Advertisement

Cracking “Economies of Scale”: Biomanufacturing on Methane-Rich Feedstock

  • Anna M. Crumbley
  • Ramon Gonzalez
Chapter

Abstract

Methane is considered a “dream energy package” for chemical production. The large amount of energy stored in methane (CH4) and the current market trend toward lower CH4 price make the use of CH4 as a carbon and energy source for higher-value chemical production desirable. With a substantial stored energy capacity of 47 MJ/kg as determined by the lower heating value (LHV), CH4 represents a driving force behind only hydrogen (120 MJ/kg) as a high-energy feedstock for chemical production (Boundy et al. 2011). Recent natural gas prices put methane costs around $5/thousand cubic feet in 2016, one of the lowest trends since the early 2000s (Fig. 17.1a; U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017). While CH4 production volumes are increasing, due in part to transitions in oil and gas recovery techniques (Fig. 17.1b), the distributed and small-scale nature of many sites, together with CH4’s inherent chemical properties including flammability and gaseous nature, complicate its recovery and transportation using conventional technology (Fig. 17.1c; U.S. Energy Information Administration 2016). Rather, standard protocols at distributed or small-scale sites typically rely on flaring or venting of CH4 to the atmosphere to remove the gas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1991). Remote CH4, however, represents a potentially lucrative opportunity given the viable technology to recover and transform CH4 into a more readily transportable form, such as a liquid or solid value-added product (Haynes ans Gonzalez 2014; Conrado and Gonzalez 2014; Clomburg et al. 2017). Unique opportunities for industrial biomanufacturing that are not considered to be feasible for chemical manufacturing via traditional routes may be well-suited to address several challenges associated with remote CH4 recovery, such as utilizing small feedstock volumes, erecting compact facility operations at or near well sites, pursuing biological mechanisms for direct conversion of CH4 to higher-value fuels and chemicals in liquid or solid form, and considering early separation requirements during process design for efficient scale-up to commercial operation.

References

  1. Amorim HV (2006) Ethanol production in Brazil: a successful history. Ethanol production: impact in Brazil. Fermentation process: main characteristics 44–47Google Scholar
  2. Amorim HV, Lopes ML (2005) Ethanol production in a petroleum dependent world: the Brazilian experience. Sugar J 67:11–14Google Scholar
  3. Andrietta MGS, Andrietta SR, Steckelberg C, Stupiello ENA (2007) Bioethanol – Brazil, 30 years of Proálcool. Int Sugar J 109:195–200Google Scholar
  4. Austin RN, Callaghan AV (2013) Microbial enzymes that oxidize hydrocarbons. Front Microbiol 4:338CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton NR et al (2015) An integrated biotechnology platform for developing sustainable chemical processes. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 42:349–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Basso LC, Basso TO, Rocha SN (2011) Ethanol production in Brazil: the industrial process and its impact on yeast fermentation. Biofuel Prod Recent Dev Prospect 1530:85–100Google Scholar
  7. Batty JD, Rorke GV (2006) Development and commercial demonstration of the BioCOP(TM) thermophile process. Hydrometallurgy 83:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosecker K (1997) Bioleaching: metal solubilization by microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol Rev 20:591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boundy R, Diegel SW, Wright L, Davis SC (2011) Biomass energy data book, 4th edn. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Appendix ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boysen DA (2017) National Science Foundation (NSF) modular manufacturing workshop (Arlington, VA), p 41Google Scholar
  11. Brierley CL (1999) Bacterial succession in bioheap leaching. Process Metall 9:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brierley CL (2008) How will biomining be applied in future? Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China English Ed 18:1302–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brierley CL, Brierley JA (2013) Progress in bioleaching: Part B: applications of microbial processes by the minerals industries. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:7543–7552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown T (2013) Ammonia plants in North America. Google Fusion Table. Available at https://fusiontables.google.com/data?docid=1vXUF9q5X0vbWID_JAzpxaByp28lwlr3gs0y2zg8#map:id=3
  15. Campbell SL (2009) The continuous brewing of beer. Food-A-Beer 1:1–8Google Scholar
  16. CF (2016) Donaldsonvill nitrogen facility. Available at https://www.cfindustries.com/who-we-are/locations/donaldsonville-nitrogen-facility
