2010/10/128811929021.jpg

Fall has been a busy time here at BBI International, in particular because we have been preparing for the Southeast Biomass Conference &amp; Trade Show, which many of you may be attending as you read this.
 This event will be exciting with all the biomass projects and potential the region has for advancing the renewable energy industry.
 There are several biomass power plants in various stages of development in the Southeast. For example, EcoPower Generation LLC wants to build a biomass power plant in Hazard, Ky., which would burn low-grade logs and wood waste to produce enough electricity to power 30,000 homes.
Orangeburg County Biomass LLC is proposing to build a 35-megawatt (MW) wood-fire power plant in Orangeburg County, S.C. North Carolina-based Rollcast Energy plans to build the first of three biomass power plants in Barnesville, Ga. The 53.3-MW plant will produce enough electricity to power 40,000 homes. The company has also announced similar sized projects in Franklin, Ga., and Newberry, S.C. American Renewables plans to build Gainseville Renewable Energy Center, a 100-MW biomass power plant in Gainesville, Fla.
 The Southeast also has plenty of potential for cofiring biomass with coal, which is the topic of the first plenary session at the conference, Examining the Viability of Biomass Cofiring and Repowering as a Renewable Energy Opportunity in the Southeast. Although states in the Southeast have been slow to adopt renewable energy portfolio standards, I expect those efforts will be ramped up as the pressure to reduce our carbon footprint intensifies.
 Along with biomass power plants and cofiring projects, several wood pellet mill projects are taking shape in the Southeast. Georgia Biomass expects to be shipping wood pellets to Europe upon completion of its plant in Waycross, Ga., which will have the capacity to produce 750,000 tons of wood pellets a year. Point Bio Energy LLC plans to build a $100 million wood pellet plant at the Port of Greater Baton Rouge, La., that will produce 496,000 tons of wood pellets annually.
 The second plenary session, Awakening a Giant: Examining the Potential for the Pellet Industry in the American Southeast, will provide attendees with a great overview of the opportunities and challenges associated with the budding pellet industry. One of the presenters is Thomas Meth, executive vice president, sales and marketing for Enviva LP, which has just purchased two pellet plants in the U.S. and plans to increase production in both of those plants to feed growing demand here and in Europe. From electricity generation and industrial heat and power to biorefining and project development and finance, this event will provide plenty of information for people already in the industry and those planning projects.

2010/10/128812028643.jpg

Biomass Buzzing in the Southeast

As the 111th Congress winds down and election season heats up, the biomass industry is making every effort to remind policymakers that we are an essential renewable energy industry that employs thousands of Americans. Here&rsquo;s what we are doing on both federal and state fronts.
 On the Federal Level
 As part of this effort, a group of biomass leaders from across the country descended on Washington to explain our industry to those who were unfamiliar and to emphasize three main messages to, well, anyone who would listen:
 &bull; The biomass industry needs and deserves the same tax credits provided to the rest of the renewable energy industry. Only through tax credits can we continue to build and improve our industry, employing more Americans and contributing to our nation&rsquo;s clean energy future.
 &bull; The U.S. EPA must pass reasonable rules reflecting the way that biomass is collected and used for energy. The agency must, in particular, pass reasonable emissions standards for biomass boilers and acknowledge that biomass fuel emissions are vastly different from that of fossil fuels.
 &bull; Congress must pass a federal energy policy that promotes American sources of renewable energy. Without a renewable energy standard enacted as soon as possible, the biomass industry and other renewable sources stand to lose ground to cheaper foreign sources of energy.
 The biomass industry group met with White House officials as well as House members and Senators from both parties. The elected officials with whom we met have influence over energy policy debates and represent districts that would be affected if the biomass industry were to decline. Our message was clear&mdash;biomass plays a critically important role in preserving the nation&rsquo;s portfolio of renewable energy, sustaining rural economies and promoting healthy forests and agriculture.
 On the Local Level 
 It&rsquo;s no secret that Massachusetts remains a significant policy challenge. The state&rsquo;s Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has proposed a rule that would narrowly define fuel sources that can be classified as biomass, and efficiency standards that are unachievable. This would endanger existing plants in the region, and it would prevent new biomass facilities from opening. We believe strongly that DOER&rsquo;s proposal is based not on science, but on a flawed study that has nothing to do with the realities of biomass power.
 In September, the Biomass Power Association joined four other groups who are also threatened by this proposed rule on a media conference call. I was joined by representatives of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, the Laborers Union 596, American Ag Energy and Pioneer Renewable Energy. Each of us described in detail what would happen to our respective industries and constituents if the proposed law were to become actual law. Our messages&mdash;particularly the message about protecting New England jobs&mdash;were picked up favorably by news outlets across the state, including the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald and several local newspapers.
 DOER has yet to adopt a final rule, but you can be sure that the biomass industry will continue to shine light on the problems created with this rule.
 A Look Ahead
 We are encouraged by the strong support shown to the biomass industry by a diverse group of U.S. Senators. In late September, a bipartisan group of 41 Senators sent a letter to the EPA urging the agency to carefully reconsider its MACT rule regulating biomass boiler emissions.
 No matter what the outcome of this fall&rsquo;s elections, the biomass industry will continue to keep the pressure on lawmakers to recognize the numerous benefits the biomass industry offers. We have something to offer lawmakers of every stripe: jobs, home-grown clean energy, healthy forests, sustainable agriculture. Who wouldn&rsquo;t support that? Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association <a title="Biomass Power Association" href="http://www.USABiomass.org" target="_blank">www.USABiomass.org</a>

2010/10/128812047827.jpg

Biomass Industry Goes to Washington

Some business owners, both those managing a profitable business and those still looking for their first big success, are eager to jump into the acquisition of another business to increase revenues, to diversify product lines or just to try something new.
 Before leaping, consider some key issues that experienced buyers review before signing on the dotted line.
 Does the seller have what you need and can use? If you are already in the same business, compare the seller's business with yours, looking at offsetting strengths and weaknesses. If you are now in a different business, do the homework necessary to let you know if this is a long-term strategic move or just a short-term whim.
 Look at whether the seller offers complementary products or services. Decide whether you can instead "grow" your own business to do the same things, for less money and in a reasonable amount of time. Think about your own personnel and those of the seller. Consider the time and people costs of an acquisition, including disruption, training, reduced focus on your own business and corporate culture. In particular, explore the need for and desire of the seller's management to continue with the combined business after the transaction.
 Before you become too set on buying (or on price or other key terms), take a hard look at the seller's business. You will usually need to sign a confidentiality agreement, and the seller may not want to disclose the most sensitive information, but make sure you see the "guts" of the seller's business, including financial information, before going too far in the process.
 Early in the negotiations, the seller will want to know the price you are willing to pay. Whether you make the first offer or wait for the seller to name a price, it usually helps to know both sides' expectations. If you are too far apart on price, it usually does not make sense for either party to spend more time and money on the transaction.
 Sometimes, however, differences in prices are really based on differing perceptions of the future value of the seller's business, particularly with start-ups, and you may be able to use "earn-outs" or other contingent pricing to bridge the price gap.
 Keep in mind, too, that your "due diligence" review of the seller's business may ultimately allow for discounts from the price you initially set. However, it is hard (and may kill the deal) to reduce the seller's price expectations once they are set.
 Both sides want to know, early on, how the acquisition will be structured. The key distinctions are assets or stock purchase, and taxable or tax-free.
 Typically, buyers want to purchase assets, both for protection from liabilities of the seller and for deductibility and other tax benefits. Sellers usually prefer to sell stock, to minimize the taxes on the sale and to avoid having to get rid of the selling entity and any liabilities that remain behind. If the seller is an S corporation, the seller's need to sell stock rather than assets should be less.
 Whether the transaction will be taxable or tax-free is usually of greater concern to the seller, for obvious reasons. If a tax-free transaction is important to the seller, the seller will need to be comfortable taking stock in your company in the deal, and you will need to be comfortable adding new shareholders and diluting your ownership.
 Because the structure of the deal can be linked to the price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept, you may have a more enthusiastic seller (and better terms for you) if you take the time at the outset to find a structure that meets both your needs.
 Tied in with some of the above issues is financing. If you are not paying for the seller's company with shares of your company's stock, you will need cash (now or later) to pay the purchase price. Even a deal financed with stock requires post-closing cash for operations. Explore at the outset whether you have the cash to meet those needs or whether, instead, you will need bank or seller financing to make the transaction viable.
 Almost every business owner will consider purchasing or selling at some time. By discussing these five important considerations with your attorney, you can maximize your position in negotiations. &nbsp; Author:Sean Kearny Shareholder Fredrikson &amp; Byron P.A. &nbsp;(612) 492-7128 <a href="mailto:skearney@fredlaw.com">skearney@fredlaw.com</a>

2010/10/128812101681.jpg

5 Points to Consider  Before Doing an Acquisition

Vecoplan offers new V-EBS shredder Designed specifically for processing refuse-derived fuel, the new V-EBS shredder from Vecoplan produces homogenous granulate with minimal fines and virtually no excess lengths. The V-EBS delivers high throughputs from the widest possible range of alternative fuel feedstocks. Other benefits include: inexpensive replaceable wear parts, quick and easy access to maintenance components and low energy consumption. The V-EBS is vertically fed via a 23.5 cubic yard capacity hopper, mounted above the cutting chamber. Feedstock up to 98x36 inches then passes into the cutting chamber where it is continuously and completely fed into the cutting rotor by a load-dependent chain floor.
 Metso to convert coal boiler to biomass in Poland Metso will convert a pulverized coal boiler to a biomass-fired boiler for Dalkia Å�&oacute;dÅº S.A. in Poland. The conversion will cost more than &euro;15 million ($20 million) and will allow Dalkia to supply green power to the national electric grid and district heating systems to Å�&oacute;dÅº. Operation of the new biomass-fired boiler is planned for December 2011. Modification of the current boiler includes pressure parts, fuel and ash handling and installation. Complete automation of the boiler island includes the process automation system, emission monitoring and reporting, instrumentation, and electrification retrofit. Capstone names new distributors Capstone Turbine Corp. has named Target Energy Inc. as its distributor in Turkey, Eastern Joint Marine Services (Far East) Ltd. in Hong Kong and Laibach in Slovenia and Croatia. Target Energy offers energy technologies and services designed to protect the environment, help overcome global climate change, improve living conditions and mitigate negative impacts of traditional energy sources. Eastern Joint Marine Services has been involved in a variety of environmental projects, including manufacturing and sales for portable waste compactors, designing and building various pieces of equipment for use in waste transportation services; and emergency repair and pollution control for ships. Laibach, headquartered in Ljubljana, Slovenia, provides clean-energy power solutions to businesses and also sells components to the power transmission and controls industry. Bandit offers new Productivity Package Bandit Industries Inc. has added a Productivity Package, powered by MasterTrak, to its product offering. The asset management tool communicates directly with the engine and monitors engine and equipment problems, reducing costly, unexpected failures that impact the bottom line. The Productivity Package is standard on all new whole tree chippers and horizontal grinders, and is available as an option for the stump grinder and hand-fed chipper line. The MasterTrak Productivity Package can also be added to existing units in the field.&nbsp; Morbark adds to equipment dealer network B &amp; G Equipment is now an authorized dealer of Morbark industrial equipment in Mississippi and select Tennessee counties. In business for more than 30 years, B &amp; G is based in Philadelphia, Miss., and has branches in Iuka, Magnolia and Hattiesburg. The company, founded by loggers W.J. Bates and Donald Grantham Jr., has a special understanding of loggers and their needs. Morbark also announced that Tidewater Equipment Co. has joined its dealer family as a distributor of industrial equipment. The partnership expands the Morbark dealer network benefitting customers located in the Southeastern region of the country. Tidewater Equipment will cover South Carolina (minus York County) and parts of Florida and Georgia. UltraTemp Filtration System meets Boiler MACT standards Tri-Mer Corp., which specializes in advanced technologies for the control of fine particulate and pollutant gases, has introduced UltraTemp Filtration, a hot gas filtration system that captures particulate to extremely low levels, including submicron and ultrafine particulate matter. The heart of the UltraTemp Hot Gas Filtration System is a new generation of ductile ceramic filter tubes, manufactured from low-density ceramic-coated fibers.
 AF&amp;PA names executive directors for strategic communications, recovered fiber The American Forest &amp; Paper Association has added two senior professionals: Chuck Fuqua as executive director, strategic communications and Brian Hawkinson as executive director, recovered fiber. Fuqua will be responsible for developing and implementing AF&amp;PA&rsquo;s advocacy communications strategy and managing media relations. Hawkinson will lead the development and implementation of goals, policies and programs that support a continuing, affordable supply of recovered fiber. Enginuity Energy, rem Engineering merge Enginuity Energy LLC, a renewable energy and energy conservation company, and rem Engineering Inc., a designer of industrial cogeneration and power generation systems, have merged resources. The new company will operate under Enginuity Energy LLC and will be based in Mechanicsburg, Pa., a suburb of Harrisburg. Enginuity Energy will focus on energy conservation and renewable power generation based on biomass gasification technology. MBREC elects new board members, officers The Mississippi Biomass and Renewable Energy Council Inc. elected new board members and a new president at its annual conference held in Tunica, Miss. Elected were Brent Brasher, Kengro Corp., Charleston; Tamme Bufkin, The Bufkin Co. LLC, Hattiesburg; Terry Dunlap, Piney Woods Pellets, Wiggins; Caroline Randolph, Mississippi Green Energy Initiative, Hattiesburg; Keith Williams, Molpus Woodlands Group, Jackson; Chad Winter, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Jackson. Returning members are: Alan Kitchens, Kitchens Brothers Manufacturing Co., Hazlehurst; Randy Rousseau, MSU College of Forest Resources, Mississippi State; and Robert Thompson, Mississippi Polymer Institute, Hattiesburg. Pete Weisenberger, T.P. Weisenberger &amp; Co. LLC, of Flora was elected president of the group, joining Joe Jordan, Mississippi State University, vice president; Kevin Mitchell, Strata-G, Oxford, secretary; and Lydia Allison, Bagley College of Engineering, Mississippi State University, treasurer. John Deere introduces improved H-Series Skidders John Deere Construction &amp; Forestry has, in response to common productivity and operational challenges throughout the logging industry, introduced new Autoshift functionality on its popular line of H-Series Skidders. The elimination of shifting allows operators to use their right hand to run the grapple and focus on pulling the load, which effectively makes the skidder easier to operate, increases productivity and decreases operator fatigue. The Autoshift option leverages the fuel efficiency advantage of direct drive and lock-up torque converter transmissions, and automatically selects the optimal gear for a given load. The Autoshift option is available in all John Deere skidder models. First UK SCR project to include Clyde Bergemann cleaning systems Doosan Power Systems, U.K., awarded Clyde Bergemann Ltd., Scotland, the contract to deliver on-load cleaning systems (sootblowers) for two new economizers on the 1x500 megawatt unit at E.ON&rsquo;s Ratcliffe Power Plant in the U.K. The systems to be installed include 20 PS-PB part retractable oscillating sootblowers and four PS-SB part retractable fully rotating sootblowers. The additional 3x500 megawatt units at the plant will be upgraded in subsequent years thereafter and will also be installed with Clyde Bergemann technology. The plant is undergoing an environmental boiler upgrade to meet legislative targets for reduced emissions, including the installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction technology to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. Bio Power Coalition adds new members The Wisconsin Bio Industry Alliance&rsquo;s Bio Power Coalition announced that 14 organizations have signed on to the group&rsquo;s pledge to promote biobased power generation in Wisconsin. Organizations joining the coalition include: the Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association; BIOFerm Energy Systems; Lake States Lumber Association; Landmark Services Cooperative; ACE Ethanol; GHD Inc.; Poyry (Appleton) LLC; UA Local 434; Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association; Miron Construction; Midwest Forest Products Co.; Nexterra Systems Corp.; Rotochopper Inc.; and Boldt Construction.

BETTER SHREDDER: The V-EBS shredder converts biomass into a homogenous fuel. 


2010/10/128812131651.jpg

EMISSIONS REDUCER: The UltraTemp Hot Gas Filtration System controls fine particulate and pollutant gases.

2010/10/128812138453.jpg

2010/10/12881214619.jpg

2010/10/128812160839.jpg

EASE OF OPERATION: Improvements to John Deere\'s line of H-Series Skidders have made the machines easier to operate and more productive.


2010/10/12881216578.jpg

Business Briefs

If a University of Nevada, Reno, research project works as planned, municipal wastewater treatment facilities could turn their sludge into power for their own operations.
 Researchers are demonstrating their sludge-drying equipment at the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility and ultimately hope to gasify the dry sludge product to power the plant. The system currently takes 20 pounds of sludge per hour and produces about 3 pounds of dried powder, but would need to be about 100 times that size to be commercially attractive to the industry, according to Chuck Coronella, principle investigator for the project and associate professor of chemical engineering at the school.
 The sludge, about 75 to 80 percent water, is fed into a fluidized bed of sand and salts operating at about 165 degrees Fahrenheit, Coronella explained. As the sludge falls into the bed, it is heated to cause quick fragmentation. As it dries and fragments, the individual pieces become small and light and after some time, the particles of dried sludge are so light they are entrained with the fluidized air and carried out of the bed, he continued. The particles are then captured and stored for future use. &ldquo;The principle advantage of this process is that it does not require high temperature heat,&rdquo; Coronella said. &ldquo;Our demonstration works with heat provided by water at 220 degrees Fahrenheit. Thus this is well-suited for a cogen configuration, with heat capture used for drying sludge. No external fuel will be required.&rdquo;
 After drying, the sludge is a low-moisture biomass fuel with a Btu value similar to that of dried wood, roughly 9,000 Btu per pound, according to Coronella. Researchers haven&rsquo;t yet gasified the dried sludge product, but several configurations will be evaluated. Estimates show that the full-scale system could potentially generate 25,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day, according to the university. Approximately 700,000 metric tons (771,000 tons) of dried sludge are produced annually in California municipalities, which would sustainably generate as many as 10 million kWh per day.
 The collaboration with Truckee Meadows has been useful and the managers there are supportive, Coronella said. &ldquo;They are enthusiastic about seeing the technology succeed. We have discussed with the TMWRF management about the possibility of doing a much larger demonstration on site, but we have not yet reached any conclusions.&rdquo;
 The demonstration-scale project is a collaboration with the cities of Reno and Sparks, operators of the wastewater treatment plant. The project is funded through the California Energy Innovations Small Grant Program, the California Energy Commission and the U.S. DOE, according to the university. The demonstration phase of the project was also chosen for funding by the university&rsquo;s Tech Transfer Office under a DOE grant to support transferring technologies from the lab to practical application.

SLUDGE POWER: The University of Nevada is developing a system that could be used to power wastewater treatment plants. 

