|
March/April 2008 TR10: Cellulolytic EnzymesFrances Arnold is designing better enzymes for making biofuels from cellulose. By Alexandra M. Goho
In December, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which calls for U.S. production of renewable fuels to reach 36 billion gallons a year--nearly five times current levels--by 2022. Of that total, cellulosic biofuels derived from sources such as agricultural waste, wood chips, and prairie grasses are supposed to account for 16 billion gallons. If the mandates are met, gasoline consumption should decline significantly, reducing both greenhouse-gas emissions and imports of foreign oil. The ambitious plan faces a significant hurdle, however: no one has yet demonstrated a cost-competitive industrial process for making cellulosic biofuels. Today, nearly all the ethanol produced in the United States is made from the starch in corn kernels, which is easily broken down into the sugars that are fermented to make fuel. Making ethanol from cheaper sources will require an efficient way to free sugar molecules packed together to form crystalline chains of cellulose, the key structural component of plants. That's "the most expensive limiting step right now for the large-scale commercialization of [cellulosic] biofuels," says protein engineer Frances Arnold, a professor of chemical engineering and biochemistry at Caltech. The key to more efficiently and cheaply breaking down cellulose, Arnold and many others believe, is better enzymes. And Arnold, who has spent the last two decades designing enzymes for use in everything from drugs to stain removers, is confident that she's well on her way to finding them. Cellulosic biofuels have many advantages over both gasoline and corn ethanol. Burning cellulosic ethanol rather than gasoline, for instance, could cut cars' greenhouse-gas emissions by 87 percent; corn ethanol achieves reductions of just 18 to 28 percent. And cellulose is the most abundant organic material on earth. But whereas converting cornstarch into sugar requires a single enzyme, breaking down cellulose involves a complex array of enzymes, called cellulases, that work together. In the past, cellulases found in fungi have been recruited to do the job, but they have proved too slow and unstable. Efforts to improve their performance by combining them in new ways or tweaking their constituent amino acids have been only moderately successful. Researchers have reduced the cost of industrial cellulolytic enzymes to 20 to 50 cents per gallon of ethanol produced. But the cost will have to fall to three or four cents per gallon for cellulosic ethanol to compete with corn ethanol. Ultimately, Arnold wants to do more than just make cheaper, more efficient enzymes for breaking down cellulose. She wants to design cellulases that can be produced by the same microörganisms that ferment sugars into biofuel. Long a goal of researchers, "superbugs" that can both metabolize cellulose and create fuel could greatly lower the cost of producing cellulosic biofuels. "If you consolidate these two steps, then you get synergies that lower the cost of the overall process," Arnold says. Consolidating those steps will require cellulases that work in the robust organisms used in industrial fermentation processes--such as yeast and bacteria. The cellulases will need to be stable and highly active, and they'll have to tolerate high sugar levels and function in the presence of contaminants. Moreover, researchers will have to be able to produce the organisms in sufficient quantities. This might seem like a tall order, but over the years, Arnold has developed a number of new tools for making novel proteins. She pioneered a technique, called directed evolution, that involves creating many variations of genes that code for specific proteins. The mutated genes are inserted into microörganisms that churn out the new proteins, which are then screened for particular characteristics. |
Corn Primed for Making Biofuel
04/16/2008











Comments
mkogrady on 02/19/2008 at 3:09 PM
114
Nature has been feeding itself for ions, are we trying to reinvent the wheel or just increase the effciency?
ronwagn on 02/20/2008 at 6:43 AM
10
I do fear that we might genetically produce some organism that will destroy live plants in the environment on a large scale. I am pretty sure we have no oversight on this possibility. Do a search on grey goo. Grey goo is the scenario where nanotechnology destroys all living things.
jgillece on 02/20/2008 at 11:50 AM
2
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant?currentPage=4
mkogrady on 02/29/2008 at 2:35 PM
114
my 2 cents
mko
devassocx on 02/20/2008 at 1:25 AM
24
cellulose ethanol will significantly reduce the
usage of gasoline.
From what I have read 'significant' is less than
3.5% of our gasoline usage. I don't see this as
significant.
The only thing significant is the terrific increase in food prices that has resulted from
using corn to make ethanol. Typical gov't
action.
ronwagn on 02/20/2008 at 6:30 AM
10
martinaatayo on 02/20/2008 at 8:46 PM
34
in the methodology, fermentation process time
factor itself to achieve desired large scale industrial product commensurate to daily user demand, comparable to existing classical thermal petro-chemical/petroleum product synthesis, even on readily availability of basic
raw materials, raises doubts on this process'
potential to eventually replace industrail scale fuel energy in today's world. very good but to keenly follow the progress.
MakeSense on 02/21/2008 at 9:46 AM
77
deep on 02/25/2008 at 3:46 AM
1
Scottar on 03/10/2008 at 12:01 AM
7
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html
So I can only wonder where DOE gets it's input from?
ronwagn on 03/10/2008 at 1:28 PM
10
Gcanno on 02/25/2008 at 3:53 AM
7
The Definition of an expert is a person that avoids all the little mistakes on the way to the big fallacy.
Pete Seeger
ronwagn on 03/10/2008 at 1:30 PM
10
Arachnid on 03/09/2008 at 10:56 AM
1
mkogrady on 03/19/2008 at 3:26 PM
114
skipcjr on 03/16/2008 at 7:24 PM
6
terrys122 on 03/19/2008 at 5:50 PM
1
anorlunda on 06/22/2008 at 4:31 PM
1
In order for an item to be "likely to affect our lives in the future", it must not only have great promise if successful, it must be highly likely to succeed in the research, development, production, deployment and competition phase of a life cycle. Anything in preliminary or in the early stages should be disqualified.
Disagree? Just think of all the exciting ideas in the past 40 years for technologies that promised to displace silicon as king of the hill in electronics. There must have been 2 or 3 such exciting preliminary ideas every year.
If TR wanted to make this top 10 list truly significant and respected, it should make the selection process transparent, or open it up to peer voting on the web. Perhaps a wiki on "Top 10" might be the way to go.
jpdemers on 11/10/2008 at 11:11 PM
34