  17. Cleveland TE, Kelman Z (2015) Isotopic labeling of proteins in Halobacterium salinarum. Methods Enzymol 565:147–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Clomburg JM, Crumbley AM, Gonzalez R (2017) Industrial biomanufacturing: the future of chemical production. Science 355:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conrado RJ, Gonzalez R (2014) Envisioning the bioconversion of methane to liquid fuels. Science 343:621–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Coombe J (2009) Feasibility study for small-scale ethanol production in MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  21. Cybulski A, Moulijn JA, Stankiewicz A (2011) Novel concepts in catalysis and chemical reactors: improving the efficiency for the future. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. https://books.google.com/books?id=Sa6HTlUii34C
  22. Dale R, Tyner W (2006) Economic and technical analysis of ethanol dry milling: model description. Purdue Univ. April. Available at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/5218817_Economic_And_Technical_Analysis_Of_Ethanol_Dry_Milling_Model_Description/file/79e4150eec5e1635d6.pdf
  23. David HL, Hammaker GS, Buzenberg RJ, Wagner JP (1978) Gasohol economic feasibility study. Oxford Univ., p 241Google Scholar
  24. Dicarlo JE et al (2013) Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res 41:4336–4343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Elvidge CD et al (2009) A fifteen year record of global natural gas flaring derived from satellite data. Energies 2:595–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elvidge CD, Zhizhin M, Hsu FC, Baugh KE (2013) VIIRS nightfire: satellite pyrometry at night. Remote Sens 5:4423–4449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Food and Agriculture Organization of the U. N. (2015) Wastewater treatment use in agriculture – Corp Doc Repos, p 21Google Scholar
  28. Fei Q et al (2014) Bioconversion of natural gas to liquid fuel: opportunities and challenges. Biotechnol Adv 32:596–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher AK, Freedman BG, Bevan DR, Senger RS (2014) A review of metabolic and enzymatic engineering strategies for designing and optimizing performance of microbial cell factories. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 11:91–99CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Flamholz A, Noor E, Bar-Even A, Liebermeister W, Milo R (2013) Glycolytic strategy as a trade-off between energy yield and protein cost. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:10039–10044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. García V, Päkkilä J, Ojamo H, Muurinen E, Keiski RL (2011) Challenges in biobutanol production: how to improve the efficiency? Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:964–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Genomatica (2016) Novamont opens world’s first commercial plant for bio-production of a major intermediate chemical. Available at http://www.genomatica.com/news/press-releases/Novamont-opens-worlds-first-commercial-plant-for-bio-based-intermediate/
  33. Godoy A, Amorim HV, Lopes ML, Oliveira AJ (2008) Continuous and batch fermentation processes: advantages and disadvantages of these processes in the Brazilian ethanol production. Int Sugar J 110:175–181Google Scholar
  34. Gonzalez R, Gentina JC, Acevedo F (2004) Biooxidation of a gold concentrate in a continuous stirred tank reactor: mathematical model and optimal configuration. Biochem Eng J 19:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grady CPL, Daigger GT, Love NG, Filipe CDM (2011) Biological wastewater treatment, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. https://books.google.com/books?id=stjLBQAAQBAJ
  36. GSK (2015) GSK invests a further S$77mil to enhance antibiotic manufacturing facility in Singapore, pp 1–3. https://sg.gsk.com/ensg/media/press-releases/2015/gsk-invests-a-further-s-77mil-to-enhance-antibiotic-manufacturing-facility-in-singapore/
  37. Haynes CA, Gonzalez R (2014) Rethinking biological activation of methane and conversion to liquid fuels. Nat Chem Biol 10:331–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hernandez R (2015) Continuous manufacturing: a changing processing paradigm. BioPharm Int 1–10Google Scholar
  39. Hettinga WG et al (2009) Comparative economics of biorefineries based on the biochemical and thermochemical platforms. Energy Policy 1:190–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huang HJ, Ramaswamy S, Liu Y (2014) Separation and purification of biobutanol during bioconversion of biomass. Sep Purif Technol 132:513–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Investimus Foris (2015) Investimus Foris announces $265 million ammonia plant in Grant Parish. Louisiana Econ Dev. http://www.opportunitylouisiana.com/led-news/news-releases/news/2015/07/22/investimus-foris-announces-$265-million-ammonia-plant-in-grant-parish