2010/10/128812184932.jpg

Sludge-to-power process tested

The University of Montana in Missoula could reduce its carbon footprint by 20 percent with a new biomass combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plant, pending approval in November from the board of regents.
 The $13 million plant would run on about 60 to 70 tons of forest slash per day, depending on the moisture content of the feedstock, and produce 700 kilowatts (kW) of energy for the campus, according to Hugh Jesse, director of facilities at the university, although supply agreements are still in early discussions. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s intended to take over 60 percent of our existing load of steam on campus,&rdquo; Jesse said. The facility will use a Nexterra Systems Corp. gasification system with a back pressure turbine and will be an addition to an existing natural gas heating plant on the campus. The existing plant will remain operational during peak hours.
 The school&rsquo;s annual carbon footprint is about 45,000 tons, according to Sustainability Coordinator Cherie Peacock, and the biomass CHP facility will more than fulfill the Climate Action Plan goal of 10 percent carbon reduction by 2015. The plan also strives for carbon neutrality by 2020.
 Feasibility studies are underway, including those to determine availability of feedstock. The school has applied for a U.S. Forest Service grant and other funding opportunities through its performance contractor, Jesse said.
 Besides the carbon reduction, the plant will also represent monetary savings for the school. &ldquo;The cost of the fuel is less than the natural gas and the project has to pay for itself,&rdquo; Jesse said. &ldquo;This has to be net zero or better to go forward.&rdquo; If the project is approved, construction will begin in the summer of 2011, he added.
 The facility could also serve as a learning opportunity and be incorporated into the university&rsquo;s curriculum. &ldquo;That is one of the faactors we&rsquo;re trying to work on,&rdquo; Jesse said.

UM considers biomass CHP

A Buffalo, Minn., company wants to scale up a residential-sized biomass energy system and develop turn-key power plants that could supply grid power and hot water for space heating, process heat or other applications.
 Development of the &ldquo;Grassifer&rdquo; began about two years ago, when Mel Moench, president of Moench Inc., became interested in combusting biomass&mdash;in particular, warm season grasses.
 Moench determined that the major challenges for biomass combustion systems was moisture content, particle size and efficiency. &ldquo;I decided to eliminate the densification process and combust the material without preprocessing, to save energy,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;I wanted the unit to be automated, compact and highly efficient.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Moench also sought to eliminate any special equipment needed to prepare the feedstocks for combustion. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve combusted grassy materials with moisture content of up to 25 percent, which is close to &lsquo;as harvested&rsquo; condition,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;Our unit also contains a cyclone to extract excess water vapor in the flue gas.&rdquo;
 After three prototypes and scores of modifications, Moench completed a unit that achieved two of his top priorities&mdash;reaching more than 1,850 degrees Fahrenheit consistently, and overcoming the issue of grate clogging by using a patent-pending, grateless configuration. &ldquo;I also had to use a proprietary fuel feeding system that virtually eliminates issues with fuel compaction and subsequent auger jamming,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;The prototype can also utilize multiple, dry coarse-chopped materials interchangeably.&rdquo;
 After the chopped biomass is conveyed to the in-feed auger, it drops into a screw auger and is pushed into the combustion chamber as needed to maintain the proper temperature. Negative pressure is supplied by a vacuum blower so no smoke or gasses escape, and primary and secondary burning occur at a high temperature, ensuring the complete combustion of all particles and gases. While the ash continues forward and drops into the ash collection drum, the hot gases leave the heat containment chamber and enter the heat exchanger that transfers the heat to the antifreeze solution surrounding the tubes. A circulating pump keeps the hot antifreeze solution moving through insulated underground pipes to a plenum heat exchanger, baseboard unit, in-floor radiant tubing or other heating systems.
 Moench said that although his company believes the Grassifer is technologically and environmentally advanced, it is a working prototype at this point. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re searching for partners to continue improvements and other applications, including sizing up the unit for trigeneration, district heating or combined-heat-and-power applications,&rdquo; he said.

2010/10/128812198294.jpg

Company builds “Grassifier” prototype

A century-old pulp and paper mill in Madison, Maine, is poised to significantly benefit from a proposed biomass thermal plant to be co-located at the mill site.
 The plant will be constructed, owned and operated by Recast Energy, formerly part of a biomass combined-heat-and-power facility and wood chip supply firm known as Intrinergy LLC. The facility will generate about 90,000 pounds of steam per hour. The paper mill will utilize the steam to power its operations, in turn reducing the amount of fuel oil it burns by 50 percent each year.
 Recast Energy Vice President Brandon Ogilvie said that the mill currently burns about 9 million gallons of fuel oil per year to generate its steam. Displacing that oil will help decouple the mill&rsquo;s risk exposure to the volatility of oil prices, according to Ogilvie. The plant will also reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 40,000 to 50,000 tons per year.
 Fuel from the plant will consist largely of bark and sawdust leftover from the paper mill&rsquo;s operations, materials that previously had to be transported from the site by truck. About two-thirds of the 100,000 to 150,000 green tons of biomass the plant will require will be leftover mill residue; the remainder will come from a third party.
 In January, the project received a $357,000 grant from Efficiency Maine. The company estimates the total project will cost about $25 million.
 Ogilvie said upon being granted approval, the company plans to begin the biomass thermal project in the first quarter of 2011. He estimated construction to last about one year.
 Ogilvie said Recast Energy has a similar project that is in the early stages with a food and beverage company, and has two woody biomass thermal projects in operation at a paper company in Mississippi and a U.S. textile company in the Dominican Republic.

Biomass thermal plant to aid Maine paper mill

A 30-megawatt biomass power plant proposed for County Antrim in Northern Ireland is much closer to fruition, having gained approval from Northern Ireland Environment Minister Edwin Poots.
 &nbsp;The &pound;100 million ($158 million) plant will run on 220,000 metric tons (242,500 tons) per year of poultry litter, along with 40,000 metric tons of meat and bone meal (MBM), according to developer Rose Energy Ltd. The electricity it produces, enough to power 25,000 homes, will be sold to the national grid, according to Chief Executive Osvaldo Mauro-Hun.
 &ldquo;The decision by the Northern Ireland environment minister to approve the plans represents a major step forward for the country&rsquo;s capacity to produce renewable energy,&rdquo; Mauro-Hun said. &ldquo;Rose Energy will generate a third of the nonwind portion of Northern Ireland&rsquo;s renewable energy obligations and allow it to utilize valuable biomass fuel sources locally, thereby contributing to a more secure energy future for the region.&rdquo;
 The location, about 20 miles from Northern Ireland&rsquo;s capital city of Belfast, was chosen partially because of its close proximity to the MBM source, situated next to the plant site, Mauro-Hun said. MBM is currently exported from Northern Ireland for use as a green fuel in biomass plants and cement kilns, but Rose Energy&rsquo;s plant will allow it to be used locally instead. The poultry litter feedstock, composed of wood shavings and poultry droppings, will come from farmers who supply Moy Park Ltd., which sells its own label and customer-branded chicken products to leading retail food service customers across Europe. Other reasons for selecting the site include its close proximity to a water source, and its ability to strengthen the electricity infrastructure in an area that is currently deficient.
 The poultry industry is Northern Ireland&rsquo;s second largest and accounts for about 7,000 jobs, Mauro-Hun said. This biomass power project will help protect those jobs and will also defer thousands of tons of poultry litter destined for landfill spread, according to the company. The construction industry in the region will also benefit from the project, which will ensure about&nbsp; &pound;15 million worth of civil works packages and about &pound;10 million of mechanical and electrical money through locally based companies, Mauro-Hun said.
 Between June 2008 and August 2010, the Northern Ireland Planning Authorities carried out a detailed and extensive review of Rose Energy&rsquo;s proposal, and gave it the go ahead, Mauro-Hun said. &ldquo;In doing so, the planning authorities also recognized the robustness of the proposal and have shown that they are fully confident that all aspects of the proposal&mdash;technology, location, fuel availability, health, traffic&mdash;have been properly addressed by Rose Energy,&rdquo; he added.&nbsp;
 The company has applied and is waiting to find out if it is qualified to receive government funding. The remaining portion of the expenses will be privately funded by the consortium, Mauro-Hun said. Rose Energy will begin construction as soon as possible and expects it to last about 2&frac12; years.

POULTRY POWER: A proposed 30-megawatt biomass power plant in Northern Ireland will defer thousands of tons of poultry litter.

2010/10/12881222621.jpg

Northern Ireland poultry  litter biomass plant approved

Pinnacle Pellet is building a 400,000 metric ton pellet plant near Burns Lake, British Columbia, its sixth location in the province, bringing its total capacity to 1.1 million metric tons.
 &ldquo;We&rsquo;re well into our civil work and we&rsquo;ve got mechanical components showing up every day, as is typical with our build-out schedules,&rdquo; said Leroy Reitsma, chief operating officer at Pinnacle Pellet. &ldquo;We do a lot of preplanning and everything comes preassembled or modular, so from the time that we commence civil work to when the plant is running is usually only about 120 days.&rdquo;
 Founded in 1989 by brothers Jim and Rob Swan, today Pinnacle has four other major shareholders, three of whom are actively involved in management of the company, including Reitsma. He and many of the other 160 people working at the company&rsquo;s five strategically-located pellet mills have experience in the lumber industry, he said.
 Reitsma said the company expects the new plant to be up and running by the end of December.&nbsp; The maximum capacity for the facility will be 400,000 metric tons; actual initial production will run around 320,000 metric tons. &ldquo;All of our other facilities&rsquo; production numbers total up to about 800,000 [metric] tons, with the Burns Lake facility that will increase to about 1.1 million [metric] tons, and those are real production numbers,&rdquo; Reitsma said.
 Pinnacle&rsquo;s plants are located within close proximity to Canadian sawmills. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve always tried to locate adjacent to industry-leading sawmills to form symbiotic relationships,&rdquo; Reitsma said. &ldquo;We support their business and provide them with a high value for their residuals, and when a plant is associated with a strong sawmill it gets a consistent, reliable supply of residuals. The two operations strengthen and balance each other, and usually mutually ensure success.&rdquo;
 Pinnacle&rsquo;s plants utilize a mix of sawmill residuals, and non-merchantable softwood timber, including pine beetle damaged wood. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s been key with these projects&mdash;we&rsquo;ve had an overall focus of trying to become an integral part of the overall value chain, a role in which we are the default for whatever can&rsquo;t be put to use as logs to make lumber or used to produce pulp, and so we&rsquo;re the catch-all at the end of the equation,&rdquo; Reitsma said.
 The woody biomass is trucked to Pinnacle&rsquo;s plants, and from there the pellets are transported via rail to several British Columbia port facilities including Fibreco Terminal, the Kinder Morgan Terminal in north Vancouver and the Ridley Terminal in Prince Rupert.
 Pinnacle&rsquo;s customer base consists of about 90 percent long-term large-scale utility overseas contracts, according to Reitsma. &ldquo;A major focus of our marketing plan is to serve large utilities as a coal displacement,&rdquo; he said.&nbsp; About 80 to 85 percent of Pinnacle&rsquo;s pellets are shipped to the U.K. and continental Europe, 8 percent used for domestic residential heating, and the remainder shipped to Asia.
 Competition for woody biomass in Canada is at a reasonable level, from Reitsma&rsquo;s perspective. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a decent balance of supply and demand in the province right now, but that mainly depends on what is happening in the pulp and paper industry,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;When the price of pulp escalates and sawmills are not running at full capacity, pellet mills tend to get choked out. Who ends up with the feedstock is a totally end-market driven.&rdquo;

COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION: Reitsma (right, pictured with Ray Dawson, general manager-west region), expects the pellet plant in Burns Lake to be up and running by the end of December. 

2010/10/128812236567.jpg

Pinnacle Pellet to build sixth plant

RWE Innogy Italia has signed an agreement for the construction of the first biomass cogeneration plant in Sicily. The 18.7-megawatt plant will produce 128,000 megawatt hours of power, enough to supply about 30,000 homes per year, according to the company. The feedstock will primarily come from a eucalyptus tree plantation that covers more than 20,000 hectares (49,000 acres).
 Construction on the &euro;61 million ($83 million) plant is set to begin before the end of the year and commissioning is due in late 2012, according to the company.

RWE to build cogen in Sicily

The Gainesville, Fla., Renewable Energy Center has signed a long-term biomass supply contract with local wood waste recycler Wood Resource Recovery, fulfilling almost half of the fuel supply needs for the 100-megawatt power plant.
 Developer American Renewables said the biomass feedstock will be clean urban wood waste including tree trimmings, right-of-way clearing and debris from land contractors and tree surgeons. Electricity produced at the GREC will be sold to Gainesville Regional Utilities under a 30-year power purchase agreement and used to power 700,000 homes, according to American Renewables.&nbsp;
 The GREC will also use local logging residues and thinning material as feedstock.

Gainesville signs supply contract

A bill (AB 222) that would have expedited the introduction of new conversion technologies to produce green power and advanced biofuels from organic waste materials in California is officially dead, due to lack of key support needed from five democrats on the Senate Environmental Quality Committee.
 Bioenergy Producers Association Chairman Jim Stewart said the dismissal of AB 222 was a major blow to a key element in California&rsquo;s Bioenergy Action Plan, with which the bill was consistent.
 Overall, AB 222 would have corrected scientifically inaccurate definitions and antiquated provisions in the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, and enabled and expedited the in-state production of green electricity and advanced biofuels from biomass through new nonincineration technologies such as gasification, fermentation and pyrolysis. The bill would have also removed current statutory restrictions that require thermal conversion projects to have zero emissions, a standard required of no other energy generation technology or manufacturing process in the state. Finally, it would have allowed the biogenic portion&mdash;the leftover materials when waste has been sorted for recycling&mdash;of municipal solid waste (MSW) to qualify under the state&rsquo;s renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
 California has a recycling mandate of 50 percent, a law that was passed in 1989. &ldquo;If a city or a county makes its waste available to these bioenergy companies then it doesn't count toward that requirement and it would place them at risk for being fined for not meeting the mandate,&rdquo; Stewart said.
 Conversion technologies can recover five times as much energy from MSW as landfill gas with fewer emissions, Stewart said. &ldquo;However, electricity from landfill gas receives RPS credit in California, whereas if you gasify the MSW to produce electricity before it enters the landfill, it does not.&rdquo;
 Stewart said without AB 222, it could take five to six years to permit and construct a conversion technology facility in California&mdash;if a permit could be attained at all.

California bioenergy bill killed

The U.S. DOE has awarded a total of about $4.5 million to three projects that will demonstrate important steps to design, model and implement sustainable biomass production systems across different regions of the country and is considering a variety of feedstocks.
 North Carolina State University will receive up to $2.09 million to evaluate the impacts of biomass feedstock cultivation on hydrology, water quality, wildlife, plant diversity, soil productivity, carbon budgeting, economics and safety, according to the DOE. The university has project sites in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina where it will investigate biomass production options compatible with forest management with an emphasis on pine and switchgrass intercropping.
 Purdue University in Indiana will receive up to $1.6 million to conduct a sustainability assessment of energy crops such as miscanthus, switchgrass and hybrid poplar, and examine the impacts of removing crop residues within watersheds representative of conditions in the upper Midwest, according to the DOE. The project will gauge sustainability in relation to soil erosion, biomass yield and aquatic biodiversity impacts and develop methods to optimize watershed landscapes to improve water quality and associated ecosystem services.
 The University of Minnesota will be awarded up to $791,000 to analyze the Mississippi River watershed and determine what bioenergy feedstocks to use, where to produce or collect them, and what environmental impacts they will have in terms of climate change or other environmental shifts, according to the DOE. The goal is to estimate the biophysical and economic impacts of different placements of feedstock production operations on the landscape in order to maximize net benefits returned to farmers, biorefineries and the public.
 In announcing these Sustainable Bioenergy Feedstock Production awards, the DOE also announced the investment of up to $12 million in four projects over three years for Advanced Biofuels Technology Development. Recipients include W. R. Grace &amp; Co. in Maryland, $3.3 million; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington, $3.1 million; the Gas Technology Institute in Illinois, $2.4 million; and the Batelle Memorial Institute in Ohio, $3.2 million.
 Together, the $16.5 million will support the expansion of renewable transportation fuels production through advanced thermochemical conversion technologies and the designing of landscapes that produce feedstock while protecting air, soil, water and wildlife.

DOE funds biomass research

The Ohio Public Utilities Commission has approved renewable energy certification of First Energy&rsquo;s proposal to convert two 156-megawatt (MW) coal-burning power units at its R.E. Burger plant in Shadyside, Ohio, to run on biomass.
 First Energy plans to use about 1 million tons of woody and agricultural biomass, including pellets, briquettes and/or bales with coal, while relying on fuel oil for start-up and flame stabilization. Historically, the power plant has been burning about 800,000 tons of coal each year.
 Once the $200 million retrofit is complete, the facility is expected to be one of the largest biomass power projects in the U.S. The OPUC ruling comes from an application originally filed in December 2009.

First Energy gets OK for biomass conversion

A bipartisan stand-alone bill proposing a national renewable energy standard (RES) would mandate sellers of electricity to retail customers to obtain 15 percent of their energy from renewable resources by 2021.
 Introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and several others, the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 would require electric utilities to produce at least 11 percent of their power from biomass, wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy. The remaining 4 percent could be achieved through energy efficiency improvements.
 Utilities selling less than 4 million megawatt hours per year would be exempt from the requirements. The bill is nearly identical to the RES proposed in the bipartisan American Clean Energy Leadership Act, apart from a few date changes and scoring/technical corrections.
 Targets in the bill are 3 percent in 2012-'13, 6 percent in 2014-'16, 9 percent in 2017-'18, 12 percent in 2019-'20, and 15 percent from 2021-'39.
 According to Bingaman&rsquo;s office, the current sponsors are working to secure 60 co-sponsors so that the bill can be brought up for consideration before Congress adjourns this year.
 Currently, 29 U.S. states have a RES. States such as New Mexico that have a higher RES than the bill proposes would not be affected, but states with no RES or a lower one would have to comply with the 15 percent RES.
 Though many renewable energy groups and advocates maintain that 15 percent renewable energy by 2012 isn&rsquo;t an aggressive enough goal, many&nbsp; welcome the new stand-alone bill. Marchant Wenthworth, deputy legislative director of the Union of Concerned scientists, said that while the proposed RES is not perfect, the U.S. cannot afford to wait any longer to create a national clean energy policy. &ldquo;[If passed] it would keep us in the clean energy race and begin to address the need to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector,&rdquo; he said.
 Sean Garren, clean energy advocate for Environment America, said that while the standard is weaker than America can and should achieve, the Senate must pass the bill quickly to deliver to the entire country benefits that states with standards already enjoy.
 Biomass Power Association President Bob Cleaves emphasized the bill&rsquo;s job generating capabilities. &ldquo;The RES would help create clean energy jobs in every state in the union, including in the Southeast, where there is enormous potential for biomass industry growth,&rdquo; he said.

