This issue of Biomass Power &amp; Thermal is about financing and building the biomass industry, which is a monumental task given the state of the economy, the current political situation and the regulatory environment.
 Although the economy may be coming around, banks still seem reluctant to put their money to work, and I&rsquo;m sure private investors are wondering which way the political winds are going to blow now that the Republicans have taken over the House of Representatives.
 I believe that no matter who is in the majority position in the House, lawmakers in general will support biomass energy because it is a sure-fire way to create jobs in this country, which is what the people who voted for them will be expecting from them in 2011. Government support should loosen investors&rsquo; purse strings.
 Then there are the regulatory issues. Biomass Power &amp; Thermal editors interviewed bankers, private investors and construction companies to gauge their attitude toward the industry today and looking ahead to 2011. As we had anticipated, they all agreed that the most pressing issues we face currently are regulatory in nature, including the Industrial Biomass Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.
 These issues came up not only in our features but also in nearly every presentation and conversation at the Southeast Biomass Conference &amp; Expo in November in Atlanta. The idea that woody biomass would not be considered carbon neutral in the U.S. is absurd especially when you look to the rest of the world where it is being embraced as a prime renewable energy source. As David Tenny, president and CEO of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, continues to stress, the U.S. forested area has been steadily maintained for the past 100 years while the use of wood for the housing, paper and energy industry has grown. To read more about the conference, see the &ldquo;Biomass Industry Convenes in Biomass Central&rdquo; feature starting on page 40.
 Despite the regulatory cloud, the experts we talked to for this issue and attendees at the conference were enthusiastic about the biomass industry and the potential economic opportunities that it offers. From the burgeoning biomass power industry in the European Union, which is turning to North America to supply biomass pellets, to the return of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, to the companies that are developing biomass energy crops and the technologies to more efficiently convert biomass into power, fuel and chemicals, there are many reasons to be bullish.
 It is my fervent hope that the regulatory issues will be settled in favor of the biomass industry, and that we will have more important things to discuss when we meet at the Pacific West Biomass Conference &amp; Trade Show, which will be held Jan. 10-12 in Seattle.

2010/11/129053338945.BPT.R

Biomass Poised to Leap Economic, Political, Regulatory Hurdles 

Just last month, I was in Stratton, Maine, (technically part of the town of Eustis, population 685) visiting a biomass power plant owned by Boralex. The plant provides well-paying jobs for many in the area, and I was lucky enough to witness these hard working Mainers in action.
 In the woods, I watched loggers remove wood residue and byproducts from sustainably managed forests&mdash;forests that are so remote and unpopulated they are part of what Maine calls its &ldquo;unorganized territory.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 The plant itself was a beehive of activity&mdash;logging trucks hauling chips, conveyors delivering wood to the boiler, and the 50-megawatt turbine humming, creating power for the New England grid. Who says manufacturing is dead in this country? Some folks get excited by the majestic size of a wind turbine&mdash;for me, it&rsquo;s the size of the wood pile.
 And, at the Looney Moose Caf&eacute; down the road, I shared with plant workers some of the best potato chips I&rsquo;ve ever eaten while discussing the necessity of biomass power in Stratton and throughout the rest of the country.
 I know that biomass power has faced many battles this year, but sitting in the Looney Moose snacking on potato chips, which the waitress informed me were of the gourmet frozen variety, I realized that the biomass power industry has a lot to be thankful for this holiday season.
 We still produce 50 percent of America&rsquo;s renewable electrical energy. While it can be frustrating that wind and solar power continue to garner much of the media&rsquo;s attention, a visit to Stratton Maine reminded me how very real the biomass industry is to renewable energy and rural economies across the nation. As for the waitress at the Looney Moose, the logger feeding slash material into the chipper, the boiler operator at the plant, they all know the importance of biomass power. This a world away from the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule and Production Tax Credits. It&rsquo;s our job, as an industry, to tell the real story of biomass and mobilize this growing chorus of support as more legislators, scientists and the public learn about biomass and all that we do.
 In Stratton, it&rsquo;s almost impossible to find a business that is unaffected by the plant, and it&rsquo;s no different in other rural communities where biomass plants exist throughout the country. We have the ability to create many more Strattons, but only if government adopts responsible policies. We know the potential is huge, both to generate more power and to find a home for wood byproducts, the removal of which results in healthier forests and an incentive to keep the landscape as working forests and not shopping malls.
 In Washington and among the states, our challenges are significant, and yet we have tremendous support from a wide range of interests, from forest owners to environmental groups. There is a shared vision in making sure this industry not only survives but grows. A new Congress is moving into the city come the new year, and with a new Congress could come a new discussion around energy policy. Next time you&rsquo;re in Stratton, stop at the Looney Moose and make sure to ask for the potato chips. Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association <a href="http://www.USABiomass.org">www.USABiomass.org</a>

2010/11/129053358195.BM

Biomass Power: A Lot to Be Thankful For

More than a decade ago, the U.S. DOE, the Energy &amp; Environmental Research Center and KBR partnered to build a 1-megawatt (MW) version of a transport reactor integrated gasifier (TRIG) for converting coal to natural gas and other chemicals. Gasifiers are essentially low-oxygen thermochemical coal or biomass conversion systems that can provide a well-contained and clean synthetic gas for power and liquid fuels. A TRIG behaves more like a catalytic cracker used in oil refining and was installed in a 70-foot tower facility at the EERC. The transport concept is similar to a fluidized-bed gasifier, but allows for more coal feed and power output. The system can be scaled up to 300 MW with respect to power output from its synthesis gas. Since then, the EERC has conducted several thousand hours of testing on this large pilot-scale system in Grand Forks, N.D., including some new work related to biomass gasification.
 Over the past several months, the EERC&rsquo;s TRIG system has undergone modifications to accommodate pressurized biomass feeding at a level of 500 to 600 pounds per hour. After the successful feed system upgrade, several hundred hours of gasification testing has been accomplished for 100 percent wood residue, switchgrass, and corn stover biomass and 20 weight percent blends of these biomass types with subbituminous coal. The reason for the blend testing is that coal-fired utilities, in the U.S. and abroad, are considering TRIG-type systems for converting mixtures of biomass and coal, since some regions may be up against challenges in finding sustainable biomass supplies. Unlike Europe, the U.S. does not have strong enough incentives to encourage using biomass in larger systems. Converting fossil feedstocks to energy, even using conversion systems that are fitted with clean emissions control systems, are still cheaper than utilizing biomass feedstocks, blending biomass with coal makes sense right now.
 Results of the recent biomass testing in the TRIG system were positive, however. Biomass materials were processed through a hammer mill with a 1/8-inch screen before being blended with the coal or before being fed into the TRIG system. Testing was done using air-blown and oxygen-blown gasification modes. Oxygen-blown gasification decreases the volume of greenhouse gas emissions and provides for more efficient separation and capture of carbon dioxide and other effluents. A larger-scale biomass TRIG system could enable effective biomass conversion and carbon capture, effectively providing a negative sum gain of greenhouse gas emissions.
 The operating temperatures of the TRIG system are between 870 and 925 degrees Celsius at circulating velocities of 35 to 42 feet per second. Temperature and oxygen/air input play a major role in the TRIG system&rsquo;s carbon conversion efficiency, synthetic gas quality and decreased production of unwanted tars. Carbon conversion was higher for the biomass tests than for straight coal or the coal/biomass blends. The syngas quality was excellent, showing nearly even levels of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, with much lower levels of methane. The main reaction chamber of the TRIG system showed volatile matter, organic carbon, aliphatics and methane reaching peaks at the midpoint of the chamber and then decreasing by the filter outlet. Hydrogen and carbon monoxide increased through the reaction chamber to the filter outlet. These reactions were a sign of good &ldquo;cracking&rdquo; of the syngas components and one reason for the excellent carbon conversion.
 The quality of the syngas was important to research sponsors who were interested in converting the syngas to electricity (to utilize as a boiler fuel) and for the potential of reforming the cleaned gas to liquid biofuels such as green diesel.
 In the future, more work will be done to optimize the TRIG system and to determine the costs for scaling up the system. Right now, these initial results hold promise for an upcoming new &ldquo;star&rdquo; in biomass conversion technology. Author: Chris Zygarlicke Deputy Associate Director, Energy &amp; Environmental Research Center (701) 777-5123 <a href="mailto:czygarlicke@undeerc.org">czygarlicke@undeerc.org </a>

2010/11/129053388383.jpg

New Potential “Star” in the Biomass Gasification Realm 

As 2010 comes to a close, some biomass project developers may be feeling a sense of "woulda, shoulda, coulda" when looking back. This may be the result of trying to meet year-end timing issues related to the 1603 Grant program, changes to the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds and other bond financing requirements, and limits for city, county and state permit approval meetings. These issues can be stressful and result in hastily prepared project documents. In such situations, project developers often find they lose leverage when negotiating critical project development documents such as engineering, procurement and construction contracts, waste supply agreements, power purchase or biogas off-take agreements. Avoiding these situations is easier said than done, but with regard to those developers looking at developing 2011 projects, appropriate planning cannot be underestimated.
 The following is a brief, high-level discussion of components in projects that tend to be underestimated or overlooked completely: the applicable city, county, state and federal permitting requirements and process; and the community involvement or "buy-in" process. These components involve third parties, which the developer has little if any control over, but potentially a measurable bit of influence if managed appropriately.&nbsp;
 Permitting: Permitting is a requirement that must be performed with the utmost diligence and consideration. In a perfect world, consolidated permitting activities within interagency coordinating bodies, or through master agency agreements where agencies work under one regulatory framework, would likely expedite review, improve communication regarding cross-media impacts, and reduce costs, both for developers and the agencies. In the absence of a consolidated permitting environment, the developer is wise to put the permitting process at the top of the Gantt chart and to keep these permitting management activities in mind:
 &bull;Location&mdash;Before committing to a property, understand the local zoning and potential obstacles that may arise at particular sites such as: wetlands, endangered species/biological obstacles; airports, traffic and access issues; distance to utilities and feedstock; properties requiring rezoning in addition to other approvals; properties requiring use permits and in some states, such as California, the additional environmental review that may accompany a use permit; and neighbors (see discussion below).
 &bull;Timeline&mdash;Develop a realistic timeline taking into account the application process and, potentially, the environmental review, including the additional time it may take to coordinate co-permitting agencies. In addition, the timing of the permits themselves, the decision-makers&rsquo; meeting schedules and related regulatory constraints, such as mandated notice periods, and even the length of agenda, need to be superimposed on the dates that are set out for the permits.
 &bull;Permits&mdash;Depending on the location and the type of facility, there may be air, water, and land use, utility and certainly building permits, all of which have timelines. A meeting with the main permitting agency early on in development is essential.
 Community Involvement: Informed citizens, stakeholders, decision makers and opinion leaders are crucial to the successful adoption of any biomass project and engaging the services of professionals to assist with gaining consensus warrants consideration.
 Though not applicable in all situations, the biomass developer should consider the following activities in developing a project: educate the public and decision makers about biomass systems and issues in sustainable biomass development; inform key project participants about corporate social responsibility and environmental and social implications of their involvement; conduct outreach to government decision makers, schools, nongovernmental organizations, sustainability groups and others; provide outreach on biomass utilization and seeking to create early dialog with the affected communities; attend civic leadership luncheons to hear about local issues as appropriate; educate farmers, operators, investors and others of research and development efforts and provide outreach and coordination with farming organizations and agencies, and sponsor information outlets regarding the project and the technology. Author:John Eustermann Partner, Stoel Rives LLP (208) 387-4218 <a href="mailto:jmeustermann@stoel.com">jmeustermann@stoel.com</a>

2010/11/129053402935.jpg

Prepping for Project Development in 2011

Bandit Industries adds dealers Bandit Industries signed on Bejac Equipment Corp. in southern California to carry its line of whole tree chippers and Beast Recyclers. Bejac has four locations&mdash;San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Redding. With the addition of McClung-Logan Equipment Co., Bandit Industries has expanded its offering of Beast Recyclers and whole tree chippers to six locations in Virginia&mdash;Chesapeake, Manassas, Richmond, Roanoke, Winchester and Wise. Bandit also announced the addition of Blue Mountain Equipment Rentals to its dealer network, which will carry Bandit&rsquo;s chipper and stump grinder line for select counties in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Nortrax Inc., a John Deere construction and forestry equipment dealer, announced the addition of Bandit chippers and grinders to its equipment line-up. Nortrax will carry Bandit&rsquo;s line of hand-fed brush chippers and stump grinders in Ontario and Newfoundland and will serve as the exclusive Beast horizontal grinder distributor in Quebec. Clark-Reliance establishes overnight delivery service The Clark-Reliance Corp. has established a new online service to provide overnight delivery of critical parts to operators of power generation and processing equipment. The program, OEM Parts Plus, features hundreds of the most commonly needed spare parts associated with original equipment manufactured under the Jerguson, Jacoby-Tarbox, HYCOA or Clark-Reliance brands. Orders placed online by 2 p.m. (ET) will be shipped the same day. For more information, visit www.clark-reliance.com. Morbark expands East Coast dealer network Morbark announced it has signed a dealer agreement with Elliott &amp; Frantz Inc., based in King of Prussia, Penn. Elliott &amp; Frantz will sell and service Morbark&rsquo;s recycling and forestry product lines, in Maryland, Delaware and the District of Columbia, from its branch locations in Jessup, Md., and Delmar, Del. Founded in 1962, Elliott &amp; Frantz has comprehensive experience in the construction equipment industry. The company maintains a parts inventory in excess of $2 million, a complete fleet of service vehicles and a service staff with the extensive knowledge and experience. DP CleanTech to convert coal boiler to biomass DP CleanTech has teamed up with Axis Technologies, an engineering, procurement and construction supplier in Lithuania, to extend a pre-existing fossil fuel burning plant with a renewable biomass power plant. The plant in Siauliai, Lithuania, currently burns natural gas and heavy fuel. Owner Siauliai Energija, plans to add a new biomass-fired boiler, bringing increased power to the area for zero net gain in CO2 emissions. DP CleanTech will provide engineering, project management, procurement, manufacturing and supervision of construction and commissioning for the complete boiler island and estimates the entire plant to be fully operational by April 2012. Martin Engineering offers expanded conveyor training Martin Engineering has expanded its Foundations Training Program on the design and development of more productive belt conveyors to offer three customizable seminars.&nbsp; Training is available to suit individuals with varied levels of experience and responsibility from new hire to senior engineer. Attendees attain a better understanding of conveyor safety and performance, helping to justify upgrade investments and increase profitability. Foundations Training Programs may qualify for Continuing Education Units or Professional Development Hours; they may also qualify toward the Parts 46/48 Annual Refresher Training. For more information, visit www.martin-eng.com. Ascendant Partners assists Lincolnway Energy Ascendant Partners Inc. performed a full feasibility of the coal-to-biomass conversion process, including biomass volumes, logistics, quality, permit implications and pricing, to assess the technical, market, economic and financial implications of the biomass conversion for Lincolnway Energy. Working with Lincolnway, Ascendant identified and performed due diligence on more than 50 potential biomass resources to determine which would align best with Lincolnway operations. This is one of the many biomass projects completed by Ascendant Partners, including a wood pellet plant acquisition; biomass market assessment; wood pelleting feasibility, business planning and project development oversight; and assessment of biomass export opportunities. Howden North America moves to Columbia Howden North America Inc., a supplier of fans, rotary heat exchangers, compressors and gas handling equipment for the biomass, cement, HVAC, iron and steel, mining, navy and maritime, nuclear, petrochemical, power, transportation and tunnel ventilation industries, is relocating its corporate office from Camden to Columbia, S.C. The company, formerly known as Howden Buffalo Inc., also announced that it will now be known as Howden North America Inc. The company, which employs 89 people and moved to Camden in 1999, will move into 18,200-square-feet of office space located at 7909 Parklane Road. Stefan Kaiser Joins Vecoplan Stefan Kaiser has joined Vecoplan LLC in High Point, N.C., as head of business development. Formerly with partner company Vecoplan AG in Bad Marienberg Germany, Kaiser will act as a liaison between the two entities for the transfer of both technological and practical knowledge as it applies to best practices in the design, manufacture and implementation of turnkey Biomass Processing Systems in North America and Europe. In addition to experiential knowledge of the biomass industry on multiple continents, Kaiser brings an industrial engineering degree (Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing.) to his new position at Vecoplan. The course of study required to earn this degree combines engineering and business management with an emphasis on the realization of practical business advantages in the application of technological advancements for real world settings. De Jaye Technologies unveils biomass process analyzers/recorders De Jaye Technologies LLC is offering its DJCH4, a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) methane emissions analyzer recorder for the PC. It continuously measures and records methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen oxide. An optional data acquisition board adds four millivolt and one digital input for temperature, pressure, flow rate, moisture and hydrogen. HC interference with methane is reduced by 95 percent with a narrow band infrared filter on the methane detector. The DJCH4 software is easy to use and measures gas with two keystrokes. The data logger has a programmable interval and duration with over-range flags on the screen and the printout. Data is saved in both a report and Excel CSV format on the hard drive or a USB memory stick. MilliVolt input data is saved with the gas data in the Excel file for graphing or calculations. For more information, go to De Jaye Technologies&rsquo; website at www.5gas.com. Waratah opens facility in Western Australia In response to the special product and support needs of its debarking eucalyptus customers, Waratah Forestry Attachments has opened a Western Australia facility. The new 5,300-square-foot facility, located at 22 Gibbons Road in Bunbury, singularly focuses on 616C harvester customers. A one-stop shop for customers to increase the uptime and productivity of their HTH616C harvesting heads, it sells these compact harvester/processors, a comprehensive range of 616C parts, and offers expert product rebuilding and maintenance services.

2010/11/129053423923.jpg

SMOOTH MOVE: The companyâ€™s roots in the U.S. date back into the 19th century. 

2010/11/129053426401.jpg

CLASS IS IN SESSION: Training is tailored to all levels of experience, from new-hire through senior engineer. 

2010/11/129053428191.jpg

Stefan Kaiser brings biomass industry knowledge from several continents to his new role as head of business development in the U.S.    

2010/11/129053430268.jpg

DOWN UNDER OUTFITTERS: Waratah forestry equipment network includes service in Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Finland, Russia and Brazil.


2010/11/129053432241.jpg

Business Briefs

The North Carolina Utilities Commission has ruled wood chips as an eligible feedstock under the state renewable energy standard (RES), and decided that wood in general is a renewable biomass resource under state law and therefore eligible for credit when utilized for renewable energy. The ruling was prompted by a request from power utility Duke Energy to gain renewable energy credits under the state RES for cofiring two of the company&rsquo;s coal-fired power plants with wood chips derived from lower-value whole trees.
 Although it&rsquo;s been viewed as positive from groups such as the North Carolina Forestry Association, others are crying foul for sustainability reasons. Some environmental groups even filed legal challenges against Duke&rsquo;s request, citing that only wood waste and scraps should be used and granted credit.
 While wood chips derived from low-grade whole trees&mdash;not to be confused with whole tree wood chips as it often is&mdash;may go against the grain of what biomass power industry says is typically used at plants, it could give the struggling forest industry a healthy boost.&nbsp;
 Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, points out that fuel labels can be confusing. &ldquo;Historically, what we&rsquo;ve said as an industry is that we don&rsquo;t use chips from whole trees,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s not actually accurate, because there are whole trees that are part of thinning operations that the industry uses, but these are consistent with a sustainable forestry plan.&rdquo;
 When loggers are harvesting for merchantable timber, Cleaves says, they may thin areas of non-merchantable trees that are spindly or diseased. &ldquo;To the layman, that&rsquo;s simply chopping down whole trees for electricity purposes,&rdquo; he says.
 Furthermore, some regions may be in dire need of forest management and thinning. Only 300,000 tons of waste wood was collected in North Carolina in 2009, and on average only 6 percent of available residuals are collected across the Southeast each year, points out Tracy Beer, renewable energy strategy manager at Duke Energy. &ldquo;Residuals aren&rsquo;t making it out of the woods because there isn&rsquo;t adequate economic signal to do so,&rdquo; she says.&nbsp;
 Aside from wood chips, Duke Energy will also be using wood waste, but in some cases there simply will not be enough waste wood materials available. &ldquo;While it seems there are lots of impressions of an abundance of waste wood, those assumptions may not be completely accurate,&rdquo; Beer says. &ldquo;We would agree that more waste wood could be utilized, but there isn&rsquo;t an unlimited supply. Also, it is unlikely that all of that material will ever make it out of the woods, due to terrain, landowner preferences and so on.&rdquo;
 Bob Slocum, executive vice president of the North Carolina Forestry Association, says North Carolina has a whopping 18 million acres of forestland. &ldquo;About 58 percent of the state is forest,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Only three other states have more forestland than North Carolina, and the South as a region produces more wood than any other single nation in the world, yet our timber inventories have continued to increase.&rdquo;
 Notably, the vast majority of the forestland in North Carolina and the South is privately owned. &ldquo;About 88 percent in North Carolina,&rdquo; Slocum says. &ldquo;History has proven that one of the main reasons we have as much forestland as we do is that forests have economic value to the people who own them, so having strong and varied markets for wood is essential to maintaining our forest land base. Biomass can provide an additional market for low-value wood and give landowners an economic incentive to improve forest management and to keep their land in forest.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 North Carolina&rsquo;s vast forestland base supports the state&rsquo;s largest manufacturing industry&mdash;forest products. &ldquo;However, the economic recession along with foreign competition, regulatory costs and other factors have severely impacted this industry,&rdquo; Slocum says. &ldquo;Mills have closed and those remaining are running at reduced production levels. Markets for wood are similarly depressed and landowners are not only harvesting less timber but, lacking an economic incentive, are also making lower investments in forest management.&rdquo;
 Biomass projects such as Duke Energy&rsquo;s may help get the ball rolling again. The company&rsquo;s intent is to use the lowest value biomass products available, Beer emphasizes, and none of the wood chips used will come from saw timber; only residual material or lower value whole trees, in accordance with sustainable practices.
 The problem is that the word sustainability is frequently used but no one provides a definition of what it really means, Slocum says. &ldquo;What is sustainability and what are the metrics by which you determine this?&rdquo; he asks. &ldquo;If you can define the term and how it&rsquo;s measured, then answering questions about forest sustainability becomes easier.&rdquo;
 Realistically, can our forests provide unlimited amounts of wood forever?&nbsp; &ldquo;Probably not,&rdquo; Slocum says. &ldquo;There are limits to what an acre of land can produce, and we know that we will likely have fewer acres in the future. But we also know that our forests are probably growing only half or less than what they are capable of growing. What is lacking, among other things, is the economic signal to landowners to make these investments.&rdquo;
 In other news, Duke Energy and Duke University are teaming up to build a pilot anaerobic digestion plant at Loyd Ray Farms, a 9,000-head hog finishing facility in Boonville, N.C., 115 miles west of Raleigh.
 &ldquo;The project is about learning a lot together,&rdquo; says Jason Walls, spokesman for Duke Energy. Besides the benefit of the pilot plant acting as a model and reference for other farms, Walls said the real value of the project comes in two key areas. First, it would help fulfill a portion of the state&rsquo;s RES that requires a certain percentage of electricity to be generated from hog waste. &ldquo;It also helps us better understand how this power plant interacts with our existing equipment,&rdquo; he says.
 &nbsp;The project is expected to generate 512 to 639 megawatt hours of energy per year, all of which will be used at the hog farm. In exchange for hosting the experiment, hog farmer Loyd Bryant gets the system at no cost and will own it after 10 years, according to Walls.

RENEWABLE OR NOT: A ruling that allows Duke Energy to use chips from whole trees to produce power and be eligible for renewable energy credits has prompted some environmental groups to file legal challenges against it.


2010/11/129053457231.jpg

Duke Energy's request to use wood chips ruffles feathers.

Wood Chip Flap

South Carolina&rsquo;s state-owned power utility Santee Cooper has approved two long-term power purchase agreements (PPA) with four biomass power plants operating or in development across the state, totaling 95 megawatts (MW).
 The contracts specify that Domtar Paper Co. LLC at Bennetsville, S.C., will provide 50 MW for 15 years, and Southeast Renewable Energy will supply 45 MW for 30 years from three 15-MW plants to be constructed across the state. The first two are expected to be online in 2012 or 2013 in Dorchester and Kershaw counties.
 While Santee has had a renewable energy program for nearly a decade, South Carolina does not currently have a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Aside from fulfilling its voluntary program requirements, Santee, which already produces 22 MW of electricity from landfill gas, cited that the biomass power generation is the most cost-effective renewable resource in South Carolina. However, that may not be the perspective of other privately owned utilities in the state that have no renewable energy obligations.
 According to the South Carolina Forestry Association, forests cover two-thirds of the total land area in the state, or 12.4 million acres, and each year the state grows 26 percent more timber than is removed by harvesting, land clearing, changes in land use and natural mortality.
 Where does South Carolina stand in regard to current biopower production and its potential to host additional sustainable biomass projects? As of 2007, there was more than 500 MW of licensed industrial biopower capacity in the state, according to John Bonitz, farm outreach and policy advocate for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. &ldquo;Many of those operations are probably defunct now though,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;There are already a couple pellet mills in operation in S.C., plus a third in development. Combined, these pale in comparison to SACE&rsquo;s 2009 estimate of South Carolina&rsquo;s projected potential biopower capacity, which is more than 1,500 MW, 727 MW from forest resources alone.&rdquo;
 &nbsp;Bonitz says SACE applauds Santee Cooper, which is the largest power utility in the state, for signing PPAs for appropriately scaled biopower projects. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s exactly the kind of leadership role that publicly owned utilities ought to be playing in biopower, emphasizing moderate scale and thermal efficiency,&rdquo; he says.
 Bonitz adds that SACE, which is a strong advocate for the adaptation a federal RPS, has determined the state has the resources or growth potential to multiply this five or 10-fold. &ldquo;But without an RPS, it is unlikely the investor-owned utilities will do the right things to make this happen,&rdquo; he says.

Will power purchase agreements make up for the lack of an RPS in SC? 

PPA Power

While it&rsquo;s likely that many are still sifting through the 170-plus pages of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program final rule, the initial consensus is that most relevant industry groups are satisfied with changes made to the program since it was implemented early this year.
 The final rule comes eight months after USDA froze the program to correct several oversights that were realized after initial implementation, including the inclusion of wood scraps, sawdust, chips and shavings as eligible materials for the matching payments portion of BCAP. As a result, material prices for already-established markets, such as particleboard, fiberboard and composite panel sectors, were artificially inflated.
 Tom Julia, president of the Composite Panel Association&mdash;the industry umbrella group that heavily advocated for the suspension of payments from BCAP until the issue was resolved&mdash;says BCAP has &ldquo;morphed from a job killing welfare program to one that now makes economic and environmental sense. It&rsquo;s now rightly targeted to the production of new sources of woody biomass, rather than raiding established, viable markets for the wood fiber upon which a wide range of American industries rely,&rdquo; he says.
 The CPA also endorses the decision that in order to qualify for matching payments, eligible materials must be collected or harvested directly from the land before transport and delivery, as opposed to being separated from higher value material after harvest and transport. In addition, all eligible material must be harvested in accordance with an approved conservation, forest stewardship or equivalent plan.
 Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, describes the rule as &ldquo;incredibly confusing. But we&rsquo;re cautiously optimistic that there is an opportunity for us in these rules,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We understand why the USDA did what they did because of concerns the CPA had, but we want to make darn sure that residues and byproducts that don&rsquo;t have higher value actually do qualify. Our initial read is that they would. We&rsquo;re still studying them though, and have more questions than answers at this point.&rdquo;
 Steve Flick, board chairman of Centerview, Mo.-based Show Me Energy Cooperative, the first farmer-owned co-op in the U.S. to apply and qualify for BCAP collection, harvest, storage and transport (CHST) payments, says the co-op is glad to see the USDA narrowly define the intent and spirit of the BCAP. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve been reading it like kids studying for a final exam in college,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re still evaluating what we like, but what we do know is that we favor that it defines &lsquo;higher and better use,&rsquo; and that they made sure that the spirit was to create an industry that builds biorefineries that utilize bioenergy crops at the producer level, mostly on a regional basis, because what we do in the Midwest won&rsquo;t work with what the people do in Florida or California.&rdquo;
 Flick says he thinks getting the program fully operational will be a slow process, but from the experience, USDA will learn what to do and what not to do in the next Farm Bill. &ldquo;The success in the program will be making sure the farmers can generate the same wealth growing these [energy] crops, because at the end of the day they still have to make the same land payments.&rdquo;

BCAP IS BACK: Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the release of the Biomass Crop Assistance final rule and provided details about renewable energy initiatives to spur rural revitalization at a press conference in October.   

2010/11/129053493152.jpg

Initial perspectives on BCAP final rule seem positive.

So Far, So Good

This year, Ontario, Ore.-based Agri Energy Producers Association grew 1,500 acres of a hybrid sorghum developed by energy grass seed company Ceres Inc. The grower-owned energy cooperative plans to grow up to 30,000 acres next year, marking its presence as a dominant U.S. energy crop producer.
 AEPA members will have a leg up on other energy crop growers because they don&rsquo;t have to search for a buyer. They plan to use the sorghum in their own closed-loop electricity production model.
 AEPA co-founders Lance Wells and Kurt Christiensen started putting the co-op together about five years ago, according to Wells. &ldquo;We created it because it was the best option versus getting investors,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;This way, it's farmer owned. We needed a huge operation in order to back up a biomass supply chain&mdash;lots of growers&mdash;so we decided to create this.&rdquo;
 AEPA&rsquo;s closed-loop model consists of growing and harvesting the sorghum plant and using presses to separate the juice from the fiber. The juice will be sent into a 5-megawatt (MW) biogas power plant and the fiber will be used as feedstock at a 10-MW biomass power plant. AEPA will sell the electricity to interested buyers.
 &ldquo;What separates us from everyone is that we&rsquo;re the only ones handling the wet [sorghum], so that&rsquo;s the real secret,&rdquo; Wells adds. &ldquo;We store it as silage, pull it out, split it apart and create electricity from both sides.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 AEPA&rsquo;s first power plant is in the planning and financing stages, according to Wells. Meanwhile, the co-op will continue to recruit growers. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re set up to go nationwide,&rdquo; Wells adds. &ldquo;We can duplicate this model anywhere that this crop can be grown, and that has good interconnection points for the power sales.&rdquo;

POWER PRODUCERS: Farmers in Oregon are growing hybrid sorghum and using it to produce their own power and selling power to the grid. 


2010/11/129053548686.jpg

Agri Energy Producers will grow and use their own crop to produce power

Closing the Loop

Beaver Wood Energy&rsquo;s proposed 30 megawatt power plant and pellet mill in Pownal, Vt., has experienced more local concern than its identical proposed facility in Fair Haven, Vt. This&nbsp; can be attributed primarily to topographical differences, but also to where the communities are located. Pownal sits in a valley, stirring up concerns about emissions, along with truck traffic and water use.
&ldquo;We definitely aren&rsquo;t experiencing the same level of concern at Fair Haven,&rdquo; says Tom Emero, managing director of development and operations for Beaver Wood Energy. &ldquo;Vermont has by far one of the most aggressive permitting structures in the country and [Fair Haven residents] appear more confident that that aggressive structure will do a good job of ensuring that this plant is an excellent part of their community.&rdquo; Emero does not consider the concerned Pownal locals as opposition, but simply a group of people seeking more information on the facility.
 Many concerns come from the neighboring state that has positioned itself as the least welcoming of biomass power plants: Massachusetts. Pownal is 1.5 miles from the Vermont/Massachusetts state line and citizens there have played a significant role in raising objections. &ldquo;There are certainly a lot of people from Massachusetts expressing concern,&rdquo; Emero says. But he adds that Massachusetts locals are not responsible for the concerns of Pownal residents.
 Vermont already has two biomass plants that have been operational for more than 20 years and are viewed as positives, says Eric Kingsley, vice president of Maine-based Innovative Natural Source Solutions LLC., who has attended public hearings in Pownal. In fact, Vermont&rsquo;s political leadership supports biomass and the state will need new energy generation, as it may not renew the license of a 600 MW nuclear plant, he adds.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Both facilities should be completed in late 2013 or early 2014, Emero says.

Beaver Wood Energy experiences two different local climates in Vermont.

One State, Two Attitudes 

Nearly half of the roughly 700,000 people who call Alaska home live in Anchorage. With the additional exceptions of Juneau and Fairbanks, the majority of the communities are rural with vast distances in between and some facing energy crises. Its layout makes the state a perfect candidate for community-scale combined-heat-and-power systems, but without an existing forest products infrastructure, developers have to start from scratch.
 Dalson Energy is developing a 2-megawatt woody biomass gasification CHP project in Tok, Alaska, which has an isolated grid providing power for four small towns (including Tok) and not connected to any others, according to Thomas Deerfield, president of Dalson Energy. Deerfield calls the scenario a &ldquo;perfect storm&rdquo; because the load requirement is 2 MW and the town is surrounded by forests of small trees so dense it&rsquo;s almost impossible to walk through, posing a severe wildfire risk.
 That wildfire risk is a problem in numerous areas in the enormous state, as a robust forest products industry is nonexistent. &ldquo;Wildfires are a huge problem up here,&rdquo; Deerfield says. Ninety percent of Alaska&rsquo;s paper mills have closed so no infrastructure exists for bringing timber or biomass out of the woods. &ldquo;I would say one of the main challenges (in developing biomass projects) is there is no significant timber harvest industry anymore,&rdquo; Deerfield says.
 Allen Brackley, research forester with the Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station in Alaska, agrees. &ldquo;Supplying biomass when you&rsquo;ve got a robust forest industry is pretty simple business,&rdquo; he says. But in some areas such as Sitka, the available amount of biomass is insignificant compared with the cost of harvesting equipment to source feedstock locally, he adds.
 But not all the same problems exist throughout the diesel-dependent state. Some areas have little forestland and others simply would refuse to switch to biomass because their fuel oil prices are surprisingly low, such as in Anchorage. In addition, the willingness of landowners to harvest biomass varies and large chunks of the state&rsquo;s woods are national forests. Another portion of the market is unable to make the switch to woody biomass because systems can&rsquo;t be installed and there would be nowhere to store the biomass, Brackley explains. &ldquo;You&rsquo;ve got a series of different problems up here in Alaska,&rdquo; he says.
 Despite the challenges, both Brackley and Deerfield do acknowledge the potential for development in the state. &ldquo;If you look at Alaska, we&rsquo;ve got biomass coming out our ears,&rdquo; Brackley says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s about whether they&rsquo;re willing to let you cut it or develop a plan to harvest.&rdquo;
 Deerfield says biomass heat in Alaska is &ldquo;coming back in a big way,&rdquo; with many projects under development and receiving assistance from the state and federal governments as well as regional Native corporations. He says he cannot identify one person in Tok who opposes his project there and he sees enormous potential for similar community-scale models all over the state, despite challenges in convincing some Alaskans to revert back to wood energy from the fossil fuels they&rsquo;ve used for the past 50 years.
 &ldquo;Alaska is a harbinger of energy challenges in America, especially in rural areas where the needs are great and the scale is community and regional, not centralized and large-urban,&rdquo; he says.

BIOMASS BONANZA: Experts say despite Alaska\'s vast biomass resources, the state has no infrastructure for harvesting woody biomass.

2010/11/129053527104.jpg

State's potential to develop CHP systems hindered by the lack of a forestry industry.

North to Alaska

As a result of collaboration of state and community leaders, local industry groups, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and others, Iberdrola Renewables Inc. has its required permits and has begun construction on its 26.8-megawatt biomass cogeneration plant in Lakeview, Ore.
 Iberdrola, predominantly a developer of wind energy projects, plans to produce enough power for 18,000 homes in southern Oregon&rsquo;s Lake County by the fall of 2012.
 The project was owned by two other companies before being acquired by Iberdrola, which received a $1.7 million Recovery Act grant to help with costs.
 The 55-acre plant site is about 20 miles from the California border next to Collins Pine Co.&rsquo;s Fremont sawmill. Much of the power plant&rsquo;s fuel will be logging and mill residuals from the sawmill&rsquo;s operations. In turn, the plant will provide the sawmill with the equivalent of 2 megawatts of steam to power its operations. In total, the plant will consume about 160,000 bone-dry tons of biomass.
 When complete, Lakeview Cogeneration LLC will create 18 full-time jobs at the plant and an estimated 50-plus in the forest.
 Electricity generated from the plant will be sold to local utilities, helping to meet the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Oregon's RPS requires the largest utilities in Oregon to provide 25 percent of their retail sales of electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2025, smaller utilities 10 percent and the smallest 5 percent.

Iberdrola will produce enough power for 18,000 Oregon homes by 2012.

Commencing Construction 

A recent study by the Great Plains Institute illuminates the enormous potential of biogas projects in the U.S., but also illustrates the lack of incentives or support to develop them. On both the federal and state levels, existing and proposed policies could use changes or a push to jump-start a robust biogas industry and new proposals could use a champion.
 One of the main problems with current policy is the fact that the focus for biogas projects lies almost solely in electricity generation, but the resource can be used for combined heat and power, natural gas replacement, transportation fuel and chemical production, according to Amanda Bilek, GPI energy policy specialist and author of &ldquo;Spotlight on Biogas: Policies for Utilization and Deployment in the Midwest.&rdquo; Specifically, the Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) gears its 30 percent credit only toward electricity-generating facilities. &ldquo;What stakeholders would like to see is a way to open up this tax credit so that projects such as natural gas can also qualify,&rdquo; Bilek says.
 The grants in lieu of the ITC program, U.S. Department of Treasury&rsquo;s Section 1603, could also use some revision, according to both Bilek and the newly formed American Biogas Council. As of September, only 0.1 percent of a total $5.2 million allocated to renewable energy under the program was awarded to anaerobic digestion biogas projects, according to the council. Those grants are only available, if not re-authorized, until Dec. 31.
 Industry stakeholders would also like to see changes in USDA&rsquo;s Business and Industrial Guaranteed Loans program that would allow flexibility in the means of demonstrating business viability. The program does cover some biogas projects, but the main obstacle is the fact that it requires a traditional lender and businesses must provide balance sheets in order to obtain one. &ldquo;Some new businesses don&rsquo;t necessarily have access to balance sheets from previous years to help secure that traditional lender,&rdquo; Bilek explains.
 As money always seems to be a development hang up, stakeholders say changes to state net metering rate policies allowing more payments for renewable electricity at retail rates would also lend a helping hand to biogas development. &ldquo;It does help improve the economics for biogas projects,&rdquo; she says of the retail rate. In addition, state renewable portfolio standards that include a resource carve-out for biogas projects would help significantly.
 Changes to such policies will allow biogas to step into the spotlight and become part of our energy future, Bilek says, but she does not expect advancements until the new Congress convenes in January. &ldquo;I doubt action on any of these policies is going to happen in the lame duck session,&rdquo; she says.

Changes to policies could push biogas project development and industry growth.

Baiting Biogas

Biomass development in China seems to be growing exponentially with no end in sight. News reports are constantly highlighting new plant proposals and incentives, beckoning developers to join the markets and reap the benefits. The question is how to do it.
 &ldquo;China development is explosive,&rdquo; says Simon Parker, CEO of DP CleanTech, a China-based biomass power provider. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s hard to exaggerate what is happening.&rdquo; It is difficult to enter the burgeoning Chinese biomass market, Parker admits, but if it weren&rsquo;t, profits wouldn&rsquo;t be as good as they are.
 Washington D.C.-based D4 Energy Group saw its window of opportunity in a partnership with Global Partners United Ltd., offering local marketing of its gasification technology in China. GPU already has a marketing presence in East Asia, but also has engineering and integration experience. &ldquo;We found it critical to find a strategic alliance partner that not only brought relationships and marketing to the table, but also brought integration and engineering capabilities with it,&rdquo; says Don Rosacker, CEO of D4 Energy. GPU has also demonstrated its expertise in protecting technologies in new and foreign markets, he adds.
 Perhaps most important, GPU will represent a local presence for D4 Energy&rsquo;s customers. Customer service and on-site support are critical with energy projects, Rosacker says, and customers can&rsquo;t wait a week for someone to fly to China from the U.S. &ldquo;GPU will provide what we call Tier 1 support and we&rsquo;ll provide Tier 2 support to GPU,&rdquo; he says.
 As China represents such a substantial market for all products, a domestic infrastructure tends to develop very quickly, Parker says, even in new products. &ldquo;This requires that companies who wish to tap that market have to work out quickly how to make themselves relevant locally very quickly,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;So a partnership, whilst not essential, can accomplish this goal.&rdquo;
 But every situation is different and a partner won&rsquo;t always be the right route to take, Parker says. &ldquo;It can be, or it can backfire,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The right partner with clarity upfront does help significantly. Getting the balance right here is the essential first step where each party can contribute and deliver the right solution.&rdquo;
 Rosacker says everything develops more quickly in China than in the U.S., as China has embraced clean energy and waste to energy. &ldquo;That goes without saying,&rdquo; he laughs. The government in China is supportive of such renewable energy industries and eliminates obstacles to efficient development. &ldquo;We have put obstacles on the local, state and federal levels,&rdquo; he says of the U.S.
 But China&rsquo;s quick development does come with its drawbacks. &ldquo;With such speed of development, sometimes capital is not allocated as efficiently as perhaps it could be in some instances,&rdquo; Parker points out.
 &ldquo;The market is maturing rapidly and the government initiatives and focus to ensure balanced development of the industry is something deserving of respect,&rdquo; he adds.

MODEL MARKET: Power companies such as DP CleanTech, which built this plant in Shanxian, are taking advantage of China\'s renewable power boom. 

2010/11/129053566911.jpg

How can developers enter the booming Chinese biomass market?

Made in China 

While it may seem the U.K. is poised to push to the front of the pack in biomass development, problems with policies and the government&rsquo;s Renewables Obligation seem to be hindering meaningful growth in the industry.&nbsp;
 The Renewables Obligation provides incentives in the form of Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs), banded by technology used. The bands are reviewed every five years, the next scheduled in 2013. Biomass currently receives between 1.5 and 2 ROCs and was finally grandfathered at current levels in July, having been the only renewable resource not given the privilege. It was a necessary change, but now different concerns loom. &ldquo;This was a much welcome development, however construction periods for biomass developments will almost always span the banding review, and it is not certain that there will be a sufficient &lsquo;grace period&rsquo; to enable the project to commission at least at the support level in place when financial close was achieved,&rdquo; says Tricia Wiley with the Renewable Energy Association, adding that some uncertainty has plagued the market because of it.
 In July, the Department of Energy and Climate Change implemented a split solution: grandfather support at current levels for anaerobic digestion and energy-from-waste generators; and grandfather a minimum level of support on accreditation for dedicated biomass. The level of support is subject to change in the 2013 banding review.
 &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve got a whole host of projects stalled at the moment because they won&rsquo;t reach commission by 2013, which means they don&rsquo;t know what support they could get,&rdquo; she says. Development is even more difficult in Scotland, which is proposing that waste-to-energy technologies are grandfathered, but not dedicated biomass. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re working as an industry to try to influence the Scottish position at the moment,&rdquo; Wiley says.
 &ldquo;From my experience, it is more difficult to develop biomass plants in the U.K. than in other parts of the European Union and it is more difficult to develop biomass plants in Scotland than it is in other parts of the U.K.,&rdquo; says Donald MacBrayne, head of Horizons Environment, a Scottish Water subsidiary that runs the company&rsquo;s Deerdykes, Scotland, 1-megawatt combined-heat-and-power anaerobic digestion (AD)&nbsp; facility. The plant digests 30,000 metric tons per year of waste from local authorities, supermarkets, hotels, restaurants and food producers. The facility is a merchant plant&mdash;built speculatively without contracts for inbound materials&mdash;and therefore was not funded by any banks, MacBrayne says, adding that securing funding is one of the most difficult aspects of AD development. Currently, grant programs assist some developers in the U.K., but will expire in about two years and likely will not be renewed, Wiley says, making grandfathering of biomass technologies all the more important to development.

SLOGGING ALONG: Uncertainty over government policies and incentives has stalled renewable energy development in the U.K.


2010/11/129053634063.jpg

U.K. biomass development slows due to market uncertainty.

Biomass Barriers

When asked if he expects 2011 to be a good year for biomass project construction, Bert Bennett, biomass gasifier principal scientist for ICM Inc., responds with an enthusiastic &ldquo;Definitely yes.&rdquo; He&rsquo;s not the only one with such a positive outlook on development in the industry and some attribute it to policies that are in the works to encourage a switch from fossil fuels.
 &ldquo;In 2011 and beyond, we may see an upswing in conversion projects as utilities move away from coal and convert to wood-fired renewable energy,&rdquo; says Rick Cantor, vice president of business development for construction firm Fagen Inc. &ldquo;This shift could be driven by the U.S. EPA proposed MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards. Biomass cogeneration projects co-located with industrial plants could also become more active in the future.&rdquo; The MACT rules set a limit on the amount of pollutants that can be released into the air and new proposals strictly limit several hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). As Cantor suggests, those proposals could mandate cleaner technologies at hundreds of power generating stations.
 That demand for biomass construction and engineering, no matter the drivers, could last five to eight years, according to Bob DeKoch, chief operations officer for Boldt Construction. &ldquo;Beyond that, it&rsquo;s hard to say,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;These things cycle.&rdquo; Boldt has taken full advantage of that cycle, with involvement&nbsp; in three Midwest biomass power projects. DeKoch says Boldt is not just entering an existing market, but caught it during resurgence. &ldquo;The market is just developing,&rdquo; he says. The company sees enormous opportunity in the biomass power industry and DeKoch has noticed an increase in chatter about new projects.
 Significant Southeast
 In the U.S., the biomass industry is perhaps developing most significantly in the Southeast, with its plentiful wood resources. &ldquo;The Southeast U.S. continues to appear to be the most active as far as projects currently in development go,&rdquo; Cantor says. &ldquo;This would be expected based on the concentration of wood biomass in this region of the country.&rdquo; Outside of the Southeast, however, projects are also being developed throughout the country including in New England, Texas, the Northwest and the Midwest, he adds.
 &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a growing trend in the Midwest,&rdquo; DeKoch says as he describes Boldt&rsquo;s project in Minnesota and two in Wisconsin. &ldquo;The upper Midwest has a lot of areas where pulp and paper mills thrived and they have a proximity to forest waste materials.&rdquo; He adds that he doesn&rsquo;t see a trend in size of recent biomass projects and it just depends on the customer&rsquo;s needs. &ldquo;Whether it&rsquo;s large or small, it spans the full range,&rdquo; he says.
 ICM has focused on waste-to-energy and wood chip-to-energy projects for electricity generation ranging in size from five to 30 megawatts (MW), Bennett says. &ldquo;Interest is very robust,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;And while we only started marketing our gasification technology this past March, we are very excited about the interest we have received.&rdquo; The company has one contracted project in the final stages of detailed engineering and a second recently signed a letter of intent. Bennett expects a third project to follow soon. &ldquo;Hopefully by this time next year we will be combining a very robust interest with a very robust effort in manufacturing equipment and constructing biomass-to-energy projects,&rdquo; he says.
&nbsp;
Obstacles and Intricacies
 Those projects, however, won&rsquo;t come without challenges and unpleasant surprises. Bennett, DeKoch and Cantor all agree that funding can be a major obstacle, but that&rsquo;s not news to biomass developers. &ldquo;The weak credit market has certainly been a key challenge to developers in their ability to obtain financing,&rdquo; Cantor explains. For projects that have secured financing, lenders have, in many cases, mandated the selection of a technically skilled contractor who can also provide a strong balance sheet, large bonding capacity and the ability to provide guarantees involving performance and schedule.
These projects are typically delivered under an engineering, procurement, construction (EPC) approach, where the contractor is responsible for all three elements. &ldquo;The bottom line: in addition to construction expertise and experience, contractor financial strength is a key attribute for obtaining financing,&rdquo; Cantor says.
 For the customer and the EPC supplier, money from lending sources is still tight and the terms and conditions required by financing sources tend to be very onerous, DeKoch says. &ldquo;The surprise might be whether the EPC builder will accept the terms or walk away,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;I think there&rsquo;s more walking away these days in the interest of managing risk on the delivery side. In my opinion, this area needs much more of a collaborative solution than we have today.&rdquo;
 Bennett says prices for ICM's services largely depend on the scope and scale of the project. &ldquo;If we consider converting biomass to electricity and include fuel and ash/char handling, gasifier, heat recovery steam generator, turbine and emissions control systems, our estimated costs are expected to range from $3.5 million to $4.5 million per megawatt for small 5 MW projects,&rdquo; he cites. For larger systems between 10 and 30 MW, costs will likely range from $3 million to $3.5 million per megawatt, he adds.
 &ldquo;They aren&rsquo;t cheap,&rdquo; DeKoch says, but clarifies that any project with boilers and power facilities is going to be expensive, regardless of the feedstock. Prices can range from $100 million to $400 million, he says. &ldquo;This isn&rsquo;t any more uniquely expensive than other forms of power generation.&rdquo;
 Besides costs, obstacles and potential unpleasant surprises for developers can include intricacies dealing with the supply of biomass and how to get it to the facility, DeKoch says. &ldquo;Proximity to biomass would make the cost of generation better,&rdquo; he says. He also lists diligence, along with construction and design. &ldquo;Customers have to be worried about whether they&rsquo;re picking people who know what to do,&rdquo; he cautions, adding that the interview and selection process is of paramount importance.
 &ldquo;The successful development of a biomass power project requires addressing project-specific commercial, technical and public relations issues, many of which can be especially challenging, if not deal breakers,&rdquo; Cantor says. While project development can start with base design, every biomass project is different in areas including type of boiler, emission control, feedstock handling, plant size and layout, and site conditions. &ldquo;The EPC contractor needs to work closely with the developer to finalize a cost effective design that meets the specific project goals including power output and air permit requirements,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Air emission permitting is an especially important design issue and several biomass power projects have been delayed until there is more clarity involving the EPA MACT standard ruling. In most cases, construction cannot start until the air permit is approved.&rdquo;
 He lists safety and quality as critical components to a plant&rsquo;s success, as well as good community outreach, as locals will want to know that the biomass projects in their communities will have a positive economic impact. &ldquo;It is therefore important that the contractor make every effort to hire local qualified vendors and subcontractors,&rdquo; he says, adding that Fagen frequently attends public meetings with its project developers.
 Finally, meeting schedule commitments is paramount to success of a project, Cantor says. The time crunch is exacerbated by a service date deadline of Dec. 31, 2013, in order to secure the investment tax credit. The EPC construction approach provides a method for fast-track project execution, he explains. &ldquo;Procurement and construction can occur simultaneously as engineering progresses, as opposed to completing all engineering first and then going into construction.&rdquo;
 But developers can cut costs and schedules by using equipment catered to help specifically with that. Victaulic manufactures and supplies a mechanic coupling technology that can join pipe more quickly than welding, saving time and money on a biomass power project. The open flame-free technology forms and utilizes grooves at the end of the pipes, is environmentally friendly and can shave hours off piping installation time. &ldquo;Part of the reason there is an interest in what we do is that in the construction process, we can pretty significantly reduce the total amount of labor that is required and thereby reduce the total amount of time and cost that is required to install piping at virtually any facility,&rdquo; says Jim Renner, Victaulic&rsquo;s vice president of biofuels and water systems technologies. &ldquo;And given the vast amount of piping involved in biomass facilities, there are some pretty significant contributions we can make to the bottom line.&rdquo; On a typical power and biofuels project, piping-related costs can account for up to a third of total capital cost, he cites. &ldquo;So you&rsquo;re talking about a pretty significant portion of the cost.&rdquo; In addition, shortening the construction time allows the facility to open sooner, thereby operating sooner and gaining revenue sooner. The technology is used extensively in facilities like casinos, Renner says.
 Staying on Schedule&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Building a project, especially from the ground up, takes time and requires a certain degree of patience and, in some cases, perseverance. Just like costs, timelines will depend heavily on the size, scope and other case-by-case intricacies, but DeKoch says to plan for a design, construction and engineering period of between two and three years.
 Bennett offers an estimate of 12 to 16 months to construct a waste-to-energy facility using ICM&rsquo;s gasification technology, again depending on size. ICM can manufacture its biomass gasifier in less than four months, he says, but heat recovery systems and turbines hold up the process, as they have longer lead times, in some cases more than a year after placing an order.
 Regardless of timelines, costs and other hurdles, biomass power plant construction and conversion demand seems to be on an upswing. Half of Boldt&rsquo;s $7 million firm is in power and energy including coal, wind, retrofits and biomass, DeKoch says, adding that biomass power is emerging as a common trend with a long history in the pulp and paper industry. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a history of it and we were involved long ago,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;[Biomass] isn&rsquo;t the only trend in power and energy, but it&rsquo;s becoming more significant.&rdquo; Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4952 <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com</a>

POWERFUL PLANT: Boldt Construction, which built this biomass power plant for Laurentian Energy Authority in Minnesota, has experience with three biomass power projects in the Midwest and expects to see more projects develop.



2010/11/129053658175.jpg

TREND SETTER: Boldt Construction expects increased demand for biomass construction and engineering in the Midwest because there are several pulp and paper mills with ready access to woody biomass. 

2010/11/129053664711.jpg

Bert Bennett of ICM says interest in constructing biomass plants is robust, and that the company has received a lot of inquiries about its gasification technology.

2010/11/129053673802.jpg

2010/11/12905375049.jpg

PIPING PROWESS: Victaulic supplies a coupling device that requires no welding and dramatically reduces pipe installation time. 

2010/11/129053753747.jpg

The recent surge in the biomass market has sparked demand for plant construction, and builders expect the boom to last, despite the challenges and intricacies that can surprise developers. 

Building the Biomass  Industry

Though the U.S. is slowly hobbling down the path to recovery, the economic crisis will continue to hamper project development in 2011. Knowing just what lending intuitions and investors are looking for in new or existing projects, however, as well as what they aren&rsquo;t, will help beef up project profiles.
 While still up against a capital-constrained environment, compared with some other renewable energy technologies, biomass power is becoming an attractive potential investment. One significant reason is that reliable, consistent base-load electricity generation is critical to large power utilities and those are provisions that wind and solar do not bring to the table, says Jerry Peters, managing partner at California-based venture capital firm Energy Power Partners. &ldquo;Base-load renewables are very important to utilities, especially if they desire to or are required by a state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to generate higher and higher percentages of their power from renewables,&rdquo; Peters says. &ldquo;Intermittent resources like wind and solar require utilities to have significant amounts of backup power. We like biomass because it will deliver.&rdquo;
 While non-intermittency may be the most enticing quality to an investor or financer, according to Peters, cost competitiveness is a close second.
 Lender/Investor Perspectives
 &ldquo;To a large extent, over the next 20- to 30-year period, we expect biomass to be competitive with fossil fuels,&rdquo; Peters says. &ldquo;Particularly, we cite landfill gas as being very competitive, even with currently priced natural gas. In biomass-rich areas such as the Southeast, it can be very competitive with other sources of fuels, even without a lot of incentives.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Paul Ho, managing director at private equity firm Hudson Clean Energy Partners, agrees that biomass is becoming more attractive to lenders than ever before, but he still believes it&rsquo;s more difficult to finance biomass projects than wind and solar projects. &ldquo;Non-intermittency helps from a capacity standpoint, but feedstock requirements pose more of a risk&mdash;a lender or investor would have to be very comfortable, knowing there&rsquo;s a definite way to mitigate feedstock price, availability and risk,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;A very thoughtful feedstock procurement strategy is one of the first things we look at.&rdquo;
 Peters reiterates the importance of locking in a fixed fuel supply and price, pointing out that while most investors, both debt and equity, are comfortable with landfill gas projects, the challenge of securing fuel cost pass-throughs still exists for conventional biomass fuels. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t see many lenders providing financing for projects that don&rsquo;t have a fixed fuel cost&mdash;which you can get in landfill gas&mdash;or don&rsquo;t have a pass-through of a commodity price to the utility,&rdquo; Peters says. &ldquo;I have seen a few, but they&rsquo;re difficult.&rdquo;
 Peters adds that a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) can be a powerful influencer as well. PPAs are more likely in states that have an RPS, as higher energy rates can be achieved through the availability of renewable energy credits. That isn&rsquo;t always the case though, as Peters says his firm has seen some attractive projects in states without an RPS.
 Venture capital firms and banks aren&rsquo;t the only investors to court today, as corporate giants such as Waste Management are strategically investing in new companies and projects Wes Muir, spokesman for Waste Management, says in 2011 the company will continue to make investments and acquisitions, in addition to the many the company made in the biomass energy/biofuel industry in 2010. The company uses a slightly different tactic than typical investors and lenders, however, by investing prior to the technology going commercial. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re looking at all sorts of new and emerging technologies in waste-based energy,&rdquo; Muir says. &ldquo;We make these strategic investments in companies that we think show great promise, because getting them at the ground floor is a lot cheaper than going out and buying when [the technology] is commercially viable.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Regardless how innovative or promising a project may be, existing or pending government regulations will be a key component of project finance in 2011. &ldquo;Since it was assumed that biomass would be exempt, going forward we&rsquo;re going to have to see some clarity with respect to how the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s (Greenhouse Gas) Tailoring Rule may affect biomass,&rdquo; Peters says. &ldquo;One of the interests investors have had in biomass is that there&rsquo;s the assumption that it&rsquo;s treated as a neutral carbon source, and therefore isn&rsquo;t subject to much regulation.&rdquo;
 That&rsquo;s something the industry will need to overcome, Ho agrees. &ldquo;Investors will be keeping a close eye on that,&rdquo; he says.
 While government grants and loan guarantees have played an incremental role in financing projects during the economic recession, Peters says U.S. DOE loan guarantee money through the Recovery Act is likely to soon run out. &ldquo;I believe we only have enough room for about $20 billion, and the DOE recently issued its most recent guarantee for wind projects, which would bring it to $16 billion, so we&rsquo;re just about out of that. A lot will depend on government guarantee of debt, especially given conventional debt lenders' unwillingness to take on some of the risks associated with biomass.&rdquo; To really take off, from Peters' perspective, biomass will need continued government support, as well as the addition of a national RPS.
 Talking Strategy 
 Quasar energy group, an anaerobic digestion system developer, is one company that has been successful in financing projects despite the economic crisis. Quasar Chief Financial Officer Steven Smith says the first move in securing steady footing was careful, long-term development of the company&rsquo;s technology. &ldquo;We spent a lot of time looking at European systems, selecting the best components from them,&rdquo; he says.
 After successfully developing its first facility in Ohio through a German firm, the company had fully engineered a &ldquo;Lego building block model,&rdquo; according to Smith. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re modular, expandable and repeatable, and we&rsquo;ve invested lots of time in development so we would be poised to move forward,&rdquo; he says.
 &nbsp;Initially the company was planning on selling systems, as well as building and operating its own, but was forced to change plans. &ldquo;When the capital markets went into the chaos that they did 24 months ago, the first component fell away,&rdquo; Smith says. &ldquo;Folks didn&rsquo;t have the capital for their existing core business let alone for something that could be complementary, or a new business stream,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;When coupled with banks not being able to lend because their balance sheets weren&rsquo;t strong enough, that created a lot of chaos.&rdquo;
 The company is building its facilities with 100 percent equity. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re able to recapitalize part of the equity based on grants, incentives and low-interest loans from state agencies,&rdquo; Smith says. &ldquo;Right now, the largest contributor to our projects has been the USDA, through its Rural Energy for America Program. Ohio specifically has put some incentives in place to encourage not only renewable energy but the manufacture of components, and we&rsquo;ve been fortunate to have some sponsorship from that.&rdquo;
 The most significant component to Quasar&rsquo;s financial strategy has been the Recovery Act Section 1603 project cost reimbursement provision of 30 percent. &ldquo;We already submitted one application, and from the date we put in the application to the time we received funds in our account was only a 27-day window,&rdquo; Smith says. &ldquo;They allocate 60 days if everything&rsquo;s perfect, and we were so successful because we made sure that we fully understood the program&mdash;we aligned ourselves with accountants and attorneys who helped us develop a game plan&mdash;so that when we submitted our application, we knew it would be complete and accurate.&rdquo;
 Once Quasar completed the application and made sure everything was correct, the company went back through it once more to make sure it wasn&rsquo;t giving too much or too little information. &ldquo;There are a lot of horror stories out there, people saying they aren&rsquo;t getting the money, or that its taking longer than expected, but my response is that they just weren&rsquo;t prepared,&rdquo; Smith says. &ldquo;It is a daunting task, especially if you haven&rsquo;t been through it before, but it&rsquo;s been a very good program for us and we are hopeful that some of the program terms get extended into next year for beginning construction. We&rsquo;re doing everything possible strategically to communicate with legislators to let them know it has been a meaningful program.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Today, the banking industry is just not available for development companies such as Quasar, Smith says. &ldquo;The way we get loans is by putting 100 percent cash in the bank to secure it. We had to do that for USDA purposes&mdash;you have to get a grant and a loan&mdash;so&nbsp; we personally guarantee it, and then we pledge cash so it really has no impact to my capital structure on the debt side.&rdquo;
 Overall, Smith, who has more than 25 years of experience in the capital market, says he predicts more of an interest in purchasing systems in 2011 than in 2010, though he still describes the capital markets as extremely chaotic. &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve never seen the market like it still is today,&rdquo; he says.
&nbsp;
2011 and Beyond 
 The problem with moving forward with such chaos is that people are worrying about necessities versus luxury, and that will likely continue in 2011. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s legislation today that helps us, and if states and the U.S. want to pass an RPS that will help too,&rdquo; Smith says. &ldquo;There will be other meaningful incentives that will come into play, but right now it&rsquo;s all on a year-to-year basis.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Overall, the finance market conditions should be better in 2011 than in 2010, according to Ho. &ldquo;Banks are less capital constrained now, so more are willing to lend, and more biomass deals are getting financed so banks have more familiarity with the assets,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp;
 Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, says he thinks the biomass power industry will continue to develop at the rate that it has been. &ldquo;Disappointing, and opportunistic here and there,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think we&rsquo;ll see a big movement of the needle until we get a federal renewable energy standard.&rdquo;
 As far as finance trends go, Peters says aside from landfill gas, he predicts lenders will show more interest in anaerobic digestion projects. &ldquo;They skirt around the regulatory issues with respect to carbon, and there&rsquo;s the fact that the fixed fuel is there. We&rsquo;re interested in looking at anaerobic digestion when it comes to biomass sources such as agriculture waste,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;When most say biomass, they think burning forest residual, but we look at it as a much wider potential area. It will be one of the areas in which we will be focusing.&rdquo; Author: Anna Austin Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4968 <a href="mailto:aaustin@bbiinternational.com">aaustin@bbiinternational.com&nbsp; </a>

Jerry Peters of Energy Power Partners says the venture capital firm likes biomass because it is a non-intermittent source of power.

2010/11/129053793817.jpg

Steven Smith of Quaser energy group says the company has been successful because it invested a lot of time in developing its anaerobic digestion system. 

2010/11/129053798244.jpg

Addicted to AD: Quasar, which developed its flagship anaerobic digestion plant in Wooster, Ohio, says the largest contributor to its projects has been the USDA, through its Rural Energy for America Program.  

2010/11/129053800615.jpg

What makes biomass projects attractive to potential investors and lenders today and into the new year?

Show me the Money  

Biomass generates 20 percent of all energy consumption in Sweden and wood-fired district heating systems satisfy more than half of the residential heat demand. The industry became robust because of a combination of factors and has evolved since its beginning 40 years ago.
 Sweden has no domestic fossil fuels so when the first oil crisis hit in the 1970s, the country began to move toward a more environmentally friendly and cheaper energy alternative. Given the fact that about 60 percent of Sweden is covered in forests, woody biomass seemed the obvious choice. &ldquo;We have a lot of forest,&rdquo; says Gustav Melin, CEO of the Swedish Bioenergy Association (SVEBIO). &ldquo;We have a strong forestry industry. We have no domestic fossil fuels and we have had politicians with good knowledge and a clear view for the future and for market conditions for biomass.&rdquo;
 In the dismantling of fossil fuel use, the Swedish government enforced carbon taxation for oil and coal consumers at a much higher rate than other countries, currently equaling $150 per ton of carbon dioxide. &ldquo;That high taxation led to oil prices going higher than biomass,&rdquo; says Thomas Levander, head of the policy analysis unit for the Swedish Energy Agency, the central administrative authority for matters concerning supply and use of energy. So a combination of the punishment for using fossil fuels and state subsidies incentivizing the research into use of forest fuels gave the biomass industry a jump start. Since then, the country has taken away the subsidies, instead relying on general economic instruments such as the carbon tax, as well as the polluter pays principle, which mandates that the polluter or industry pays for any damages it causes to air, water or soil. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t subsidize the system anymore,&rdquo; Levander says. &ldquo;We have before, but it wasn&rsquo;t a good idea.&rdquo;
 In addition, the country&rsquo;s pulp and paper industry is well-developed, as is the sawmill industry, providing a framework for a thriving biomass industry. About half of the forest fuel is actually used within the forest industry, Melin says. In fact, the country-wide switch began with substituting forest wood as an energy source within forest industries, according to Rolf Bj&ouml;rheden, program leader of the National Forest Energy Technology program at Skogforsk, Sweden&rsquo;s forestry research institute. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve been doing this about 30 years longer than most of the world and about 15 years longer than the Finns, who are the second nation in the world to use forest biomass for energy,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve built up the infrastructure needed for a functional market.&rdquo; Levander adds that the country has also been ahead of the curve in the development of residue harvesting machinery.
 While its extensive district heating networks are well-known, most of Sweden&rsquo;s biomass plants primarily generate electricity, Bj&ouml;rheden points out. Only the small district heating plants are exclusively heat producers, he adds. The biomass industry gets a portion of its timber residual feedstock from pulp and paper producers, as that industry can&rsquo;t use certain types and grades of wood. &ldquo;So they expanded their interest in that direction rather than creating new industries,&rdquo; Levander explains.
 Competition and Prices
 But with an increase in demand for woody biomass, concerns have been swirling about competition between the biomass and pulp and paper industries, as well as price hikes for wood fiber. &ldquo;For more than 20 years, there was continuous arguing between the bioenergy people and the pulp industry foresters,&rdquo; Melin says.
 Pellet manufacturers in Sweden, as in many other countries, started with the cleanest wood, which is sawdust, according to Hakan Ekstrom, president of Wood Resources International LLC. Then when pellet capacity was expanded, not enough sawdust was generated to satisfy demand and other types of raw material were necessary. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s when you start to see competition between pulp mills and pellet manufacturers,&rdquo; he says. Previously, competition was fierce between board and pellet manufacturers, but eventually the biomass industry won the battle with its willingness to pay more for the raw material and the board industry was forced to step aside. &ldquo;That industry has mostly disappeared from Sweden,&rdquo; Levander says.
 Similar to the change in pellet feedstock sources, raw biomass supplied directly to energy plants traditionally comes from sawmills, but increasingly from forests as demand climbs. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s the same thing there,&rdquo; Ekstrom says. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s starting to be more expensive. You start to see pulp mills and energy plants competing for the same product.&rdquo; In some instances, it pushes up prices, but in others it means prices won&rsquo;t go down. &ldquo;I think you see this more in Sweden because they&rsquo;re ahead of most other parts of the world,&rdquo; Ekstrom says. The cost of forest fuel materials has risen since 2005 because of increased demand, Bj&ouml;rheden says, having been nominally static for the previous 25 years. &ldquo;In real terms, that means a very, very strong decrease in price actually,&rdquo; he adds.&nbsp;
 But the competition between the pulp and paper and biomass industries is not an issue all over the country. In fact, some, such as Levander, argue it&rsquo;s not an issue anywhere in the country, but recognize that changes in certain factors could make it one. Bj&ouml;rheden says it hasn&rsquo;t been an issue because the energy sector has not bought significant amounts of pulpwood. Ekstrom, however, says it is becoming a concern in the central portion of the country, where landowners are demanding more money from pulp and paper producers. &ldquo;You see landowners starting to tell pulp mills, &lsquo;If you don&rsquo;t pay more for the pulp wood, we&rsquo;re going to sell it to the energy plants instead,&rsquo; which forces prices up in some regions,&rdquo; he says.
 Even with possible competition, significant price increases will be slow to mature. &ldquo;That won&rsquo;t happen overnight,&rdquo; Ekstrom clarifies. &ldquo;Initially, the energy companies will go out and look for, at least right now, less expensive biomass than round wood.&rdquo;&nbsp; But the demand and competition hasn&rsquo;t hurt the energy industry, Ekstrom says, and prices for biomass material are not at risk of approaching that of oil and coal, due primarily to the carbon tax. In addition, Sweden&rsquo;s experience and longevity in the biomass energy industry means demand will not likely increase exponentially. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re starting to get to a level where the problem might not expand on the demand side dramatically over the next 10 years,&rdquo; Ekstrom says.
 Although Melin acknowledges there&rsquo;s been a long-standing argument about supply and pricing between the two industries, he says now the energy wood demand is a good thing. &ldquo;Today, the pulp industry is happy about the bioenergy development since they actually gain money on the power production that is done at every site,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I believe they also have started to understand the possibilities of better management of forests.&rdquo;
 Forest Management
 From a forest owner&rsquo;s perspective, demand and price increases for wood fiber isn&rsquo;t bad. &ldquo;If we have an industry that develops and starts to pay more for the products of forestry, according to market principles, that must mean that this new industry can do better things and provide better services,&rdquo; Bj&ouml;rheden says.
 Melin agrees. &ldquo;The use of bioenergy is actually a way for the foresters to get paid for better management of their forests, so to me there are only benefits to the industry,&rdquo; he says.
 Besides, biomass harvesting is not the most significant thing that happens in land management sectors in Sweden, Bj&ouml;rheden emphasizes. &ldquo;The big change is that we clearfell areas normally after 70 to 100 years of management,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s the really big event in the life of that forest.&rdquo; The country has maintained its forestlands this way for the past 800 years.
 It goes without saying that good silvicultural practices don&rsquo;t include the removal of biomass from delicate areas, and the country also does not remove biomass material from national forests. Sweden&rsquo;s forest practices are constantly monitored and have not remained the same throughout the biomass industry&rsquo;s 40-year history. The country spends more resources on monitoring and sustainability than on technology research and development, Bj&ouml;rheden says. Sweden implements a host of measures to ensure sustainability and forest health in the wake of its intensified forestry. &ldquo;Our governmental board of forestry has a balanced view and the mission to take both environmental and production goals into account,&rdquo; Melin says.
 &ldquo;We can see that when you pick up residues, it might even be good for the environment,&rdquo; Levander explains. For the most part, he adds, citizens and environmentalists trust in the policies implemented by the government and view them as responsible. For instance, laws mandate that ash from burning forest residues must be applied back to the forest. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s the secret behind counteracting the negatives,&rdquo; Bj&ouml;rheden says. &ldquo;Any lasting success in this is that you have to counteract as many of the negatives as possible.&rdquo;
 Much like in the U.S., some Swedish citizens oppose residue removal, even with policies in place to prevent over-utilization, Bj&ouml;rheden says, recognizing that many citizens are not particularly well informed. Even though the municipal veto does permit a community to halt development, no plant in Sweden has been shut down or development stopped in response to citizen opposition, he says. On the contrary, citizens in municipalities with extensive woody biomass use are proud of their vision and approach to a fossil fuel-free existence. Residue removal has not been a large issue in the general public, Bj&ouml;rheden says, but it is between forest industries and the Forest Stewardship Council. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re constantly talking about this and I think in general, cooperation has been good and both parties have benefitted.&rdquo;
 And like the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences study that evaluated forest biomass carbon neutrality and sustainability in Massachusetts, Sweden&rsquo;s government-funded research into woody biomass use for electricity and heat has found that it is only carbon neutral after a period of time, not instantly, Levander says.
 Further research in the country is geared toward development of gasification systems for biomass and a pilot combined-heat-and-power plant operated briefly in V&auml;rnamo. Chemrec has also established a black liquor gasification plant for liquid biofuels production in Pite&aring;.
 With such up-and-coming research, and the fact that Swedish forests capture more carbon dioxide than goals dictate, Bj&ouml;rheden says the country is proud of its progress.&nbsp; &ldquo;Presently, our conscience is fairly good,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;But we can do better. We can do more. We can&rsquo;t stop global warming in Sweden, but we can do our part.&rdquo; Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4952 <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com </a>

LEADER OF THE PACK: Sweden\'s extensive biomass utilization efforts have put the country ahead of the curve in the development of residue harvesting machinery. 


2010/11/129053818178.jpg

PILOT POWER: The VÃ¤xjÃ¶ VÃ¤rnamo Biomass Gasification pilot plant was designed to produce 6 megawatts (MW) of electricity and 9 MW of heat. 

2010/11/129053824197.jpg

BIOMASS BASICS: Although Sweden has extensive district heating systems, most of the country\'s biomass plants primarily generate electricity. 

2010/11/1290538263.jpg

2010/11/129053855296.jpg

Sweden's well-established, world-leading woody biomass industry has fueled a relationship between the forestry and energy sectors. 

Biomass Sweet Spot

Enthusiasm was not lacking at the Southeast Biomass Conference &amp; Trade Show, but the event, held Nov 2-4 in Atlanta, wasn&rsquo;t all pie in the sky either. While the Southeast&rsquo;s potential to become the country&rsquo;s regional industry leader was emphasized&mdash;which included growing energy crops such as giant miscanthus and switchgrass, utilizing abundant woody biomass resources for power and fuel production and taking advantage of pellet export opportunities&mdash;speakers and attendees didn&rsquo;t tiptoe around the major hurdles that the industry faces; namely, the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, the Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (IB MACT) rule, and the need for statewide and federal adoption of renewable portfolio standards.&nbsp;
 Keynote speaker David Tenny, president and CEO of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, pointed out to attendees that the Tailoring Rule, if enforced on Jan. 2 as currently proposed, would no longer deem biomass combustion as a renewable energy generation method. The rule could drastically affect the relationship between forest owners and biomass markets, Tenny said, as it treats biomass carbon emissions the same as fossil fuels, not taking into account the biogenic carbon cycle.
 Tenny emphasized that despite the increased use of biomass as an energy source, U.S. forest stocks have been steadily maintained over the past 100 years&mdash;the nation&rsquo;s total forest land base constitutes about 755 million acres&mdash;and total growing stock has actually increased by&nbsp; 50 percent in the past 50 years. &ldquo;From a carbon context, which is very important to forestry, we are netting about 800 million metric tons from these forests, which is about 8 percent of all net carbon sequestration, net that occurs from all land uses so it&rsquo;s very significant,&rdquo; Tenny said. The products produced from the forestry industry are sequestering an additional 100 million metric tons per year, he pointed out, and there has been continuous replanting of trees for many years.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Historically, the housing and paper/paperboard industries have been significant markets for the forest industry, but right now both are at an all-time slump and the paper industry capacity is not expected to recover, according to Tenny. These are two major markets that the forest industry has traditionally banked on, and if it is not amended, the Tailoring Rule will negatively affect an additional market&mdash;biomass energy.
 &ldquo;Now, biomass is a regulated source of carbon as opposed to a voluntary source of carbon offsets,&rdquo; Tenny said. &ldquo;In the forest products industry, just about every product has a residual use for energy. If it&rsquo;s no longer economic or more efficient than a fossil fuel, that creates a very real consternation in terms of the marginal benefit that biomass energy is providing. It could be the difference between a profit and a loss in such a razor-thin market, and it will have a real impact on existing capacity and investment in biomass energy today.&rdquo;
 Tenny said forest owners were surprised at the final Tailoring Rule announcement, because there was no indication in the draft rule that biomass energy would be regulated identically to fossil fuels. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s the disconcerting aspect of the rule that has all of us concerned, as it is the ROI (return on investment) for forest owners,&mdash;the carbon stored in products and the environmental benefit that come from these markets over time&mdash;taking that off the table poses a very real question: What are the comparative advantages to biomass energy over fossil fuel energy under this policy?&rdquo;
 Those in states with renewable portfolio standards looking to receive credit are aware that the EPA will regulate biomass carbon emissions and may choose other sources of renewable energy, Tenny pointed out. &ldquo;Other sources won&rsquo;t have this conflict, of where you&rsquo;re getting a benefit on one hand but creating costs on the other hand.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Tenny encouraged attendees to educate their delegates about the impact the Tailoring Rule will have on their industry, and to seek an amendment that recognizes biomass carbon life cycles, measures forest carbon flux at a national scale, avoids differentiating between &ldquo;good&rdquo; and &ldquo;bad&rdquo; biomass, and fixes the problem now rather than deferring the solution.
 Panelists during the first plenary panel, which examined the viability, benefits and potential downsides of co-firing biomass with coal in the Southeast, echoed Tenny&rsquo;s message, saying the Tailoring Rule and the IB MACT are of great significance, and are currently cooling some utilities&rsquo; attitudes towards biomass.
 Proceeding with Caution
 Power utility Duke Energy is currently co-firing with biomass at its Lee Steam Station in South Carolina, and is waiting for permitting to use biomass at its Buck Steam Station in North Carolina. Additionally, the company has developed sites to demonstrate biomass woody and perennial plants and planting techniques.
 &ldquo;We are the first and only state to have a mandatory renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in the Southeast,&rdquo; said Tracy Leslie, renewable energy strategy manager for Duke Energy. North Carolina, where Duke Energy does business, has a goal to replace 12.5 percent of its electricity with renewables by 2021. Despite the mandate, Duke Energy recognizes the opportunities for developing local fuel supplies and how that could benefit loggers and landowners, she added.
 Although Duke Energy recently prevailed when it was determined that whole tree chips would be included in the definition of woody biomass in North Carolina&rsquo;s RPS, the company has the same concerns as others looking to utilize biomass: price escalation, competition and having a sustainable supply, according to Leslie.
 Unlike Duke Energy, Southern Co. operates in states where there is no RPS, said Jeff Wilson, senior engineer, research and development for the utility, which produces more than 40,000 megawatts of electricity in the southeast. And there is little demand for green power from consumers.
 However, half of the company&rsquo;s power is generated by coal and that will have to be cut in half using new generation sources by 2015.
 The company is looking at several options including nuclear, biomass and natural gas. Initially it was determined that it would be viable to convert its Plant Mitchell to biomass even without an RPS because the cost of delivering coal to that plant is so high. That project has been put on hold until the EPA irons out the IB MACT and Tailoring Rule, he said.
 &ldquo;The EPA Tailoring Rule could kill biomass in its tracks,&rdquo; he said. As for the IB MACT, Wilson said the EPA has created a &ldquo;Franken-plant&rdquo; with standards that may be unachievable.
 In the meantime, the company has put competition aside and will continue to test biomass combustion options and is attempting to answer questions such as what will it do to boilers, selective catalytic reduction systems and fly ash.
 Wilson criticized lawmakers for pushing biofuels and not biopower specifically. Wilson also touched on the negative press that biomass is currently enduring in light of the conclusions of a study conducted by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences that generated news stories concluding that woody biomass was worse than coal. The industry has also been unfairly criticized by people who think that biopower facilities are going to clear-cut forests to produce power.
 Moving away from policy implications and hindrances, during the second and final plenary session speakers weighed in on the potential for biomass pellet exports from the Southeast to Europe, as demand there is growing and the EU aims to source 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
 Examining Export Opportunities
 There&rsquo;s no question that tremendous potential exists in the Southeast U.S. to develop a robust wood pellet industry, according to Johnny Leggett, senior project manager of engineering firm Hunt, Guillot &amp; Associates LLC. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s no surprise to anyone in this room that the world demand for renewable energy is increasing,&rdquo; Leggett told attendees. The audience stayed silent when he asked if anyone thinks there is not a demand for pellets. &ldquo;Come on,&rdquo; he prodded, still met with silence broken by a few chuckles. Satisfied, he went on to share that the keys to awakening that giant in the Southeast are harvest techniques, pellet plant location, plant operation costs and plant performance.
 Fellow speaker Saritha Peruri, manager of business development for California-based energy crop company Ceres Inc., introduced the crowd to another opportunity for pellets, dedicated energy crops. &ldquo;There are more opportunities than just wood,&rdquo; she said. Energy crops are favorable to woody crops in many ways, she added, including moisture content, yield and carbon life cycle.
 &ldquo;Biomass has a massive identity crisis in the U.S.,&rdquo; she said, citing currently proposed unfavorable federal policies such as the Tailoring Rule and IB MACT. But energy crops are expected to be the most dominant type of biomass used in the European Union by 2020, she cited. &ldquo;So American growers can focus on European export opportunities,&rdquo; she said.
 The Southeast U.S. is the most attractive region to supply the European demand, with its export logistics, superior biomass yields and availability of contiguous acres. This could start soon, especially with the reinstatement of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which makes the economics of energy crops favorable again with matching payments to support growers. Eventually, the U.S. can &ldquo;jump on the bandwagon&rdquo; and fire up its own domestic pellet markets when it&rsquo;s ready, Peruri said, with many lessons already learned from the involvement of the Southeast region in the EU&rsquo;s markets.&nbsp;
&nbsp; But the U.S. will not soon have a robust pellet market, so those European markets are crucial to any developing market in the Southeast, according to panelist Karl-Heinz Schulz, vice president of technology and engineering for North Carolina-based pellet manufacturing solution firm BiEnergy Group. Biomass encompasses a 65.8 percent share of the European renewables market, he cited. &ldquo;Biomass is clearly the way to accomplish those (renewables) goals,&rdquo; Schulz said.
 Pellet exports from the Southeast will not come without challenges, however, and Schulz named five: location; long-term off-take and feedstock agreements; management of currency; management of shipping risks; and optimization of plant designs to match project-specific requirements.
 Panelist Thomas Meth, executive vice president of sales and marketing for Virginia-based pellet manufacturer Enviva LP, discussed pellets themselves, along with the suppliers of today. He said Russia, South America and the Baltics will be competitors for North America in exports to Europe. &ldquo;There are 400 pellet plants in Europe,&rdquo; Meth said. &ldquo;We have a lot to learn.&rdquo; But the potential is tremendous, according to Meth, and solid biomass will be the answer to meeting Europe&rsquo;s goals. &ldquo;Biomass and pellets will take a leading role in achieving the binding European 2020 renewable energy sources targets,&rdquo; Schulz added. &ldquo;&rdquo;Europe will remain dependent on international pellet imports.&rdquo;
 BBI International&rsquo;s next regional event, the Pacific Northwest Biomass Conference &amp; Trade Show, will be held Jan. 10-12 in Seattle.&nbsp; For more information, go to www.pacificwest.biomassconference.com. Authors: Anna Austin Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4968 <a href="mailto:aaustin@bbiinternational.com">aaustin@bbiinternational.com </a>
 Lisa Gibson &nbsp;Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4952 <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com </a>
 Rona Johnson Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4940. <a href="mailto:rjohnson@bbiinternational.com">rjohnson@bbiinternational.com</a>

2010/11/129053878803.jpg

David Tenny of the National Alliance of Forest Owners said the U.S. EPA\'s Greenhouse Gas Tailoring rule as it\'s currently written would impact existing capacity and investment in biomass energy. 


2010/11/129053880876.jpg

FULL HOUSE: Attendees packed the room during the panel on Southern Energy Crops: Optimizing Regional Crops to Feed the Growing Biomass Derived Energy Industry at the Southeast Biomass Conference & Trade Show.


2010/11/129053885642.jpg

PELLET PANEL: Panelists (left to right) Thomas Meth, Karl-Heinz Schulz, Saritha Peruri and Johnny Leggett discussed key issues that could help the Southeast take advantage of export opportunities for biomass pellets.

2010/11/129053888686.jpg

The Southeast's reputation as a prime hotspot for biomass energy development drew a record crowd to BBI International's regional Southeast Biomass Conference & Trade Show in Atlanta. 

Industry Convenes in Biomass Central

Fuel briquettes generated by the low-pressure compaction of paper, sawdust, agricultural or yard waste, etc. currently serve as an alternative to firewood, wood pellets and charcoal in developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America. Research at Boise State University in Idaho, explored both the caloric content and shape to optimize burn efficiency of the biobriquettes. The energy content of briquettes ranged from 4.48 to 5.95 kilojoule per gram (kJ/g) depending on composition, whereas the energy content of sawdust, charcoal and wood pellets ranged from 7.24 to 8.25 kJ/g. Biobriquettes molded into a hollow-core cylindrical form exhibited energy output comparable to that of traditional fuels. The study demonstrates that low-energy content feedstocks can be composted, pressed and combusted to produce heat output commensurate with higher energy content fuels.
 In 2006, the U.S. produced more than 227 billion kilograms (kg) of solid waste; this equates to approximately 2.1 kg per person per day, where approximately half of this amount is in the form of paper and horticultural rubbish[1]. Conversion of these wastes into combustible biomass briquettes would provide a means to satisfy individual energy needs while alleviating landfill use[2,3]. Further, lumber has become a scarce resource in many regions of the world, and there is a pressing need for sustainable fuels to augment or replace traditional wood fuels[4].&nbsp;
 The energy produced when properly molded biobriquettes are combusted is comparable to traditional fuels. These biobriquettes can be burned in unmodified wood and wood pellet stoves, fireplaces, patio heaters and charcoal grills, and provide a low-cost method for converting organic wastes into energy [5]. Ideally, biofuels can be made from renewable and readily available materials, and their production should result in a reduced environmental impact when compared to traditional fuels being replaced[6]. The four types of biobriquettes produced and analyzed in this study consist of the following compositions: 100 percent biomass, 3:1 biomass to paper, 1:3 biomass to paper and 100 percent paper. This manuscript focuses on briquette composition and production, combustion, and energy content as determined by oxygen bomb calorimetry.
 Biobriquette Composition and Production
 The materials for biobriquettes including paper, leaves, pine needles, sawdust and shop waste were ground into particles of 6 to 8 millimeters (mm) in diameter to increase surface area for soaking and to enhance packing efficiency[7]. Briquettes made entirely of shredded paper were prepared by the addition of just enough water to cover the material and soaked for approximately one week. As the ratio of biomass to shredded paper increased, the amount of time required to soak the material for successful molding also increased. For instance, biobriquettes made entirely of shredded leaves required approximately five weeks soak time before pressing. The soaked material was tested for readiness by pressing a scoop of the mash by hand. Mash that held its form in the palm of the hand was considered ready to be pressed into briquettes.&nbsp;
 Compaction occurred at moderate to low pressures (approximately 30 to 50 megapascal (MPa)) using adaptations of the original hand-operated lever press developed by Ben Bryant of the College of Forest Resources in Seattle, Wash.[8-10]. The mold for this press consists of a 100 mm diameter poly vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with predrilled holes that was capped at the bottom with a thick piece of plastic drilled to accept a 38 mm diameter dowel used to create the central air channel in the briquette. Presoaked material was loaded into the mold around the dowel and the mold was capped with a plastic plug to create the air grooves at the briquette base. The concept of air grooves to increase surface area and facilitate air flow in the base of the briquette was introduced by Kobus Venter of Vuthisa Technologies, a briquette stove manufacturer in South Africa. Once loaded into the press, the biomass was compacted; the briquette manually pushed out of the PVC mold and placed onto a drying rack. After drying, the briquette dimensions were 97 mm outer diameter, and approximately 70 mm in height, with a 38 mm inner diameter hollow core. Figure 1 shows biobriquettes composed of 100 percent paper with increasing percent biomass to 100 percent biomass.&nbsp;
 A Bunsen burner was used to simultaneously ignite the hollow core center, bottom and sides of the briquette. Upon ignition, flames formed a convection column in the center of the briquettes facilitated by the air grooves in the bottom of each briquette. The air grooves appeared to enhance the combustion, which lead to increased burn temperatures, combustion rates, more complete combustion and cleaner burns as evidenced by less smoke emission as compared to wood, wood pellets and charcoal[11].
 Calorimetric Analysis
 A Parr oxygen bomb calorimeter interfaced to a Vernier Logger Pro thermocouple was used to determine the caloric content of the biobriquette materials relative to traditional fuel sources. Bomb (or constant volume) calorimetry experiments were performed by traditional methods[12-17]. Briefly, the sample to be tested was grated, filtered with a 20-mesh sieve and then pressed into a 1 gram (g) pellet. Ignition of material under 2.533 megapascal oxygen (MPa O2) resulted in an observed temperature increase of the steel bomb vessel. The caloric content of the material was then calculated while taking into account corrections for unoxidized fuse wire. The heat capacity of the calorimeter was calibrated with benzoic acid and naphthalene standards[15].
 Combustion Analysis
 The combustion tests were carried out in a fume hood with a face velocity of 30.5 meters (m) per second, to provide a steady flow of air. Biobriquettes, weighing on the order of 100 g each, were placed on a wire mesh stand 21 centimeters from the floor of the hood and enclosed in a modified Weber chimney stove topped with wire mesh. A Bunsen burner placed under the briquette served as the ignition source. Once the biobriquette had begun to combust, the ignition source was removed and a 2-liter (L) aluminum saucepan containing 500 milliliters (mL) of deionized water was placed on top of the stove (Figure 2). This process was implemented in order to monitor the heat output from the biobriquette once the Bunsen burner was removed. The temperature of the water bath was recorded by the Vernier Logger Pro device interfaced to a computer, which measured the temperature change in the water every second over a span of 4,000 seconds (just over an hour). The four types of briquettes mentioned earlier were combusted in this study. In addition, traditional fuels including charcoal, wood and wood pellets were ignited and energy output was monitored under the same set of conditions (i.e. mass of 100 g, consistent ignition time by Bunsen burner, same method of recording heat output). Briquettes of each composition were tested from two to four times whereas traditional fuel sources were tested thrice each.
&nbsp;
 Calorimetric Results 
 Figure 3 shows the results of the oxygen bomb calorimetry experiments. The caloric content of the briquettes increased with the percent of biomass in the briquette. The lowest value was found to be 4.48 kJ/g for 100 percent paper briquettes and the highest was 5.95 kJ/g for 100 percent biomass briquettes. The values for the 1:3 and 3:1 parts paper to biomass briquettes were determined to be 5.48 and 5.90 kJ/g, respectively. In all cases, the briquette materials were found to be lower in caloric content than wood pellets (8.25 kJ/g), wood (7.24 kJ/g), and charcoal (7.33 kJ/g). It should be noted that the caloric content of materials vary depending on the calorimetry method. In this study, bomb calorimetry was used on materials grated through a 20 mesh sieve to ensure consistent surface area of the sample. It is also important to note that combustion of unmodified materials will generally yield lower energy values than materials of increased surface area[18]. More effective thermal output is achieved by increasing the surface area, which allows biobriquettes to compete in terms of energy output with traditional fuel sources that may have greater caloric contents.
&nbsp;
Combustion Analysis 
 When approximately 100 g masses of wood and wood pellets were rapidly ignited, the result was an average increase in temperature of 500 mL of deionized water of between 57 and 64 degrees Celsius, respectively. The charcoal sample was the slowest to ignite, resulting in the smallest water temperature increase, a change in temperature of 17 C, although it burned for the longest duration. In comparison, it was found that briquette combustion was optimized by airflow grooves and a 150 second ignition time in an air-rich environment. These conditions mimic the combustion of multiple briquettes at one time, which is their intended use.&nbsp;
 To demonstrate the characteristic properties of biobriquette combustion under these ideal conditions, an experiment was conducted using the 1:3 part biomass to paper briquette. The results of this test demonstrate that biobriquettes can produce temperature changes for 500 mL of water that are consistent with those of wood and wood pellets (i.e. a change in temperature less than or equal to 47 C) (Figure 4). Ignition times of 60 and 90 seconds provided slower, smoldering burns with a change in temperature of less than or equal to 20 C, but as ignition times increased to 120 and 150 seconds, peak temperatures rose accordingly, which caused an increase in water temperature between a change in temperature of less than or equal to 40 C and a change in temperature of less than or equal to 47 C, respectively (i.e. commensurate with traditional fuels).
 Discussion 
 Study results show that the energy output of biobriquettes compressed from biomass waste is nearly equivalent to that of common fuel sources when burned in an oxygen-rich environment comparable to unmodified wood and wood pellet stoves, fireplaces, patio heaters and charcoal grills. There are many clear advantages of biobriquettes, including the simplicity by which they can be produced and the availability and affordability of materials used in their production. REFERENCES 1.&nbsp; U.S. EPA; Municipal Solid Waste: Basic Information, www.epa.gov/msw/facts.htm (Accessed 16 July 2010). 2.&nbsp; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Jackson, MS; Junk Mail Reduction, http://deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/Recycling_JunkMailReduction?OpenDocument (Accessed 16 July 2010). 3.&nbsp; Recycling Advocates, Portland, Ore.; Ten Ways to Stop Junk Mail Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, www.recyclingadvocates.org/pdf/pubs/junkmail.pdf (accessed 16 July 2010). 4.&nbsp; Chaney J O, Clifford M J, Wilson R, An Experimental Study of The Combustion Characteristics of Low-Density Biomass Briquettes. 5.&nbsp; Landfills: Environmental Problems, www.landfill-site.com/html/landfills__environmental_probl.php, Search Term: Landfill Problems, (Accessed 17 July 2010). 6. Demirbas A. Sustainable Charcoal Production and Charcoal Briquetting. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Vol. 31, Is. 19, January 2009, pp. 1694-1699. 7.&nbsp; Grover P D, Mishra, S K, Biomass Briquetting: Technology and Practices. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand. The FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Program in Asia, April 1996. 8.&nbsp; Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, Va.; Understanding Briquetting, www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/briquett/en/briquett.htm (accessed 17 July 2010). 9.&nbsp; Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, Va.; Understanding Wood Wastes as Fuel, Technical Paper #46, www.bioenergylists.org/vitawood (accessed 17 July 2010). 10.&nbsp; Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, Va.; Understanding Paper Recycling, www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/paprrcyc/en/paprrcyc.htm (accessed 17 July 2010). 11.&nbsp; Legacy Foundation, Ashland, Ore.; Fuel Briquettes, www.legacyfound.org/ (Accessed 16 July 2010). 12.&nbsp; Jessup R S. Precise Measurement of Heat of Combustion with a Bomb Calorimeter. Natl Bar Std US Monograph 1960; 7. 13.&nbsp; Coops J, Jessup R S, van Nes K, Hubbard W N, Scott D W, Prosen E J, et al.&nbsp; Chapters 3, 5 and 6. In: Rossini FD, editor. Experimental Thermochemistry, New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc; 1956. 14.&nbsp; Sturtevant J M.&nbsp; Technique of Organic Chemistry. In: Weissberger A, editor. Physical Methods of Organic Chemistry, New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc; 1959, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 597-8. 15.&nbsp; Oxygen Bomb Calorimetry and Combustion Methods, Parr Instrument Co. (Moline, Ill.); 1960, Tech. Manual 130. 16.&nbsp; International Critical Tables. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1929, vol. V, p. 162. 17.&nbsp; Selected Values of Chemical Thermodynamic Properties, Natl. Bar. Std. U.S. Circl 500, 1952. 18.&nbsp; Holstein S, Stanley R, McDougal O M. Fuel Briquettes Out of Junk Mail and Yard Wastes. J Chem Innovation 2001;31:22-8. Authors: Owen M. McDougal, Seth Eidemiller, Nick Weires, Mark Swartz and Mike McCormick Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Boise State University (208) 426-3964 <a href="mailto:owenmcdougal@boisestate.edu">owenmcdougal@boisestate.edu</a>

Biomass Packed: Boise State University researchers tested biomass briquettes of four different compositions, left to right, 100 percent paper, 1:3 paper to biomass, 3:1 biomass to paper and 100 percent paper to demonstrate that the energy output of d

2010/11/129053915865.jpg

FIRE IN THE HOLE: The biomass briquettes were combusted in a testing apparatus that consisted of a fume hood, controlled burn chamber, Bunsen burner and thermocouple.

2010/11/129053927143.jpg

Figure 3 
CALORIE COUNT: The oxygen bomb calorimetry results of the briquettes were compared with traditional fuel sources. 

2010/11/129053930512.jpg

Figure 4 
BIOBURN: Researchers produced results of the combustion profile modification with variable Bunsen burner ignition times, and charted the difference between a rapid flaming burn and a slower, smoldering burn for the biobriquettes.

2010/11/129053933376.jpg

A Boise State University study proves that low-energy feedstocks can be densified and when combusted produce heat output comparable to higher energy content fuels. 

Biomass Briquettes: Turning Waste Into Energy

Biomass can be thermally converted into energy by a variety of methods. The main three ways are combustion, pyrolysis and gasification. Gasification is a thermochemical conversion process that reacts carbon-based materials at high temperatures (800-1,200 degrees Celsius) with a limited amount of oxygen, air and/or steam. The reaction yields a combustible gas, mainly comprised of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This gas can be used to generate heat and power or converted into a number of useful products, including fuels such as ethanol, synthetic diesel or jet fuel; and chemicals such as methanol or synthetic lubricants.
 The gasification process itself can be either autothermal or allothermal. In autothermal gasifiers, the energy necessary for gasification is provided within the gasifier by partial combustion. Allothermal gasifiers are externally heated, for example by electricity in the case of plasma gasifiers or via heated bed material. The type of gasifier used will depend on the input feedstock, its characteristics and the required end use.
 Gasification is capable of converting a wide range of sustainable and low-cost feedstocks into energy. In countries with low-population densities and high resources this might be wood or energy crops, but in the U.K. it is more likely we will see novel forms of biomass being used in gasification, such as leftover food and municipal solid waste (MSW).
 Market Development in the U.K.
 Over the past 10 years, investment in biomass gasification in the U.K. has been small, particularly in comparison to countries such as Sweden, Germany and the U.S. Project Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE)&mdash;built near Eggborough (Northeast England) in 2001&mdash;was among the first of its kind in the U.K., producing energy from gasified biomass. The plant cost &pound;30 million ($48 million) but closed after only eight days of operation never to reopen. The closure of the project left nearly 50 local farmers without a market to sell their biomass, having planted 1,500 hectares (3,700 acres) of short-rotation coppice willow. However, ARBRE&rsquo;s failure was less a result of the gasification technology, and more due to a change in the commercial strategy of the projects parent company and bankruptcy of the turnkey contractor appointed to oversee the project.
 Now nearly 10 years after the doors closed at ARBRE, gasification is undergoing something of a renaissance in the U.K. New technologies are allowing a variety of different feedstocks to be used and end products to be produced.
&nbsp;
Current Research and Development 
 The U.K. has a growing research and development network for biomass gasification (Figure 1). Universities&mdash;Newcastle, Leeds, Cranfield and UCL&mdash;are playing an important role in the design of advanced gasification systems, particularly with a view to tackling some of the more traditional problems associated with biomass gasification of ash clinker and tar production.
 Much of the primary research and development on gasification has involved using wood as the feedstock, because in most parts of the world it is the largest source of biomass. However, the U.K. is unique in that it has a comparatively small and localized wood resource but a high population density. As a result, waste is often a more readily available feedstock for gasification than wood.
 The U.K. produces more than 17 million metric tons (18 million tons) of MSW each year, compared to just 4.6 million metric tons of surplus wood. Recovering the energy stored in MSW will help tackle the dual problems of climate change and constraints on landfill space; by 2015 the U.K. must reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills to less than 35 percent of that sent in 1995. This has led to technology providers developing novel processes for converting waste to energy, although most are currently at the planning or demonstration scale.
 Commercial Production of Energy and Fuels from Biomass
 New biomass gasification projects are emerging across the U.K., highlighting the growing interest in the technology as a mechanism for creating fuel and energy from renewable sources. This includes energy-from-waste projects, which use the renewable (biogenic) and nonrenewable parts of the feedstock, as well as plants using traditional sources of biomass or utilizing the biogenic fraction of MSW by advanced separation.
 For example, in Newport on the Isle of Wight, Energos Ltd. has been operating its commercial gasification plant since 2009. The plant is designed to run on 30,000 metric tons of fuel annually, produced from 60,000 to 70,000 metric tons of MSW. The technology generates more than 2 megawatts of electricity, enough to power up to 3,000 homes.
 Elsewhere, Ineos Bio plans to produce renewable energy and bioethanol, via gasification and fermentation, using prepared biomass waste (Figure 2). Its commercial-scale biorefinery (planned for construction on Teesside, England) is due to be operational by 2012. Approximately 50 percent of the input energy is expected to be recovered, mainly as ethanol with some electricity being exported to the National Grid.
 At a site near London, British Airways and U.S. bioenergy group, Solena, are planning to produce jet fuel from gasified waste. Eventually, BA hopes the project will produce at least half of the airline's fuel needs for its London City Airport operations.
 Biossence has been granted planning permission to develop the East London Sustainable Energy Facility. This facility will gasify local waste left after recycling into renewable electricity, at efficiencies of 35 to 40 percent. Eventually ELSEF hopes to produce enough energy to power about 10,000 homes a year.
 Together these projects, among others, will leapfrog the U.K. into a world-leading position with respect to the advanced gasification of biomass. Challenges remain before this can be achieved, however, including securing finance for projects and developing strong and sustainable feedstock supply chains. Author: Matthew Aylott Staff Writer, U.K. National Non-Food Crops Centre M.Aylott@nnfcc.co.uk <a href="http://www.nnfcc.co.uk">www.nnfcc.co.uk </a>

Waste to Energy: In the U.K. advanced gasification technology will most likely be used to produce energy from novel forms of biomass including leftover food and municipal solid waste.

2010/11/129053974961.jpg

Figure 1 
DIGGING DEEPER: Research institutions are working on gasification technology and gasification plants in the U.K., particularly with the intent to tackle some of the more traditional problems associated with biomass gasificationâ€”ash clinke

2010/11/129053980012.jpg

Figure 2
POWER AND FUEL: Ineos Bio plans to produce renewable energy and bioethanol, via gasification and fermentation, using prepared biomass waste. 

2010/11/129053982747.jpg

Biomass Gasification in  the UK—Where are we Now?

A carefully developed plant operations approach represents a critically important variable to optimize the production, commercial viability and plant profitability of biomass power generation facilities. Bridging the gap between a good project plan and a profitable power plant requires an integrated operations capability that should be implemented early. Early involvement demonstrates to the financial community the cohesion to bring operations expertise to bear early enough to make a difference in optimization of process technology in order to help mitigate technology and operations risks, as well as the commitment to establish value through cost-effective, long-term operations performance.
 Investing in Plant Operations
 Exceptional performance begins by treating plant operations as an investment, not an expense.&nbsp; Doing otherwise has been demonstrated to be a disastrous strategic decision.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because in the absence of an owner-aligned, experienced, sophisticated, proactive, performance-oriented operations capability, even the best project plan will fail to reach pro forma expectations.&nbsp; This holds true for the owner attempting to save money by developing an untested internal operations capability or one who hires a conflicted party to watch over their handy work.
 Best Practices Starts with Pedigree
 Simply stated, there is no substitute for the experience gained from operating assets under a wide variety of conditions.&nbsp; Equally true is that excellence in plant operations cannot be established and sustained without a sophisticated support and oversight structure.&nbsp; Few organizations possess the collective institutional platform required for exceptional plant operations.&nbsp;
 Project financing entities will expect that operations success will best emanate from those firms that can demonstrate the capacity to provide the following:&nbsp;
 &bull; Alignment: Management of the asset to the owner&rsquo;s priorities, not the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
 &bull; Safety and Compliance: Adherence and implementation to all local, state, and federal compliance laws in the areas of safety, environment and North Electric Reliability Corp. through defined approaches
 &bull; Procedures: Development and implementation of custom-designed systems descriptions and operating procedures that detail exactly what it takes to operate the plant
 &bull; Maintenance: Implementation of a custom computerized maintenance management system in order to capture costs and maintenance history of all equipment and parts used
 &bull; Performance: Continuous development of operating options to maximize plant performance beyond OEM contract guarantees
 &bull; Optimization: Encourage participation in enhancement initiatives based on industry users&rsquo; groups, extensive training, industry conferences, specialized workshops and an experience database
 &bull; Warranties: Formal fault-scrutiny designed to proactively identify warrantee issues and potential serial failures&nbsp;&nbsp;
 &bull; Relations: Enhancement of community relations by providing a consistent relationship with the regulator, off-takers, landowners and environmental agencies&nbsp;
 &bull; Reporting: Development and implementation of reporting standards and requirements
 &bull; Oversight: Continuous project management and oversight of asset and implementation of performance engineering and optimization efforts, as needed.
 The Results
 Owners who treat plant operations as an investment and actually do implement sophisticated plant operations processes create lasting economic value:
 &bull; Obtain standard commercial financing
 &bull; Maximize employee safety
 &bull; Operate in compliance
 &bull; Avoid fines and penalties
 &bull; Mitigate technology risk
 &bull; Eliminate or minimize forced outages
 &bull; Minimize unscheduled repairs
 &bull; Maximize uptime
 &bull; Attain higher productivity/performance
 &bull; Optimize profitability. Author: Douglas Machon Business Development, NAES Corp. <a href="mailto:doug.machon@naes.com">doug.machon@naes.com</a>

OPERATIONS EXCELLENCE: NAES-operated biomass facilities have established support and oversight structures to maintain exceptional plant operations.


2010/11/129054002568.jpg

GETTING IT RIGHT: Operators should manage their assets to the owner\'s priorities and not the original equipment manufacturers. 

2010/11/129054005982.jpg

SAFE AND SOUND: Operators need to adhere to and implement all local, state and federal safety and environmental laws. 

2010/11/12905400958.jpg

Plant operators who treat their facilites as investments and implement sophisticated plant operations processes create lasting economic value. 

Sophisticated Biomass Plant Operations Yield Excellent Economics

Funding for renewable energy projects has been challenging, as private investors may not have the resources or are concerned about regulatory uncertainty. Federal funding, once viewed with great hope, has turned out to be a frustrating, and often hopeless, endeavor. But the U.S. is still one of the best markets in the world for renewable energy projects, and even if many U.S. investors are unwilling to participate, there are many foreign investors looking to take advantage of the opportunities. The EB-5 immigrant visa category offers U.S. renewable energy projects and foreign investors an avenue to make it all work.
 Congress created the EB-5 immigrant visa category for investors making significant investments in commercial enterprises that benefit the U.S. economy and create at least 10 full-time jobs. Due to onerous restrictions, however, this category was underutilized for many years. In 2003, Congress initiated a study of the EB-5 program to determine why and concluded that the rigorous application process was deterring applicants. It also found that even though few people had participated, EB-5 investors had invested an estimated $1 billion in a variety of U.S. businesses. Since then we have seen a steady growth in the number of EB-5 investment projects, and particularly in the number of approved regional centers. Even though the category remains underutilized, EB-5 investment is increasingly being looked at as a means of revitalizing the U.S. economy.
 Basic EB-5 Requirements
 Approximately 10,000 visas are reserved annually for applicants to invest in a new commercial enterprise employing at least 10 full-time U.S. workers. To qualify under the EB-5 program, the new enterprise must be one in which the applicant must invest (or be in the process of investing) at least $1 million (or $500,000 if investing in a &ldquo;targeted employment area,&rdquo; discussed below). The investment must benefit the U.S. economy and create the requisite 10 jobs. Permanent residence for EB-5 investors is granted conditionally for two years, after which time they need to file an application to remove the conditions, proving that their investment has continued to qualify.
 After developing the EB-5 category, Congress created a program to encourage its utilization, called the Investor Pilot Program, which set aside 3,000 EB-5 visas each year for those who invest in &ldquo;designated regional centers.&rdquo; Although efforts are underway to make this program permanent, it is still temporary and was recently renewed until Sept. 30, 2012. At present, more than 90 percent of all EB-5 investments are made through regional centers, of which there are about 75. A regional center is an &ldquo;economic unit, public or private, which is involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation or increased domestic capital investment.&rdquo; The benefit to investors is that the pilot program does not require that they employ 10 U.S. workers (indirect job creation is sufficient) or that they be engaged in the direct management of the business.
 To be approved, a regional center must submit a detailed proposal outlining how it plans to focus on a U.S. geographical region to achieve the required job creation and growth. It must also outline the amount and sources of committed capital and the plan for promoting the project.
 Qualified Investors
 USCIS precludes corporate or other nonindividual investors from the EB-5 category, but more than one investor can participate in the same, new commercial enterprise provided that each one has invested (or is actively in the process of investing) the required amount and that a minimum of 10 jobs are attributable to each investor. The source of all capital must be identified and all invested capital must have been obtained lawfully. The regular EB-5 program and the pilot program have similar requirements, with the distinction that the former requires the investor to submit all of the evidence whereas the latter requires the regional center to certify that the investor has met its criteria regarding the particular investment project.
 In addition, it is critical that all investors prove that their capital is &ldquo;at risk&rdquo; at the time of making the application. It is not enough to intend to invest; there must be an actual commitment of funds, which can include certain debt arrangements.
 To prove that the capital was lawfully acquired, investors must submit tax returns for the previous five years. In a regular EB-5 case, investors must prove that they will be managing the new commercial enterprises.
 Qualified Investments
 USCIS requires that the entire amount of capital be invested and at risk at the time the application is filed, including binding debt arrangements. The term &ldquo;invest&rdquo; means to contribute capital, so a contribution made as a loan in exchange for a note, bond or any other debt arrangement does not qualify. &ldquo;Capital&rdquo; means cash and cash equivalents, inventory and other tangible property. Retained earnings do not qualify as capital. Indebtedness secured by assets owned by the investor may be considered capital if the investor is personally liable and the assets of the new enterprise are not used as security. A signed promissory note, for example, generally constitutes a contribution of capital provided the petitioner is obliged to make all the requisite payments and there are no &ldquo;escape&rdquo; clauses. USCIS has ruled that the full amount of the promissory note must be paid off by the end of the two-year conditional residence period.
 New Commercial Enterprises
 To qualify as &ldquo;new,&rdquo; businesses must be created after Nov. 29, 1990, and must be &ldquo;commercial&rdquo; for-profit entities. There are exceptions, however, when an investor restructures, reorganizes or expands. Unfortunately, the rules provide minimal insight into what level of restructuring or reorganizing must be done to establish a new enterprise, and all but one of the challenged cases found that the businesses failed to do so. Expanding an existing business requires that there be an increase of at least 40 percent in the net worth or the number of employees.
 A new enterprise established through the capital investment in a troubled business must prove that the number of existing employees will be maintained at no less than the pre-investment level for a period of at least two years. A &ldquo;troubled business&rdquo; is one that has been in existence for at least two years and has incurred a net loss, during the 12- to 24-month period before the petition was filed, of at least 20 percent of the business&rsquo;s net worth before the loss.
 To qualify for the lower investment amount of $500,000, the employment must be created in a targeted employment area. Therefore the EB-5 investment must either be in a rural area or in a high unemployment area.
 To qualify for EB-5 status, investments must &ldquo;benefit the U.S. economy,&rdquo; but no guidance is provided in the rules as to exactly what this means. The USCIS examiners are therefore left to their own interpretations when adjudicating petitions.
 Normally, except with troubled business applications, at least 10 full-time jobs must be created per EB-5 investment. These jobs must be for direct employees of the enterprise and not for independent contractors. The employees may be U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or other immigrants (asylees, refugees, and conditional residents), but they cannot include the investor&rsquo;s dependents.
Full-time jobs require at minimum 35 hours per week (including job sharing arrangements). The jobs don&rsquo;t need to be created immediately at the time of the initial investment and can be rolled out over the two-year period of the EB-5 investor&rsquo;s conditional residence, with a detailed business plan explaining the strategy. The jobs must be located in &ldquo;targeted employment areas&rdquo; to qualify for the $500,000 investment.
 Removing Conditional Residence
 When the initial application has been approved, the investor either adjusts status (if within the U.S.) or is admitted on an immigrant visa, at which time he or she becomes a conditional resident for two years. In order to remove the conditions, a petition must be filed establishing that the individual invested the required capital and that the investment created or will create 10 full-time jobs.
Technically, under the rules, an investor will qualify for removal of the permanent residence conditions if it can be shown that the capital investment requirements have been &ldquo;substantially met&rdquo; during the conditional period, but as a practical matter, USCIS is most likely to require that the capital has been fully invested. If the 10 requisite jobs aren&rsquo;t fully staffed by the end of the initial two years, USCIS will want proof that those jobs will be created &ldquo;within a clear, defined and credible period of time.&rdquo;
Investors&rsquo; conditional status is extended during the pendency of their applications. If denied, the EB-5 investor will be asked to leave the U.S. and is deportable.
 The history of the EB-5 program has proved difficult, with USCIS applying an extremely strict interpretation of the rules. Given the persistent high rates of unemployment in the U.S. at present, we can only hope that USCIS sticks to its word and allows vital investment into our country at a time when it is most needed. Authors: Laura Danielson Chair Immigration Department, Fredrikson &amp; Byron (612) 492-7248 <a href="mailto:LDanielson@fredlaw.com">LDanielson@fredlaw.com</a> Todd Taylor Co-Chair Clean Technology Group, Fredrikson &amp; Byron (612) 492-7355 <a href="mailto:ttaylor@fredlaw.com">ttaylor@fredlaw.com</a>

CASH INFUSION: The EB-5 immigrant visa program could encourage more foreign investment in renewable energy projects. 

2010/11/129054039255.jpg

Renewable energy project developers may find funding opportunities through foreign investors.


Immigration Visas can Help Fund Biomass Projects

Posted Nov. 23, 2010
 
 Enzyme company Verenium Corp. has partnered with global oils, fats and biodiesel technology firm Desmet Ballestra to expand the use and geographic reach of its vegetable-oil-specific enzyme, Purifine PLC. Nearly a month after announcing a partnership with Alfa Laval to jointly market the enzyme, Verenium has signed with Desmet Ballestra to market the Purifine enzymatic degumming process, while packaging the enzyme with Desmet Ballestra's processing equipment and engineering services. 
 
 "Purifine PLC is a novel enzyme that can be used to increase the yields from the vegetable oil refining process for the production of both biodiesel fuel and edible oils," according to Kelly Lindenboom, vice president of corporate communications for Verenium. Edible oil and biodiesel production diverge after the removal of phospholipids from the crude oil, Lindenboom said, so the enzyme-degummed oil can be refined for either end product. "In fact, the PLC-treated oil contains fewer impurities that can result from conventional processing so there are benefits in refining the oil for either edible or biodiesel use." 
 
 Like the partnership with Alfa Laval, the newly formed effort with Desmet Ballestra "allows us to extend our geographic reach and can accelerate the growth of our Purifine PLC business without incurring substantial costs," Lindenboom added. "The second agreement, complementary to the agreement with Alfa Laval, is also in part to address the market pull for choice of engineering firms to implement PLC processing." 

 
 The new partnership also helps Verenium accelerate the timeline in getting the enzyme to market, but Verenium's work isn't completed yet. "We will continue to evaluate opportunities to partner with blue chip firms in a variety of different capacities," she said. "Currently we are exploring options for partnering with companies to either reduce near-term development costs, reduce implementation risks," or, as the company feels it has done with its most recent partnership, "speed the time to market." 
 
 The Purifine PLC enzyme is a phospholipase C enzyme that acts as the main component in the degumming process for refining soybean oil and other high-phosphorus vegetable oils, according to the company, which also stated that the enzymatic degumming product "may also enhance yields of biodiesel from crude oil."

Desmet Ballestra, Verenium partner

BBI International's Southeast Biomass Conference & Trade Show in Atlanta featured a biodiesel-exclusive panel, which I moderated, titled, "Biodiesel from Waste and Low-Value Feedstock." The diversity of the panel-a professor/researcher, a small-scale regional producer, a pretreatment specialist and a representative of a global biodiesel process technology provider-mirrored the eclectic nature of the biodiesel industry. 
 
 Christina Borgese, formerly with BiofuelBox and now the senior engineer and cofounder of consulting firm PreProcess Inc., opened her discussion with the importance of diesel power and how just a 2 percent blend can replace all the lubricity lost in ultra-low sulfur diesel. She gave an overview of the wide range of feedstock available for biodiesel processing, and spoke about the three D's of waste feedstock: the diverse array, distributed concentration and diluted fatty acid content. She said fats, oils and greases in sewage waste water, for instance, are as low as 35 parts per million, since most of it is water and solids. 
 
 Frank Yeboah with North Carolina A&T University discussed his Department of Defense project looking at the impact of taking all the military waste vegetable oil (WVO) for conversion to biodiesel. He said if the defense department were a country, its fuel consumption would rank 34 in the world, a testament to how much fuel our military operations use. Yeboah's project hopes to find exactly how much WVO is produced on military bases and barracks around the country, and what beneficial impacts that would have if all of it were to be converted to biodiesel. 
 

 Panelist Brandon Spence, cofounder and CEO of Midlands Biofuels in South Carolina, a community-scale biodiesel plant, said Midlands Biofuels is the only ASTM-certified biodiesel production facility in the state. He and his team also started the first green apprenticeship in South Carolina. Regarding the lapse of the $1 per gallon blenders credit, Spence said, "We collect our own feedstock and we stand on our own two feet, we don't need the dollar. In order for this business to survive, we can't do it with subsidies." Spence also said Midlands Biofuels is looking into solar applications for its process. 
 
 The final speaker was Klaus Ruhmer, BDI BioEnergy International's North American business development manager. "In order to achieve profitability, quality must be the foundation, no shortcuts," he said. "The most important pillar after that is yield. You can't run on 80 to 85 percent yield." He also noted that the subsidy was great for producers, but bad for investors, "because they would never know if it was going to go away." If feedstock prices change 5 percent, that can have a 40 percent impact on profit, he said. A 5 percent change in the price of biodiesel, or in the yield, can have a 50 percent impact on profitability.
 
 Ron Kotrba
 Editor
 Biodiesel Magazine
 <a href="mailto:rkotrba@bbiinternational.com">rkotrba@bbiinternational.com</a>

2260-1294332324.jpg

Diverse Group

"How say you, the jury?" Few phrases so succinctly summarize the uncertainty a small business must face when planning its operations, especially safety and maintenance programs. An adverse legal verdict can wipe out a small company in a stroke. A company without well-planned policies to identify and limit risks inherent in its operation invites destruction. Most companies design and implement policies, equipment and facilities to reap the positive benefits of appropriate safety and maintenance practices, such as efficiency, sustainability and profitability of their operations, workforce safety and lower insurance rates. However, these policies also must take into account the legal liability that the company may bear in the event that a mishap, or even normal operations, damages the lives or property of others.
 
 Although specific legal rules differ geographically, those who harm others are generally held liable for the damage they cause; and they who inflict harm intentionally, through negligence, or even by paying insufficient attention to the dangers they cause, are singled out for punishment beyond mere compensation for the damage done. Businesses can control their potential liability by acting in ways that demonstrate to a judge or jury that the company has attempted to identify and prevent harm to others. The barest bones of such a demonstration will include tangible evidence that a company considered the hazards its operations pose, that it considered ways of reducing or eliminating those hazards, that it selected among hazard-reducing options in a defensible manner, and-perhaps most important-that it implemented those options in a regular and consistent manner.
 
 If a company is unable to demonstrate to a court that it had a safety and maintenance plan in place, the judge or jury may find it easy to conclude that the company's consideration of safety issues was unreasonable or haphazard. With an injured party standing before it, the court may feel justified in awarding a large, punitive judgment against the company, both to punish the company for its perceived indifference and as a warning to other similarly-situated companies. Thus, a safety and maintenance plan can benefit a company both by improving workplace operations and by shielding it from an inference that the company is indifferent to safety concerns.
 
 In addition to identifying hazards inherent in or caused by its operations, a company that wishes to avoid a punitive legal verdict should also investigate equipment and methods for reducing, avoiding or mitigating those hazards. The standard of care that a company must exhibit in order to limit or avoid legal liability is a matter of local law (typically state law in the U.S.). Generally speaking, however, a company will not be required to undertake every possible way of avoiding all conceivable risk. A company should consult with legal experts in the regions in which it will operate its facilities and in which it will project any foreseeable hazard, in order to understand the duties of care it may owe in those localities.
 

 A company that has created a safety and maintenance plan should take care to see that the plan is, in fact, implemented in its operations. Even though development of the plan may itself demonstrate the company's good faith and desire to operate safely, failure to implement that plan consistently can be damning evidence that it failed to live up to the standard of care that the company itself considered necessary. Thus, implementation of such a plan is critical.
 
 The specific contents of a safety and maintenance plan are as variable as the companies and operations to which they relate. Legal and occupational health/safety consultants are available nationwide to assist companies to develop and implement appropriate plans. These consultants can shepherd biodiesel and other companies through the complexities of local laws, design of industrial operations and workforce training.
 
 The threat of a disastrous legal verdict can make litigation a "valley of death" for companies unprepared to face it. By designing and implementing safety and maintenance plans with legal and safety experts, companies can reduce the uncertainties they face in the unfortunate event they are sued for damage they've allegedly caused, permitting them to focus on business operations.
 
 Author: Gary D. Colby
 Attorney, Dilworth Paxson LLP
 (215) 575-7075
 <a href="mailto:gcolby@dilworthlaw.com">gcolby@dilworthlaw.com</a>

2261-1294332324.jpg

Walking Through the Valley of Death

Anything that moves in a plant experiences wear and tear and needs upkeep. One critical but often overlooked task is keeping maintenance and safety logs, which will help in identifying equipment failures. Keeping pumps operating successfully for long periods requires careful pump design selection. Proper installation and careful operation is crucial, noting pump operating parameters. Pump performance should be monitored for any performance changes over time. If failure occurs, cause must be determined to prevent recurrence. Pumps that are properly sized, dynamically balanced, sit on stable foundations with good shaft alignment, properly lubricated, operated within the specified specs and regularly checked by maintenance personnel who fix any offbeat performance issues never experience catastrophic failure. Typically a pump that fails twice for a similar issue needs to be examined closely for proper installation and whether it's operating out of its specified efficiency points.
 
 For reactor maintenance, the sediment in the incoming feedstock, if not addressed, will be a major problem as it will reduce the reaction efficiency. The reactor must be examined regularly and proper preventative measures should be taken. Filters, whether for finished goods or for incoming feedstock, must be examined and changed regularly. Improper maintenance will result in sediment seepage either into end product or incoming feedstock. A prime cause of filter failure is tears. Air compressors, regardless of size or model, require some form of periodic maintenance. Compressor maintenance must be done according to hours of operation, not calendar date. 
 
 Operating equipment outside of process parameters causes a majority of issues. Heat exchangers are also a critical part of the process and careful consideration has to be given to their operating parameters and preventative maintenance. At minimum, automation devices and instruments should be looked at periodically as part of a maintenance schedule. A common failure point for automation instrumentation is not the actual instrument, but the wiring. Regular checks must be performed to make sure the wiring is intact, no process liquids are leaking onto the wiring, and instruments are not experiencing any stresses from the mechanical equipment such as piping and reactors. Also, relief valves must be regularly checked to ensure they are performing according to spec.
 
 Plant safety has to be addressed well before the plant is fully constructed. All safety related points must be identified and proper care should be taken to address each point. All employees should know the plan of action in case of emergency, and a safety document with clearly identified steps needs to be part of employees' vocabulary. 

 
 The largest safety hazard in biodiesel plants is methanol and catalyst, which also contains 75 to 80 percent methanol if it's a liquid catalyst. Any equipment that comes in contact with methanol or catalyst needs to be explosion-proof or intrinsically safe. There should be clear demarcation between explosion-proof and nonexplosion-proof areas. Care should be taken to make sure the plant design complies with the latest version of the National Electric Code and all of the National Fire Protection Association codes for flammable liquids and vapors. If for any reason changes to the facility occurred, extreme care should be taken to identify the liquids in the facility and the process/methodology before making any changes. Equipment that is being worked on should be water washed and aired out for days. Methanol leaks due to pump seal, hose and instrumentation connection failures, or similar incidents. Personnel should be trained to be observant for any mechanical abnormalities so remedial action can be taken immediately. A handheld volatile compound detector should be kept handy and employees should be encouraged to use it often to identify any stray vapors in the facility.
 
 Further, it is important to ground the tanks, pumps, panels and instrumentation; regularly check for leaks on the tanks, pumps and pipelines; insulate all heated elements; condensate pumps on the steam line to prevent heat exchange failures; properly install vents and blow-off valves on tanks and process equipment; prevent static hazard while taking samples; use ventilated conditions and all safety measures while doing maintenance work such as welding and cleaning; and ground trucks before loading materials. At the end of the day, one plant accident is one too many.
 
 Author: Sharath Bobbili
 Refinery Deployment Project Manager, JatroDiesel Inc. 
 (937) 847-8050
 <a href="mailto:sharathbobbilister@gmail.com">sharathbobbilister@gmail.com</a>

2262-1294332325.jpg

Plant Maintenance and Safety

A thriving industry usually equates to growing educational opportunities in various university systems. However, the inverse of this traditional train of thought appears to be occurring with biodiesel, as a spate of universities have created biodiesel-specific curriculums. It's this disconnect that has gotten people wondering, with all the trouble in the industry, why now? "Universities are kind of a community and we communicate with one another," says Nancy Tuchman, Loyola University-Chicago vice provost. "When a program or initiatives like these are launched at one university, the students talk to each other and kind of push for it to happen at their school. I think this might be part of why it's not unique at just one or two schools."
 
 Initially tested and built as part of a course, LUC's Center for Urban Environmental Research and Policy's Biodiesel Program evolved into the first school program in the U.S. to be licensed by state and federal authorities to produce and sell biodiesel. The program is expected to produce approximately 2,500 gallons of biodiesel during the school year, from August 2010 through May 2011, from waste cooking oil collected at campus cafeterias and a local restaurant in the area. Students of the program sold B100 to its first customer, The Free Enterprise System Inc., a university shuttle bus service that runs between its Chicago-based Lake Shore and Water Tower campuses. The Free Enterprise System shuttle buses run on B7 blends, but an increased supply of biodiesel should eliminate the use of nearly 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel every year in the company's six Loyola buses, according to Tuchman.
 
 As former CUERP director, Tuchman was instrumental in creating LUC's biodiesel program. She says that programs like these appeal to students because it's a technology that doesn't require just chemistry majors' involvement in the program anymore, but rather a host of students with different disciplines interested in gaining hands-on experience. "Another reason is that when our students hear in lectures about global climate change throughout their curriculum, they begin to feel a sense of hopelessness and despair," Tuchman says. "I think having students design, develop and build a solution to a problem like this with their own hands is empowering."
 
 Formed in 2007, LUC's biodiesel program was awarded a $10,000 grant from the EPA to implement a new education model on campus called, "Solutions to Environmental Problems," or STEP. The program received an additional $75,000 grant from the EPA for high school outreach and is now its own stand-alone program, according to Tuchman.
 

 While current and prospective students continue to express interest in programs like these, available state or federal funding is another driving force behind decisions to get programs up and running. Ina, Ill.-based Rend Lake College was awarded a $60,835 USDA grant in October to support the launch of a three-part biofuels education program, which will include training on farm-based biodiesel production. Linda Dention, RLC professor of physics and physical science who will oversee the program when it officially begins in the spring, says that available federal funding wasn't the main factor behind creating programs like these. She says that universities should find their niche based on location, community need and educational targets. "We started looking at it because of the community demand," she says. "We live in a poor rural area and we wanted to educate people how they can produce biodiesel themselves."
 
 RLC's biofuels program is funded for 18 months, but Denton says she is hoping to find additional money to allow the program to continue into the future. Although the college hasn't yet considered the possibility of expanding the program to offer a two-year degree focused on biofuels, Denton says it could be a possibility in the future if RLC identifies sufficient student demand.

Education on Wheels: From left to right, Zach Waickman, lab manager for LUC's biodiesel program, Kristina Clark, senior at LUC and former biodiesel program participant, and Adam Schubel, STEP coordinator and former biodiesel program lab manager, have

2263-1294332325.jpg

Why college-level biodiesel programs are sprouting up across the U.S.

Biodiesel U

Although it may sound fabricated given the particular biodiesel climate many in the industry hoped would be better by now, the following statement is true: "These are exciting times at our e-Biofuels subsidiary," says Jeffrey T. Wilson, president of Imperial Petroleum Inc. Wilson's statement relates directly to the recent success of e-Biofuels LLC, a Middletown, Ind.-based 15 MMgy biodiesel plant that, compared to 2009, reported a 339 percent increase in average monthly revenues and, compared to this July, reported a 61 percent increase in revenues for the month of September, netting $5.65 million in revenue for the month. Its success, it appears, is a case of addition by addition. Imperial Petroleum acquired the plant in May and by July, had the plant running at nearly 100 percent capacity. By September, the plant was producing almost another 10 MMgy for a production capacity nearing 25 MMgy. The additions don't stop there either. Wilson says the plant has plans to continue upgrading for more efficient production and will also add biojet fuel production capabilities.

Growth Plans: Even after a major increase in revenues due to expanded plant capacity, e-Biofuels has plans for more additions. 

2264-1294332326.jpg

E-Biofuels ramped up production and reaped the benefits, $5.65 million's worth

An Exciting Addition

A recent political debate between two congressional candidates in Iowa caused some concern within the local biodiesel industry. During the Oct. 15 event, incumbent third district Congressman Leonard Boswell stressed his support for reinstating the lapsed biodiesel tax credit, while challenger Brad Zaun, a member of the state senate, noted that he would not support its reinstatement. 
 
 The Iowa Biodiesel Board reached out to Zaun after the debate, requesting a meeting to inform the candidate on the many ways biodiesel benefits his state. The meeting, which took place Oct. 27, was highly successful, says IBB Executive Director Randy Olson. "We had a great discussion with Sen. Zaun, and had the opportunity to provide some facts about biodiesel that he was unaware of," Olson says, noting that the senator clearly appreciates our nation's initiative to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. "He expressed emphatically that he wants to see biodiesel succeed," Olson continues. "Whether senator Zaun is working for us in Washington or in Des Moines, I am confident he will be a strong supporter of biodiesel because of its importance to Iowa's economy and our nation's energy security. All in all, it was a good meeting. For a candidate to take 45 minutes out of his very busy schedule less than a week before an election clearly showed that he was interested in learning more about biodiesel and its importance to Iowa and the nation." 
 
 While Zaun will continue to serve Iowa in the state legislature, he was narrowly defeated by Boswell for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives Nov. 2.

Iowa congressional candidates debate the benefits of biodiesel

Debating Biodiesel's Benefits

It's no secret that if the U.S. military can be fueled, so can just about anything that needs fueling. For petroleum providers working with the U.S. Department of Defense and its large supply of aircraft, ground vehicles, ships and weapons systems, life has been pretty good. Nearly 77 percent of all fuel needs for the DOD comes from petroleum, which is no surprise. Think things are going to change? A quick look at the life span of a typical military vehicle, fighter jet or submarine and their fueling requirements, for instance, might suggest the status quo is here to stay, but numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicate that the DOD may have no choice but to integrate renewable fuels like biodiesel.
 
 According to the EIA, world energy demands will increase from a 2007 level of 495.2 quadrillion Btu all the way to 738.7 quadrillion Btu by 2035. Global petroleum use in 1980 called for roughly 63 million barrels of oil per day. Today the U.S. consumes more than 85 million barrels per day and, if trends remain unchanged, by 2035 global demand will equal 110.6 million gallons per day. If you haven't heard, global oil reserves are shrinking as well. So what should we do? A team from the Center for a New American Security went looking for an answer. Here's what they found. 
 
 In a report titled, "Fueling the Future: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era," Christine Parthemore, fellow at CNAS, and John Nagl, president, pointed out what many have been touting for some time: "It is not prudent to assume that supplies will be readily available to the United States three decades hence; nor is it wise to perpetuate the geopolitical, operational and environmental costs indefinitely." Ensuring that the DOD can function on nonpetroleum fuels in 30 years, they say, is a conservative approach to hedge against economic, political and environmental constraints of the future. 
 
 The goal of instituting renewable fuels, according to the report, should receive immediate attention and represent the main path forward. "Other goals debated in recent years, including a goal of simply increasing the efficiency of petroleum use or a static reduction in overall fuel consumption, will be insufficient." They note that since the 1970s, America's energy efficiency has grown, but, not surprisingly, so has overall petroleum demand. "Gains in efficiency are necessary and important," they say, "but there is a danger that too heavy a focus on efficiency over a long-term timescale will mask an increasing reliance on petroleum." While reports like these reaffirm what many already know, this particular report points out something worth remembering. If the DOD implements a change towards renewable fuels, it can avoid unbearable fuel costs while guaranteeing its ability to protect the U.S., the report says, "regardless of the availability of petroleum-based fuels."

2265-1294332326.jpg

The Center for a New American Security reminds us what renewable fuels mean for the future

Worth Remembering

When it released proposed regulations to establish the nation's first standards to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of medium- and heavy duty vehicles, the U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration took a historic step towards putting more energy efficient diesel vehicles on U.S. roadways. The new regulations are an extension of similar requirements established for light-duty vehicles earlier in the year. 
 
 Although both RFS2 and the newly proposed regulations aim to reduce GHG emissions from transportation vehicles, the means to achieve those reductions are very different. RFS2 aims to reduce the GHG emissions through the use of renewable fuels, while the proposed GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards seek to achieve reductions through greater vehicle efficiency via better engineering and design. 
 
 "We are proposing a strong and comprehensive national program that will oversee fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, whether pickups, vans, buses or semi-trucks," says DOT Secretary Ray LaHood. "This will be a win-win-win. It will reduce our reliance on oil, strengthen our energy security and mitigate climate change." Although the new proposed regulation affects both gasoline and diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles, the impact on the diesel community will be far more pronounced. "More than 95 percent of all heavy-duty trucks are diesel-powered, as are a majority of medium-duty trucks," says Allen Schaeffer, executive director of the Diesel Technology Forum. "Diesel power is the driving force today of goods movement by truck in our economy. This proposal clearly envisions clean diesel power as the centerpiece of freight transportation in the clean energy categories of vehicles: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles. Each of the three categories is further broken into several subcategories based on different elements, such as weight class, cab type, payload, towing capabilities, presence or absence of 4-wheel drive, or other identifying characteristics. Specific standards are designed for each applicable subcategory of vehicle. 

 
 EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says, "Altogether, greater fuel efficiency will save Americans $41 billion, with the added benefit that much of the money will be able to stay at home in the U.S. economy rather than buying oil from overseas."

Efficiency Increases: Proposed fuel efficiency and GHG reduction standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks are expected to achieve up to 20 percent reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption by model year 2018.

2266-1294332327.jpg

New fuel efficiency and GHG reduction standards proposed for trucks

Trucking towards Higher Efficiency

The ability to test low levels of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) content in jet fuel has been sought by pipeline operators and jet fuel distributors for years. SetaAnalytics, a division of Stanhope-Seta, recently announced that the Energy Institute in London has now published a new test method, IP 583, the first for rapid screening of FAME in jet fuel. The patented "Fame In Jet Instrument" has been in development for more than three years and offers the industry a rapid and easy check on parts per million (ppm) levels of FAME in aviation fuel. FIJI utilizes state-of-the-art Fourier Transform Infra-Red Spectroscopy technology and a patented sample preparation system allowing FAME detection accuracy down to the 20 ppm level. FIJI is fully automatic so no specialist operator training is involved. Tests take less than 20 minutes.  A key advantage over current analytical FAME in Jet methods is FIJI's ability to detect all types of FAME in the range C8 to C22. Current DEF STAN 91-91 and ASTM D1655 specifications state a maximum safe limit of 5 ppm in aviation fuel, but an industry-wide research project is currently evaluating the effect of FAME at higher concentrations. The lifting of the 5ppm limit to a higher level is expected as a result of the research project, states SetaAnalytics.

2267-1294332328.jpg

The first rapid-screening FAME detection method

A New Method

Although the biodiesel industry isn't exactly a model of success when it comes to economic prosperity today, plant developers are taking strategic approaches before they foray into the market. "Taking the time and doing the research, and really learning from other peoples' situations I think has made us a lot stronger," says Jon Hall, president and CEO of Bio-NRG LLC. The Mt. Pleasant, Iowa-based company intends to break ground on a 15 MMgy multifeedstock plant on 15 acres of land in LaHarpe, Ill., by 2011 with commercial operations slated for 2012. According to Hall, the $38 million plant will initially use soy oil from a soybean crushing facility to be built on site. In the future, Hall says, the company plans to incorporate an algae process that could be used to provide an alternative feedstock. When constructed, the plant will have the capability to produce soybean oil, meal, hulls, biodiesel, glycerol products, algae oil and algae biomass. "We're doing everything we can to identify and exploit some of these other alternative feedstocks out there than just using traditional methods," Hall says, adding that the company had finalized the project's debt financing package and permitting was awaiting approval.
 
 Central Missouri Energy plans to build a 10 MMgy biodiesel plant in Fulton, Mo., using jatropha oil as feedstock, but the future of the project rests on securing financing, according to Fulton Area Development Corp. President and CEO, Bruce Hackmann. "The principles of the project still feel very confident in the plan they have," he says. "It's just really a matter of the financing at this point." CME's original cost of the project was $40 million, but logistical issues surrounding how the plant would source the jatropha from Mexico via rail or truck complicated how lenders have assessed the feasibility of the project, Hackmann says. "They had been working on getting funding for this project for three years," he says. "We're still optimistic. It's not dead by any stretch of the imagination."
 
 Meanwhile, preliminary discussions began with a potential buyer for the 8 MMgy BEST BioDiesel Cashton LLC biodiesel plant in Cashton, Wis., but financing has not yet been finalized, according to Laxson Boyd, principal for Wadsworth Whitestar Consultants, a turnaround consulting firm assigned to maintain and market the plant for sale. "We're certainly finding it a challenge to locate a buyer who has access to funds and who is interested in operating a biodiesel plant under the current circumstances," he says. "The senior lender in this situation is certainly interested in finding a buyer as quickly as possible, but not at a price that means essentially walking away empty handed from the sale."

Proposed projects still move forward, potential suitors assess idled plant

Development in Progress

Sometimes it's better just to watch than to listen, but in the case of W.R. Grace & Co., a little of each might be the perfect mix to reveal the future of the biodiesel industry in developing countries. W.R. Grace, a catalyst provider from Maryland, says, "The global renewable fuels industry is expected to grow significantly over the next several years, especially in the emerging economies of Latin America and Asia Pacific." 
 
 At existing facilities in Kuantan, Malaysia and Sorocaba, Brazil, the company will expand the manufacturing capabilities of silica gel, specifically its very own TriSyl. The gel, which removes contaminants from natural oil feedstocks more efficiently than alternative products, reduces plant effluents (from the filter cake and centrifuge effluents) and, in some cases, can even make it possible to remove both the primary and water wash centrifuges, and its production will be ramped up, "particularly for the production of biodiesel and renewable diesel," according to W.R. Grace. 
 
 The Kuantan site already produces more than 40 grades of silica for applications ranging from plastics to consumer goods, apart from biodiesel production use. The Sorocaba facility, operating since 1984, is already the largest in Latin America according to the company, producing more than 50 grades of silica. Construction will begin by the end of the year and production of the gel will start by the third quarter of 2011.

watch and learn: W.R. Grace & Co. has big plans for silica gel production at two facilities, based on positive predictions for biodiesel's future. photo: W.R. Grace & Co.

2268-1294332328.jpg

A silica gel producer has good things to say about biodiesel-and the evidence to prove it

Sounds Good, Looks Even Better

Most biodiesel producers who use waste cooking oil as feedstock have heard about this, and many likely have experienced it. At 2 a.m., in the dark alley behind a local restaurant or at the back entrance in the parking lot, a van, or sometimes an expensive collection truck, rolls up to the waste grease collection container, pumps out as much waste oil as possible and leaves without ever being noticed. Under these conditions, the interloper is most likely stealing waste oil from a contracted collector.
 
 "Everybody that I know in the industry has told me that they have had oil stolen," says Jason Biddle, chief sales officer for an up and coming biodiesel producer in Escondido, Calif., Buster Biofuels. "We were losing around $1,000 dollars a month, and that is just to resell the oil," Biddle says. "If we were making biodiesel it would be a lot higher." Biddle's case is typical and as he points out, he's not alone. In recent national news, two men were charged for stealing 700 gallons of waste oil from a Five Guys Burgers and Fries location in New Jersey on two separate occasions. Biddle notes that, at one point, he spoke with several other waste oil collection companies from his area about hiring a private investigator in the hopes of halting the problem. The National Renderers Association has also taken action and is currently working on a study to document just how much grease recyclers are losing to theft. 
 
 "The larger companies account the theft and the thievery into their profit and loss," Biddle says, but his company, Buster Biofuels, can't afford to lose any amount. Luckily, Biddle has put in the time and found a few answers to stop, at least for now, the problem. After spending nearly a week staked out at various locations in the middle of the night, the lack of sleep was enough for Biddle. "I called three of my competitors and told them I was setting up a sting operation and since I have done that, we haven't had any oil stolen." Biddle says just letting anyone else in an area who might consider slipping in during the night to steal oil know that the area will be under surveillance has worked for him. If at some point it stops working, he will consider cameras. 
 
 And he points out how to determine what type of thief you are dealing with. Biddle says a few locations that kept getting hit were most likely a home biodiesel producer, because the theft only amounted to five or ten gallons. "That is all they can fit in their car," he says. For larger amounts, think about what Biddle says. "Nobody is just going to drive around with a $40,000 pumping truck unless they are licensed."

Grease crusaders: Small-scale grease collection and biodiesel companies like Buster Biofuels can't afford to lose any waste grease to theft. photo: Luke Geiver, BBI International

2269-1294332328.jpg

Waste oil thieves are everywhere, so here's how to stop them

Got Theft?

Clearly the absence of a tax credit has created an economic blow to the biodiesel industry, causing a dramatic drop-off in production volume, job loss and an overwhelming shadow of uncertainty. In light of its struggles, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack didn't turn a blind eye on this glaring fact when he addressed those concerns during a speech in October to the National Press Club in Washington. 

 
 In his presentation, Vilsack highlighted how the lapsed tax credit has severely undercut jobs, adding that he supports a renewed incentive for producers. Vilsack said, "We have already seen what happens when incentives are withheld too quickly. The lapse of the biodiesel tax credit cost the industry jobs-nearly 12,000 jobs were lost as production was cut in half once the credit lapsed, according to industry estimates-and these are jobs we can't afford to lose. But, tax credits, by themselves, are not enough. Our effort must include identifying additional feedstocks available throughout the country while discovering more efficient production processes. Research and development must intensify."
 
 Manning Feraci, vice president of federal affairs for the National Biodiesel Board, says, "We look forward to collaboratively working with the USDA to develop new and existing lipid sources that can be used to produce biodiesel. The U.S. biodiesel industry has been, and will continue, working with a broad range of stakeholders to urge Congress to seamlessly extend the biodiesel tax incentive when it reconvenes after the elections for the lame-duck session."

Biodiesel Backer : A staunch supporter for reinstating the biodiesel tax credit, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack urged producers to be more efficient and find ways to incorporate new feedstock in light of tough economic times.

2270-1294332329.jpg

USDA secretary continues to support biodiesel

Vilsack's Blessing

Crude jatropha oil (CJO) has a track record as being a good feedstock for biodiesel production, but Australia-based renewable energy and biodiesel producer Mission NewEnergy Ltd. has found markets in which CJO could be used for other applications. In October, MNE sold and shipped 20 metric tons of unrefined crude jatropha oil at approximately $130 per barrel to one of Europe's largest power companies, for energy generation. The shipment, according to James Garton, MNE's head of corporate finance and M&A, represents a 60 percent premium compared to prevailing crude oil prices. "The shipment was a demonstration that there are multiple markets for crude jatropha oil other than biodiesel," he says. "From our perspective, it's a major milestone for us." 
 
 The CJO shipment to Europe falls in line with a milestone the company achieved in June when it crushed and shipped 188 metric tons of crude CJO to its operating 100,000 metric ton (30 MMgy) biodiesel facility in Kuantan Port, Malaysia. The company is in the process of commissioning a 250,000 metric-ton-per-year plant adjacent to the Kuantan Port facility. Though it used traditional pressing methods to crush its 1,500 metric tons of seed, MNE plans to introduce solvent extraction methods to increase oil yields.
 
 Even though both plants now use crude palm oil as feedstock, the latest shipment of CJO to the European power provider, according to Garton, doesn't dismiss the company's goals for using CJO as a feedstock for its production plants. "That's not to say that we intend to move away from using CJO [for] our biodiesel production," he says. "The European shipment is a milestone equally measurable to our first crush, or our first jatropha planting."
 
 Since 2007, MNE has planted jatropha seeds on its 180,000 acres of land in India. Based on median estimates, MNE's jatropha operations are expected to yield approximately 1,300 pounds of CJO per acre, which represents more than 20 million barrels of supply over 30 years. With those figures, Garton says, there is more than enough demand for sustainable crude oils such as CJO for use in energy generation in Europe that currently exceeds MNE's expected supply. He adds, "We expect to generate a 300 percent increase compared to what we had this year."

A Jatropha Giant: Mission NewEnergy's 100,000 ton (30 MMgy) biodiesel plant, located in the foothills of Kuantan Port, Malaysia, will soon use crude jatropha oil in conjunction with palm oil feedstock. PHOTO: MISSION NEWENERGY LTD. 

2271-1294332329.jpg

Why crude jatropha oil is more than just a biodiesel feedstock

Cross-Country Commodity

Feeling out of the loop on biodiesel and clean diesel technology? If so, there's still hope to catch up. The Automotive Training Authority is offering free green aftermarket training courses on hybrid and compressed natural gas vehicles, and biodiesel and clean diesel technology. The courses are intended for automotive repair shop owners, technicians and fleet maintenance managers, and are made possible through a federal alternative fuel training grant. The biodiesel- and clean diesel-related training will cover biodiesel production and what clean diesel technology is. For training schedules, contact the ATA at (800) 575-4ATA or email Haru Lindsey at haru@ataautomotivetraining.com.

The ATA offers free biodiesel training courses

December 2010

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Biomass Poised to Leap Economic, Political, Regulatory Hurdles

Biomass Power: A Lot to Be Thankful For

New Potential “Star” in the Biomass Gasification Realm

Diverse Group

Plant Maintenance and Safety

Featured

Building the Biomass Industry

Show me the Money

Biomass Sweet Spot

Industry Convenes in Biomass Central

Model Fleets

Maintaining Safety and Value

Chemical Safety Matters

Contributions

Biomass Briquettes: Turning Waste Into Energy

Biomass Gasification in the UK—Where are we Now?

Sophisticated Biomass Plant Operations Yield Excellent Economics

Immigration Visas can Help Fund Biomass Projects

December 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 Poised to Leap Economic, Political, Regulatory Hurdles

Biomass Power: A Lot to Be Thankful For

New Potential “Star” in the Biomass Gasification Realm

Diverse Group

Plant Maintenance and Safety

Featured

Building the Biomass Industry

Show me the Money

Biomass Sweet Spot

Industry Convenes in Biomass Central

Model Fleets

Maintaining Safety and Value

Chemical Safety Matters

Contributions

Biomass Briquettes: Turning Waste Into Energy

Biomass Gasification in the UK—Where are we Now?

Sophisticated Biomass Plant Operations Yield Excellent Economics

Immigration Visas can Help Fund Biomass Projects

December 2010