  42. Jakočinas T et al (2015) Multiplex metabolic pathway engineering using CRISPR/Cas9 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Metab Eng 28:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jessen N (2012) DuPont: collaborations key in building 30 MMgy cellulosic plant. Available at http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/9338/dupont-collaborations-key-in-building-30-mmgy-cellulosic-plant
  44. Kaluzhnaya M et al (2001) Taxonomic characterization of new alkaliphilic and alkalitolerant methanotrophs from soda lakes of the Southeastern Transbaikal region and description of Methylomicrobium buryatense sp. nov. Syst Appl Microbiol 24:166–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalyuzhnaya MG, Puri AW, Lidstrom ME (2015) Metabolic engineering in methanotrophic bacteria. Metab Eng 29:142–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Keasling JD (1999) Gene-expression tools for the metabolic engineering of bacteria. Trends Biotechnol 17:452–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Keller RG, Bond PL, Erhart R, Wagner M (1999) Identification of some of the major groups of bacteria in efficient and nonefficient biological phosphorus removal activated sludge systems. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4077–4084PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Khadem AF et al (2011) Autotrophic methanotrophy in verrucomicrobia: Methylacidiphilum fumariolicum SolV uses the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle for carbon dioxide fixation. J Bacteriol 193:4438–4446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Khalilpour R, Karimi IA (2010) International Petroleum Technology Conference, pp 61–62Google Scholar
  50. Khosravi-Darani K, Mokhtari ZB, Amai T, Tanaka K (2013) Microbial production of poly(hydroxybutyrate) from C1 carbon sources. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:1407–1424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kwiatkowski JR, McAloon AJ, Taylor F, Johnston DB (2006) Modeling the process and costs of fuel ethanol production by the corn dry-grind process. Ind Crops Prod 23:288–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ladisch MR, Svarczkopf JA (1991) Ethanol production and the cost of fermentable sugars from biomass. Bioresour Technol 36:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. LeBlanc M, Prato A (1990) Ethanol production from grain in the United States: agricultural impacts and economic feasibility. Canad J Agric Econ 31:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liao JC, Mi L, Pontrelli S, Luo S (2016) Fuelling the future: microbial engineering for the production of sustainable biofuels. Nat Rev Microbiol 14:288–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Lieberman RL, Rosenzweig AC (2004) Biological methane oxidation: regulation, biochemistry, and active site structure of particulate methane monooxygenase. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 39:147–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lopes ML et al (2016) Ethanol production in Brazil: a bridge between science and industry. Braz J Microbiol 47:64–76CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Ma B et al (2016) Biological nitrogen removal from sewage via Anammox: recent advances. Bioresour Technol 200:981–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Maddox IS, Gutierrez NA (1996) Biotechnological developments in New Zealand. Crit Rev Biotechnol 16:119–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Maule DR (1986) A century of fermenter design. J Inst Brew 92:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michal G (1999) Biochemical pathways: an atlas of biochemistry and molecular biology, 1st edn. Wiley, New York, NY. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biochemical-Pathways-Biochemistry-Molecular-Biology/dp/0470146842/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447518627&sr=1-1&keywords=biochemical+pathways
  61. Morgan G (2014) The Sturgeon refinery and the high cost of value-added. Alberta Oil. Available at http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/11/high-price-adding-value/
  62. Müller JEN et al (2015) Engineering Escherichia coli for methanol conversion. Metab Eng 28:190–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Mussatto SI et al (2010) Technological trends, global market, and challenges of bio-ethanol production. Biotechnol Adv 28:817–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. O’Brien E (2013) Gas to liquids plants: turning Louisiana natural gas into marketable liquid fuels. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources/Technology Assessment Division, Baton Rouge, LA, p 4Google Scholar
  65. Palmer E (2013) GSK commits to continuous processing. FiercePharma:1–3Google Scholar
  66. Palmer E (2014) Amgen opens $200M continuous purification plant in Singapore. FiercePharma, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  67. Patton J (2013) Incitec plans $850 million U.S. ammonia plant on gas price. Bloomberg. Available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-17/incitec-plans-850-million-u-s-ammonia-plant-on-gas-price
