating Bioprocessing Companies on the Lux Innovative Grid

As the alternative fuels industry rapidly approaches maturity, reports of IPOs and commercialization have blended with headlines about spectacular failures and cheap acquisitions. The remaining players navigate a landscape of prospective partners, funding, and scale as well as serious uncertainty (read: opportunity).

A thorough examination of the field reveals contenders, dark horses, and long-shots within several technology classes, including pretreatment, bioprocessing, and gasification. While many of these companies appear similar on paper, we applied the Lux Innovation Grid in a recent report to rate them in three dimensions – business execution, technical value, and maturity. Drawn from that report, this week’s graphic reveals likely winners and losers among Alternative Fuel bioprocessing companies which, as a group, offer strategic flexibility in feedstock and end-products.

The crowded Dominant Quadrant is due in part to the successful IPOs of Amyris, Gevo, and Solazyme, as well as the impending commercial scale of companies like LS9, Cobalt, and LanzaTech. Aemetis edges into the Dominant Quadrant thanks on the technological potential of its Z microbe, which simultaneously breaks down cellulosic biomass and converts the sugars into isoprene. ZeaChem also lands in the Dominant Quadrant due to high partnership and momentum scores, fueled by a recent funding round and joint development agreement with P&G.

Cellulosic ethanol producers Qteros and Mascoma both claim low cost production and robust organisms, but both fall into the High Potential Quadrant due to sagging business execution scores. Qteros’ Q microbe could lead to more efficient processing of biomass; but it recently laid off most of its staff, including its CEO. Touting similar technology, Mascoma filed for an IPO* in September, but could see its public launch hindered by capital intensity and slowing momentum.

Lastly, OPXBiotechnologies shows some interesting potential for developing microbes for acrylic acid (with partner Dow) and diesel as part of the ARPA-E funded Electrofuels project: https://portal.luxresearchinc.com/research/tidbit/8436*. But, on the fuels side, it falls into the Long-Shot Quadrant due to a competitive landscape score of 2, and a partnership score of 2, with an overall Lux Take of “wait and see.” Joule, on the other hand, we rate as a “caution” thanks to a barrier to growth score of 1, no commercial partners, and wholly unproven claims.

Source: Lux Research report “Refining Alternative Fuels Innovators into Winners and Losers.”

* Client registration required.