2010/10/128812294154.jpg

2010/10/128812297661.jpg

Senators reveal stand-alone RES bill

Three years after its start, a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility proposed in International Falls, Minn., is slowly moving forward, having been given a jump start by the release of $2.5 million in state funding that was announced in 2008, but delayed because of complications and specifications in the language of the agreement.
 Koochiching County Economic Development Authority, planning agency for the project, will use the money for preliminary engineering and preconstruction and design work, according to Paul Nevanen, director of KEDA. When the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency first awarded the money, the agency thought it would be used for feasibility studies, warranting changes in the agreement before the money could be released. &ldquo;We had to go back and finesse,&rdquo; Nevanen said.
 Feasibility studies had been conducted, but made obvious the need for further engineering and design work. &ldquo;The first round of feasibility studies actually raised more questions than it answered,&rdquo; Nevanen said. The state money, which will be matched by the U.S. DOE, will allow KEDA to look more deeply into the project and address issues the studies raised, he said.
 The facility will employ a plasma gasification technology capable of running on municipal solid waste, woody biomass, wastewater sludge and other feedstocks, although no contracts have been put in place. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve identified the feed shed; where that radius would be,&rdquo; Nevanen said, adding that KEDA has contacted most of its potential sources and is more than confident in the available supply.
 KEDA will begin the permitting process in the first quarter of 2011 and if all goes well, a build team will be put together in 2012. But past delays are a reminder of the lengthy development process. &ldquo;Nothing has gone according to plan,&rdquo; Nevanen laughed. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve lost of a lot of steam here.&rdquo; The funding was the biggest hurdle in moving forward, but KEDA is also struggling with other significant changes made between the project&rsquo;s initial proposal in 2007 and today. Originally, the agency thought it would need about 100 tons per day of feedstock, but has reconfigured the number to 180 tons per day, he cited. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s always going to be room for change,&rdquo; he said. KEDA has also been in discussions with a local paper mill for offtake agreements, although nothing has been agreed upon. Ideally, KEDA would find an industrial partner that could complement its natural gas with syngas from the facility.
 Nevanen said the process has been frustrating, KEDA has learned a lot and would probably do some things differently if it could start over. &ldquo;All of our partners have been very patient,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve got a great team in place. It&rsquo;s just moving the funds.&rdquo;

State funds boost WTE plant's progress

With two New York politicians behind him, Jim Taylor, president of New York-based Taylor Biomass, is poised to receive final approval from the U.S. DOE for a $100 million loan guarantee that will allow construction of a biomass gasification facility and expansion of the company&rsquo;s existing recycling operations.
 The Montgomery, N.Y., project is being constructed near the Taylor Recycling Facility and will generate 20 megawatts of electricity through gasification of waste wood, municipal solid waste (MSW) and possibly construction and demolition debris. The expansion will increase the company&rsquo;s capacity to 450 tons per day of construction and demolition debris, 100 tons per day of wood waste and 500 tons per day of MSW, according to Taylor Biomass. The recycling facility currently at the 95-acre site has a capacity of 307 tons per day of construction and demolition (C&amp;D) debris and 100 tons per day of wood waste.
 U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., have both visited the existing Taylor Biomass site and subsequently have personally spoken with DOE Energy Secretary Steven Chu in support of the proposed expansion. &ldquo;After years of work, we are at the one year line with this project,&rdquo; Schumer said in a statement. &ldquo;Over $100 million in investments and hundreds of jobs are within our grasp. Once the project is completed, this will be the preeminent place in the country for people to learn about biomass energy, and other pioneering companies will be encouraged to choose the region for their new projects. This investment isn&rsquo;t just good news for Taylor Biomass and the people they will employ, but good news for the entire Hudson Valley economy.&rdquo;
 The facility will be the nation&rsquo;s first commercial biomass gasification plant to use MSW, according to Hinchey&rsquo;s office. It will create 400 local jobs during construction and another 80 full-time positions once operational. The plant has strong support from the community, according to Hinchey, including Orange County, which has committed to supplying it with solid waste.
 Proposed upgrades to the facility include improvements to the existing C&amp;D processing structure, construction of a new post collection separation facility structure, two biomass storage silos, the gasification unit and a power generation pad, according to Taylor Biomass. The company has also received funding for the project through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and the 18-month construction period is underway.

Taylor Biomass expects millions in federal funding

Enviva LP, manufacturer of processed biomass fuels, has acquired two U.S. wood pellet plants and will increase both facilities&rsquo; capacities by tens of thousands of tons to meet demands of its customers in both the U.S. and Europe.
 Most recently, Enviva acquired Tomorrow Energy&rsquo;s Piney Woods pellet plant in Wiggins, Miss., and will increase its capacity from 50,000 tons per year to 150,000 tons. The plant will be renamed Enviva Pellets Wiggins and will provide 22 more jobs and another 30 throughout its logging and forestry supply chain, according to Enviva.
 The company has also acquired an Amory, Miss., pellet plant formerly known as CKS Energy Inc. Newly named Enviva Pellets Amory, the plant will ramp up production from 50,000 tons to more than 100,000 tons, according to the company.
 Since pellet manufacture is a capital-intensive business, both facilities will require investments in substantial new processing equipment, according to John Keppler, Enviva chairman and CEO. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re anxious and enthusiastic about deploying capital into expanding these facilities and delivering some pretty significant environmental benefits,&rdquo; he said, declining to release a cost estimate for the expansions.
 Keppler said Enviva views the market for pellets from a utility perspective to be mainly in Europe, but expects a larger adoption of biomass fuels for fossil fuel replacement in the U.S. over time. &ldquo;In the very near term, a significant portion of our demand is overseas, but increasingly, we&rsquo;re working with U.S. customers on meeting their renewable energy needs with biomass,&rdquo; he said.
 Enviva has been a biomass supplier since 2004 and has built an expansive portfolio of customers, Keppler said. &ldquo;Each of these facilities will be an important part of our global fulfillments against the contracted demand that we have,&rdquo; he said.
 The Amory facility has already been expanded within its existing infrastructure, but the full build-out of both facilities should be complete in the first or second quarter of 2011, Keppler said, adding that Enviva has customers waiting for&nbsp; the expansion and prepared to purchase more biomass fuel.

2010/10/128812312274.jpg

Enviva acquires pellet plants, expands production

Mendel Biotechnology and Ohio-based coal mining company Oxford Resource Partners will team up for a pilot project that will experiment with growing Mendel&rsquo;s proprietary miscanthus varieties on Oxford&rsquo;s reclaimed mining lands.
 A small trial crop has been planted this year in eastern Ohio to establish a baseline performance for miscanthus and to conduct studies into the potential of the perennial grass on the nutrient-poor lands, according to Rasto Ivanic, senior director of business development for Mendel.
 Reclaimed lands offer opportunities for energy crops on several levels, Ivanic said. First, the land is less productive in traditional food agriculture, making a low-input crop like miscanthus an attractive option. The lands are also surrounded by a working transportation infrastructure, allowing efficient production and delivery to power plants. Finally, perennial crops such as miscanthus establish extensive root structures in the soil, which stabilize the reclaimed land and help to reduce erosion, he said. The root structures also enrich the soil with carbon, contributing to a favorable carbon profile of biomass production in general, but particularly in reclaimed lands.
 The crops in the trial will be used for testing by Mendel and its partners, but if the project succeeds in developing a robust biomass production system, they could be used in renewable energy production, Ivanic said. The multiyear project and its scale-up will be determined by the needs and objectives of the project and partners.
 Partnerships like this help end-users and crop developers gain experience with miscanthus in a bioenergy industry that&rsquo;s still in its early stages with many unknowns, Ivanic said. &ldquo;We see this Mendel-Oxford trial as an opportunity to connect traditional energy with renewable energy in a way that creates new opportunities rather than being a &lsquo;zero-sum-game.&rsquo; We believe the production of energy crops on reclaimed mining land would be a win-win-win opportunity for existing energy infrastructure, the Ohio agricultural community and the environment.&rdquo;

Rasto Ivanic, senior director of business development for Mendel, says planting energy crops on reclaimed mining land would benefit the existing energy infrastructure, Ohio\'s agricultural  community and the environment.  

2010/10/128812318063.jpg

MOVING ON MISCANTHUS: Mendel and Oxford are growing Mendel\'s miscanthus varieties on Oxford\'s reclaimed mining lands.

2010/10/128812323035.jpg

Mendel plants miscanthus on reclaimed mining land

The claw-like mechanism on John Deere&rsquo;s woody biomass harvester and bundler grabs slash from the forest floor left behind by forestry and logging operations, compresses it by about 80 percent and then wraps and cuts it into slash logs about 10 feet long and 24 to 32 inches in diameter. Despite its size, the giant equipment moves smoothly and seemingly effortlessly through the forest, exerting about the same amount of pressure on the ground as would a walking human being.
 The John Deere 1490D Eco III Energy Wood Harvester is one of only a few commercialized machines that have been developed specifically for biomass handling, although many developers of these purpose-built, modified systems say a more robust biomass market would drive sales and spur more development of equipment still stranded in the research phases. From forest biomass to short-rotation, woody crops and herbaceous dedicated energy crops, U.S. markets seem to be lagging behind the European curve, prompting equipment developers to look overseas for models of effective harvesting and handling systems used in Europe&rsquo;s already-developed biomass markets.
 Filling a Need
 The 1490D was launched in 2002 in Finland, where forest biomass currently generates about 30 percent of electricity demand and most cities and villages employ wood-fired district heating systems. The machinery was released onto the U.S. market the following year, targeting loggers of both softwood and hardwood. Mike Schmidt, manager of forestry renewables for John Deere, says the equipment was a reaction to a market necessity.
 &ldquo;It was a need,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;In Europe, they&rsquo;ve been in the renewable energy business for a long time. They needed a better way to collect slash. It&rsquo;s a very difficult product to collect if you go out into the woods to get it.&rdquo; Development of the biomass harvester and bundler began in Sweden in the early 90s by a company called Timberjack and transferred to John Deere when it acquired Timberjack in 2000. &ldquo;John Deere in essence completed the research and development of the machine,&rdquo; Schmidt says.
 The system, a mounted bundler on a forwarder, has the capacity to compress, wrap and cut more than 25 bundles per hour, each weighing between 900 and 1,300 pounds and providing about 1 megawatt hour of energy, according to Schmidt. The extended-reach boom, purpose-designed grapple and ecofriendly design allow it to maneuver around a stand with minimal movement, leaving healthy trees and much of the forest floor untouched. The machine was originally designed to work with traditional forwarders and wheeled harvesters, but when modifying it for U.S. use, John Deere integrated it into U.S. systems, which can vary, Schmidt says. &ldquo;When you&rsquo;re talking about biomass harvesting, you&rsquo;re talking about taking different combinations of traditional machines and integrating them with a machine like this 1490,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve integrated it into every type of system to make it work around the U.S. and Canada.&rdquo;
 The 1490D is at work in 16 countries and feedback has been positive, but U.S. markets have been slow to develop, Schmidt says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve got customers who want to buy the machine as soon as they have a market for that material,&rdquo; he says, adding that markets are beginning to develop more quickly in states with renewable portfolio standards. &ldquo;Biomass is by far the cheapest of the renewable energy and so you&rsquo;re seeing more plants scrambling. And they&rsquo;re having to go out and try to find biomass in untraditional ways, which brings in the bundling because you can haul these bundles on log trucks and can get into areas of the forest where you cannot get the chip vans.&rdquo;
 Schmidt says those vital markets are growing rapidly and that will mean a substantial increase in demand for the biomass harvester. &ldquo;It&rsquo;ll spur sales and we&rsquo;re trying to plan for that rush,&rdquo; he says. The expected rush for forest woody biomass harvesting equipment could come any day and many manufacturers are preparing, but economics always have a significant influence. &ldquo;Somebody just has to decide that it&rsquo;s economically feasible to go ahead and purchase those machines and put them to work,&rdquo; says Tom Gallagher, associate professor of forest operations at Auburn University&rsquo;s School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences in Alabama. &ldquo;And at the moment, on the baling and bundling side, it&rsquo;s marginally economically feasible. On the chipping side, there are plenty of people out there doing it already.&rdquo; Chipping is economic as long as transport distance isn&rsquo;t more than about 50 miles, but bundling and baling will need the market to pick up a little bit, he adds.
 &ldquo;I believe we&rsquo;re just starting with this,&rdquo; Gallagher says. &ldquo;As this process and opportunities develop, I think we&rsquo;ll look to Europe because Europe&rsquo;s kind of ahead of us with their higher fuel prices and they&rsquo;re doing some of this already. I think there&rsquo;s a lot of development that has to take place over here as we apply it to what I consider our existing conditions.&rdquo; For instance, Europe already has efficient modified harvesters capable of handling short-rotation plantations of willow and poplar, he cites.
 Willow and Poplar Chopper
 Tim Volk, senior research associate with the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY ESF) in Syracuse, had been bringing in equipment from Europe to harvest his research team&rsquo;s willow and poplar trees until he got a call from Case New Holland. &ldquo;They said they could run a forage chopper through our willow,&rdquo; Volk says. &ldquo;And we said, &lsquo;By all means, come and do it.&rsquo;&rdquo;
 The company developed a cutting head for its forage chopper that will cut and chip willow and poplar up to 4 inches in diameter. The forage chopper is traditionally used for corn or grass, but the new cutting head allows the conventional equipment to harvest short rotation woody crops as well. &ldquo;So the advantage of this machine is that people can use it to harvest agricultural crops during the growing season and then after leaf fall, which is when we harvest, they can change the cutting head on the front of the machine and run it through willow and poplar,&rdquo; Volk explains.
 Much like John Deere, Case New Holland developed its machine after seeing a need in the market, mainly in Europe. &ldquo;We didn&rsquo;t invent forage harvesting like this, but we&rsquo;ve perfected it, if you will,&rdquo; says Dave Wagner, brand marketing manager for New Holland. While several units have been sold in Europe where the wood chip industry is further along, Wagner says the equipment is still in experimental stages in North America, evaluating the end uses for the material. &ldquo;The cutting head itself is ready now,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;What we&rsquo;re missing is really a stream of product to harvest and the ultimate uses of that product.&rdquo;
 The header itself comes with a price tag of about $105,000 and the entire chopping package with a self-propelled harvester runs about $400,000, Wagner says, reiterating Volk&rsquo;s point that the cutting head can be switched after traditional harvests, allowing for another viable season for use of the forage harvester to help put more hours on it and pay for itself sooner.&nbsp;
 A high-quality, salable product pays off, too. &ldquo;In the past few years, the material we&rsquo;ve been getting out of this system has been very nice,&rdquo; Volk assures. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s very consistent quality and the chip size fits well within the specifications of all the end users we&rsquo;ve talked to. So people have generally been very happy with the end product that&rsquo;s coming out of the machine.&rdquo; Some coordinating and logistics issues remain, such as how to get the chips off the field fast enough and dump them into trucks, Volk says. His willow harvests have been going to heating plants and combined-heat-and-power plants, as well as coal plants.
 For the most part, hybrid poplar and other short-rotation woody energy crops in the U.S. cater to forestry equipment, planted farther apart and harvested only after it reaches a certain size suitable for the heavier-duty forest machinery. Europe, however, has tens of thousands of acres that are harvested using a more efficient modified sugarcane harvester. &ldquo;Forestry equipment is not efficient for these crops,&rdquo; Volk says. &ldquo;You need to modify ag equipment.&rdquo;
 There&rsquo;s no question that a stronger biomass market in America would drive sales of that modified equipment, Wagner says. &ldquo;If there were uses for the products that are created this way and there were a source for the raw material &hellip; we&rsquo;re ready to go today,&rdquo; he says, adding that it would take a few months to build more heads, but that&rsquo;s just a drop in the bucket in the life cycle of a tree.
 Volk thinks the market for Case New Holland&rsquo;s forage harvester and cutting head will develop with custom operators who will cut others&rsquo; wood crops, instead of landowners and loggers using the machinery themselves. It&rsquo;s just too expensive for every landowner to own one. &ldquo;Just like not everybody owns a combine or a forage harvester now,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;They often hire out that work to be done and I think that model will continue.&rdquo;
 Baling Biomass
 Stempower Resources, based in St. Joseph, Minn., has experienced a similar lag in machine sales for the Biobaler, developed by Anderson Group in Quebec, Canada. Stempower is marketing the machinery in the upper Midwest, focusing on the area&rsquo;s thick brush that is too dense for traditional agricultural machinery, but not thick enough to warrant forestry equipment. The Biobaler uses a large cutter drum and is pulled behind a traditional tractor. &ldquo;It cuts the trees, chips them, throws them into a bale chamber and wraps them into a 4-by-4-foot, roughly half-ton bale,&rdquo; says Peter Gillitzer, Stempower president and co-founder.
 The Biobaler is the only commercial woody biomass baler on the market, Gillitzer says, adding that other brush cutters just shred the material on-site and blow the pieces back onto the ground, but don&rsquo;t gather it in an efficient way for use. &ldquo;The main benefit is first you can use an existing tractor,&rdquo; he emphasizes. &ldquo;And the second is instead of a chip&mdash;where you&rsquo;re basically locked in at that moisture content and you have to utilize that within three to six months&mdash;bales can be stored, inventoried and dried down. You&rsquo;ll increase the Btu value of it.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Even with the material drying advantage, selling the machine has proven difficult because a lack of market for the product stands in the way. Gillitzer&rsquo;s strategy has been to encourage a marriage between the Biobaler and land management, marketing to state and federal agencies and private landowners. &ldquo;In the long term, I think it&rsquo;s pretty attractive because it&rsquo;s going to offer a type of material&mdash;small diameter trees and shrubs&mdash;that currently there&rsquo;s no viable way to harvest,&rdquo; he says.
 Volume and Moisture
 One major challenge in harvesting dedicated energy crops is the volume of the material in comparison with agricultural crops, according to Sam Jackson, research assistant professor with the Center for Renewable Carbon at the University of Tennessee. &ldquo;When you start talking particularly about dedicated energy crops, the volume of material of biomass per acre typically is far greater than anything that these folks have encountered in terms of harvesting hay crops, alfalfa crops and things like that,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;So one of the hurdles they&rsquo;re working to overcome is how do we efficiently handle this volume of biomass that in some cases can be four times what a normal hay field might yield?&rdquo;
 Dedicated energy crops are typically cut and mowed, then baled, while crop residues can be effectively harvested using bales or cob caddies, Jackson says. His team has been working with switchgrass and aims to develop an efficient single-pass harvesting system, with moisture content being the biggest hurdle. The team works with researchers from Genera Energy, a company developed by the university, and received a grant from the U.S. DOE to evaluate in-field chopping of switchgrass to replace baling. The experiment is expected to yield higher operating efficiencies, as the chopped material can be handled in a more automated way than large bales.
 Currently, though, the team uses relatively standard machinery. &ldquo;Typically what we&rsquo;ve used has been standard hay equipment that is unmodified or has been slightly modified with larger pickup heads or a higher-capacity throughput mower,&rdquo; Jackson says.
 That type of modification will be seen more in the herbaceous energy crop sector, he predicts, as minor modifications can typically make existing equipment suitable for the current scope of dedicated energy crops being harvested in the U.S. &ldquo;There will be more specialized equipment in the future, but I think as of right now, you&rsquo;re seeing most of these manufacturers being able to modify existing equipment.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Those manufacturers are certainly researching and testing new ideas, recognizing the market potential biomass represents. &ldquo;All in all, I think they&rsquo;re all fairly bullish on the market opportunity for them, and this investment&mdash;in terms of testing equipment, modifying equipment&mdash;is something that will pay off in the future for them,&rdquo; Jackson says.
 Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4952 <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com</a>

2010/10/128812355637.jpg

BUNDLING BIOMASS: John Deere\'s Energy Wood Harvester has the capacity to cut more than 25 bundles, weighing 900 to 1,300 pounds, an hour. 

2010/10/128812361552.jpg

WOODY CROP CHOPPER: Case New Holland\'s forage chopper can be fitted with a cutting head suitable for harvesting willow and poplar trees. 

2010/10/128812365138.jpg

BRUSH BALER: The Biobaler can be pulled behind a traditional tractor and is ideal for thick brush biomass harvesting. 

2010/10/12881236778.jpg

Equipment manufacturers are designing harvesting and handling machinery tailored to biomass material, but marketing those systems outside of Europe is proving difficult without robust biomass markets. 

Gearing Up

Combusting compact biomass briquettes, cubes or logs for heat and power isn&rsquo;t as common in the U.S. as it is in Europe, but it&rsquo;s starting to make some headway in the country&rsquo;s solid biomass fuel sector. Private and municipal power utilities, universities and others are interested in using the fuel as a means to reduce emissions, efficiently utilize waste streams that they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of or to meet renewable energy mandates such as state renewable portfolio standards.
 Wood or agriculture-based briquettes vary in weight and shape but are typically 10 to 12 times less the bulk density of the original biomass source and have an energy value of about 7,500 Btu per pound.
 The most important factors in producing briquettes are the type of biomass used and its particle size and moisture content, according to Steven Smith, managing partner of Renew Energy Systems, an Iowa-based equipment distributor for C.F. Neilson, which is a Denmark-based biomass briquette system manufacturer that has been selling machines globally since the 1980s.
 Weighing in on Briquettes
 Briquetting is largely an automated process, Smith says. &ldquo;Generally speaking, we can briquette things in the range of 10 to 20 percent moisture, but it really depends on the type of feedstock,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;For wood, we want that number to be somewhere between 8 and 15 percent moisture.&rdquo;
 Once proper moisture content is determined, or the material is dried, the briquetting process begins with feeding the biomass into the system. From there, the process is relatively simple&mdash;the material is compressed, pressured and heated to between 225 to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. In Renew&rsquo;s system, the material is fed out of the machine in a continuous line and cut into 4&frac12;- to 5-pound briquettes and packaged into 20-pound bags for residential use, or broken into pucks or pieces for industrial use.
 The largest machine, which comes with a $325,000 to $400,000 price tag, is capable of processing about 1 ton of briquettes every half hour, up to 2 tons per hour. &ldquo;If you&rsquo;re briquetting straw, miscanthus, switchgrass, hay or anything very spongy that doesn&rsquo;t have a lot of density, you won&rsquo;t get 2 tons an hour,&rdquo; Smith explains. &ldquo;With hickory or oak, we can pack more punch into a foot, and the brick is a lot heavier.&rdquo;
 Dave Schmucker, president of California-based Biomass Briquette Systems LLC, points out that some agricultural feedstocks such as miscanthus and switchgrass, depending on how the machine is built, may need some type of binder. &ldquo;A wood feedstock binds well because it has lignin in it,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Others don&rsquo;t, so you&rsquo;ll have to add a binder or mix in some other feedstock that has a natural binder.&rdquo;
 Choosing a System
 Biomass Briquette Systems currently markets two commercial-sized briquetters, a hydraulic system and a mechanical system. &ldquo;Hydraulics are typically, but not always, less expensive overall, and they are slower with lower production, so they&rsquo;re good for small- to medium-size operations,&rdquo; Schmucker explains. &ldquo;Mechanical systems are usually used in high-volume operations and are more expensive.&rdquo;
 Similar to Renew Energy, Biomass Briquette System&rsquo;s machines are manufactured overseas, but engineered and designed in the states to ensure that they meet U.S. standards. The company has a parts warehouse in southern California, and manufactures support equipment including silos, grinders and augers to feed the biomass into the briquetters.&nbsp;Biomass Briquette Systems&nbsp;is also the exclusive U.S. distributor for Denmark-based LIN-KA&rsquo;s biomass boiler systems.
 Biomass Briquette Systems aids in the design and layout of a briquette plant and performs the installation. The company&rsquo;s Web page contains a feature allowing buyers and sellers of densified fuel to post ads at no charge.&nbsp;
 While Renew Energy and Biomass Briquette primarily provide briquetting systems to customers, Cliffs Natural Resources subsidiary Renewafuel LLC has entered the briquetting business from a different angle&mdash;building, owning and operating plants that serve as alternative fuel suppliers. Renewafuel&rsquo;s product, which is smaller and in the shape of a cube, differs slightly from typical briquettes.
 The company recently completed construction of its first full-scale biomass cube production plant in Marquette, Mich., and is focusing on marketing the cubes as a cofiring option for large-scale coal-fired utilities.
 Chairman and CEO Bill Brake says the 1&frac14;x1&frac14;x2 inch cubes, which are composed of locally sourced wood and agricultural feedstocks, have about the same energy content as coal. &ldquo;We know customers need something that looks, handles and performs as much like coal as possible,&rdquo; he says.
 To make their product more economical, Renewafuel&rsquo;s transportation rule of thumb is 75 miles to source the feedstock and 150 miles to deliver the finished product. &ldquo;Our model is very much regional&mdash;from the collection to the processing and delivery of biomass,&rdquo; Brake says.
 Beyond coal replacements, a biomass briquette or cube may serve as an attractive alternative to pellets, depending on the desired end use.
 Briquettes Versus Pellets
 Briquette producers believe their process is more efficient than pelleting because the biomass materials they use don&rsquo;t necessarily have to be preprocessed or uniformly ground up, according to Smith. If they do have to be preprocessed, the preparation required is less forgiving than it is when making pellets. &ldquo;Because of the mass of a briquette compared with the small pellet, we&rsquo;re able to briquette things that can&rsquo;t be pelletized,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;For example, we can briquette manure, and we&rsquo;ve briquetted things such as pepperoni sausage casings from food processing plants.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Briquetting waste byproducts and using them on-site for energy rather than transporting them to another location or to a landfill can save on disposal costs. Renew has a mobile briquette system that can be set up inside or outside a factory to briquette waste materials. &ldquo;Obviously geographic factors are limiting, but the connection time is a lot quicker than if we set up a whole feed system in a factory,&rdquo; Smith says.
 Further comparing briquettes to pellets, Smith says they generally use less horsepower to produce&mdash;Renew&rsquo;s largest machines, including the feed system, use about 105 horsepower (HP). Schmucker says Biomass Briquette&rsquo;s largest machines use 100 HP motors, but the cost of running them largely depends on the regional power rates. Based on those rates, the company will help customers determine the cost of running their machines.
 Schmucker says that from a capital purchase standpoint, the machines used to make briquettes are less expensive and require less maintenance than pellet machines. There are advantages to using pellets, however, he points out. &ldquo;Pellets have been considered more of a residential fuel even though they are used in some larger, commercial applications, Schmucker says. &ldquo;Arguably, if you&rsquo;re doing a lot of transporting, after you densify a pellet and put it into a container you get more pounds per foot than you would a briquette, especially if the briquettes are larger, just because of the air between them when they are stacked.&rdquo; Overall, it&rsquo;s a matter of the application and purpose, he adds.
 Business and Interest
 Business in the past few years has fluctuated, Smith says. &ldquo;We went through a period where interest was huge, but the economy drove some of that away and we saw a decline in equipment sales.&rdquo;
 Lately, the value of the euro and the U.S. dollar has been more balanced and that&rsquo;s been a bright spot for Renew. &ldquo;The equipment that we sell is made in Denmark, so it&rsquo;s imported and sold in euros,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;When it was 1:5 or 1:6 a year-and-a-half ago, it was much more difficult to afford than now&mdash;it&rsquo;s at about 1:2 right now. So as far as getting equipment imported from Europe, it&rsquo;s a whole lot cheaper and that interest is coming back.&rdquo;
 New interest is also being driven by state and federal legislation prompting utilities and other companies to look at energy and biomass systems, he says. Mindset and adaptability of customers plays a big role as well, according to Brake. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re doing test burns with utilities, and there&rsquo;s interest from some who want to permit new facilities or expand the capacity of existing facilities and need a fuel to help them become compliant with regulations,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp;
 An operator who burns bulk fuel month after month must have the proper heat output and furnace stability to switch fuels, Brake says. &ldquo;Understanding the type of furnace they have, the type of coal they are currently using and the type of delivery system that they have determines the variety of biomass blends and configurations that we think would work best. What works best in a suspension type pulverized coal boiler is not necessarily at all the same fuel that would work well in a traditional stoker bed.&rdquo;
 Overall, Brake adds, biomass fuel runs the gamut of users and motivations. &ldquo;In general, we&rsquo;re finding that the enlightened user understands the value [of biomass] and the need to adapt.&rdquo;
 Author: Anna Austin Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4968 <a href="mailto:aaustin@bbiinternational.com">aaustin@bbiinternational.com&nbsp;</a>

2010/10/128812401872.jpg

POWERFUL PUCKS: Briquettes can be broken down into pucks or pieces and then packaged for residential or industrial use. 

2010/10/128812414339.jpg

Bill Brake, chairman and CEO of Renewafuel LLC, says their goal is to produce a biomass fuel that looks, handles and performs as much like coal as possible. 

2010/10/128812417496.jpg

COMPACT CUBES: Renewafuel recently completed construction of its first full-scale biomass cube production plant in Marquette, Mich.

2010/10/128812420153.jpg

ON A ROLL: Interest in biomass briquettes has increased as coal-fired power plants look for renewable alternatives. 

2010/10/128812424121.jpg

The biomass briquette business is rebounding after enduring tough economic times that drove some interest away from the industry. 


Packing Heat  and Power

Jesse VanEngelenhoven and his colleagues had two goals in mind when they began designing their biomass compressor. They wanted to develop a system that yielded a product sized somewhere between bales and pellets, and perhaps more important, they were determined to make the system less energy intensive than the pelletizing process.
 Three years later, VanEngelenhoven, research director of Columbia, Mo.-based Ecologic Tech, has real physical evidence that the idea holds water, or in this case biomass. With the help of the University of Missouri&rsquo;s Bradford Research and Extension Center, VanEngelenhoven and fellow researchers constructed the tabletizer, a machine that compacts biomass so tightly it can squeeze four times as much material into a tablet as a hay baler can wrap into a bale.
 &ldquo;Conventional methods of unitizing biomass are either balers or pelletizers,&rdquo; VanEnglenhoven says. &ldquo;What we wanted to do is try to fill that gap and be more efficient than the pelletizers.&rdquo; Work on the system began in 2007 and took off in 2009 with receipt of a U.S. DOE grant to build.
 Perfect Partners
 The partnership between Ecologic Tech and the Bradford Research and Extension Center was a no-brainer, as the two have complementary research opportunities and an existing relationship through the University of Missouri. Ecologic Tech was founded in 2000 by a retired MU civil engineering professor who had been with the school for 30 years. &ldquo;We have a close relationship,&rdquo;
VanEngelenhoven says of his company and the university. &ldquo;Bradford Research farm had the biomass and the facilities to build the machine and to provide biomass. With the relationship we already had with the university, it worked out really well.&rdquo; Bradford owns 600 acres of land planted with switchgrass, wheat, miscanthus and corn, and leases another 280 acres planted with the same crops, according to Tim Reinbott, farm superintendent. Harvests from Bradford&rsquo;s fields are traditionally used for other testing such as in research projects for graduate students and faculty at the university, he adds.
 But biomass isn&rsquo;t the only thing the Bradford center contributed to the project. The tabletizer was built in Bradford&rsquo;s lab and represents the first piece of biomass equipment to take up space there, Reinbott says, adding that his team&rsquo;s research focuses mostly on in-field evaluation and testing dealing with harvesting, crop rotation and economics. &ldquo;[Ecologic Tech] did the design and we just provided the area for them to do it,&rdquo; he says.
 Testing on the equipment was also done in the lab and, besides Bradford&rsquo;s crops and residues, also featured sawdust, wood chips, pine cones and waste paper. &ldquo;The only thing that didn&rsquo;t really behave itself without a little bit of effort was the switchgrass,&rdquo; VanEngelenhoven says. &ldquo;Everything compacted really well.&rdquo; Reinbott echoed that conclusion, saying corn stover seemed to yield the best tablet product.
 The Tabletizing Process
 The tabletizer works like this: a hopper with a hydraulic motor turns the auger and feeds the 4- to 6-inch diameter cylindrical mold with biomass. Then a ram pounds the biomass tightly into the mold, shrinking the material from about 10 inches to 2, which is smaller than most biomass briquettes.
&ldquo;Basically, it squeezes the snot out of it,&rdquo; VanEngelenhoven laughs. The mold then turns and ejects the compacted tablet. The pressure exerted on the biomass in the mold is about 20,000 pounds per square inch, enough to force the material to adhere together without additional binders. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t put anything extra in it,&rdquo; VanEngelenhoven says. Long, coarse-cut feedstocks are favorable in the process, as they stick together more easily, he adds.
 The resulting tablets have an average density of 55 pounds per cubic foot, compared with average bale density of 15 pounds per cubic foot and pellet density of about 45 pounds per cubic foot, VanEngelenhoven boasts. &ldquo;So it&rsquo;s significantly better than a baler, but it uses more energy as well,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;So in that realm, you have to try to compare how much energy this machine is using versus another machine and is there one that&rsquo;s inherently better? And the answer is, it depends on what you want it to do.&rdquo; If the densified material is being used at a power plant or to burn for heat in a home, a bale doesn&rsquo;t fit the bill because it&rsquo;s too big, VanEngelenhoven says. &ldquo;So if you want something smaller, you can go with pellets, or now you have this option.&rdquo;
 Each tablet weighs about 1.2 pounds and the time it takes to produce them depends on how much material is being compacted and how fluffy it is, VanEngelenhoven says. He considers corn stover, corn stalks and switchgrass to be fluffy. &ldquo;The density is really low and you have to get a lot of volume to get to 1.2 pounds.&rdquo;
 The tablets have not been tested extensively for energy density, but VanEngelenhoven says the higher material density will bring along with it higher energy density. The experiments have been geared toward use of the tablets in power plants, but VanEngelenhoven says he has not evaluated whether the material would make good feedstock for gasification processes.
 Testing thus far has centered on the speed of tablet production and energy use. By comparison, VanEngelenhoven says pelletizers on average produce between 20 and 30 pounds of biomass per horsepower of energy per hour. &ldquo;We were trying to beat that number and, given the measurements we took and the speed that the machine operates at, we were able to basically double that number,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp;
 Scaling Up
 The tabletizer has only been constructed on a lab scale, but a commercial system wouldn&rsquo;t be much bigger in size. &ldquo;This will produce the size of tablets that we want, but the difference between this and a commercial-scale machine would be that a commercial machine would need a bigger hydraulics system,&rdquo; VanEngelenhoven says. A commercial system would also need a larger motor than the lab-scale&rsquo;s 20 horsepower engine in order to operate heavier hydraulics and make the machine economically feasible.
 Ecologic Tech has applied for more DOE funding to help with the build out, but does not yet know if it will receive the money. Scaling up, unfortunately, is dependent on outside funding and if that grant doesn&rsquo;t come through, the company will look to commercial partners to push forward. &ldquo;The timeline is really funding dependent,&rdquo; VanEngelenhoven says. &ldquo;Right now we&rsquo;re kind of in a place where we want to further develop the machine, but the cost associated with building the next prototype makes it prohibitive for us. Since we&rsquo;ve got other technologies in our stable that appear to be more profitable, that&rsquo;s where we&rsquo;re devoting our resources at this time.&rdquo;
 Reinbott hopes to spark interest in some of the students doing projects at the extension center in further developing the system and helping with the scale up. Many have expressed a desire to pursue the project and Reinbott says they realize the importance of such a process. &ldquo;We&rsquo;d like to see it fully developed,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I think there&rsquo;s more to do and further testing.&rdquo;
 Costs for the commercialized system will be $100,000 to $200,000 but most likely will not be for single-user applications. &ldquo;Most people won&rsquo;t be able to use the entire capacity of the machine by themselves,&rdquo; VanEngelenhoven says. &ldquo;We are talking 17,000 tons per year and that&rsquo;s a lot of biomass.&rdquo;
 As international export trends develop for wood pellets, one can&rsquo;t help but wonder if the tablets could enter and enhance those markets. VanEngelenhoven responds with an enthusiastic yes. &ldquo;Absolutely,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Simply because we can produce a product that has a significantly higher density than pellets and so because of that fact, our shipping costs will be lower and our energy density will be higher.&rdquo;
 Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4952 <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com</a>

JAM PACKED: The tabletizer can squeeze four times as much material into a tablet as a baler can wrap hay into a bale.

2010/10/128812438451.jpg

TONS OF TABLETS: The tabletizer tightly compacts biomass without the need for additional binders. 

2010/10/128812443885.jpg

FARMING FEEDSTOCK: The Bradford Research and Extension Center provides biomass for testing in the tabletizer. 

2010/10/128812447664.jpg

COMPRESSION CRACKERJACK: The Tabletizer squeezes biomass into high-material density tablets that weigh about 1.2 pounds each.

2010/10/128812451366.jpg

Researchers in Missouri have developed a biomass compactor they say can produce tablets with higher material density, and therefore higher energy density, than other unified biomass products on the market. 


Energy  Tablets

Biomass utilization isn't the only way to meet rising energy demand and decrease fossil fuel use, but it will play an important role in the future of renewable energy.
 This perennial grass has only been studied as an energy source the past 30 years or so, but compared with centuries-old corn and soybeans, switchgrass has the potential to be an important crop, especially in the Southern U.S.
 David Parrish, a retired agronomist and professor at Virginia Tech, where he says the story of switchgrass began, says switchgrass is a good candidate for a dedicated energy crop for electricity or biofuel production but advancements need to be made.
 Parrish has studied the establishment and management of switchgrass for more than 30 years, and took&nbsp; part in the U.S. DOE&rsquo;s initial research project to study switchgrass as an energy crop. One of the first steps to growing switchgrass is selecting an appropriate variety, Parrish says.
&nbsp;
Choosing a Variety 
 Switchgrass is generally categorized into upland and lowland varieties, but Parrish says the title of each has little relevance to where they are and can be grown. &ldquo;The titles imply that the lowlands are found in river bottoms and uplands are found in drier areas, but that&rsquo;s not necessarily the case,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Lowland types may be found in drier sites and can be productive there as well. A better generalization for them is that the lowland types are southern/southeastern and the upland types are more northern.&rdquo; Lowland varieties are not hardy and wouldn&rsquo;t survive well in harsh weather conditions found in the northern U.S., Parrish adds.
 Once a variety is chosen, the next step is to get the crop established.
 Establishment Issues
 Switchgrass has three main establishment enemies&mdash;weeds, dry ground and seed dormancy, which is commonly considered the biggest hurdle.
 &nbsp;&ldquo;If you harvest switchgrass seed directly from the plant and plant that seed, it won&rsquo;t grow,&rdquo; Parrish says. Ninety-five percent of switchgrass seed will not germinate. &ldquo;If you look at the seed tag information on the bag, it will report that the seeds are 80 to 90 percent germinable. That&rsquo;s true, but those tests are done when they&rsquo;ve performed a procedure that breaks the dormancy.&rdquo;
 So how do you get the seeds to germinate? There are a couple of ways to do that on a commercial scale, the first is a biological process called after ripening. &ldquo;If you just leave it for a couple of years, [its dormancy] disappears,&rdquo; Parrish says. &ldquo;It naturally becomes more germinable over time. That won&rsquo;t work from the seed salesman&rsquo;s standpoint because he wants to sell it, but the grower can plan two or three years ahead of time and hold on to the seed until it&rsquo;s ready to germinate in a few years.&rdquo;
 The other way to break dormancy is a process called stratification, where seed is moistened and exposed to a cool environment. This mimics what happens in nature when seeds fall from the plants and onto the ground during winter and when spring approaches, they are ready to germinate.
 This can be done with a 100-pound bag of seed by dropping it into a garbage can full of water, letting the seed soak up the water, pulling it out and letting most of the water drain off, according to Parrish. The bag should then be enclosed in a plastic bag to retain moisture, placed in a refrigerator and stored at 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit for a month.
 &ldquo;The real problem comes when you take the seed out of the cool temperature, because now it is ready to germinate so the seed has to be dried very quickly,&rdquo; he says. Spreading the seed out and drying it with fans is a quick solution. It is extra work, but it could be the difference between success and failure in establishment, or having to buy 20 times more seed, if only 5 percent is germinable, Parrish says.
 The cost of seed varies, mainly depending on whether it is an upland or lowland variety, says Frank Hardimon, certified crop adviser and director of sales at Ceres/Blade Energy Crops. &ldquo;A good lowland variety will vary, but for seeding cost per acre, generally it will be about $100 to $120 per acre, depending on the amount of pure live seed that you are putting on,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp;
 Parrish says if demand for switchgrass suddenly goes up, as it did during the 1980s in response to the USDA&rsquo;s Conservation Reserve Program, farmers will want to get by with as little seed as they can because prices will go up. &ldquo;There are almost a quarter million seeds in a pound, so if you get every one of them to germinate, you&rsquo;ll have plenty of switchgrass just planting a couple of pounds per acre,&rdquo; he says.
 Perennial grasses are typically slow to establish, says Chuck West, an agronomist/forage and biomass physiology and ecology professor at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville. &ldquo;Annual crops establish quickly because they have to; they only have one growing season to complete their life cycle,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Switchgrass seeds are very small&mdash;small packets of energy that provide for seedling growth&mdash;and the smaller it is, the less energy it has.&rdquo;
 Unlike switchgrass, which is slow to germinate and emerge, the weeds that grow amongst it are mostly annuals and are genetically programmed to germinate fast and take over. Parrish recommends spraying the whole field to kill off existing vegetation or burning it off, if there is enough crop residue to sustain a fire, a month or so before planting. &ldquo;Then plant into that killed and burned stubble,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;There will be some that escape&mdash;perennial weeds that germinate and come up after the spray&mdash;so a second shot at planting time to catch emerging weeds should level the playing field.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Harvesting and Yields
 In Virginia, Parrish says he has seen the best success when switchgrass was planted in about the third week of June. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve found it&rsquo;s best to wait and plant after the soil is fully warm, but also being mindful of weeds germinating during that time.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Of course, planting late means harvesting will be late. &ldquo;If you harvest late, after it goes through that natural die-back, then you&rsquo;ve got a better quality biomass&mdash;it&rsquo;s lower in nitrogen content and already dry, so a farmer can cut it and bale it in the same day,&rdquo; Parrish says. When using the grass for pyrolysis, gasification or biochemical processes, nitrogen can negatively impact the quality, Parrish says. Because the nitrogen stays in the soil, farmers don&rsquo;t have to add more nitrogen into the soil.
 While a farmer may not initially notice the advantage of harvesting switchgrass late, it will become more apparent over time. &ldquo;If you wait until September to November to harvest, you&rsquo;re going lose about 10 percent of your yield, but that&rsquo;s only for one year,&rdquo; Parrish says. &ldquo;If you look at it over multiple years, you&rsquo;ll find that harvesting before the die-back has occurred will reduce yields in the next year because the plant is weakened.&rdquo;
 On good soil in the South, a realistic target is 8 to 10 tons per acre, according to West. In some southern locations with poorer soil&mdash;rocky, sloping or sandy&mdash;yields will be in the 5 to 7 ton per acre range. &ldquo;During the first year, if you can get your switchgrass plots to about knee high in September, that&rsquo;s great,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;If you can get it waist high, that&rsquo;s phenomenal. You&rsquo;ve got a fantastic stand if you have one plant for every 2 square feet.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Growers should consider the concepts of switchgrass establishment and growth or yield separately because at the end of the first year the plants may not even be worth harvesting, but the establishment could still be excellent, West says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s really getting the plants to come up and survive all that weed pressure. Once you&rsquo;re over the one- to 1&frac12;-year establishment barrier, switchgrass may be there for 10 to 15 years, so annual costs become minimal.&nbsp;
 While interest in planting switchgrass is growing, its growth rate hinges on one factor&mdash;demand. &ldquo;If there was a market for switchgrass, more farmers would probably grow it,&rdquo; Parrish says.
 Market-Driven Interest
 Establishing a market for the crop involves getting farmers to do something out of their comfort zone and building facilities to use the crop.
 &ldquo;Based on my observations and conversations, [energy crops haven&rsquo;t] really caught on with farmers at-large,&rdquo; Parrish says. He believes that has much to do with some farmers being set in traditional ways of doing things. &ldquo;Many aren&rsquo;t ready to try something new, and like what already works.&rdquo;
 In Arkansas, nobody is jumping into it because there are no buyers for the biomass. West says. &ldquo;Farmers aren&rsquo;t likely to grow a new crop unless they&rsquo;re sure there&rsquo;s an end market&mdash;meaning a contract with an end-user,&rdquo; Hardimon adds. &ldquo;It could even be an export opportunity; they just want the economics to work out.&rdquo;
 Hardimon provides support between biorefineries or utilities interested in biopower applications and farmers who want to grow energy crops for them. He&rsquo;s been involved in growing switchgrass for a Genera Energy, DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol and University of Tennessee project, and says this spring he supervised the planting of more than 1,000 acres of switchgrass, which are faring well.&nbsp;
 Part of Hardimon&rsquo;s work involves holding educational meetings for farmers interested in growing switchgrass and other energy crops to discuss soil preparation, correct seed planting depth and what problems may emerge. &ldquo;When a project is getting off the ground, these grower meetings are critical to set expectations for the project,&rdquo; he says.
 Parrish, West and Hardimon all agree that if the Biomass Crop Assistance Program is adequately revised and running again, it would help get things moving. &ldquo;It will help alleviate some of the costs and risks of establishment and make it more attractive,&rdquo; West says. &ldquo;Even then though, there is no big biomass user or power plant that I know of in or near Arkansas using biomass. When a user does get established here, the word will go out that they&rsquo;re looking for producers and that might change. We have a lot of land in Arkansas that switchgrass would do very well on&mdash;better than row crops&mdash;some of which has been abandoned or underutilized.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 BCAP will help, Hardimon says, but the U.S. also needs to focus more on renewable energy and provide funds to build qualified conversion facilities, which will be tied to growing the crops.
 Switchgrass is not an established crop so there is still much to learn about it, Parrish says &ldquo;Some varieties have been improved, but it&rsquo;s still very much a wild species,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;When we do fully understand its biology and needs, it will serve us well; it&rsquo;s just going to take some time.&rdquo; Author: Anna Austin Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4968 <a href="mailto:aaustin@bbiinternational.com">aaustin@bbiinternational.com</a>

IN THE FIELD: A Ceres switchgrass researcher collects field data in a breeding nursery.

2010/10/128812469717.jpg

David Parrish, retired agronomist and professor at Virginia Tech, says switchgrass is a promising dedicated energy crop but advancements in crop production still need to be made. 

2010/10/128812473741.jpg

TINY SEEDS, BIG YIELDS: Switchgrass seeds may be small and slow to germinate, but once the crop is established the plants can survive for 10 to 15 years. 


2010/10/128812476577.jpg

Researchers in the Southern U.S. are drilling into the challenges of establishing dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass in anticipation of increased demand. 

Studying Switchgrass

On April 29, the U.S. EPA issued the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 40 CFR Subpart DDDDD, including requirements for both new and existing sources. This rule is often referred to as Boiler MACT. The proposed rule replaces EPA&rsquo;s original 2004 rule, which was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In the original rule, there were requirements for single categories of new and existing biomass boilers. In the latest proposed rule, new and existing biomass boilers are each broken into four subcategories, which are based on boiler type: stoker, fluidized bed, suspension burner/Dutch oven and fuel cell.
 Emission limits are proposed by subcategory for five air pollutants: particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, mercury, carbon monoxide and dioxin/furan. Figures 1-5 provide a comparison by pollutant of the original proposed 2004 MACT emission limits to the new proposed MACT emission limits, categorized by combustion technology, for biomass boilers. On each graph the red bars represent the emission limits that would be imposed on existing biomass boilers and the blue bars represent the limits proposed for new biomass boilers. For particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, and mercury, the graphs show that the proposed MACT limits are much smaller than the original MACT limits. For carbon monoxide and dioxin/furan, there is a wide range of proposed limits by combustion technology, which could influence the choice of combustion technology for facilities proposing to install new biomass combustion units.&nbsp;
 Some technologies, such as fluidized bed designs, are recognized as being much more efficient at combustion and generally have lower carbon monoxide emissions than other technologies. However, this boiler type generally has a much higher capital equipment cost and now the proposed Boiler MACT imposes a much lower emission limit, potentially dis-incentivizing this choice of a lower-emitting boiler design for future projects.
 One of the most significant complaints about the proposed Boiler MACT emission limits is that each limit was developed independently from the pool of boilers and process heaters for which EPA had available data. While existing boilers may meet some of the emission limits, industry groups are pointing out that no single boiler in the U.S. meets all of the standards. What this means is that every major source biomass boiler, to which the rule applies, would be required to install one or more control technologies to become compliant with all five of the pollutant categories. What concerns many biomass boiler owners is that the necessary controls may be prohibitively expensive. In the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA has stated: &ldquo;We could not identify better HAP emissions reduction approaches that could achieve greater emission reduction of HAP than the control technology combination (fabric filter, carbon injection, scrubber and GCP (good combustion practices)) that we expect will be used to meet the MACT floor level of control.&rdquo;
 In addition to expensive emission control systems, the proposed rule would also require that boilers rated at greater than 100 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr) heat input install a continuous emission monitoring (CEM) system for carbon monoxide to demonstrate compliance with limits. Biomass boilers with a heat input greater than 250 MMBtu/hr would be required to install a particulate CEM system.
Compliance with other emission limits could be demonstrated through fuel analysis, performance tests and parametric monitoring. All existing boilers will be required to conduct an energy assessment to identify energy conservation measures, implement recordkeeping, and conduct reporting of compliance.&nbsp; Fortunately, small boilers (those under 10 MMBtu/hr) will not have emission limits, and will only be subject to work practice standards which include a periodic tune-up of the boiler.&nbsp;
 Meeting Proposed Limits
 Golder Associates evaluated 16 biomass boilers at major source facilities to evaluate compliance with the proposed Boiler MACT. The boilers ranged from 31 to 450 MMBtu/hr of biomass heat input. Each was evaluated pollutant by pollutant using specific facility source test data, where available.
 Filterable Particulate Matter: Five of the 16 boilers would meet the particulate matter limit with existing control devices, three would have to modify their control devices and eight would have to install a dry or wet electrostatic precipitator.
 Hydrogen Chloride: Six of the 16 boilers would be in compliance with the proposed limits and nine boilers had no data so the status is unknown. One boiler burns wood fuel previously in contact with saltwater and would need a 75 percent reduction in emissions by an added control device. Based on the data available, it appears that the hydrogen chloride limit could be met by most boilers, except for those with elevated chloride in the fuel from saltwater exposure or composite panel resin.
 Mercury: Four of the 16 boilers would be able to meet the proposed limit with existing controls and eight boilers do not have data so the status could not be determined. Four boilers would need an added control device to meet the proposed limit. It appears from the data that most boilers would be able to meet the proposed emission limit, unless the fuel contains elevated mercury content. If mercury emissions need to be reduced greater than 90 percent to meet the proposed limit, then changes to the fuel stream would be required because it is unlikely that add-on control devices or carbon injection would be sufficient.
 Carbon Monoxide: Four of the 16 boilers would be in compliance with the proposed limits, and 12 boilers would need to reduce carbon monoxide emissions to comply. Many boilers have nitrogen dioxide limits, and have been tuned to achieve lower nitrogen dioxide emissions, which can cause the boiler to emit carbon monoxide at a higher rate. It was assumed that up to a 30 percent reduction could be achieved through a combination of fuel handling improvements and combustion improvements; otherwise a control device would need to be installed. For most of the boilers Golder Associates reviewed, add-on controls would be necessary.
 Dioxin/Furan: Fifteen of the 16 boilers did not have any data and the compliance status was not known. The one boiler that did have emission data would need an 80 percent reduction in dioxins/furans to meet the proposed limit. Some solid waste was being added to the hogged fuel, which can contribute to high dioxin/furan emissions.&nbsp; Given the scarcity of data, it is unknown whether most boilers will need to install control equipment to meet the proposed limit. According to the EPA, rapid cooling of the boilers exhaust before a particulate control device, to less than 400 degrees Fahrenheit, can effectively control dioxin/furan emissions, but this may not be easy for existing boilers to achieve.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 What&rsquo;s Next?
 Based on Golder Associates&rsquo; review it was obvious that many biomass boilers have not been tested for all of the pollutants that will be the subject of emission limits in the Boiler MACT. A successful compliance strategy will be contingent on understanding a boiler&rsquo;s emissions and to what degree they would need to be reduced in order to meet the MACT standards. Facilities that have not already conducted emissions testing should consider doing it now, before the final rule is promulgated.&nbsp; Source test companies and pollution control vendors may be stretched beyond capacity once the rule is finalized. Being prepared early may be critical.
 By court order, EPA was required to promulgate the final major source Boiler MACT rule by Dec. 16. EPA has received a one-month postponement until Jan. 16. According to a letter from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., &ldquo;the final standards will most assuredly differ from the proposed ones.&rdquo; This is in response to the significant number of comments EPA has received. When the rule is finally promulgated, existing biomass boilers will have three years in which to attain compliance with mandated requirements.
 Authors: Chad Darby Senior Consultant, Golder Associates Inc. (503) 607-1820 <a href="mailto:Chad_Darby@golder.com">Chad_Darby@golder.com</a> Danielle Lenzini Senior Project Specialist, Golder Associates Inc. (503) 607-1820 <a href="mailto:Danielle_Lenzini@golder.com">Danielle_Lenzini@golder.com</a>

2010/10/128812492934.jpg

2010/10/128812494927.jpg

2010/10/128812496323.jpg

2010/10/12881249884.jpg

2010/10/128812500885.jpg

A proposed new Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard that would impose stricter hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission limits and other requirements on biomass boilers and process heaters could lead to greater expenditures, and the financial

MACT for  Biomass Boilers—DÃ©jÃ  Vu?

If one man&rsquo;s trash is another&rsquo;s treasure, then harvesting that treasure and transforming it into a saleable resource just got easier. By modifying their field-proven line of mulchers and chippers, Fecon Inc. engineers, working with Joe Roise, an industry leader in forestry from North Carolina State University, have developed a line of biomass harvesters that transform the slash and debris from forestry and logging operations into biomass fuel. These technologies provide another revenue stream for foresters, loggers and contractors who work in the woods and address ecological (and economic) concerns such as sustainable energy, forest fire fuels reduction and wildlife habitat restoration. Abundance of Opportunity
 Woody biomass in North American forests is a concern because the fast-burning underbrush provides a &ldquo;ladder&rdquo; for fires to reach tall tree tops, which is the fastest way to spread forest fires. The underbrush also endangers species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker because the brush allows predators easy access to their nests.
 At the same time, as a nation we are striving to enhance our production of sustainable energy. Clearly something must be done. Fecon engineers have developed new products to harvest the woody debris that is at the root of the problem, and use it for biomass power generation facilities. The electricity generated would be cleaner&mdash;emitting less CO2 into the atmosphere&mdash;while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And the woody debris is carbon neutral because plants are part of the atmospheric carbon cycle.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Currently, 27 states have renewable electricity standards in place&mdash;a measure of the importance of renewable and sustainable energy production. Each state has mandated that a certain percentage of their energy must be generated through sustainable means by a target date. For example, Ohio must generate 12.5 percent of its electricity demand through renewable resources by 2025. North Carolina, where Roise lives and works, is more aggressive, targeting 12.5 percent of its retail electricity demand through renewable energy by 2021.
 While there are numerous cogeneration facilities around the country that can accept biomass materials, there are nowhere near enough to provide 12.5 percent of the retail electricity demand. That is due to several reasons&mdash;not the least of which is supply. Currently, the only way to economically harvest woody material for cogeneration facilities is to harvest mature trees and utilize the tops and branches. Residual biomass is a byproduct of traditional forest product harvesting and much of the cost is supported by saw timber and pulp. Thus the biomass supply will fluctuate with the demand for lumber and paper, which is not ideal for supplying energy to a cogen facility.&nbsp;
 Conventional forest harvesting requires workers with specialized equipment, including feller bunchers and whole tree chippers. Add the costs to transport the harvested biomass to a cogen facility (which would be offset by the price the facility pays for clean cogen materials) and it is understandable why the geographic range for these activities is limited.&nbsp;
 It is only economically feasible to harvest biomass near cogen facilities. Because conventional methods harvest mature trees and leave the underbrush, the problems with ecosystem degradation and the potential for catastrophic forest fires still exist.
 &ldquo;It is a chicken and egg situation,&rdquo; Roise says.&nbsp; &ldquo;Without a supply of material it does not make sense to build the plants &ndash; and without a market for the materials, why would you own the equipment?&rdquo; But Roise and the Fecon team have a vision to change that by working together to build and test several variations of biomass harvesting technology.
&nbsp;
Simple Concept, Difficult Delivery
 The Bio-Harvester started out as an adaptation to the Fecon line of mulchers, which are used to clear rights-of-way for utilities, remove underbrush to mitigate forest fuels loading and general land clearing for development and habitat restoration projects. Until now, the shredded material was left on the ground. With the Bio-Harvester, however, the shredded materials are collected and blown into an attached collection wagon called a hopper. When full, the hopper is emptied into a truck for transport to a cogeneration facility. Materials are handled once by a single operator, making it simpler and more economical to harvest.&nbsp;
 While the concept is simple, the devil is in the details. For starters, the rotor which contains the teeth that shred the woody materials is flipped so that it rotates backwards, discharging materials upward rather than downward. Previously the design used the ground as an anvil to help tear woody materials apart&mdash;now the upward rotation simplifies collection but at a cost (smaller diameter materials are targeted).&nbsp;
 &nbsp;A second technology&mdash;fitting a drum chipper onto a tracked carriage&mdash;is also being developed for harvesting biomass. So far, initial testing of both methodologies is promising. Operators are able to tweak the machines&rsquo; performance, bringing them closer to providing a machine that will increase the range of harvesting biomass further from cogeneration facilities.
 Processing Parameters, Operator Preferences
 When the team designed and built the first prototype Bio-Harvester they were striving to produce 10 tons per hour of shredded green waste that could be harvested by a single operator.
 &ldquo;The machine is designed for materials less than 8 inches in diameter at breast height,&rdquo; says Mark Ferguson, Fecon product manager. &ldquo;It is designed to gather materials that are not practically harvested by any other method.&rdquo;
 Fecon has also developed the RTC-22, a disc chipper mounted to a tracked machine called a forwarder, which chips waste material from logging operations and other forestry applications. This tracked carrier is equipped with a grapple to feed the woody debris into the chipper. The RTC can handle materials up to 22 inches in diameter, and has a processing speed of 35 to 40 tons per hour.&nbsp; &ldquo;Each technology addresses a different need,&rdquo; says Brian Sellers, RTC product manager. &ldquo;The RTC is ideal for chipping of debris left from cut-to-length logging operations. If material is stacked and ready at a landing site, we can process 35 to 40 tons per hour of good quality fuel chips.&rdquo;
 &nbsp;These production rates take into account the assumption that cogen facilities will pay $18 to $28 per ton for materials (the rates at time of initial testing). Naturally, if the price increases over these rates, then the operations have more leniencies in terms of their production rate, operating costs or profit margins. Additionally, some states (including Texas) have matching funds to supplement the price of biomass and help develop markets, or ensure an adequate supply of material. Also the federal Biomass Crop Assistance Program program will provide matching funds to biomass producers who deliver to a processing facility. These numbers do not take into account the fact that landowners currently pay $500 to $1,000-plus per acre to mulch brush and hazardous fuels.
 Fuels Reduction Potential
 In addition to the potential for developing sustainable energy and reducing dependence on coal or oil, the Bio-Harvester also shows potential for fuels reduction in forests, which are clogged with underbrush due to what could be considered the law of unintended consequences.&nbsp;
 &ldquo;In the past 60 years or so we have been very successful in suppressing fires,&rdquo; Roise says.
&ldquo;Unfortunately that has allowed the growth of brush to continue unchecked&mdash;creating an unprecedented buildup of flammable materials in the forest.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 While eliminating this nuisance is important, using the materials for a beneficial purpose is why Roise and the Bio-Harvester team are excited about their success.&nbsp;
 Another unintended consequence of the growth of underbrush in our forests is that it alters ecosystems. Take the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, for example. When forest fires would naturally maintain the growth of brush, the red-cockaded woodpecker was relatively safe in its nests. As brush grows higher, though, its habitat becomes more undesirable as natural predators such as snakes can slither through the brush, giving easy access to the woodpeckers&rsquo; nests. Disappearing habitat has catapulted the red-cockaded woodpecker onto the list of endangered species.&nbsp;
 A Bio-Harvester test in North Carolina successfully re-established habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker by removing the hazardous fuel load and clearing the way for lower intensity prescribed fire treatments.
 As various states and the country as a whole seek to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable resources, biomass power generation is poised to provide more electricity to the grid. Until now, a stumbling block has been the supply of clean green waste to burn. One reason for that shortage is because operators using multiperson crews are limited to a short distance from the cogen facilities. This technology allows a single operator to profitably process materials for cogeneration or wood waste power plants.
 Seeing this equipment in action is an example of sustainability and keeping Americans employed making the equipment that allows contractors to work in the woods. More importantly, it is an example of turning trash into treasure&mdash;clean, sustainably generated electricity&mdash;that we can all enjoy.
 Authors: John Heekin President, Fecon Inc. (800) 528-3113 <a href="http://www.fecon.com" target="_blank">www.fecon.com</a>

FOREST FUEL: The RTC 22 chipper from Fecon transforms waste from cut-to-length logging operations into wood chips that can be sold to cogeneration plants, allowing the generation of cleaner electricity. 

2010/10/128812518825.jpg

INTO THE WOODS: Fecon and Joe Roise, a North Carolina State University forestry expert, have been developing a line of biomass harvesters that transform the slash and debris form forestry and logging operations into fuel. 

2010/10/128812521415.jpg

New technology developed by Fecon engineers and North Carolina State University forest experts turns green waste into gold.

Harvesting Forestry and Logging Waste Profitably 

Posted Nov. 1, 2010
 
 Bio-NRG LLC is moving forward with plans to construct a new biodiesel plant in LaHarpe, Ill. The facility, which will be operated under the name LaHarpe-NRG LLC, will have an estimated production capacity of 15 MMgy. 
 
 According to Bio-NRG President and CEO Jon Hall, the new facility has been uniquely designed to be economically feasible. "Over the past three or four years…we spent quite a bit of time, as a group, researching the different companies that were out there; those that were successful and those that had faced challenges," he said. "Based on those case studies that we did, we learned a lot of things that some folks did wrong, and we found out some things that folks did right. We're not interested in reinventing the wheel; we just wanted to make it roll a little smoother, so to speak."
 

 As a result, the business model for the LaHarpe plant has been designed to be a vertically-integrated biorefinery. "It's actually a bit more complete in that we involve three arms in this business model, Hall said. "Obviously, we have our production facility for our fuel, which involves technology that is a very true multi-feedstock process. We also do our own oil seed crushing, which helps provide us with our feedstocks. We also work within research and development, and right now we are primarily focused on algae development. So, it's kind of a three pronged approach." As for selling the resulting fuel, Hall notes that Bio-NRG is targeting government and military markets rather than consumer fuel markets. 
 
 The city of LaHapre recently commissioned a third-party feasibility study of the project to ensure the projected economics of the plant add up. The results of that study, completed by Tennessee-based Frazier Barnes & Associates, were overwhelmingly positive. "It came back favorable, even perhaps a little bit more so that we had anticipated," Hall said. 
 
 To date, the project has received a great deal of support from the local community, as well as from state and federal governments. Several grants have been awarded to support development of the project, including one from the USDA and another from the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. The U.S. DOE has also been involved. Construction on the plant is expected to begin in 2011 and take approximately 12 to 15 months to complete, Hall said, noting that the intention is to be operational by 2012. 
 
 In addition to building a new biodiesel plant, Bio-NRG is also working to develop an algae process that could be used to provide feedstock to the facility in the future. The technology is patent-pending, Hall said, and involves the growth, harvest and extraction of the lipids from the algae. "It's kind of a hybrid system that is designed to work in all climates," Hall continued. "We believe that part of the problem with the algae industry is with so much focus being on the southwest…We believe that in order to make it feasible, you have to be able to have a production method in place that you can use in any climate in the world. Our system is based on that theory. It's a continuous process, which is rather unique, both in its growth and extraction phases. We're in the beginning stages of working through some of the more challenging things we have with it, but moving forward." If all goes as planned, Hall estimates that the algae production system could be supplying LaHarpe-NRG with a significant amount of algae feedstock in approximately five years.

Proposed plant in Illinois moves forward

Posted Nov. 1, 2010
 
 A research team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has won a $50,000 ConocoPhillips Energy Prize to support the development of a carbohydrate-to-biodiesel process. The technology, which is designed to significantly increase yields, may also provide a pathway for the direct conversion of hydrogen and carbon dioxide into biofuels. 
 
 According to Gregory Stephanopoulos, an MIT processor of chemical engineering who is leading the project, the technology utilizes an engineered microbe to convert carbohydrate feedstocks into lipids. While Stephanopoulos noted that he is unable to disclose specific details of the process due to its proprietary nature, he said that the patent-pending technology can be applied to a wide portfolio of carbohydrate feedstocks, including sugars, glucose, glycerin, hydrolysates from biomass and algae. 
 
 "The yields that we obtain from this microbe are very remarkable," Stephanopoulos said. "They are very close to the theoretical maximum. For a project like biodiesel, you need to have very high yields, otherwise the cost of the feedstock becomes prohibitively high." The microbe that the process utilizes is a heterotrophic microbe, Stephanopoulos continued, meaning that it grows on carbohydrates-not light and water. "In other words, it is not an algae type of application," he said. "That's why the yields are important, because the feedstock-the raw material that you put in the [process] costs money. It's not free carbon dioxide."
 

 Once the carbohydrates are converted into lipids by the microbe, the process to convert those lipids into biodiesel is rather straightforward, Stephanopoulos said. This can be done using the standard transesterification process. 
 
 The funding provided by ConocoPhillips will expand upon the initial research to explore the use of hydrogen and CO2 as process inputs. "The ConocoPhillips project uses this technology as the core, but at the same time is expanding this technology for the fixation of CO2 using hydrogen, and we aim the fixation of CO2 towards the production of other types of organic molecules that we then feed as a feedstock to the oil-producing microbe," Stephanopoulos said. 
 
 The goals of the ConocoPhillips project are broad, Stephanopoulos continued. "Principle among them is the production of some significant amounts of oil in order to test its properties and establish that it is indeed suitable for operations in different kinds of engines, and process it for the production of jet fuel and the like," he said. 
 
 According to Stephanopoulos, it will be unnecessary to construct a new facility to evaluate the process on a pilot scale. Rather, existing facilities will likely be used to test the scalability of the technology. Stephanopoulos estimates that initial scale-up evaluations could begin within six months. Hussain Abidi, an MIT postdoctoral associate, has been working with Stephanopoulos on the project.

Carbohydrate-to-lipid project wins award

High-profile banks such as AIG made headlines when they got bailed out by the federal government during the economic nosedive in 2008. But despite receiving bailout funds, they weren't too keen on giving up any of that money to small companies scrambling to find much-needed working capital. To get any form of cash today, small businesses are often asked to fork over major collateral, which defeats the purpose of getting a loan in the first place. In fact, many of the big banks were so shocked by their own balance sheets that they tightened lending requirements, making it nearly impossible for struggling business owners to qualify for loans. Small businesses, including small-scale biodiesel producers, waste oil collection firms and other upstream and downstream cogs in the biodiesel wheel that were targeted for growth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, were stymied getting any form of credit. 

 
 When President Barack Obama signed the Recovery Act into law in February 2009 to create jobs and promote spending, the law included $56.1 million for microloans for small businesses, which were doled out by the Small Business Administration. The original program, which ran until September, is administered by banks of the SBA's choosing. Since September, however, Obama signed the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which expanded provisions previously set in the Recovery Act.
 
 Designed to serve startup, newly established and growing small businesses, microloans are short-term loans with a ceiling of $50,000-an increase from $35,000 found in the original Recovery Act provision prior to the newly-signed SBJA. Microloans are distributed through specially selected nonprofit intermediary lenders across the country. Typically associated more with developing countries, microcredit has emerged as a mainstream practice in the U.S. with the microloans averaging about $13,000. Microloans can be used as working capital to pay employees, purchase new equipment and supplies, and rehire staff. 
 
 For small-scale biodiesel producers and others involved in the industry who are having trouble getting approved for loans elsewhere, the microloan program is a potential lifeline for obtaining immediate funding to supplement other capital sources, or to expand businesses, especially during a time when the $1 per gallon federal blender tax credit is expired. One biodiesel company in the Northeast found that obtaining a microloan fit the bill for its business.
 
 
 Microloan at Work
 
 Like many small biodiesel businesses caught in the credit crunch, Tri-State Biodiesel LLC was in dire need of working capital for equipment upgrades and to retain and hire employees. 
 
 "It's very difficult to get any kind of credit now," says founder and CEO Brent Baker, adding that he was turned down by three major commercial banks that had previously financed his company, prior to turning to Boc Capital. "It was just a hard sell [to commercial banks] to get any type of credit. Traditional banks are so risk averse these days." 
 
 Facing the possibility of layoffs or an inability to compete in the biodiesel market with old equipment, the Bronx, N.Y.-based company, which distributes biodiesel and collects waste cooking oil from 2,700 restaurants in the New York City area and cleans it up for sale as a biodiesel feedstock, managed to get a five-year $50,000 loan at a reasonable rate from Boc Capital. Boc is an intermediary lender through the SBA, which received $750,000 from the federal government thanks to the 2009 stimulus package. For Baker, the microloan was a solid option for his company to help finance upgrades to its oil rendering equipment, and hire more staff. "It helped us to increase our profitability," Baker tells Biodiesel Magazine. "We've actually grown and hired people as a result."
 

 Before the economy sank in 2008, TSB planned to install biodiesel reactors at its rendering facility at a cost of about $5 million. Since the commodities markets crashed, Baker says the company adjusted its business model and settled for more frugal options. "What we did instead was we built a more modest oil recycling facility," he says. "We were able to do that for a lot more of a reasonable price."
 
 When a potential borrower seeks out a microlender to obtain a microloan, intermediary banks are required to provide technical assistance throughout the life of the loan, which Baker says was an added benefit. Boc Capital, he says, provided TSB with a staff member from a local business outreach network center to help employee staffing and other administrative tasks for the company.
 
 Other advantages Baker saw that helped his company when he applied for the microloan was that the application process was much simpler and quicker than the experience he would've had with traditional lenders. Though credit score requirements vary by each intermediary, microlenders seem to be more forthright when evaluating a business plan, and in helping the borrower plan, before funds are issued. 
 
 "They look at the business with a little more depth I think than a conventional bank would," Baker says. "Hopefully, programs like these can fill in the blank."
 
 
 Pros and Cons
 
 While the SBA's microloan program may be a viable finance mechanism for TSB to support business growth, the prospect may not be as appealing for others involved in the industry as a way to get through tough economic times. 
 
 AZ BioDiesel, a Gilbert, Ariz.-based biodiesel producer, is building a 10 MMgy facility two miles from from its 500,000-gallon-per-year plant in Gilbert. Rather than looking to a microlender, AZ BioDiesel instead turned to a local community bank where it obtained a $2 million loan to help with feedstock purchase and cover start-up costs of the new plant, according to President Dan Rees.
 
 "If you're a tiny company, $50,000 may do something for you," he says. "For my company to continue at its growth rate, we really needed something like $150,000."

 
 Midwest Biodiesel Products LLC, which operates a 12 MMgy multifeedstock facility in South Roxana, Ill., received a $300,000 loan in September from the St. Louis Business Development Fund and St. Louis Private Fund to rehire laid-off workers and buy soybean and vegetable oil. According to President Terry Zintel, a microloan shouldn't be viewed as a primary source of credit to sustain operations, since many have leveraged themselves into deep debt when financing the construction and start-up of their plants. He asserts that producers should be on the lookout for complete debt refinance packages they could apply for. 
 
 "These little band-aids generally don't help in the long run," Zintel says. "Lots of plants need a complete recapitalization effort, but that's nonexistent from the banks right now."
 
 There are other loan provisions within the SBJA that provide similar benefits to the microloan program. One of those was a raise in loan maximums for plant acquisition, construction and expansion of biodiesel and ethanol plants from $4 million to $5.5 million. 
 
 Depending on its position and needs, a microloan may not be a funding solution for all biodiesel companies, but the microloan TSB received fit its needs, Baker says. "It's a good option to look at in terms of people in need of a smaller loan amount to get over a hump," he says. "For us, it was just what we needed."
 
 Bryan Sims is a Biodiesel Magazine associate editor. Reach him at (701) 738-4974 or <a href="mailto:bsims@bbiinternational.com">bsims@bbiinternational.com</a>

Baker, left, with New York Sen. Charles Schumer PHOTO: JASON GREEN PHOTOGRAPHY

2248-1294332319.jpg

Baker heads Tri-State Biodiesel, which collects waste cooking oil from more than 2,000 restaurants in the New York City area. PHOTO: TRI-STATE BIODIESEL

2249-1294332319.jpg

Biodiesel companies need credit fast. Small, short-term microloans may be a viable finance option to sustain operations.

Microloans for Small Biodiesel Businesses

More than a year ago, when the U.S. EPA announced it would combine the 2009 and 2010 biomass-based diesel mandates under RFS2, bringing the obligated parties' required blend volume to 1.15 billion gallons, the future for biodiesel seemed very bright. This was before the agency determined that soy biodiesel achieved advanced biofuel status by virtue of producing 57 percent fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over its life cycle compared to that of petroleum diesel. 
 
 Then, early this year when that milestone announcement was made, the industry had even more to look forward to, despite the fact that the important federal blender tax credit for biodiesel had expired. It was early in the year, and everyone figured Congress would get its priorities together and pass the biodiesel tax credit, right? EPA set July 1 as the implementation date for RFS2. Weeks passed and hopes rose in the biodiesel industry as the House of Representatives continued to pass bills that included a retroactive tax credit extension. But those hopes were shattered as the Senate, time after time, stripped the credit away before passing these respective packages. 
 
 More and more plants began to idle, and even though July 1 came and went, obligated parties were gobbling up renewable identification number (RIN) credits from as far back as 2008, keeping actual production at a small fraction of installed capacity. Despite these mitigating circumstances, people continue to ask about the future of biodiesel-specifically, the biomass-based diesel mandate-given the situation with the lapsed tax credit. This was the topic of a recent F.A.M.E. Forum blog post of mine, initiated by a reader who sent me the following email: 
 
 "I keep reading articles about the RFS mandates on the use of biodiesel but also about the government not passing the tax credit, so very few companies are producing biodiesel. An article tying the two together would be interesting since it seems this is going to come to a head in the future when the supply can't meet the demand. Then what happens?" 
 
 The gist of my response argued that the mandate was passed irrespective of the tax credit, so the absence of one should not affect the other. Yes, oil lobbies can argue that without it, biodiesel is cost-prohibitive, but let's not forget RIN credit prices, which for 2010 biodiesel credits, are more than 50 cents a credit. Add the fact that one gallon of biodiesel carries 1.5 ethanol equivalent RINs, this would mean a biodiesel RIN credit price surpassing 75 cents. 
 
 Joe Jobe, the National Biodiesel Board's CEO, left an extensive comment on this posting, adding very good perspective and some positive situations to watch for in 2011. "It is worthwhile to note that the uncertainty in the marketplace caused by the 18-month delay in implementing the RFS2 program, together with the unprecedented use of allowing biodiesel RINs generated in 2008 to be used for compliance with the RFS2 program in 2010, created a dramatically reduced volume requirement for biodiesel in 2010 (only 345 million gallons)." For 2011, however, there is an 800 million gallon biomass-based diesel mandate, and even with the 20 percent carry over allowance of RINs from 2009, at a minimum this equates to a doubling of production in 2011 versus this year-with or without the tax credit in place. Thanks Joe for the great comment on my blog, and let us, the industry producing America's first advanced biofuel, not lose sight of these positives.

2219-1294332307.jpg

The Promise of 2011

For many biodiesel companies, the Securities and Exchange Commission's adoption of eXtensive Business Reporting Language interactive data reporting mandates have been nothing but a passing consideration of things to come. But what once seemed distant is now reality, with nonaccelerated and smaller reporting company filers subject to the new requirements beginning with quarterly reports covering fiscal periods ending on or after June 15, 2011. 
 
 Under the new rules, a reporting company must "tag" financial statements, footnotes and quantitative disclosures with one of the 17,000 existing XBRL tags (which are expected to continue to grow in number), or a custom tag accepted by the SEC when the element does not exist in the standard XBRL list. Tags generally consist of descriptive labels, definitions and generally accepted accounting priniciples and regulatory references that aim to provide the context necessary for software recognition of interactive, financial data. The tagging process is akin to a barcode system that enables those reviewing financial statements, notes and schedules to more easily analyze and compare the relevant financial information to similar information for different reporting periods, companies and industries. 

 
 The XBRL tagging requirements will be implemented in two tiers; the first requiring filers to tag financial statements as well as the accompanying footnotes and schedules as a single block of text. After a year of tier one tagging, tier two will require a registrant to tag: (i) each footnote as a single block of text; (ii) each significant accounting policy, contained in the significant accounting policies footnote, as a single block of text; (iii) each table within a footnote as a separate block of text; and (iv) each amount (e.g., percent, monetary value, etc.) within each footnote. Filers will be given an additional 30 days to submit interactive data for the first quarterly report filed in each of the two tiers. The 30-day grace period will have no effect, however, on the submission deadline for a periodic report, with the XBRL supplement filed as an amendment to the applicable report. XBRL reports must also be accessible on the registrant's website by the report's filing date or the periodic report deadline, whichever occurs first.
 
 Failure to comply will have harsh consequences which may include loss of eligibility for shortened registration statements on Forms S-3 and S-8, loss of the Rule 144 safe harbors-restricting the resale of company shares or units-and/or potential liability arising from a private action or SEC enforcement action based on the company's noncurrent status with SEC-reporting obligations. These consequences are not permanent, however, and will apply only while the filer is delinquent and noncompliant with XBRL requirements.
 
 XBRL requirements are supplemental to and do not replace existing disclosure requirements, including the delivery of ASCII- or HTML-formatted financial statements. As a result, reporting companies will undoubtedly feel the time and money crunch of compliance. The SEC projects each registrant's average yearly burden under the new requirements to be 226.1 internal hours with $27,300 out-of-pocket expenses and 251 internal hours and $27,800 out-of-pocket expenses for years one and five, respectively. On the heels of a down-turned economy and biodiesel industry, XBRL mandates stand to affect the bottom line of biodiesel producers for the foreseeable future; especially those smaller producers without the deep pockets of industry leaders. In an effort to reduce these adverse effects, it will be critical that reporting companies, big and small, begin and continue to familiarize themselves with the tagging process and XBRL format in general.
 
 
 Karen L. Karr provides legal services in corporate and business transactions, estate planning and real estate. Kristi L. Harshbarger practices in securities, estate planning and corporate transactions. Both are attorneys with BrownWinick, a Des Moines, Iowa-based law firm serving the renewable fuels industry. Reach Karr at (515) 242-2424 or <a href="mailto:karr@brownwinick.com">karr@brownwinick.com</a>. Reach Harshbarger at (515) 284-6627 or <a href="mailto:harshbarger@brownwinick.com">harshbarger@brownwinick.com</a>.

2220-1294332307.jpg

2221-1294332308.jpg

Generation X: eXpensive, eXtensive  XBRL Reporting Requirements

There has been plenty of confusion about the laboratory side of compliance with ASTM D6751 specification for biodiesel and the BQ-9000 reduced specification, otherwise known as the critical testing criterion. With many companies touting their high-quality biodiesel product, or touting a specific process or analytical instrument to produce or discern ASTM-grade biodiesel, the phrase ASTM-grade biodiesel itself has become an industry buzzword, with unfortunate consequences. Being in the analytical chemistry analyzer business for more than 22 years, and selling complete laboratories specifically to the biodiesel industry for the past five years, I would like to set the record straight as to the future use of the term ASTM-grade biodiesel and the critical testing criterion. Like many other words or phrases in the English language, once they start to become overused, it slowly loses its exact meaning. The phrase "you know," for example, used to be defined as "you understand." Now you hear it overused all the time, and most of the time it means "um-m-m." I am afraid that the phrases "ASTM grade biodiesel," "reduced specification" and "critical testing criterion" are falling prey to this same overuse syndrome as "you know." You know? The ASTM D6751 specification requires every single test be run on each production batch of biodiesel before it can be called ASTM-grade. That specification includes flash point (ASTM D93) or alcohol content (EN 14110); water and sediment (ASTM D2709); kinematic viscosity (ASTM D445); sulfated ash (ASTM D874); sulfur (ASTM D5453); copper strip corrosion (ASTM D130); cetane number (ASTM D613); cloud point (ASTM D2500); carbon residue (ASTM D4530); acid number (ASTM D664); cold soak filterability (ASTM D6751-Annex A1); free and total glycerin (ASTM D6584); phosphorus content (ASTM D4951); calcium and magnesium, combined (EN14538); sodium and potassium, combined (EN14538); vacuum distillation (ASTM D1160); and oxidation stability (ASTM 14112). There are alternate methods allowed, but those listed are the referee if any dispute should arise. Each and every one of the tests above are the required by almost every state in the union as a minimum to be called biodiesel. If you are marketing your biodiesel outside the U.S., then several other tests would also be required. If a company claims that its process can provide ASTM-grade biodiesel from waste vegetable oil that has a sulfur content of 38 ppm, without somehow removing that sulfur with a pretreatment process, then they are not being truthful in their claims. Petroleum companies have spent millions of dollars for treatment technologies to get rid of the excess sulfur to make the ultra-low sulfur diesel that the U.S. EPA requires, and biodiesel companies will not be exempt from those same requirements if they are using higher sulfur-content feedstock. The only way around these stringent specifications are if your facility becomes a BQ-9000 certified producer. In the BQ-9000 regulations, once your process passes all the ASTM D6751 specifications listed above on the first seven batches produced, and if your feedstock remains the same, then you can start running the reduced specification or the critical testing criterion for every batch and only test monthly or yearly on the remaining tests. The critical testing criterion includes eight tests: flash point or alcohol content; water and sediment; sulfur; cloud point; acid number; cold soak filterability; free and total glycerin; and oxidation stability. If you change your feedstock, you are back to square one in the BQ-9000 process of being enabled to run the critical testing criterion only. Some analytical instruments companies are claiming that their infrared technology analyzer is able to discern all the critical testing criterion. They are also not being truthful in their claims. The only way to analyze for sulfur down to the maximum 15 ppm specification limit is by using the referee method ASTM D5453 UV-Fluorescent technology (and some alternate method listed in ASTM D6751, which does not include IR). Analyzers using IR technology simply cannot do elemental analysis. The whole science behind IR is based on molecular bonds, thus elemental analysis is impossible with IR. I propose that we use the phrases critical testing criterion and ASTM-grade biodiesel the way they are defined by ASTM and BQ-9000. We should be very careful not to fall in the "you know" syndrome when it comes to our nation's fuel in the future. You know? Mark Fashian is president of Biodiesel Analytical Solutions and director of Mcgyan Biodiesel LLC. Reach him at (740) 369-5475 or <a href="mailto:mark@biodieselanalytical.com">mark@biodieselanalytical.com</a>.

2222-1294332308.jpg

Defining Key Terms

SelectIon Technologies Inc. launched an on-site and on-demand sodium methylate production system called NaSelect, which can generate high-purity sodium methylate efficiently and inexpensively at desired concentrations in methanol while cutting down water content and eliminating costly and hazardous transportation and storage, according to general manager Bill Christie. NaSelect systems can also be integrated into small- and large-scale biodiesel plants, Christie added, in the form of individual modules with minimal modifications while in operation.

SelectIon Technologies' NaSelect sodium methylate systems can be installed as separate modules in existing small- and large-scale biodiesel facilities. PHOTO: SelectIon Technologies

2223-1294332309.jpg

SelectIon Technologies offers on-site SMO production systems

The Ohio Department of Development is using $8 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to help biodiesel and ethanol companies fund new or additional refining equipment. As part of the Advancing Biofuels Beyond the Basics program, the state can award any amount from $500,000 up to $1 million for each applicant. "These federal stimulus resources are critical to implementing energy savings measures that will bring long-term benefits to our businesses, communities and the environment," said Lisa Patt-McDaniel, director of the Ohio Department of Development. 
 

 The $8 million funding package is part of the $96 million the state received from the ARRA State Energy Program. Mark Shanahan, energy advisor to Gov. Ted Strickland, said that the governor understands that combining the state's agriculture and manufacturing sectors can make Ohio a leading player in biofuels. Along with a requirement that all applicants must reside in the state, the program guidelines also stipulate the applicant must be able to invest a minimum of 25 percent of the total costs needed for the equipment. The installation of any equipment must be completed within 12 months and provide a direct economic impact to the state. The applicants will be judged on four categories: project readiness, financial ability to meet the 25 percent requirement, economic/employment impacts on Ohio and possible job creation and retention during construction phases.

Ohio makes $8 million available for biofuels equipment

California's Board of Equalization has released the state's gasoline and fuel consumption numbers for June and the second quarter of 2010, and the numbers show diesel consumption is up 12.4 percent or 27.7 million gallons. If the state accounts for refunded gallons of 18.4 million gallons, the increase is still at 3.8 percent. For the second quarter of 2010, Californians used 661 million gallons of diesel, up from 653 the same time last year. In June alone, diesel sold in the state equaled 251 million gallons, compared to 224 million gallons the same time a year ago. To monitor the fuel consumption and sales numbers, the BOE uses tax receipts paid by fuel distributors.

California diesel use increases

The U.S. DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory released its BioEnergy Atlas, a Web portal that allows users to layer related bioenergy data onto a single map to gather information on biomass feedstocks, biopower and biofuels potential, production and distribution and more. User-friendly and easy to use, the tool also combines geographic visualization of regional resources and energy usage with high-level yield calculations to provide first-level screening of project feasibility and state bioenergy potential. The BioEnergy Atlas is accessible at http://maps.nrel.gov/bioenergyatlas.

NREL releases BioEnergy Atlas

Two of the leading advanced biofuels organizations have teamed up, urging the Senate to pass an extension for the biodiesel, renewable diesel and alternative fuel tax credits. Nearly a year has passed since the credits expired, and now the National Biodiesel Board and the Advanced Biofuels Association have issued a joint letter asking Congress not to leave for the campaign trail without retroactively extending the credits. While the inability of Congress to reinstate the incentives is nothing new, the news that the NBB and the ABFA are speaking with one voice is something of a first, but Manning Feraci, vice president of federal affairs for the NBB said that both "share the opinion that Congress should pass an extension of these biofuel incentives before they adjourn for the year." Michael McAdams, ABFA president, added that the industry cannot be expected to continue and develop if the government doesn't hold up its end of the bargain.

2224-1294332309.jpg

2225-1294332309.jpg

Advanced biofuels organizations team up

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has awarded grants to support two biodiesel-related feasibility studies within the state. One of the grants has been awarded to Dexter, Mo.-based Global Fuels LLC. The biodiesel producer is using the funding to explore the technical and economic possibility of producing next-generation biofuels. Global Fuels currently operates a 3 MMgy biodiesel plant. According to Jason Harris, the facility's plant manager, his company is looking to implement a process that would be economically sustainable without subsidy. 
 
 The second grant was awarded to Columbia, Mo.-based H20'C Engineering to study the feasibility of recycling the fat, oil and grease (FOG) found in urban sewer systems into biodiesel. The study will focus on collecting FOG from two Missouri metropolitan areas, Kansas City and St. Louis. H2O'C has partnered with Pennsylvania-based BlackGold Biofuels in the project. The study will be complete in January. "It's going to be a kind of road map or template that would help other communities forge their way down this path of capture and reuse of this fats, oils and grease waste product," said Tom O'Connor, owner of H2O'C Engineering.

Missouri biodiesel feasibility studies a good sign

Using canola-based biodiesel provided by Ontario, N.Y.-based biodiesel producer Northern Biodiesel, LPP Combustion LLC successfully created a natural gas substitute trademarked LPP Gas by vaporizing biodiesel to power a 30-kilowatt Capstone C30 gas turbine loaned from plastics manufacturer Harbec Plastics. When operated at full load on LPP Gas derived from biodiesel, results showed an emissions profile of 5.6 parts per million by volume (ppmv) NOx and 9 ppmv carbon monoxide, which improved upon baseline natural gas emissions.

2226-1294332310.jpg

Biodiesel vaporized for  natural gas turbines

November weather in the Golden State may be sunny and comfortable, but the climate surrounding California's controversial Assembly Bill 32 could be severe. The bill's future, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) levels back to 1990 levels by 2020, will be determined by November voters. To earn a spot on the ballot, roughly 800,000 signatures were gathered on a petition requiring only 435,000, giving the voters a chance to continue or end another highly debated program. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard, many argue, incorrectly figures indirect land use change modeling into estimations that determine the GHG benefits of biofuels such as soy-based biodiesel and corn ethanol.
 
 "Most people I talk to don't think the proposition will pass," said Shelby Neal, director of state governmental affairs for the NBB, but, "there is nothing [stating] a future governor couldn't issue an executive order reinstating [the] LCFS." Even though Californians generally support climate change legislation, early polling on Prop 23 is close because AB 32 is viewed by some as a "job killer," as opponents have termed it. The petition filed in June calls for a freeze on the law until unemployment levels in the state drop below 5.5 percent for a period of one year. Current unemployment levels in California, however, are closer to 10.5 percent, meaning that the likely effect of the proposition is termination of the AB 32 program. While fears of even greater job losses in California threaten the GHG reduction program, as Neal points out, the policy could continue.
 
 "The key for biodiesel will be the results reported by the LCFS Expert Workgroup," Neal said. "Based on this information, CARB (California Air Resource Board) is going to reevaluate all these greenhouse gas scores on or before Jan. 1, 2012." Because the GHG benefits of biofuels such as soy-based biodiesel are significantly less in the CARB study relative to those reported in the more highly regarded U.S. EPA study, the value certain biodiesel feedstocks bring to the policy varies. But, because biodiesel is currently one of only a few fuels that can meet the requirements of the LCFS, the fuel, regardless of feedstock, should have a role in the California's clean energy future.
 
 Depending on revisions by CARB to alter the GHG benefits of certain pathways, obligated parties in the state will have several decisions to make. For 2011, the overall average carbon intensity of the fuel that the refiners are selling has to be one quarter of a percent less than the baseline of petroleum, Neal explains, but how they get there is totally up to them. If soy biodiesel is 12 percent better than petroleum, then one gallon of B100 of soy biodiesel earns approximately 50 gallons of compliance, Neal said, but one gallon of B100 made from a waste oil feedstock would earn an obligated party roughly 325 gallons or so of compliance. The obligated parties "just have to obtain an overall percentage reduction, so if they used waste cooking oil-based biodiesel, which scores better in CARB's current analysis, they can blend fewer gallons and still achieve compliance." 
 
 With only a quarter of 1 percent of reduction required for 2011, California's early year requirements may not do much, but Neal said once you get into the third or fourth year, the reductions start getting real and affect the market share. No matter what, Neal said, "What we know is that if CARB makes decisions based on sound science, especially as it relates to the indirect land use change theory, biodiesel will play a major role in the California LCFS."

California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, if enacted, will require drastically lower GHG levels over the coming years, requiring the state to meet 1990 levels by 2020. 

2228-1294332310.jpg

California's November election may impact biodiesel

The wait for the federal government to reinstate the $1 a gallon federal blender tax credit has left the biodiesel industry in most states suffering. Illinois, on the other hand, had policies in place that have allowed its industry to thrive more so than others. 
 
 A major driving force behind Illinois' success rides on the fact that it has excise tax abatement for biodiesel blends of B11 or higher sold in the state, which is good through Dec. 31, 2013. Created in 2003, the sales tax incentive provides a partial sales tax exemption of 20 percent on biodiesel blends from B1 to B10. Blends above B10 receive a total exemption from the state sales tax of 6.25 percent, effectively creating an Illinois-specific market for B11. 
 
 For those involved exclusively in downstream operations of the industry, waiving the sales tax on B11 or higher blends provides a significant cost advantage for retailers looking to blend biodiesel with No. 2 on-road diesel fuel, according to Kevin Lockart, energy consultant for Tremont, Ill.-based agricultural cooperative Ag-Land FS Inc.
 

 "With that tax incentive, B11 still has a five-cent advantage over regular diesel even without the $1 per gallon blenders tax credit," Lockart said. "That tax abatement is everything to us."
 
 Biodiesel producers such as Iowa-based Renewable Energy Group Inc. have taken full advantage of the excise tax abatement as a means of leveraging upstream and downstream market capabilities, according to REG's director of marketing Jon Scharingson. "For us, the value of the Illinois excise tax abatement more than offsets the lack of the $1 per gallon blenders tax credit," he said. "It's made it risk-free and still profitable for retailers to consume biodiesel in Illinois because of the tax abatement in the state."
 
 Currently, Illinois has five operating biodiesel plants with a combined installed capacity of 170 MMgy. REG captured a significant amount of that total when it acquired two biodiesel plants in the state: the 60 MMgy facility in Seneca, and the 45 MMgy plant in Danville. "Without that Illinois excise tax abatement we would not have acquired those plants, and those plants would likely not be running," Sharingson noted.
 
 The remaining three plants in the state include Incobrasa Industries Ltd., which operates a 31 MMgy facility in Gilman; Midwest Biodiesel Products LLC, which operates a 12 MMgy plant in South Roxanna; and Stepan Co., which operates a 22 MMgy facility in Joliet. 
 
 "Illinois is a very attractive market to sell into because of the B11 sales tax exemption and, because of that, a lot of biodiesel is consumed in the state," said Terry Zintel, president of privately-held Midwest Biodiesel Products LLC.
 
 REG estimates total national production of biodiesel to be between 350 MMgy and 400 MMgy, according to Sharingson, with 25 to 35 percent of that volume coming out of Illinois. "Without that [excise tax abatement] in Illinois, the biodiesel market in the U.S. would be well below 300 MMgy," he added.
 
 Last year, Illinois passed a law that increased the biodiesel blend required for use by state and local government fleets from B2 to B5. Illinois also offers an attractive loan guarantee program that provides funds to existing in-state biodiesel producers to modify or retrofit their facilities. Proposed projects in the state with a capacity of at least 30 MMgy are also eligible for this grant.

REG's recently acquired plant in Seneca, Ill., can produce 60 MMgy and is a major supplier of the state's blended biodiesel volume. PHOTO: REG INC.

2227-1294332311.jpg

Excise tax abatement bolsters Illinois biodiesel industry as other states struggle

While the absence of the federal tax credit is a major contributing factor behind the decision for many plant managers to scale back production or cease operations altogether, some see this time of crisis as an opportunity to restart idled facilities or propose new projects.
 
 ME Bio Energy LLC reopened a 5 MMgy multifeedstock plant in Lilbourn, Mo. Formerly owned and operated by Great River Soy Processing LLC, the facility had been idle for nearly three years. ME Bio Energy took ownership in May and began producing its first batches of biodiesel in August, according to owner and partner Mike Ellis. Since ME Bio Energy restarted operations, Ellis said, approximately 14,000 gallons of biodiesel had been produced daily at the plant.
 
 "It was in pretty good shape when we got it," he said. Stuttgart, Ark.-based Agri-Process Innovations made final startup repairs to the plant. "We had to replace some gaskets, motors, do some recalibrating and so on," Ellis added. "We also had to renew with the U.S. EPA and all the regulatory licenses. It takes time."

 
 Under Great River Soy Processing's ownership, the plant operated for two weeks in October 2007 before it shut down due to rising soybean oil prices. During those two weeks the refinery produced 94,000 gallons of biodiesel. Ellis said plans are to expand the plant's installed capacity three-fold to 15 MMgy in the near future. Though the Lilbourn plant is the only one currently owned by ME Bio Energy, Ellis said the company is considering acquiring other idled biodiesel plants similar in scale and annual capacity. "They're not cheap, but we still see value in them," he said.
 
 Biocardel Quebec Inc. received a seven-year investment worth $18.79 million from the Canadian government's ecoENERGY for Biofuels program for startup and operation of a 40 MMly (10.5 MMgy) multifeedstock plant in Richmond, Quebec. The plant, which broke ground in 2007, had been in R&D mode during the operation of the company's sister plant, a 4 MMgy biodiesel refinery in Swanton, Vt., that operated under the name Biocardel of Vermont LLC. The plant subsequently closed in mid-August due to unfavorable economic conditions. Biocardel Quebec General Manager Stephen Daigle said the Richmond facility is expected to produce commercial volumes by mid-October.
 
 "We passed ASTM specifications for our biodiesel," said the elated Daigle, who previously served as general manager for the Swanton facility. "We transferred a lot of the equipment from the Vermont plant to the Richmond plant. We hope to branch out using animal fats and possibly using algae oil as well."
 
 Meanwhile, Integrated Energy Partners Inc. proposed a biodiesel project to the Santa Rosa County Commission valued at $30 million, which IEP intends to build near Jay, Fla., after providing revenue bonds in the county's name. The proposed facility would produce a suite of biofuel and biochemicals such as green power, propane, kerosene and biodiesel, from various agricultural products. According to county commission documents, IEP intends to use camelina as feedstock during winter and cottonseed for year-round production of biofuels. Additionally, municipal and other waste products are likely to be utilized as fuels. 
 
 Initially, IEP plans to have an electricity generation capacity between 5 and 12 megawatts. According to county court documents, IEP's biofuels production segment would produce approximately 3 MMgy of biodiesel, 353,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol, 9 million gallons of kerosene and 437,000 gallons of propane.

Freshly produced B100 is loaded on a tanker truck at ME Bio Energy's plant in Lilbourn, Mo., for delivery. PHOTO: ME BIO ENERGY LLC

2229-1294332311.jpg

Positive developments continue in spite of tax credit situation

Following the success of an informative webinar dealing with the theory and practice of biodiesel earlier this year, the Diesel Technology Forum held another successful biodiesel-based webinar in September. Featuring some of the most prominent biodiesel voices around the country, the webinar, titled, "Biodiesel Policies and Mandates: What's Really Involved," received a good response, according to Dawn Fenton, director of policy. But more importantly, it dealt with several pressing issues in the industry. "There was a broad range of questions asked, including ones about the role of biodiesel in California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard and how the reduced production in biodiesel was affecting mandates," Fenton said.
 	
 The presentations, five in all, were given by Ralph Groschen from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, who spoke about the state's success and experience with a biodiesel mandate; Randy Jennings from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, who touched on the importance of fuel quality; Dr. Juergen Fischer from Germany's AGQM Biodiesel e.V., who provided a European perspective; Dwayne Berger, director of renewable energy for the Massachusetts department of energy resources, who outlined the Bioheat and biodiesel environment in his state; and Shelby Neal, director of state governmental affairs for the National Biodiesel Board, who provided a nationwide look at mandates. 
 
 After the webinar, Fenton outlined three main areas the speakers touched on. The first involved the important term used recently to classify biodiesel-advanced biofuel. As a biofuel having more than 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum, the advanced biofuel classification "will be a significant factor promoting biodiesel production," Fenton said. 
 

 The second topic, which was covered by Jennings, Groschen, Fischer and Berger, was something that Fenton said has improved over the past few years: fuel quality. In 2007, 27 states had adopted the ASTM D6751 specs. Now 47 states use the specs and 21 states have active fuel quality enforcement efforts in place, up from eight in 2007, Fenton noted. "Fuel quality has also benefited from the passage of ASTM D7467 specification for biodiesel blends B6-B20," she said.
 
 And as Berger pointed out during his presentation on Massachusetts' inability to implement its biodiesel mandate, Fenton also said that doing so can be quite complicated, particularly in regional markets when fuel enters from out-of-state terminals and pipelines. "In the case of Massachusetts, the decision to postpone the mandate was due to costs related to the expiration of the production tax credit and complications around the law's requirement that 'advanced biofuels' be used," she said. 
 Presentations for the next webinar will be more technical, Fenton said, and will include a detailed look at the potential challenges of using biodiesel blends in diesel passenger cars. To learn more about this and other DTF webinars, or to view presentations, visit www.dieselforum.org.

2230-1294332311.jpg

2231-1294332312.jpg

DTF webinar discusses pressing biodiesel issues

Interplay between various government policies and economic drivers in the private sector can create a complex, sometimes confusing, biodiesel market environment. This has been especially true the past year as the renewable fuels standard transitioned into its second phase (RFS2), and the blenders credit for biodiesel was allowed to lapse. While several unique challenges have been posed to those in the biodiesel industry, things are looking up as 2011 approaches. 
 
 Regarding federal mandates and incentives for biodiesel, National Biodiesel Board CEO Joe Jobe said it's important to note that the RFS2 and the biodiesel tax incentive are two separate and distinct, yet complimentary, federal policies. "The RFS2 volumes mandated by law must be implemented regardless of the status of the biodiesel tax incentive," he said. 
 
 The tax credit for biodiesel is designed to complement the RFS2 program. "The tax incentive helps makes biodiesel price-competitive in a manner that is familiar and proven in the marketplace, and provides a powerful incentive to use biodiesel at levels beyond the minimum amounts required by RFS2," Jobe continued. 
 
 Renewable identification number (RIN) credit values have begun to rise, filling the financial gap created by the tax credit loss. RINs are used by the EPA to track obligated parties' compliance with the RFS2. They are attached to each eligible gallon of biofuel that is produced, and transferred to obligated parties when that fuel is purchased. The price of RINs has been very low, however, their value has risen in recent months.
 
 While the RFS2 was originally scheduled to be implemented Jan. 1, 2009, it was not launched by the U.S. EPA until this July 1. As a result, EPA issued combined volume requirements for 2009-'10 that must be met this year. Due to the way the volume requirements were formatted for the 2009-'10 transition period between the RFS1 and the RFS2, obligated parties have been able to use carry-over RINs from 2008 and 2009 to meet their volume requirements, said Jon Scharingson, director of marketing at Renewable Energy Group Inc. "This situation will not carry forward into future years because all 2008 and 2009 RINs will be used or retired going into 2011," Jobe said. "This situation was unique to the first year of the program and the transitional rules from RFS1 to RFS2. Thus, we are hopeful that the volume requirements under the program for next year will be stable and readily apparent to stakeholders in the marketplace."
 
 The price history of biodiesel RIN values seems to underscore this phenomena. According to Clayton McMartin, president of Clean Fuels Clearinghouse and founder of RINSTAR, the value of biomass-based diesel RINs has increased significantly since the beginning of the year. "This trend can be attributed to two primary factors: the new renewable fuel standard and the lapse of the biodiesel tax credit," McMartin said. "The RFS2 set demand for biodiesel in 2010. However, the failed tax credit has had a dramatic downward impact on overall biodiesel supply. Consequently, the price of [biodiesel] RINs has increased."
 
 According to Scharingson, the increased value of RINs is helping to overcome the financial implications of the expired tax credit. "2010 biodiesel RINs were trading at approximately 60 cents per RIN," he said, noting that 1.5 RINs are generated per gallon of biodiesel. "That's a value of about 90 cents per biodiesel gallon, so that offset 90 percent of the blenders tax credit." However, Scharingson also said RIN values are expected to fall once the tax credit is reinstated. 
 

 In addition to federal policies, state mandates and incentives are also working to drive biodiesel demand. Although state mandates do play a role in creating and maintaining local and regional markets for biodiesel, Scharingson said that state incentives are even more powerful. "In places like Illinois, which has 6.25 percent tax abatement, those state incentives have really created a majority of the market demand that we've seen for biodiesel in the U.S. during 2010." Furthermore, Scharingson noted that states with mandates will consume the vast majority of RFS2 volume requirements in the near-term. 
 
 While there has been some speculation that the lack of the biodiesel tax credit may drive obligated parties to use biodiesel imports for RFS2 compliance, neither Jobe nor Scharingson think that will happen. 
 
 "There is no question that our industry has had a couple of very tough years," Jobe said. "However, these trials will ultimately yield a stronger, healthier industry. The people who are involved in the biodiesel industry believe in their product because they know that biodiesel is one of the only alternative energy technologies that actually delivers what it promises. Biodiesel stakeholders are scrappy and innovative and those who count them out will be sorely mistaken. So take heart, biodiesel nation. We ain't done yet. We're just getting started."

Tying it all together

At the upcoming National Biodiesel Board membership meeting in St. Louis, a new chairman will be taking over to lead the governing board and the industry through the next chapter in the ongoing history of biodiesel in North America. I have been very proud to serve as the board chairman for the past 3 years. My time as chair has been both challenging and rewarding.
 
 When I took over the role of chairman in the fall of 2007, the biodiesel industry was reaching a crescendo of growth and excitement. We celebrated the accomplishment of a new legislative achievement when Congress included a role for biodiesel in the landmark RFS2 in December 2007. A record 700 million gallons were produced that year, nearly 3,800 people attended the annual conference in Orlando, and many, including me, worried that the industry could be going too far too fast. We could not have guessed the multiple challenges that awaited us over the next two years.
 
 My second year as chairman saw out-of-control crude oil and feedstock prices, a closing off of important export markets, and a barrage of coordinated attacks on biofuels, all followed by a series of collapses in the financial, housing, commodities, and stock markets. Why the RFS2 was necessary, even with the tax credit in place, was illustrated in 2008-'09. The RFS2, which was required by Congress to be in place by Jan. 1, 2009, was delayed. Many believed that the best part about 2009 was that it couldn't get any worse. That is when 2010 came along and we learned what it was like to operate with neither the tax credit nor the RFS2 effectively in place.
 
 
 Darkest Before Dawn
 
 Virtually all new, emerging industries evolve with some degree of inelegant expansion, contraction, consolidation and shakeout before reaching more normal business conditions and cycles. The biodiesel industry was simply unfortunate enough to have experienced an adult dose of it all within a few years. But it is my view that a recovery is on the horizon for this industry. And I believe it will not only be a full recovery, but one that will see a stronger and healthier industry as a result of the struggles we have been through over the past two and a half years.
 
 Without question, the transition from RFS1 to RFS2 in 2010 presented the U.S. biodiesel industry with significant challenges. A variety of factors, including delayed implementation of the program, unanticipated complexity, improper accounting of unused 2008 biodiesel RINs from the RFS1 program, and multiple lawsuits undermined the effectiveness of the RFS2 program in 2010. These uncertainties and barriers should be resolved by the next calendar year and will not confront the program in 2011. 

 
 The NBB estimates that this will result in a stable domestic demand for at least 700 million gallons of biodiesel in 2011. And as the RFS2 program matures, the industry will work to responsibly increase the volume requirements beyond the 1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel that is required in 2012 and beyond. 
 
 Members of the media and biofuel opponents continue to try to define biodiesel as a conventional biofuel, which is being increasingly labeled as a bad thing. However, the U.S. EPA has made it clear that biodiesel from a wide range of diverse, domestic feedstocks has been deemed to be an advanced biofuel. Currently biodiesel is the only advanced biofuel that has reached commercialization in the U.S. As America's first advanced biofuel, it is imperative that biodiesel succeed if America is to reach its goal of 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuel by 2022.
 
 Biodiesel will succeed, and I predict 2011 will be the most successful year to date for the industry as we recover from the past two and a half years of pain and move on to a more stable policy framework. NBB and the industry will need to transition its programs in ways that compliment and support this new policy framework and market dynamics. Federal and state policy efforts will remain critically important to the industry, as will the leveraged communications, technical, and educational programs that support their success. 
 
 It will also continue to be imperative that the industry remain unified with all stakeholders working with one voice through NBB. It is a source of some satisfaction to me that the industry and all stakeholders have remained unified during my chairmanship, even under some of the most extreme pressures imaginable. I remain committed to this goal of industry unity. I pledge my ongoing service in supporting industry unity in any way. 
 
 Finally, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the excellent and hard working individuals who continue to work together to make this industry possible. This includes the producers and marketers who invest their resources and talents to find innovative ways to make better fuels and claw out new markets. It includes feedstock producers such as the soybean farmer leaders who continue to step up with generous and benevolent financial and policy support. And it includes an excellent staff and management team, whose talent and dedication I have always recognized, but have come to appreciate even more these past three years. Thank you again for the opportunity to serve this industry as NBB chairman. I look forward to supporting our next chairman and supporting the industry in any way that I can.
 
 
 Ed Hegland, chairman, National Biodiesel Board

Ed Hegland and Joe Jobe address attendees at the 2008 Biodiesel Conference & Expo.

2232-1294332312.jpg

Hegland and Jobe sing on stage at the 2009 Biodiesel Conference & Expo.

2233-1294332313.jpg

Ed rides along in a TDI Jetta race car running on biodiesel.

2234-1294332313.jpg

Ed Hegland chairman, National Biodiesel Board

2235-1294332314.jpg

Passing the Torch

For anyone who has spent time in Northern Minnesota during the frigid, white days of winter, one thing becomes clear: cold weather causes problems. Engines start slowly, windows freeze shut, and in a few, isolated incidents, above-ground biodiesel and petrodiesel tank dispenser filters get clogged above the fuel's cloud point, due to what could be called "the freezer effect." Spend a day sitting inside a deep freeze and you get the point. In an effort to help biodiesel producers and purchasers operate vehicles and machinery in such extreme conditions, ASTM is currently voting on a measure to create two grades of biodiesel, one of which would be specifically suited for those extreme winter days. Some in the industry favor the dual grades, noting the additional biodiesel option as a benefit to consumers. But others oppose the idea, citing confusion to those same consumers as a reason to continue the status quo. The ballot is currently at the main committee level and the results are expected sometime in December. 
 
 
 Reasons to Vote
 

 Along with a few reports from BP and ExxonMobil, Steve Howell, technical director for the National Biodiesel Board, says during the past year in Minnesota the current D6751 spec worked for "just about everybody." But, he says, "There were a couple of isolated incidents where biodiesel fuel didn't operate down to its cloud point." The reason for the clogging, at least what ASTM has indicated, was the monoglyceride content in the biodiesel. Because the majority of the incidents were mainly tank and dispenser filter related, Howell says the group (ASTM members, who are also government officials, biodiesel producers, users and members of academia) believes that if there are known cases of minor components in filters, then remaining in the fungible diesel fuel pool requires giving an option to help resolve the issue. 
 
 The new option would provide a No. 1 and a No. 2 grade similar to petro diesel, which features Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6. "The proposed grade No. 2 would be the current specs we have now," Howell says. "But if for some reason that No. 2 grade biodiesel doesn't operate down to its cloud point, then the group has proposed a No. 1 grade, and that No. 1 grade would have tighter controls on minor components." 
 
 
 The Issues
 
 "A mandate does not happen in a vacuum," said Ralph Groschen, senior marketing specialist for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, when he spoke during a webinar on the problems that occurred and the experience that was gained in Minnesota, the first state to pass a biodiesel mandate. And this concept-that other outside variables not considered within the realm of possibilities may ultimately be the cause of an "incident"-represents one sticking point for those considering the dual grades. "The particular way we chose to address these minor components was to use saturated monoglycerides as an indicator for all other minor components that could show this phenomenon in rare circumstances," Howell says. But, he adds, there are still desires to move to a more performance-based test rather than using one set of compounds as a surrogate for a whole bunch of others. "That," he says, "is the crux of the issue," as some disagree that monoglyceride levels should be the only factor to test for or change in the new grade. 
 
 While the new No. 1 grade would call for lower monoglyceride levels, Stu Porter, director for BBI Biofuels Canada, says the limits in the manner proposed are maybe not the best approach and seem to be somewhat subjective. "The proposed limits are built on a series of assumptions that estimate saturated monoglyceride content. This assumes that saturated monoglycerides are the root cause." For Porter, the amount of evidence supporting the idea that a multigrade biodiesel specification is needed is insufficient. ASTM is operating under the agreement, Howell says, however, that the research, data and evidence presented during the balloting process at the subcommittee level is the most accurate and complete package of information. Randy Jennings of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture says, "When you can positively identify the reasons for those problems and those problems can be corrected by amended fuel specifications, I think it is entirely appropriate to pursue those specifications."
 
 The procurement specifications that are already in place and used by petroleum companies may, however, already present an answer to the level of monoglycerides allowed and the resulting issues ASTM has identified. "The reality is that many of the refiners in the U.S. have a limit of 0.8 percent (monoglycerides) in the summer and 0.5 percent for some refiners and 0.4 percent for others in the winter, already in their procurement specs," Porter says. "In a sense, the petroleum companies are already finding a common way to address the issue through their procurement specs." He adds that this seems to be a much more sensible approach, and can minimize market confusion. 
 
 Apart from fuel specifications created by the particular testing method ASTM proposes, or the individual minor component to be tested for, the two-grade possibility may indeed present confusion. "There are already issues in the marketplace in just how to price biodiesel," Porter says, "and there is already a great deal of trading confusion. Although this seems like a short-term solution, it seems that it may result in a more long-term problematic outcome." Jennings seems to agree on the possibility. "Someone not understanding why the new grades may be added could potentially cause a little confusion as to which fuel is best suited for each application." 
 
 It is possible, Jennings adds, that some producers, who may not really understand the specifications and the reason that the new grades were added, may think this new grade is the highest grade fuel, and the result would create a buyer who wants a No. 1 grade but doesn't need it. Howell says this new grade makes sense for a lot of reasons, but the most important thing "is giving people the confidence to use biodiesel in any condition they want." For Howell, along with consumer confidence, one of the main factors many in favor of the ballot see as a positive is the lack of requirement for a user to use either No. 1 or No. 2. "You can use whichever one you choose depending on your local conditions," he says. 

 
 On the opposite side of the spectrum, producers may have their own issues to deal with as well. Because the proposed new grade would tighten monoglyceride levels, producers using tallow or yellow grease would have to adjust production methods in order to make the No. 1 grade. "Any producer using a TME or even yellow grease," Porter says, "would have to use distillation as part of their process. And this would not be necessary for other feedstocks." According to Porter, there are more producers using tallow or yellow grease as opposed to soy, in comparison to four years ago. But Howell says the added grade will simply allow the marketplace do its job figuring out which one is really needed. "Every time we make a spec change it is important to the industry," he says, adding, "I kind of view it as biodiesel really starting to mature as an industry and to become accepted within the petroleum industry infrastructure. It's something very few other alternative fuels have been able to do." 
 
 	
 Next Steps
 
 If the main committee votes yes, then the multigrade spec will be passed. If the vote is no, then it won't, and those in favor of the measure will go back to the drawing board to adjudicate the negatives. As Howell notes, along with consumer confidence, the petroleum sector's confidence in biodiesel is also a positive. If the ballot passes, it won't pass simply on the judgment of the biodiesel producers or users. "At ASTM you have the petroleum guys, the biodiesel guys and the engine guys all sitting down at the same table, and it's really a team effort," Howell says. The team effort will hopefully result in a system that can implement another fuel grade, much in the same vein as the petroleum industry has done in the past, and because the biodiesel industry may be following in the footsteps of the petroleum industry, the relationships between the two may benefit, according to Howell. 	
 
 "I think this is probably the fairest way ASTM could address this particular issue," Jennings says. But, Howell points out, "Even in really, really cold weather in International Falls, Minn., they are using No. 2, biodiesel and not having a problem. Why should they have to go to a different fuel when what they are using is working fine for them?" For some, those frigid days do create problems, as ASTM has documented, but the question is whether an isolated incident is important enough to create another grade of biodiesel. For the answer, check back this winter.
 
 Luke Geiver is a Biodiesel Magazine associate editor. Reach him at (701) 738-4944 or <a href="mailto:lgeiver@bbiinternational.com">lgeiver@bbiinternational.com</a>.

2250-1294332320.jpg

2251-1294332320.jpg

In extreme winter environments, such as far northern reaches of the U.S., even No. 2 diesel is cut or replaced with No. 1, to lower cloud point. Proponents of dual biodiesel grades say methyl ester users should have the same option. PHOTO: SUGARBUSH 

2252-1294332320.jpg

Most filter clogging in Minnesota last winter occurred in dispensing tanks, not in vehicles. The events, while enough to suspend the mandate, were rare. PHOTO: NRDDI

2253-1294332321.jpg

Experts still say one great possibility contributing to the rare instances of filter clogging in extreme winter environments has to do with unknowns regarding ULSD, and how the low-aromatic fuel blends with biodiesel. PHOTO: NRDDI

2254-1294332321.jpg

An ASTM ballot to create a new grade of biodiesel is in the final stages, but not everyone is hopeful for the same result.

November 2010

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Biomass Buzzing in the Southeast

Biomass Industry Goes to Washington

The Promise of 2011

Defining Key Terms

Featured

Gearing Up

Packing Heat and Power

Energy Tablets

Studying Switchgrass

Microloans for Small Biodiesel Businesses

Winter-Grade Biodiesel

BQ-9000: Moving Forward

Contributions

MACT for Biomass Boilers—DÃ©jÃ Vu?

Harvesting Forestry and Logging Waste Profitably

November 2010.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Biomass Buzzing in the Southeast

Biomass Industry Goes to Washington

The Promise of 2011

Defining Key Terms

Featured

Gearing Up

Packing Heat and Power

Energy Tablets

Studying Switchgrass

Microloans for Small Biodiesel Businesses

Winter-Grade Biodiesel

BQ-9000: Moving Forward

Contributions

MACT for Biomass Boilers—DÃ©jÃ Vu?

Harvesting Forestry and Logging Waste Profitably

November 2010