  68. Sanchez-Garcia L et al (2016) Recombinant pharmaceuticals from microbial cells: a 2015 update. Microb Cell Fact 15:33CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Sander JD, Joung JK (2014) CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nat Biotechnol 32:347–355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Sato T, Atomi H (2001) Microbial inorganic carbon fixation. eLS, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  71. Siegel JB et al (2015) Computational protein design enables a novel one-carbon assimilation pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:3704–3709PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Singapore National Water Agency (2015) Innovation in Water Singapore, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  73. Sonune A, Ghate R (2004) Developments in wastewater treatment methods. Desalination 167:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Soo VWC et al (2016) Reversing methanogenesis to capture methane for liquid biofuel precursors. Microb Cell Fact 15:11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Statistica, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (2017) Number of vehicles registered in the United States from 1990 to 2015. Transp Logist, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  76. Tate, DuPont (2016) 1,3-Propanediol FAQs. Available at http://www.duponttateandlyle.com/faqs
  77. Trotsenko YA, Murrell JC (2008) Metabolic aspects of aerobic obligate methanotrophy. Adv Appl Microbiol 63:183–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA, Bhattacharyya D (2012) Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes. Pearson Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  79. U.S. Department of Agriculture, World Agricultural Outlook Board (1994) Major world crop areas and climatic profiles. Agricultural handbook no. 664, p 28Google Scholar
  80. U.S. Department of Agriculture (1986) Fuel ethanol and agriculture: an economic assessment, pp 1–61Google Scholar
  81. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016a) Ethanol plants. Layer Inf. Interact. State maps. https://www.eia.gov/maps/layer_info-m.cfm
  82. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016b) Hydraulically fractured wells provide two-thirds of U.S. natural gas production. Today in energy: 2016–2017Google Scholar
  83. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016c) Petroleum refineries. Layer Inf Interact. State Maps. Available at https://www.eia.gov/maps/layer_info-m.cfm
  84. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016d) Petroleum & other liquids, 2015–2016.Google Scholar
  85. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017) United States natural gas industrial price. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035us3m.htm
  86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991) Industrial flares. Emission factors 13(5):1–5Google Scholar
  87. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions from a typical passenger vehicle, green vehicle guide, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  88. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) EPA FLIGHT: facility level information on GreenHouse gases tool. https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#
  89. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Overview of greenhouse gases: methane emissions. Climate change, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  90. van der Star WRL et al (2007) Startup of reactors for anoxic ammonium oxidation: experiences from the first full-scale anammox reactor in Rotterdam. Water Res 41:4149–4163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Warikoo V et al (2012) Integrated continuous production of recombinant therapeutic proteins. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:3018–3029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Warner JR, Patnaik R, Gill RT (2009) Genomics enabled approaches in strain engineering. Curr Opin Microbiol 12:223–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Whims J (2002) Corn based ethanol costs and margins attachment 1. Agric Econ:1–23Google Scholar
  94. Whitaker WB et al (2017) Engineering the biological conversion of methanol to specialty chemicals in Escherichia coli. Metab Eng 39:49–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Yan X et al (2016) Electroporation-based genetic manipulation in type I methanotrophs. Appl Environ Microbiol 82:2062–2069CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Yuan Z, Blackall LL (2002) Sludge population optimisation: a new dimension for the control of biological wastewater treatment systems. Water Res 36:482–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Zhang X, Scheving B, Shoghli B, Zygarlicke C, Wocken C (2015) Quantifying gas flaring CH4 consumption using VIIRS. Remote Sens 7:9529–9541CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biomolecular EngineeringRice UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations