McGinn takes helm at ACORE, Reicher to chair board of directors The American Council On Renewable Energy announced that Dennis V. McGinn has accepted the position of president. And Dan Reicher has become chairman of ACORE&rsquo;s board of directors, with co-chairman of the board of directors, John Geesman, stepping down. Retired Vice Admiral McGinn served 35 years with the U.S. Navy as a naval aviator, test pilot, aircraft carrier commanding officer and national security strategist. He is actively engaged in efforts at the national level to highlight the close link between energy, climate and national security. He is a strong advocate for innovative government policy, public and private partnerships and investments that will promote clean energy growth and innovation. ACORE also announced that Geesman, co-chairman of the board, a former commissioner of the California Energy Commission and former ACORE advisory board member, is stepping down. Replacing him will be Reicher, who has more than 25 years of experience in energy and environmental technology, policy, finance and law, is the executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy &amp; Finance at Stanford University and a faculty member of the Stanford law and business schools. Formerly, he was director of climate change and energy and initiatives at Google, U.S. DOE assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy under President Clinton, and a member of President Obama&rsquo;s transition team. Walki&rsquo;s biomass cover improves drying process Logging residue is an inexpensive and easily accessible source of biofuel, but to improve the energy content it must first dry on the ground and after that it can be stored in piles for several months. To shelter the piles from moisture through rain, snow and ice, Walki Group has developed a paper-based, waterproof cover that can be chipped and burned together with the residue. The cover is a four-meter wide laminate, mainly produced from renewable fibrous materials. It shelters the top of the pile but leaves the sides open, allowing moisture to evaporate. In addition to shielding the residue from water and snow, the biomass cover also protects the residue from freezing, which can transform the pile into an icy heap that&rsquo;s almost impossible to handle and has low energy content. Frontline, SGC Energia forge strategic partnership Frontline BioEnergy and SGC Energia announced that the companies have completed a set of transactions that will bring new capital investment to Frontline, an Iowa-based gasification technology and project development firm. The scope of these transactions includes an agreement for SGC Energia to license Frontline gasification and gas conditioning technologies and a multiyear contract for Frontline to provide a range of engineering services to support SGC Energia. SGC Energia is a private European company with a main engineering and project management office in Houston. SGC Energia intends to leverage Frontline&rsquo;s expertise in gasification technologies and project development to enhance its strategic efforts. With this Series B round investment, SGC Energia joins members of the Frontline management team and founding partner Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. as owners and managers of Frontline BioEnergy. Bioprocess control appoints Andersson CEO Bioprocess Control AB announced the appointment of Patrik Andersson as its new CEO. With multiple years experience in a management role, Patrik will lead the company as it enters a new phase in its development. Based in Lund, Sweden, Bioprocess Control has a portfolio of products that improve the design and operation of biogas plants. The appointment of Andersson follows the mutually agreed departure of Kristofer Cook, former Bioprocess CEO and co-founder. After stepping down, Cook will continue to work on a part-time basis, while spending the remainder of his time with a new start-up project. Andersson officially took the helm on April 18, after working the past two years as incubator manager of Ideon Innovation in Lund, one of Sweden&rsquo;s leading incubators for start-up companies. Prior to that, he spent nine years in the Sapa Group, the world&acute;s largest aluminum extruder. Capstone Turbine names senior VP, program management Capstone Turbine Corp. has named Robert C. Gleason senior vice president, program management. Darren Jamison, Capstone's president and CEO, recently announced the creation of the new position to ensure the timely execution of the company's critical cost reduction programs, reliability improvement initiatives and U.S. DOE programs. The company has three new product development efforts underway: a flexible-fuel microturbine to run on agricultural syngas, an externally fired solar-powered microturbine and to increase the output of the C200 microturbine to 250 kilowatts and utilize the C250 as part of a new multistage high-efficiency C370 product. Gleason has more than 17 years of experience in program management, project engineering and business development in high technology companies. BinMaster now offers Internet-based, real-time inventory BinMaster Level Controls of Lincoln, Neb., announced the introduction of BinView, an inventory management system that offers real-time bin level monitoring for solid materials over the Internet or via a company LAN or VPN. The components of the BinView solution are BinMaster&rsquo;s SmartBob2 or SmartBob-TS1 sensors mounted on the bins, a wireless or wired data communications network, a gateway to provide connectivity to a personal computer or IP network, and data collection software that can be viewed securely by any authorized individual via an Internet connection or over the company&rsquo;s LAN or VPN. BinView eliminates the need to manually check bin levels to improve safety and save time, money and manpower by improving the efficiency of ordering and logistics for all types of operations from farms, to processing and manufacturing operations, to the largest storage facilities. EPRI names Craver as board chairman The board of directors at the Electric Power Research Institute announced that Theodore F. Craver Jr., the chairman, president and CEO of Edison International, has been elected board chair. Craver became chairman and CEO of Edison International in 2008, and before that was chairman and CEO of one of its subsidiaries, Edison Mission Group, from 2005 to 2008. Before joining Edison in 1996, Craver was executive vice president and corporate treasurer of wholesale banking subsidiary First Interstate Bancorp, where he also served as executive vice president and chief financial officer. He also worked with Bankers Trust Co. of New York and Security Pacific National Bank in various capital markets sales and trading capacities. GE&rsquo;s biogas engines to power China&rsquo;s largest ethanol plant Supporting China&rsquo;s efforts to increase the use of biogas for renewable energy production and in motor vehicles, GE is supplying its &ldquo;ecomagination&rdquo;-approved Jenbacher biogas engine technology to power China&rsquo;s largest ethanol production plant under construction in NanYang, Henan Province. Owned by Henan Tianguan Group, the ethanol plant will produce 500,000 cubic meters of biogas per day from cassava plants. A 36-megawatt (MW) on-site power plant featuring GE&rsquo;s Jenbacher engines is being built in multiple phases to support the ethanol plant&rsquo;s operations. For the 11 MW first phase of the power plant, GE is supplying four of its J620-biogas engine units. The gas engines will utilize the ethanol plant&rsquo;s waste methane biogas to generate renewable electricity, which Henan Tianguan Group plans to sell to the regional grid. GE&rsquo;s biogas engines will also use methane gas created by the anaerobic digestion of cassava biomass to production electricity for the site. CDC introduces the BPAL solution for biomass procurement management Circuit Design Corp. now offers the bioenergy sector its proven, comprehensive solution developed for the pulp and paper industry. Bulk Procurement and Logistics System functions allow advanced automation and integration of administrative and operational functions of a bulk feedstock procurement process, such as purchase planning, contract creation and control, truck reception and scaling, sample extraction and random laboratory testing, unloading site control and payments to parties under contracts.

Dennis V. McGinn, a strong advocate and promoter of clean energy, has been named president of ACORE.


2011/05/13061837177882.jpg

Dan Reicher, with 25 years in energy and environmental technology, policy, finance and law, is the new chairman of the board at ACORE. 

2011/05/13061837486647.jpg

HIGH AND DRY: Residue piles covered with the Walki biomass cover are drier than piles that are left uncovered.

2011/05/13061837773921.jpg

Patrik Andersson has been appointed to lead Bioprocess Control into a new phase of development. 


2011/05/13061838392944.jpg

Robert C. Gleason has been hired at Capstone Turbine to take on several new product development efforts. 

2011/05/13061838817152.jpg

Theodore F. Craver Jr. of Edison International was elected chairman of the board at the Electric Power Research Institute. 

2011/05/13061839057314.jpg

Business Briefs

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources released a much-anticipated regulation in May that outlines qualification parameters for the state&rsquo;s 20 percent by 2025 renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Uncertainty has surrounded the biomass industry in the commonwealth since the DOER released a draft proposal of RPS qualification regulations in September. One of the main issues with the proposal was the minimum efficiency standard of 40 percent for biomass power facilities to qualify and, unfortunately, the final draft didn&rsquo;t revise that rule.
 The May ruling says a low-emission, advanced biomass power conversion technology using an eligible biomass fuel can qualify as an RPS Class I Renewable Generation Unit if it can demonstrate a minimum of 40 percent efficiency on a quarterly basis, among several other criteria. Still, 40 percent efficiency only qualifies for half a renewable energy credit (REC) per megawatt hour (MWh), ratcheted up to one full REC per MWh upon reaching 60 percent efficiency. The definition of eligible biomass fuel includes eligible biomass woody fuels, which are certain forest-derived residues, forest salvage, nonforest-derived residues such as those from primary and secondary forest product industries, yard waste and dedicated energy crops. Overall, the draft includes numerous changes from the original, but is still limiting for the Massachusetts biopower industry.
 The efficiency standard will force several proposed projects to add combined-heat-and-power (CHP) components to receive RECs. &ldquo;The efficiency requirement and GHG (greenhouse gas) benefits threshold (50 percent better than gas fired) are OK in the direction they go, but harsher than necessary to still achieve net GHG benefits,&rdquo; says Peter Bos, developer for Russell Biomass LLC, which is developing a 50-megawatt biomass power plant in Russell, Mass. Bos says the bottom line is stand-alone biomass power is no longer economically viable. Currently, most biopower facilities in New England can achieve only 20 to 25 percent efficiency.
 Still, Bos says he supports the proposal in principle, even though it is much more stringent than necessary. &ldquo;All parties should be willing to compromise and accept terms that aren&rsquo;t perfect as long as they can still work, which they probably can for CHP biomass,&rdquo; he says.
 But Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, isn&rsquo;t as accepting. &ldquo;New restrictions on larger biomass facilities, proposed (May 3) by the (Gov. Deval) Patrick Administration, demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of our industry and the science behind it,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Even worse, the proposal effectively changes the rules of the game in the eighth inning, which is completely unfair to investors who made significant investments based on rules already in place.&rdquo;
 Along with efficiency standards, the final draft includes a number of provisions for eligible woody biomass fuels. For instance, a biomass fuel certificate must accompany every delivery of eligible woody biomass fuel or manufactured fuel to a generation unit. For forest-delivered eligible woody biomass fuel, the biomass fuel certificate must be issued with the eligible forest residue tonnage report, which details the amount of biomass that can be harvested, and includes a number of aspects including a signature of a professional forester who is certified by the Society of American Foresters, licensed by the host state of the harvest site, or certified by the DOER based on documentation that a professional forester has proficiency and experience in forestry, the final draft specifies.
 Whereas the September draft mandated that biomass harvests could not exceed 15 percent of the weight of all forest products, the May final regulation says the allowable percent removal limit will be determined as prescribed by the DOER in its Forest Derived Eligible Biomass Woody Fuel Guideline to protect soil nutrient retention. &ldquo;Based on comments (on the 2010 proposal) and further research, DOER has concluded that the 15 percent limit is arbitrary and insufficiently based on science regarding soil nutrient needs,&rdquo; according to the DOER. &ldquo;Instead, the amount of biomass that should be left in the forest varies depending on the existing soil conditions.&rdquo;
 The final forest protection regulations are more reasonable than those first proposed, Bos says, but still will be difficult for many wood harvesters to comply with because of time and cost. &ldquo;Cutting down live trees doesn&rsquo;t work for anybody, including biomass developers, so we&rsquo;re OK with the prohibition against that in the regs.&rdquo;
 The rewritten regulations are the result of a 2010 Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences study, which found a debt-then-dividend carbon impact for woody biomass. That spurred the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to order a swift change to its RPS qualification rules to reflect the new findings. The study has been deemed flawed by the biomass industry, among others, for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it takes slash, forest residue and other waste wood into account only alongside whole logs.
 &ldquo;The administration continues to base its biomass policy on one flawed report, the 2010 Manomet study,&rdquo; Cleaves says. &ldquo;The report&rsquo;s authors acknowledge that their study did not measure the emissions of biomass power generated using wood waste materials, which is the approach used by the vast majority of the industry in New England. Yet the Patrick Administration continues to legislate based on the carbon profile of using whole forests as biomass fuel&mdash;a practice that the industry does not engage in or condone.&rdquo;
 Bos says the Manomet science behind the regulations has some validity but adds, &ldquo;Unfortunately, the Manomet finding that a 100-percent waste wood-fueled biomass plant would produce GHG benefits favorable to even gas-fired power was lost in the press reports.&rdquo;
 The new regulation will be referred to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, which will have 30 days to review it and provide comments to DOER, according to Dwayne Breger, director of renewable and alternative energy development for the DOER. &ldquo;After considering these comments, DOER anticipates filing the final regulation after another 30 days for promulgation,&rdquo; he adds.
&mdash;Lisa Gibson

RUSSELL RENDERING: Russell Biomass LLC will explore options for a CHP component in order for its proposed 50-MW biomass power plant to receive renewable energy credits. 

2011/05/13061845664301.jpg

Massachusetts has released its final ruling on RPS qualifications and it remains unfriendly to stand-alone biopower. 

Playing by New Rules

In 2002, the Energy &amp; Environmental Research Center hosted its first biomass workshop in Grand Forks, N.D., with 80 participants and a focus on deriving heat and electricity from biomass.
 At that time, many people didn&rsquo;t even know what types of materials constituted biomass. As a joke, when introducing the topic of biomass in a presentation, I would show a picture of the mysterious, yet benign green slime used to douse contestants in a children&rsquo;s TV game show&mdash;using that image to reinforce the fact that most people simply didn&rsquo;t know what biomass was.
 This year&rsquo;s biomass conference, on July 26&ndash;27 at the Alerus Center in Grand Forks, is different. Not only do we understand the broad range of biomass feedstocks that could play an important role in our energy mix, but we also understand the technologies necessary to utilize that biomass and the economic potential for renewable energy from biomass.
 The conference has had different emphases over the years, and judging from the excellent lineup of speakers, this year&rsquo;s emphasis will be on real-world options for economic feedstock acquisition and processing and near-term conversion options for energy, fuels and chemicals.
 The opening session will highlight the status of viable biomass technologies and industry from several standpoints. From the standpoint of North Dakota, an address will be delivered by North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple, and a presentation will be given by Andrea Holl-Fennig, director of the North Dakota Renewable Energy Council. North Dakota is offering several incentives to help promote the development of biomass industries in the state.
 From a regional standpoint, EERC Director Gerald Groenewold and I will speak on the latest trends, opportunities and cutting-edge technologies. Next, Corinne Valkenburg from the U.S. Department of Energy&rsquo;s Office of Biomass in Washington, D.C., will highlight the status of federal investment in biomass energy. Corinne comes fresh from a new federal budget and directives for biomass, so her talk will be timely.
 Finally, Margo Shaw, from Golden Associates in Winnipeg, Manitoba, will speak on trends in biomass resource and technology development from an international standpoint.
 The opening session will end with presentations related to real-world and near-term biomass projects and finances. Hurst Boiler will answer questions about what it takes to make 5 to 50 megawatts of power from biomass using well-known combustion technology. This scale of biomass power production is usually feasible with readily available and economical biomass feedstocks such as wood residues. Rounding out the opening session, will be a panel discussion on the real-world costs and financial opportunities for biomass technologies in today&rsquo;s economic environment. This panel will include Cole Gustafson from North Dakota State University, and attorneys Gregory Jenner from Stoel Rives LLP and Adonis Neblett from Fredrikson &amp; Byron.
 Afternoon talks will focus on generating power from biomass both at the small scale using gasification or fast-pyrolysis of biomass and at the large scale using conventional cofiring in utility boilers (presentations by GE Global Research, Saskatchewan Research Council and Barr Engineering), liquid transportation fuels in the form of conventional and cellulosic ethanol (Poet LLC, American Coalition of Ethanol, the University of Tokyo-Japan, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology-Germany, the University of the Basque Count-Spain and Albemarle) and processing of biomass feedstocks including specific economic scenarios and technologies related to sugar beets, rice straw, tallow tree, wheat straw, corn stover, wood residues and crop oils (Desert Research Institute, CTT BioEnergy, MBI International and Seoul National University-South Korea).
 In all, this conference will be well worth your attendance. In recent years, this event has attracted thousands of attendees and garnered a reputation for facilitating outstanding networking opportunities that foster new business opportunities regionally and abroad. Special tours will be available, and a full room of more than 40 exhibitors will be present for practical discussions about technology options. For more information, visit www.undeerc.org/biomass11. Author: Chris Zygarlicke Deputy Associate Director for Research, EERC (701) 777-5123 <a href="mailto:czygarlicke@undeerc.org">czygarlicke@undeerc.org</a>

2011/05/13061834328687.jpg

EERC Biomass '11 Conference Set for July 

As oil prices hover above $100 per barrel, a variety of policies are vectoring U.S. bioenergy markets, creating a mix of uncertainties and opportunities that vary depending on federal policy determinations and the financial markets. The U.S. EPA has created uncertainty regarding the treatment of biomass as a carbon-neutral fuel under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Clean Air Act permitting program, and its earlier determinations cast a cloud over whether biomass would qualify for favorable treatment under clean energy standards being considered in Congress. Separately, the approaching sunset of some federal tax incentive and loan guarantee programs requires action by biomass sponsors. Collectively, these trends are putting a premium on strategic project development decisions.
 Under most greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting systems, emissions of carbon dioxide from biomass are not counted because they are equal to the emissions that would occur due to the natural oxidation of biomass. In issuing initial PSD regulations and guidance, EPA inconsistently counted emissions from biomass in determining whether the PSD permitting trigger applied, while also suggesting that biomass fuels would reduce GHG emissions. EPA has deferred final resolution for three years, during which biomass carbon dioxide emissions are ignored for purposes of calculating whether PSD review and permitting requirements have been triggered.&nbsp; Other recent EPA rulemakings suggest it considers biomass to be a low-carbon fuel. Despite the temporary exemption, EPA&rsquo;s final position on carbon neutrality is likely to follow other programs and most international and voluntary standards that favor the use of sustainably managed biomass.&nbsp;
 Project sponsors can take comfort in the fact that PSD construction permits issued for biomass facilities during EPA&rsquo;s temporary exemption period, and that are not challenged on other grounds, will become final and binding in the ordinary course. Likewise, existing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and proposed California regulations will favor sustainably managed biomass by ignoring its emissions for purposes of determining whether biomass facilities must purchase allowances under applicable cap-and-trade programs. Although EPA is developing additional GHG standards for electric generating units under CAA Section 111, these standards also will likely favor biomass by allowing states to create the standards and encouraging states to join existing cap-and-trade programs that favor biomass.
Biomass investments will continue to enjoy the benefits of state renewable portfolio standards, which generally allocate renewable energy credits to electricity generated from sustainably produced biomass.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 From a tax policy standpoint, biomass continues to benefit from incentives under applicable investment tax and production tax credits, and the U.S. Treasury grant in lieu of tax credit program.
Under current law, open- and closed-loop biomass projects qualify for the production tax credit under Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code, or the 30 percent investment tax credit (in lieu of the Section 45 credit), under IRC Section 48, until the end of 2013. Biomass projects also continue to be eligible for treasury cash grants in lieu of the Section 48 credit; provided that they file timely applications with treasury and comply with the applicable commencement of construction and in service deadlines (the latter deadline being Dec. 31, 2013).
 On the financing front, some tax advantaged investments are making a comeback.&nbsp; During the financial crisis, the rate of return for so-called tax equity peaked at levels in excess of 15 percent shortly before tax equity markets collapsed. Tax equity returns have since returned to precrisis ranges and there is a resurgence of investors ready to enter into tax credit transactions. On the debt side, however, tax-exempt debt transactions have not returned to precrisis levels.
 The USDA loan guarantee program is generally user-friendly and offers the potential for cofinancing guaranteed project debt with tax exempt debt.
 It remains to be seen how two key factors affect biomass. First, if the recent oil price spike extends, considerations regarding energy security and project economics will likely favor biomass development. Second, the Obama Administration&rsquo;s Clean Energy Initiative offers opportunities for biomass proponents to affect the policy agenda and could enhance the policy environment for biomass projects. These developments present a picture of discrete risks and substantial opportunities, and put a premium on thoughtful near-term development and investment choices for individual projects and the industry. Authors: Roger Stark Partner, Ballard Spahr LLP (202) 661-7620 <a href="mailto:starkr@ballardspahr.com">starkr@ballardspahr.com </a>

2011/05/13061835441696.jpg

Biomass Policy and Finance Roundup

The 2011 Biomass Conference &amp; Expo was a huge success and provided tons of information, contacts and food for thought. The conference was held May 2-5 at the America&rsquo;s Center in St. Louis.
 After taking in the event and listening to speakers and attendees, it seems to me that everyone in the industry is really looking for certainty as it applies to policies and incentives, regulations, feedstock supplies and technology. Although there are a lot of uncertainties now, I believe that in time, as legislators and the general public get a clearer picture of the opportunities that biomass-based energy present, those uncertainties will start to melt away.
 At the conference, I got a lot of questions about the availability and market for biomass. We tried to answer some of those questions in a panel titled Eyeing Future Markets for Biomass Commodities, which I moderated. The presenters were William Perritt of RISI, Brodie Govan of Argus Media Inc., Dean McCraw of McCraw Energy LLC, and Charles Brettell of Energy Asset Advisors LLC. While they are all well-connected and had excellent presentations, when it comes to markets there are no certainties. For example, who could have predicted the earthquake in Japan or the tornadoes that devastated parts of the U.S.? That being said, you may want to put these guys on your speed dial to keep up with all the market ups and downs.
 My favorite presentation at the conference titled Key Issues of Pellet Market Development in Sweden was by Bengt-Erik L&ouml;fgren, CEO of &Auml;FAB &Auml;lvdalens Fastbr&auml;nsle AB-Sweden. L&ouml;fgren pointed out that the Swedish look at the Earth like it&rsquo;s a company and they have to pay to use coal and oil, not just the cost of digging and drilling for it. And not surprisingly, as the country&rsquo;s CO2 emissions have been reduced, its gross domestic product has increased. &ldquo;We have earned money using biomass,&rdquo; he said. Since 1990, the country&rsquo;s GDP has increased 48 percent, 35,000 jobs have been created in rural areas, $18.2 billion has stayed in the local economy and its CO2 emissions have been lowered by 31 million metric tons (31 percent).
 L&ouml;fgren predicts that if the U.S. were to follow in Sweden&rsquo;s footsteps, its GDP would rise rapidly, 25 million new jobs would be created and $46 billion dollars would stay in the U.S. economy.
 That presentation really made my day and truly validates the noble efforts of everyone involved in the bioenergy industry.
 To read more about the fourth annual International Biomass Conference &amp; Expo, read Associate Editor Lisa Gibson&rsquo;s feature &ldquo;Gateway to Biomass&rdquo; (page 28) and go to our website www.biomassmagazine.com.

2011/05/13061828353977.jpg

Biomass Conference Takeaways  

Recently, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources made official a policy that was long in the making&mdash;the effective &ldquo;delisting&rdquo; of biomass electricity as a qualifying technology under that state&rsquo;s renewable portfolio standard (RPS). By imposing efficiency standards that are technologically and financially unachievable, Massachusetts has become the only state in the nation&mdash;and perhaps unique in the world&mdash;in deciding that biomass is not a form of renewable energy.
 As an industry, we advocated that such a policy has no basis in science, is bad for rural New England, deprives the region of &ldquo;baseload&rdquo; sources of renewable energy, and shows a profound misunderstanding of the type of fuels that we use to create energy. But perhaps the most troubling aspect of the proposed rule is the message it sends to developers and investors.
 To appreciate the breadth of the problem in Massachusetts, we need to revisit the past 10 years or so. When the state adopted an RPS, the state agency&mdash;DOER&mdash;engaged in an exhaustive rule-making process among all stakeholders to determine what type of biomass would qualify for the RPS. Keep in mind that the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Certificate program was, and remains, one of the more aggressive programs in the nation, which translated into significant benefits for owners and operators of renewable energy technology that qualified under the program, including biomass.&nbsp;
 Upon the adoption of these rules, a number of facilities in the region made significant investments. A coal plant was converted, boilers were retrofitted to the tune of millions of dollars, and qualifying facilities were sold to investors&mdash;all on the belief that Massachusetts had arrived at a policy that could be relied upon, at least for a predictable period of time, so investments would be recouped.
 Enter Stop Spewing Carbon, a small vocal minority dedicated to stopping a number of new biomass facilities in western Massachusetts. They convinced the state to take another look at biomass, claiming that new biomass would cause deforestation. We all know the end of the story&mdash;the resulting study (the so-called Manomet [Center for Conservation Sciences] report), analyzed (using flawed methodology) the carbon impacts of harvesting natural forests for energy (not what we do), and the media (in error) concluded that biomass was &ldquo;worse than coal.&rdquo; That was all Gov. Deval Patrick needed to hear to declare, &ldquo;off with their heads.&rdquo; And in one stroke of the regulatory pen, woody biomass was disqualified.
 Never mind the fact that by displacing biomass, Massachusetts has inadvertently become the largest supporter of baseload coal and natural gas, or that the state&rsquo;s own study had nothing to do with using forestry residues and byproducts. Investors and developers in all renewable energy sources should be concerned about the underlying message this sends: Come to Massachusetts and invest in our renewable markets, but we can and will change the rules of the game, and we don&rsquo;t care if you lose your investment based on later policies we enact. We can and will change the rules, regardless of your reasonable expectations based on our representations. Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association <a href="http://www.USABiomass.org">www.USABiomass.org</a>

2011/05/13061829517551.jpg

Massachusetts Policy Troubling for  Renewable Energy Development

Farmer-owned co-op Minnesota Valley Alfalfa Producers (MnVAP) has officially produced its first batch of commercial fuel pellets after several years of research and development. President Keith Poier says the co-op is setting up a dedicated line for fuel pellet production. &ldquo;Right now, we have one line and we&rsquo;re alternating between alfalfa feed pellets and biomass fuel pellets, and we&rsquo;re looking at being done with the second line in September.&rdquo;
 MnVAP&rsquo;s research is focused on making the biomass crop pelletization process more efficient. &ldquo;Grinding and drying the feedstock are the major energy users,&rdquo; Poier says. &ldquo;When you process something, the price goes up. We&rsquo;ve been trying to get that down to a cost that is effective.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 MnVAP received a $1 million grant from Xcel Energy several years ago to test a Kinetic Disintegration System developed by First American Scientific Corp. that refines, dries and grinds biomass using kinetic energy. It was found to reduce costs by 20 to 30 percent, and in 2009 the company received a permit for it. MnVAP also received a $400,000 grant from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture&rsquo;s NextGen Energy Board.
 For feedstock, MnVAP has been using a mixture of agricultural residues such as soybean stalks, sunflower hulls and prairie grasses sourced from crops grown by co-op members. &ldquo;A key area we&rsquo;re heading for is a dedicated crop for fuel pellets,&rdquo; Poier says.&nbsp; Alfalfa's feed value is currently too high to use as a commercial fuel pellet feedstock. There is a possibility that the leaves could be stripped off of the alfalfa to use as a feed product and the stalks could be densified and used as fuel, but it all depends on markets and availability, he says.
 Poier says the commercial biomass pellets the co-op produces will meet the Pellet Fuel Institute&rsquo;s standards.
&mdash;Anna Austin

FORAGE AND FUEL: MnVAP is using alfalfa to produce animal feed pellets and biomass fuel pellets. 

2011/05/13061846674216.jpg

Feed pellet co-op is developing biomass fuel pellets.

Focusing on Feed and Fuel  

A recent U.K. Energy Research Centre study found that 7.5 million metric tons (8.2 million tons) of biomass can be produced from short-rotation coppice energy crops in England, making a substantial contribution to renewable energy targets in the country.
 The report, &ldquo;Estimating the supply of biomass from short-rotation coppice in England, given social, economic and environmental constraints to land availability,&rdquo; found that such large biomass production from willow and poplar would require 800,000 hectares (2 million acres) and could be grown almost entirely on marginal lands. &ldquo;We therefore conclude that short-rotation coppice energy crops have the potential to play an important role in meeting U.K. renewable energy targets without compromising environmental sustainability or food production,&rdquo; the study&rsquo;s four authors write.
 The U.K. Renewable Energy Strategy specifies 15 percent of all energy and 30 percent of all electricity demand be met by renewable sources by 2020. Additionally, the Renewables Transport Fuel Obligation demands that biofuels comprise at least 5 percent of all transportation fuel by 2014. About 7.5 million oven-dry metric tons of biomass will be required for energy crops to meet their share of these targets, the report says.
 That amount of biomass per year would theoretically generate 15.5 terrawatt hours per year of electricity, about 4 percent of the U.K.&rsquo;s current demand. The southwest and northwest portions of England alone produce more than one-third of that figure, the report cites. High yields of short-rotation coppice can be achieved on even the poorest grades of agricultural lands in England, it adds, particularly in areas with high rainfall, like the northwest, and/or high soil water availability, like the east.
 As of 2009, biomass met only 2.8 percent of the U.K.&rsquo;s electricity demand and 2.6 percent of energy demand, according to the report. Most of that material was landfill gas, waste wood or other residuals. Dedicated energy crops such as poplar, willow and miscanthus are responsible for less than 0.1 percent of the U.K.&rsquo;s electricity and energy markets.
 Current energy crop yields are generally achieving less than 50 percent of potential, suggesting step-change improvements are likely over the coming years, according to the study. Further expansion of crops&rsquo; potential through new technologies, breeding and climate change could minimize the conflict with food production. &ldquo;As a result, we are likely to see an increase in the value and production of these crops as feedstocks for heat, power and liquid transportation fuels,&rdquo; the authors write. &ldquo;This presents considerable challenges to future land use in England and more widely; making the best of the land available to us will ensure future viability of energy crops.&rdquo;
&mdash;Lisa Gibson

'TREE-MENDOUS' OPPORTUNITY: A U.K. study found that purpose-grown trees could help the country meet its renewable energy target without compromising the environment or food production. 

2011/05/13061848900458.jpg

UK study shows short-rotation coppice could play an important role in meeting renewable energy targets.

Coppice Counts

President Obama&rsquo;s 2010 National Export Initiative seems to be taking off by leaps and bounds in its efforts to create American jobs through increased exports. Not the least of its accomplishments is the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Export Initiative (RE4I), designed to identify key federal government export promotion programs and highlight opportunities related to the export of biomass feedstock and equipment.
 The RE4I has 23 commitments from eight different federal agencies and seeks to recommit the U.S. government to address trade barriers in the sector; increase the amount of trade promotion activities for renewable energy and energy efficiency companies; and improve the delivery of U.S. government export promotion services for renewable energy and energy efficiency companies. But one major factor that can make or break exporting success is, of course, money. It is essential in getting an export business off the ground&mdash;or on the boat, as the case may be. Luckily, there are a number of agencies that exist to help exporters clear hurdles, including the Small Business Administration.
 With its premier export financing offering, the Export Working Capital Program, the SBA aims to improve the number of small business exporters and increase the market to more countries, according to Richard Ginsburg, the SBA&rsquo;s senior international trade specialist. Proceeds from the Export Working Capital Program are authorized for use in insurance, fees, collateral and interest rates.
 Speaking during an April 18 export-focused webinar co-hosted by the Biomass Thermal Energy Council and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Ginsburg also highlighted another program, Export Express, designating it as his favorite. It has a minimum turnaround time, under the right conditions, of about six seconds, he says. On the high end, it can take eight or nine days. &ldquo;We think it&rsquo;s pretty quick relative to the due diligence that goes into examining a transaction,&rdquo; he says. The program offers loans and insurance for credit and the proceeds can go toward a number of transaction-specific areas. &ldquo;It can be used to make you export ready,&rdquo; he says.
 Interestingly, Ginsburg says 97 percent of all U.S. exporters are small businesses, and companies with 20 employees or fewer account for almost 70 percent of all U.S. exporters.
But if yours is not considered a small business, the official export credit agency of the U.S. government, the Export-Import Bank, is a primary option for financing an entry into foreign markets. The bank recently opened an office specifically for renewable energy and currently has two biomass cases in the works, according to Hannelene Beillard, director of the bank&rsquo;s environmental group. It provides export credit insurance, working capital guarantees, loan guarantees and direct loans. Beillard says eligibility is heavily dictated by the three c&rsquo;s, which are cover policy: the Export-Import Bank must be open in the buyer&rsquo;s country; content: the U.S. export must have significant U.S. content; and creditworthiness: the transaction must have a reasonable assurance of repayment.
 Both Ginsburg and Beillard make clear their openness and willingness to assist in efforts of U.S. companies to expand their markets and, in fact, it is necessary in order to meet ambitious export enhancement goals. &ldquo;We are here to help with any project you may be pursuing,&rdquo; Beillard says.
 &mdash;Lisa Gibson
&nbsp;
Contacts for Financial Assistance in Exports &bull; Export-Import Bank (www.exim.gov): Craig O&rsquo;Connor: (202) 565-3556 or craig.oconnor@exim.gov Hannelene Beillard: (202) 565-3652 or hannelene.beillard@exim.gov Rob Guthrie (562) 243-8625 or rob.guthrie@exim.gov &bull; Small Business Administration (www.sba.gov/ international) Richard Ginsburg: richard.ginsburg@sba.gov &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

A number of financial programs are positioned to assist companies looking to enter export markets.

Export Experts

While not currently a popular place for biomass power, there is an ongoing push in Mississippi to get officials and project developers to realize the positive economic impact bioenergy development could have on the state, as well as what the opportunities are.
 In particular, the difference new projects could make for the struggling timber/logging industry and the over-abundant wood resources available to developers. To paint a picture of what has happened in the sector during the past five years, Mississippi-based Timber Plus owner Van Hendry says in 2007, the company had 120 people on its payroll, two wood yards, six logging operations and made roughly $14 million in sales.
 Today, the company has nine employees, no operating wood yards, two logging operations, and Hendry anticipates just a few million dollars in sales. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve been hit pretty hard by the recession, but we&rsquo;re probably one of the more fortunate ones, compared to some of the other (timber) guys around here who&rsquo;ve gone belly up and called it quits,&rdquo; he says.
 &nbsp;Even though timber demand has dramatically decreased in the past few years, Hendry points out that the supply hasn&rsquo;t changed a bit. In fact, there is about 41 million tons of excess timber each year, and that number is rising. Hendry, along with several other groups including the Mississippi Forestry Commission, the Mississippi Institute of Forest Inventory and the Mississippi Logging Association, have been putting together data on why timber prices in Mississippi have been so low, what the losses have been by county, and what the possibilities are for a biomass energy industry.
 &ldquo;We already knew the answers, but we needed supporting documentation,&rdquo; Hendry says. Some of the findings so far show that 120 mills have been lost since 1996 with only 117 remaining, overall global fiber pricing increased last year by roughly 17 percent while Southeast U.S. pricing was down 10 percent&mdash;27 percent in Mississippi&mdash;and the state&rsquo;s logging force has been reduced from about 2,700 crews to about 700 statewide. &ldquo;In the last week, I know of five mills that have shut down,&rdquo; Hendry says.
 Some underlying factors in what might hinder the development of new industries that would utilize wood, such as biopower, include guarded wood baskets and the Forestry Fairness Act, which was implemented in the state many years ago and designed to protect the sawmill industry. &ldquo;When you peel the layers back, at the core of it, the act prohibits Mississippi from offering any state incentives to get a new industry to come in,&rdquo; Hendry says. Attempts by industry groups that have banded together to get the act repealed have not been successful yet, he says, but is still a work in progress.
 &nbsp;In the meantime, they are working to get the attention of biomass project developers. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve got a lot of resources here in Mississippi and we want people to come here for projects,&rdquo; Hendry adds. &ldquo;We have a heck of a lot of supply but we don&rsquo;t have the demand. With rising energy costs, there is a lot of potential for somebody to come in.&rdquo;
&mdash;Anna Austin

2011/05/13061853825034.jpg

Mississippi's floundering timber industry says it needs bioenergy projects.

Ready and Willing 

HM3 Energy in Gresham, Ore., is one of many companies competing in the biomass torrefaction race, and CEO Hiroshi Morihara believes the company is one of the forerunners in commercializing a technology.
 Morihara points out that torrefaction is an old process as it has been traditionally used to dry and roast coffee beans, so there is no new invention regarding how it works. &ldquo;Transferring torrefaction from coffee beans to biomass is where the technology comes in,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;For example, coffee beans have a fairly uniform size
, but biomass may be in any form from powder to chunks, so it&rsquo;s not easy to uniformly torrefy.&rdquo; Several different factors, including biomass size, can make torrefaction uneconomical if not approached efficiently.
 &nbsp;&ldquo;Also, when you torrefy, hemicelluloses in the biomass become gaseous volatile organic compounds, which are pathogenic,&rdquo; Morihara explains. &ldquo;We have a complete combustion of that gas. Depending on the wood species, about 30 percent of the weight of the wood is hemicelluloses, and it has about 10 percent of the biomass&rsquo;s energy. We use that energy to dry the incoming feedstock.&rdquo;
 The beauty of that component is that the hemicelluloses are completely combusted, there are no pathogenic emissions during production, or when the torrefied biomass is used as fuel at a power plant, according to Morihara.
 With the help of a $241,000 U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities grant, HM3 built a pilot plant that has been operating the past two years. The company is in the midst of completing a demonstration plant in Troutdale, Ore., and has selected a site for its first commercial plant in Prineville, Ore. The 45,000-ton-per-year facility is scheduled to be completed by early 2013, and will process about 5.5 dry tons of biomass per hour in phase one; 11 tons per hour in a later phase.
 HM3 plans to build many of its own plants and sell product, as well as eventually licensing the technology to others. Assuming a feedstock price of $50 per dry ton, a utility should expect to pay about $130 per dry ton for torrefied biomass, Morihara says. &ldquo;The going rate right now is about $35 [for feedstock], but that price is depressed and we expect it to recover,&rdquo; he says. The energy value, which is about 10,000 Btu per pound, is comparable to some western U.S. coal, he adds.
 But why is torrefied wood a better option for power plants than wood chips? &ldquo;Our product is hydrophobic so it can be transported using open hopper cars like coal is, it can be stored outdoors like coal is, and it can be pulverized easily,&rdquo; Morihara says. &ldquo;Coal power plants don&rsquo;t have to change anything.&nbsp; Most have to spend $200 million to $300 million retrofitting the boiler feeding system if they want to use biomass that isn&rsquo;t torrefied.&rdquo;
 The cost to build a 100,000-ton-per-year commercial-scale plant would be about $15 million, according to Morihara.
 &mdash;Anna Austin

SCALING UP: HM3 Energy plans to build a commercial plant in Oregon that would produce 45,000 tons of torrefied biomass per year.


2011/05/13061857243971.jpg

Oregon company says it's making torrefaction economical.

Smoothing Out the Wrinkles 

USDA is finally moving ahead with the energy crop production portion of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program.
 The agency is still erring on the side of caution, however, as funding amounts are unclear&mdash;and the 2012 Farm Bill is looming&mdash;but approval of the first BCAP project area has restored some enthusiasm for the program.
 BCAP project areas provide financial incentives&mdash;annual payments to land enrolled and establishment cost-share payments&mdash;to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to produce biomass crops for heat, power, biobased products and advanced biofuels.
 BCAP Project Area No. 1, approved on May 5, was proposed by Missouri-based, farmer-owned cooperative Show Me Energy. The 39-county project area is in central and western Missouri and eastern Kansas, and will consist of lowland and highland native mix grasses, according to Show Me Energy board President Steve Flick. &ldquo;We kept it simple; we&rsquo;re using no woody biomass crops,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The farmers decide if they want to plant a highland mix or lowland mix, and they don&rsquo;t have to
harvest it initially if they don&rsquo;t want to because it&rsquo;s only mandatory to harvest it once in five years.&rdquo; Growers can sell their crop to any qualified biomass conversion facility. Flick says Show Me Energy will buy all biomass produced in the project area for use at its Centerview, Mo., biomass pellet plant, which is in the process of validating modular technologies for gasifying biomass pellets to produce electricity and biobutanol.
 &nbsp;The target for this project area in 2011 is 20,000 acres of biomass crops. When fully enrolled, the area may have up to 50,000 acres, or a total of 150,000 tons per year from land enrolled in BCAP contracts. Most of Show Me Energy&rsquo;s 600 members live in the project area, Flick says, but nonmembers in the area can also participate by contacting a local USDA Farm Service Agency office. Flick says the co-op worked hard over many months to put the proposal together. &ldquo;Hopefully this [approval] will get people energized [about BCAP],&rdquo; he says, adding that he suspects several more BCAP project area approvals will soon follow. &ldquo;We hope so, because we&rsquo;d like to interface with other groups.&rdquo;
 Show Me Energy was also the first qualifier for BCAP matching collection, harvest, storage and transport (CHST) payments during the pilot version of the program. Since the program has been reinstated, Poet LLC has been the only CHST qualifier.
 USDA FSA Communications Chief Kent Politsch says Poet&rsquo;s corn stover feedstock is unlike most other energy biomass because it can only be collected once a year, during a brief window after harvest and before planting, and prolonged exposure to weather can damage the quality and transportability of the bales. &ldquo;FSA anticipates announcing additional facilities soon,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;In making those announcements, FSA has to exercise care to minimize mid-year funding disruptions and take into account the uncertainty regarding final BCAP funding levels.&rdquo;
&mdash;Anna Austin

BENEFITTING FROM BCAP: The USDA has approved the first BCAP project area, which was proposed by Show Me Energy in Centerview, Mo.

2011/05/13061858201743.jpg

USDA announces first project area and expects to announce more matching payments soon.

BCAP: Matchmaking 

The USDA&rsquo;s Rural Energy for America Program grant deadline is approaching and it&rsquo;s important to note two changes the agency made to the program in 2011.
 REAP was part of the 2008 Farm Bill and is now in its third year. The program provides grants and loans for energy audits, energy efficiency and renewable energy development, as well as funding for agricultural producers and rural small businesses to conduct feasibility studies for renewable energy systems. Funding is limited to $50,000 for feasibility studies, is awarded on a competitive basis (a point system) and can cover up to 25 percent of total eligible project costs, or $500,000 maximum. Eligible candidates for feasibility studies and renewable energy system funding assistance include projects that will use biomass, biogas, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and hydrogen-based sources to produce heat, electricity or fuel.
 U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced in mid-April that $61 million in guaranteed loans and $42 million in grants would be available in 2011, while noting the program changes. The first is that agricultural producers in nonrural areas are now eligible for REAP assistance, as previous guidance mandated that those in urban areas were ineligible for the program. This provision includes agriculture producers such as greenhouses/nurseries and dairies that receive at least 50 percent of their gross income from agriculture. Preference will be given to those that employ less than 15 people and see less than $1 million in annual revenue; nonprofits and public projects are not eligible.
 Small businesses (fewer than 500 employees and annual revenue less than $6 million) must be located in rural areas, as was the case for REAP qualifiers in 2010.
 The second change made to the program allows REAP to provide funding for the installation of flexible-fuel pumps.
 &nbsp;In short, these changes will allow more projects to qualify, but the program remains highly competitive. According to the USDA, grant requests of less than $25,000 are highly favored, and strong preference is given for technology that is commercially available, or has a proven operating history and has an established design, installation and service industry. Precommercial technologies that have emerged through the research and development process and have commercial potential may qualify, but require substantially more documentation.
 The USDA&rsquo;s application deadline for the 2011 funding cycle is June 15. Applications can be acquired from and submitted to state rural development offices.
&mdash;Anna Austin

Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that $61 million in guaranteed loans and $42 million in grants will be available through REAP in 2011. 

2011/05/13061860313419.jpg

Changes to the USDA's REAP allows more projects to qualify.

Fine-Tuning

Vermont has rich wood resources and the opportunity for further development of that local fuel and its local biomass equipment manufacturing. Thus, the governor has requested the state develop and implement incentives to spur a switch from oil to wood pellet heat in residential and commercial applications.
 Gov. Peter Shumlin called on the state-contracted program Efficiency Vermont and the state Department of Public Service to craft the incentives. The request also specified that the incentives become part of the state&rsquo;s comprehensive energy plan due out this fall.
 &ldquo;This makes sense for Vermont&rsquo;s economy, it makes sense for Vermont&rsquo;s environment, and it makes sense for Vermonters&rsquo; pocketbooks,&rdquo; Shumlin says. &ldquo;This would be a great use of wood and pellets, and a strong integration of our energy goals with our economic interests.&rdquo;
 No firm timeline is in place for rolling out the new incentives program, but Efficiency Vermont hopes to launch it this summer, according to George Twigg, deputy policy director for Vermont Energy Investment Corp., which runs Efficiency Vermont. The state already provides direct financial incentives to consumers for high-efficiency fossil fuel stoves, he says, and this program will be similar, although the specific amount has yet to be determined. &ldquo;Really what the governor asked us to do is expand the eligibility of the existing program to include biomass fuel systems as well,&rdquo; Twigg says.
 The wood pellet incentives will essentially be a rebate paid by Efficiency Vermont for purchasing wood pellet-burning equipment. The expectation is the incentives will be based on Btu output, as well as efficiency, according to Andrew Perchlik, of the state&rsquo;s Clean Energy Development Fund. &ldquo;The incentives won&rsquo;t be huge,&rdquo; Twigg adds. &ldquo;The available funding in this area is pretty limited.&rdquo;
 Efficiency Vermont and the Department of Public Service are currently working with equipment manufacturers and suppliers in Vermont to hash out the details of the program, Twigg says. &ldquo;At this point, it&rsquo;s a matter of getting some information from industry and doing some work on our own to specify the eligible equipment and determine an appropriate rebate.&rdquo;
 The money comes from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which provides carbon reduction funding to New England states, Perchlik says. Biomass advocates in Vermont had questioned the lack of biomass funding for thermal efficiency and the legitimate argument prompted the governor&rsquo;s request, he adds.
 &ldquo;The governor wants to send a signal about making this a priority and now we have some work to do to make it happen,&rdquo; Twigg says.
&mdash;Lisa Gibson

PELLET PREFERENCE: Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin has requested the development of initiatives to encourage wood pellet heat in his state.

2011/05/13061862721642.jpg

The governor of Vermont has requested state incentives be implemented for wood pellet heat.

Turning up the Biomass Heat

In 2009, Europe consumed 9.8 million metric tons of wood pellets, with 9.2 million going to the 27 European Union member states, according to the 2011 report European Wood Pellet Markets: Current Status and Prospects for 2020.
 Six European authors representing universities, pellet organizations and renewable firms collaborated on it with three goals in mind: map current European wood pellet demand and supplies; provide a comprehensive overview of major market types and prices; and discuss the future outlook in light of raw material supply. The work was published in Biofuels, Bioproducts &amp; Biorefining.
 In 2009, approximately 670 European pellet plants produced more than 10 million metric tons of pellets, making it the largest producer in the world. At the time of the report, Sweden and Germany were the largest pellet producers, both producing about 1.5 million metric tons. Sweden is the largest consumer of wood pellets at about 2 million metric tons and Germany, with a consumption of just below 1 million metric tons, exports more than 500,000 metric tons. The chart maps out consumption, production, import and export figures for the 15 largest European pellet markets including Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Austria, France, Italy and others.
 After Europe, North America has the largest pellet production facilities. Capacity grew from 1.1 million metric tons in 2003 to 6.2 million in 2009, the report says. Canada exports 80 percent of its pellets and the U.S. exports only 20 percent. The majority of U.S. pellets are used in residential applications. The report also studies residential and industrial pellet pricing, and transport costs and pellet trends. &ldquo;The pellet market is quite dynamic due to economic developments and recently released government biomass support plans,&rdquo; the report reads. &ldquo;Public support is needed to cover the additional costs of capital investment, operation and maintenance of renewable energy equipment, and pellet fuel feedstock, in comparison with their fossil fuel alternatives.&rdquo;
 In addition, the report considers current and future supplies for pellet production and analyzes future pellet demand. It lists the EU member states with the most potential for additional wood and wood waste use for heating and electricity production as: Germany (43 million metric tons), France (19 million), U.K. (14 million), Spain (13 million), Poland (7 million), Belgium (7 million), Greece (6 million) and Italy (6 million). &ldquo;It is uncertain to what extent the demand for woody biomass will be covered by wood pellets,&rdquo; according to the report, which concludes by saying that pellets and other woody biomass sources could play a significant role in meeting the EU&rsquo;s renewable energy goal of 20 percent by 2020.
 &mdash;Lisa Gibson

This chart shows the balance of pellet volumes for the major European country markets in 2009.

2011/05/13061864048501.jpg

Report analyzes current and future European pellet markets 

Pellet Prospects  

Biomass enthusiasts packed the trade show hall at the fourth annual International Biomass Conference &amp; Expo in St. Louis, establishing new business connections, learning about products and services, and discussing the informative presentations they took in during panel sessions.&nbsp;
 The event, located at the America&rsquo;s Center just blocks from the Gateway City&rsquo;s trademark arch, attracted nearly 1,400 attendees from 22 countries, 46 states and eight Canadian provinces. Breakout panels divided into six feedstock-based tracks and further into four focus areas&mdash;thermal, power, biorefining and project development&mdash;consistently drew in the majority of attendees with their intriguing content and reputable speakers.&nbsp;
 Richard Newell, administrator for the U.S. DOE&rsquo;s Energy Information Administration, delivered the keynote address, detailing the biomass portions of the EIA&rsquo;s Annual Energy Outlook 2011 report, and emphasizing the interconnectedness of biomass and biofuels within the energy sector.
 &ldquo;We need to pay increased attention to biomass in the interconnectedness of energy,&rdquo; Newell told the crowd. Two important points he emphasized are that biofuels feedstocks can also be used to generate electricity, and that biofuel production itself can foster a biopower coproduct.
 The EIA predicts consumption of biomass for liquid fuels and power will increase significantly through 2035, driven primarily by cellulosic biofuels and electricity. Even with projections of meaningful increases, fossil fuels will still provide 78 percent of U.S. energy in 2035. Renewable energy consumption is expected to increase to 14 percent in 2035, up from 8 percent in 2009.
 The increased use of cellulosic biomass for liquid fuels and power will come primarily in the areas of energy crops and crop residues, urban wood waste and forest biomass, Newell said. The EIA predicts, however, that both liquid biofuels and biomass power will compete for the same biomass supply.
 Newell also said natural gas, wind and other renewables will account for the vast majority of capacity additions through 2035. In the near term, a substantial amount will come from wind, but that tax credit is set to expire, shifting new capacity to other sources. By the same projections, biomass electricity production increases fourfold by 2035 in the areas of combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and cofiring with coal. The largest opportunity, though, he reiterated, is the cogeneration of biomass electricity with the production of advanced biofuels.
 In closing, Newell told his audience that policy changes and higher oil prices are moving the U.S. toward increased use of biofuels. He cautioned, though, that uncertainties, such as those in policy and market, land use, infrastructure changes and technology development, still lie ahead.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Policy Powwow Following Newell&rsquo;s morning address was an association executive roundtable discussion of overarching policy goals for multiple aspects of the biomass industry. Featured speakers were Mary Rosenthal, executive director of the Algal Biomass Organization; Charlie Niebling, chairman of the board of directors for the Biomass Thermal Energy Council; Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association; Norma McDonald, vice chair of external affairs and co-chair of legislative and regulatory affairs for the American Biogas Council; Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association; Joe Jobe, CEO of the National Biodiesel Board; and Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association. Moderating the all-star panel was Tom Bryan, vice president of BBI International.
 Niebling and&nbsp; McDonald both identified parity as a key goal of their organizations. Biomass thermal energy has been entirely overlooked by federal policy, Niebling said, and BTEC strives to ensure it is incorporated into whatever kind of clean energy or renewable energy policy platform Congress pursues. &ldquo;We also obviously have a challenge in educating a new crop of (Congressional) members and their staffs,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;We still face real challenges in making sure people understand the [role thermal energy] plays in the pressing energy challenges in our country.&rdquo;
 McDonald also noted that her organization is working to discontinue policies that encourage organic waste to be disposed of in landfills rather than to be used to create renewable energy. &ldquo;At the federal level we are focused on incentives that will ensure that the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, for instance, receives equal treatment in terms of the definitions of biomass,&rdquo; she said. On the state level, the ABC also intends to work with the generators of organic waste to divert that material from being landfilled.
 Panelists addressed the need for a federal clean energy standard and Cleaves emphasized that saving the USDA&rsquo;s Biomass Crop Assistance Program is a crucial near-term goal.
 But all the speakers agreed that prodding Congress to take action on their important issues is going to be difficult because of the focus on debt reduction, as well as the upcoming 2012 election cycle. &ldquo;This is a really depressing fact, but really we have between now and the summer,&rdquo; Cleaves said. &ldquo;Then, nothing is going to happen until the 2012 election.&rdquo;
 Something Old, Something New In addition to traditional plenary and breakout panel discussions, this year&rsquo;s conference featured a few important changes including the addition of a keynote speaker to kick off day two. Hannalene Beillard, senior business development officer for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, delivered an extremely relevant keynote address on funding biomass export endeavors, including details on what her organization can offer entrepreneurs.
 It was appropriately followed by a plenary session comprised of company executives well-versed in global project development. Simon Parker, CEO of DP Cleantech Co. Ltd., walked the audience through the development of biopower markets in China, where DP Cleantech excels in its development. &ldquo;DP Cleantech rode on the back of a tiger,&rdquo; he said.
 Then, after panelist Christian Morgen, vice president of marketing for Inbicon, discussed the company&rsquo;s cellulosic ethanol demonstration plant in Denmark, Brad Saville, vice president of research and development for Mascoma Canada Inc., discussed the company&rsquo;s endeavors with its flagship biomass preparation technology, as well as its pretreatment and cellulosic ethanol plant development. The company has worldwide experience with multiple feedstocks, including in Italy, Spain, China, France, and the U.S. and Canada.
 Last, Seth Ginther, executive director of the newly-formed U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, highlighted export opportunities spurred by Europe&rsquo;s wood pellet demand.&nbsp; &ldquo;Folks, this is a huge opportunity to create jobs; to put people back to work,&rdquo; he said. Each new exporting pellet plant could employ about 60 people in the facilities themselves and more in the forests. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a great economic driver,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s lots of demand coming down the pike and estimates say this will grow.&rdquo;
 The event ended with a social networking panel, another new addition to the agenda. The Business n&rsquo; Breakfast Series, Social Media and PR Strategies to Grow Your Business and Win Over Industry Skeptics, drew a crowd of about 50 listeners and even ran long with a steady flow of audience questions and input. It featured John Nelson, BBI International's senior marketing manager, as well as moderator Matthew Spoor, BBI&rsquo;s vice president of sales and marketing. The two were joined in the discussion by Greg Veerman, principal/executive creative director of Astronaut Studio, and Scott Miller, founder and president of The Miller DeWulf Corp. and avid blogger and tweeter.
 With the successful conclusion of the 2011 event, BBI International has high hopes for the 2012 International Biomass Conference &amp; Expo, which will be held April 16-19 at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver. Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4952 <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com</a> Erin Voegele Associate Editor, Biorefining Magazine (701) 540-6986 <a href="mailto:evoegele@bbiinternational.com">evoegele@bbiinternational.com </a>
&nbsp;
Biomass tour covers AD, gasification and landfill gas conversion
Weaving through the six enormous anaerobic digester tanks at Anheuser-Busch&rsquo;s complex in St. Louis, Ed Randazzo proudly pointed out the lack of foul smells. Randazzo is an operator at the Anheuser-Busch Bio-Energy Recovery System (BERS), just down the street from the company&rsquo;s brewery and bottle factory, and the first of three tour locations held in conjunction with BBI International&rsquo;s International Biomass Conference &amp; Expo.
 About 50 people took part in the industry tour and got a well-rounded look at three different biomass technologies: anaerobic digestion, gasification and landfill gas conversion.
 The Anheuser-Busch digester consumes effluent from the beer-making process, among other wastes, Randazzo explained to an attentive subgroup of tour attendees. Participants got to view the biomass used in the anaerobic digesters through a microscope, almost making it possible to catch a glimpse of the tiny microbes that live on the granular biomass and carry out the process. The system takes in about 3 million gallons of wastewater per day and reduces the facilities&rsquo; organic waste by about 80 percent while producing about 900,000 square feet of biogas daily, used to generate process heat for the company&rsquo;s plant. Material screened out of the wastewater is sold to a family horseradish farm in southern Illinois.
 &nbsp;The next stop was the IESI MO Champ Landfill, where constant truck traffic made it necessary for tour guests to view the landfill through the bus windows. A landfill gas recovery operation at the site provides renewable electricity for two asphalt plants, a commercial greenhouse, a concrete facility and a local high school. Plans for expansion of the landfill gas utilization system are slated for operation in August 2012 and will be carried out by electric company Ameren Missouri. The expansion will increase electricity production to about 15 megawatts (MW) and to about 60 MW in 2025.
 The site also serves as a limestone quarry, and one of its two landfills sits at the bottom of a 250-foot deep mining trench. The bus crossed a one-way bridge before driving partway into the enormous hole for tour attendees to view a landfill only partially full. A large portion of the black ground liner remained exposed with massive trucks pushing around the garbage piles.&nbsp;
 Upon leaving the site, the tour bus was required to take the same precautions as all other exiting traffic to minimize the amount of sediments and mud removed from the location. It entails driving through a strong sprinkler-type mechanism that essentially creates a white wall of recycled water.
 Last, the group stopped at Innovative Energy Inc. to see the company&rsquo;s 2 MW gasifier model in the St. Louis suburb of Fenton. The system can gasify any carbon-based fuel, including wood, municipal solid waste, ag residue, energy crops, plastics, tires, shingles and paper. During the tour, though, the company was experimenting with some switchgrass pellets. CEO Glenn Foy explained that many biomass projects fall through because of feedstock issues. &ldquo;We thought fuel flexibility was critical,&rdquo; he said.
 The gasifier itself is quite small, at about four feet in diameter and 15 feet tall. A yellow rope separated the tour guests from the gasifier&rsquo;s proprietary processes, but several company employees spoke to the crowd about the system using diagrams and flow charts to illustrate its functions. Because it is a distributed energy system it doesn&rsquo;t require transmission lines like wind, coal and hydropower to get the power from where it&rsquo;s produced to where it will be used, they said.
 Driving back to the city, tour guests discussed the compelling aspects of all the tour sites and wondered about the proprietary elements of Innovative Energy&rsquo;s system and what might set it apart from other gasifiers.
&mdash;Lisa Gibson
&nbsp;
Farming and Biomass The farming community is an integral part of the biorefining and biomass heat and power industries. Its contribution to the growth of the industry can&mdash;at times&mdash;be overshadowed by the massive amount of attention paid to research, development and scale-up activities. Attendees at the 2011 International Biomass Conference &amp; Expo in St. Louis had the opportunity to learn more about the farming community&rsquo;s perspective of the biomass industry during a panel titled Enlisting Farmers in the Profitable Production of Biomass Supply Chains.
 Daniel Simon, a partner in Ballard Spahr LLP&rsquo;s Energy and Project Finance Group, opened the panel with a historical overview of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. Although the program initially faced a variety of implementation issues, the USDA is forging ahead.
 During his presentation, Simon noted that USDA originally planned to accept project area proposals for BCAP on a rolling basis, but in a surprise move announced a May 27 application deadline for the program earlier this spring. Although the move came as a bit of a shock to those following the program, he noted that it is understandable under the circumstances. &ldquo;I think USDA wants to get the money out the door as quickly as possible,&rdquo; Simon added. The optimistic schedule established by the USDA called for the state level Farm Service Agency to review the applications by June 10, with federal reviews following two weeks later.
 The biggest question with the program right now is whether Congress will continue to fund the program in fiscal year 2012 and beyond, Simon said. The USDA seems to strongly support this program, he noted, but said it has had &ldquo;a very tortured history.&rdquo; For this reason the USDA seems motivated to roll out the program correctly and make sure the assigned funding goes to support the best possible projects.
 Don McCabe, vice president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, also participated in the panel and shared valuable insight from the perspective of the farming community.&nbsp; McCabe noted there seems to be a lot of potential in the biomass power sector, but potential doesn&rsquo;t necessarily equate to reality. &ldquo;Talk to me in three years; talk to me in 10 years and I&rsquo;ll tell you if it&rsquo;s a reality or not,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;There is no silver bullets here folks, but I&rsquo;m very optimistic there is a whole lot of silver buckshot.&rdquo;
 McCabe offered a simple explanation of what famers need in order to become involved in biomass production&mdash;fair compensation. &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t come insult me by offering me $35 a ton for corn stalks,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve got earthworms that are hungry. They are going to eat it before you are.&rdquo; He elaborated by noting that famers already supply our society with food, clothing, hunting opportunities, jobs, and several other important products and services. &ldquo;So, now you want me to supply electrons?&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;I&rsquo;ll do it, but show me the money, because something has to give &hellip; $7 corn is here to stay and so are soybeans.&rdquo; In addition, McCabe spoke about the farming community&rsquo;s needs regarding long-term contracts for biomass crops, simple logistics plans and strong federal policies.
 Risk was a primary topic of Timothy Baye&rsquo;s presentation. Baye is a professor of business and a bioenergy specialist with the University of Wisconsin-Extension. The biomass value proposition is &ldquo;all about risk,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s all about dealing with risk involved from the ground to the conversion&mdash;and getting paid for that risk. When you first think about biomass supply you are thinking about optimizing the value extraction. It&rsquo;s a good place to start. Think about all the variables. The pulp and paper industry has a long history of dealing with a lot of bulky products, logistics [and] pricing.&rdquo; There are also comparisons that can be made with the grain, oil, gas and coal industries.
 Aaron Schuchart, a managing partner with Biomass Integrators LLC, closed out the session with a discussion of how biomass composition, genetics, agronomic practices, soil composition and harvest dates all contribute to the impact biomass fuels have on boiler operations and emissions.
 &ldquo;Ideally as an industry, we would have a database to actually quantify all of these independent variables and their effect on fuel composition, but unfortunately we do not have that,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;So, what we recommend for any project that is going to employ a dedicated energy crop, we suggest a one-year pilot program&mdash;at a minimum&mdash;as part of your feasibility prior to actually scaling to [the commercial level].&rdquo;
 Schuchart also spoke about federal policy needs. While there has been a lot of talk about BCAP, he noted that there are several other actions the federal government could take to support the biomass industry, including the development of crop insurance for dedicated energy crops and the inclusion of grasses grown under conservation programs. &ldquo;I think those two things would be really helpful,&rdquo; he said.
&mdash;Erin Voegele

ON THE POLICY FRONT: The leaders of several renewable energy industry groups formed a plenary panel at the International Biomass Conference & Expo to talk about their key policy goals and how Congress and the administration perceive their industries.

2011/05/13061872662087.jpg

EXPO EXPERIENCE: A wide range of technologies, services, equipment and supplies were showcased by 218 exhibitors at the 2011 International Biomass Conference & Expo.

2011/05/13061873468565.jpg

ATTENTIVE AUDIENCE: Nearly 1,400 people attended the 2011 Biomass Conference & Expo and had the opportunity to hear 175 speakers and moderators. 

2011/05/13061873985719.jpg

NEWELL'S NEWS: EIA Administrator Richard Newell told conference attendees that the use of biomass to produce liquid fuels and power is expected to increase significantly through 2035.

2011/05/13061874533783.jpg

TRASH TO ENERGY: A landfill gas operation at the IESI MO Champ Landfill provides electricity to several businesses and a school. 

2011/05/13061874949996.jpg

AGRICULTURE ANGLE: Don McCabe of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture participated in a panel discussion about the role of farmers in the biomass industry and talked about what it will take to get them involved.


2011/05/13061875528314.jpg

POLICY PANEL: Norma McDonald of the American Biogas Council says the organization is encouraging the use of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste to create renewable energy in lieu of landfilling.

2011/05/13061875920171.jpg

GOING GLOBAL: Seth Ginther of the newly formed U.S. Industrial Pellet Association told conference attendees about the opportunities for wood pellet exports to Europe. 

2011/05/13061876413226.jpg

From well-rounded industry tours to a jam-packed expo hall and intriguing panel discussions, the 2011 International Biomass Conference & Expo in St. Louis lived up to its reputation as the largest and most comprehensive biomass event in the world.

Gateway to Biomass

In the wake of Japan&rsquo;s Fukushima nuclear power plant incident, a result of the massive earthquake and resulting tsunami that devastated Northeastern Japan on March 11, the country&rsquo;s Prime Minister Naoto Kan said that Japan will push toward more renewable energy&mdash;solar and biomass energy specifically&mdash;as pillars of a new Japan.
 The road to achieving that goal appears to be long, as renewable energy in Japan has been slow to develop. In 2008, biomass, solar and wind combined accounted for about 1 percent of the renewable energy produced, most of which is generated from biomass heat. That same year, renewables accounted for about 4 percent of the country's total energy generation, compared to 11 percent in the U.S., or 40 percent in Sweden. Since then, the percent of renewbles has fallen to 2 percent.&nbsp;
 &nbsp;Nuclear power has been thriving in Japan since the 1970s, and today it accounts for 30 percent of the country&rsquo;s electricity generation, ranking it third in world production (see chart on page 42). The World Nuclear Association projects that number will rise to 40 percent within the next six years, and though the Fukushima incident may slow that progress, it is still likely to reach that number unless there is a drastic shift in renewable energy development.
 Japan imports nearly 80 percent of its energy requirements, mainly because of the high electricity demands of its extremely dense population, and a significant lack of its own natural resources. Japan leads the world in liquid natural gas imports&mdash;virtually importing all that it consumes&mdash;as well as coal imports, and is the second-largest net importer of oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.&nbsp;
 A 2010 report released by the &ldquo;Japan Renewable Energy Policy Platform,&rdquo; the first renewable energy white paper to be published in the country, states that Japan&rsquo;s renewable energy market has remained in a grounded state because market policies for renewables have not been sufficiently examined or implemented.&nbsp; It points out that to expand the renewable energy market, it will be necessary to provide financial support, develop infrastructure to encourage participation by citizens and communities, and establish a new social system based around the social consensus of potential environmental impacts of renewable energy.
 But even if these things are done, does Japan have enough renewable resources to continue to grow its biomass power industry? Satoshi Hirata, deputy director of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology&rsquo;s Biomass Technology Research Center in Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, believes it does, though it is limited to certain biomass resources.
 Exploring Renewable Resources 
 As is the case with other densely populated areas, there is an abundant supply of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Japan, and the country is no stranger to waste-to-energy technology. It is the largest user of thermal treatment of MSW in the world, consuming 40 million tons per year. Since there are only about 190 MSW power generation facilities out of about 1,900 incineration facilities in Japan, there is still room for growth, including refuse-derived fuel (pellets made from MSW) opportunities, according to Tsuneo Kusuda, chief researcher at the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth.
 &nbsp;Outside of MSW, there isn&rsquo;t enough land to grow energy crops on a scale that would make a significant difference in power generation, according to Hirata. That&rsquo;s mainly due to the fact that Japan is quite small&mdash;the country&rsquo;s entire land area totals about 145,902 square miles, compared to the U.S. with more than 3.5 million square miles&mdash;and about 73 percent of that land is forested, mountainous and not usable for agricultural, industrial or residential use.
 However, there is a small amount of unused residue available from major food crops grown in Japan&mdash;such as rice, corn and wheat&mdash;that amounts to about 14 million metric tons per year, according to the Japan Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. &ldquo;Rice hulls are not used in combustion processes because they contain a lot of silica,&rdquo; Hirata says. As is the case with the biomass power industry in other countries, he says combustion is the dominant commercial conversion process, as gasification is still in between demonstration and commercial stages.
 The amount of woody biomass in the country is a slightly different story. &ldquo;There are abundant woods, so the [woody] biomass power industry does have potential for expansion,&rdquo; Hirata says. On forested land in general, there are just under 62 million acres. According to a 2008 survey of annual potential amounts of woody biomass in Japan, prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, it is estimated that on average nearly 35 million metric tons of wood residuals are available annually in Japan from logging, forestry and construction activities.
 While wood waste left in the forest&mdash;about 8 million metric tons annually&mdash;and residuals are expected to be increasingly utilized as fuel in coal power plants, they are still quite limited, according to Yoshinao Ogawa, director of the department of renewable energy in Japan's trade and industry ministry.&nbsp;
 And importing additional biomass resources doesn&rsquo;t pencil out, according to Hirata, who doesn&rsquo;t believe that importing biomass resources to Japan is economical. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s more economical to import biofuel or biochemicals than feedstock materials,&rdquo; he says.
 Sven Teske, renewable energy director at Greenpeace International&rsquo;s Climate &amp; Energy Unit, agrees that Japan&rsquo;s biomass resources will only go so far, but says if done right, it could still make a difference. &ldquo;Using residuals, especially in cogeneration power plants, could increase the bioenergy share,&rdquo; he says.
 The cost of collecting and transporting these resources, however, are challenges that have yet to be overcome.
 Still, Hirata says the industry does seem to be growing. That may be evidenced by the February 2011 commissioning of the country&rsquo;s largest 100-percent wood-fired power plant. Facility Snapshot The 33-megawatt (MW) Kawasaki biomass power station took less than two years to build, as foundation work began in the fall of 2009. It is fueled by 180,000 tons of wood chips per year, mainly wood waste collected from construction sites in Japan&rsquo;s Kanto region. Kawasaki Biomass Electric Power, Japan Bio Energy Co. Ltd. and its holding company jointly operate the plant.
 Though the Kawasaki plant was a milestone for the industry, the first wood-fired power station in Japan capable of generating more than 10 MW was fired up beginning in 2006 by First Energy Service Co. in Iwakuni City, Yamaguchi Prefecture. There are several other commercial woody biomass-only plants across Japan, including Gonoike Bioenergy Corp., a 21-MW power plant in Ibaraki Prefecture that is owned by two companies including Mitsubishi Corp.; and Agatsuma Biopower, a 13.6-MW power plant in Gunma Prefecture that is owned by Orix Corp. and Tokyo Gas Co. Ltd.
 According to Hirata, there are 61 boiler and turbine power generation plants (excluding refuse incineration plants) that utilize biomass, as well as 10 gasification and gas engine plants, and 14 power plants that are cofiring biomass with coal.
 Whether the nuclear crisis will help spur growth in the biomass energy industry, Hirata says that it&rsquo;s a possibility, but points out that nuclear can&rsquo;t be replaced with just biomass energy.
 In the Future
 Making use of the wood debris from the earthquake is a good start moving forward, and the Japan Forestry Agency has a plan to utilize the waste materials left behind in the Tohoku region. The agency has requested JPY 300 million ($3.7 million) for the project that would subsidize local communities&rsquo; purchasing of crusher machines. About 80 percent of the estimated 25 million metric tons of disaster debris is believed to be wood materials.
 &nbsp;&nbsp; The solar sector is by far the most heavily subsidized renewable energy sector in Japan, but Hirata says there are some subsidies and tax incentives for the installation and operation of small-scale biomass energy plants. None are on a national level, however.
 Teske says the most effective incentive that could increase biomass power generation or renewable energy, in general, in Japan would be a feed-in law, and a bonus for heat generation. &ldquo;We see bioenergy cogeneration power plants as an important player within a smart energy system,&rdquo; he says. Increasing renewable energy generation is particularly important in Japan, especially in the aftermath of the nuclear incident, from Teske&rsquo;s perspective. &ldquo;The share of dangerous nuclear energy is over 20 percent,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;After the Fukushima disaster, Japan will have to fill the gap as fast as possible, with a mix of renewable energy technologies.&rdquo;
 &nbsp;Biomass, solar photovoltaic and hydropower will make substantial contributions to electricity production, and in particular, nonfluctuating renewable energy sources, such as biomass and geothermal will be important elements in the overall generation mix, according to Teske.
 &nbsp;With the right policies in place, and the development of a sustainable bioenergy supply chain, he adds, biomass utilization in the country could speed up. &ldquo;By 2030, we think the primary energy share of bioenergy could at least be increased by a factor of three,&rdquo; Teske says. Author: Anna Austin Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4968 <a href="mailto:aaustin@bbiinternational.com">aaustin@bbiinternational.com</a>

2011/05/13062472700756.jpg

2011/05/13062472953001.jpg

Number of Nuclear Reactors in Operation Worldwide

2011/05/13062473376154.jpg

Recent events in Japan may fuel a new push toward renewable energy as the country reevaluates its energy portfolio.

Biomass Power: Pillar of a New Japan?

With shrinking budgets and skyrocketing energy costs, U.S. cities are looking at all possible ways to save or make money. One option that is quickly becoming a trend is maximizing utilization of the biogas emitted from anaerobic digesters at city-owned wastewater treatment plants.
 By law, wastewater treatment plants are required to destroy, or flare, any unused biogas, due to the pollutants that direct venting would emit into the atmosphere. Flaring is safe and about 98 percent effective, but in some cases it can mean money wasted.
 &nbsp; In October 2010, San Antonio became the first city in the nation to treat its wastewater treatment plant&rsquo;s biogas and directly inject it into the natural gas pipeline. Shortly thereafter, the city of Dallas brought a similar project online, and several more projects of the same nature are on the verge of reality in California.
 &ldquo;We&rsquo;re seeing a resurgence of interest lately,&rdquo; says Michael Bakas, senior vice president of renewable energy at Ameresco, the technology provider for both Texas projects. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a reasonable market for these types of projects in the U.S. The big thing is that wastewater treatment plant managers need to become better educated about this type of opportunity at their facility because it&rsquo;s a revenue contributor, whether it be royalties for the gas or a cheap source of energy. If they learn that these opportunities are out there, they can investigate whether a project like this is applicable to their plants.&rdquo;
 There are a few factors to weigh when making that determination, according to Bakas, and the type of project varies with each treatment plant.
 Making it Work
 The amount of biogas that could be produced, and whether it&rsquo;s enough to make a project worthwhile, needs to be evaluated at a potential project site. Some wastewater treatment plants already utilize their biogas to a certain extent to generate electricity or heat that is consumed on-site, but often there is excess biogas, says Frank Mazanec of BioFuels Energy LLC, which is developing a project at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Diego County, Calif. &ldquo;The question is, do you sell the gas, or do you sell electricity produced at the site?&rdquo;
 If the plant is in a region with low electricity costs, it&rsquo;s harder to make a project work, Bakas says. The facility in Dallas makes heat and electricity from the biogas, and the plant purchases what it needs from Ameresco, which owns the biogas recovery system. &ldquo;If they&rsquo;re able to buy electricity from the grid very inexpensively, then it&rsquo;s hard to compete with,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The quality of gas from the plant is also a big factor, as well as whether it is consistent and how much clean-up has to be done to it.&rdquo;
 In San Antonio, the plant processes the biogas into a natural gas product and injects it into the natural gas pipeline, where it is piped to California and sold to power plants to earn renewable energy credits. A project in Escondido, Calif., being developed by the city and Southern California Gas Co., is currently in the testing stage and aims to do the same thing. Both employ a pressure swing adsorption system to remove CO2 and nonmethane compounds from the gas, preparing it to sufficient quality (meeting the pipeline owner&rsquo;s gas specifications) for injection into the pipeline.
 Ron Kent, technology development project manager at SoCalGas, explains that the project in Escondido consists of nine vessels containing zeolite beads, which are microporous, aluminosilicate minerals commonly used as commercial adsorbents. &ldquo;The zeolite material preferentially absorbs CO2 onto the surface, but doesn&rsquo;t adsorb methane, he says. &ldquo;As you increase the pressure slightly&mdash;and it goes up to about 100 pounds&mdash;the CO2 sticks and the methane does not. As you draw down the pressure, the methane is sucked off, and eventually all of the CO2 is sucked off. All of the vessels alternate being pressurized and depressurized, and split the gas into two streams.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 The project being developed by Biofuels Energy at Point Loma has a slightly different twist. The plant already uses two-thirds of its biogas to generate its own electricity, but due to a series of unique constraints, the city was unable to produce additional electrical energy with the remaining biogas&mdash;about 1.3 million Btu per day.&nbsp; &ldquo;We&rsquo;re processing that gas and bringing it up to 98 percent methane,&rdquo; Mazanec says. &ldquo;Once the gas is processed and the CO2, sulfur, siloxane and other constituents are removed, it&rsquo;s put into the pipeline and now referred to as direct biogas, so we can get credit for it under the state renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
 San Diego Gas &amp; Electric did not allow treated biogas to be injected into the pipeline prior to November 2009, so this project will be the first to do so unless Escondido beats it to the punch. Once the gas is in the pipeline, it will flow 25 miles to the University of California-San Diego to power a 2.8-megawatt (MW) fuel cell that Biofuels Energy will have installed there.
 In order to make projects pan out financially, they can be set up a number of different ways, Bakas says.
 Project Business Models
 &nbsp;In the Dallas and San Antonio cases, Ameresco put up the capital costs and owns and operates the biogas plants. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re capital intensive, so we can finance a project if that&rsquo;s what the facility wants,&rdquo; Bakas says. Ameresco will pay the San Antonio Water System an annual royalty of about $200,000 a year during its 20-year contract, treating and delivering up to 1,060 standard cubic feet per minute. The project was profitable from day one, but a complete payback comes in about 15 to 20 years, according to Bakas. A local gas utility was purchasing the gas initially, but Ameresco is currently selling it to EDF, a large French utility that is transporting it to California to sell it at a much higher price because of state incentives. &ldquo;To make this work, you need to be able to recover costs while competing with the current energy market,&rdquo; Bakas says. &ldquo;In today&rsquo;s economic climate, people are hesitant to pay much of a premium for green gas, but we&rsquo;ve managed to do it, and San Antonio is saving money.&rdquo;
 In Dallas, the 4.3-MW biogas facility provides power and heat to the water utility&rsquo;s facilities, offsetting 60 percent of the energy that it pulls from the grid, and also uses waste heat from the generators to heat its digesters. About 80 percent of the biogas produced at the facility is being utilized, while a typical electricity production plant might only be able to use 35 percent of its energy product, Bakas says. As a result of the project, the city will save an estimated $1.5 million annually.
 Biofuels Energy also finances, owns and operates projects, but rather than send the gas to a customer, the company sends it to itself. &ldquo;We own the fuel cells, so we&rsquo;re really piping the gas to ourselves,&rdquo; Mazanec says. &ldquo;In Point Loma, we&rsquo;re selling the energy under a 10-year PPA with UCSD, and the same thing will happen with the city of San Diego at the South Bay water treatment facility, where we&rsquo;re installing a 1.4-MW fuel cell. We&rsquo;ll direct one-third of that energy and two-thirds of the energy at UCSD to the city of San Diego under a 10-year PPA.
 Kent says it hasn&rsquo;t yet been determined who will own the Escondido biogas plant, but assuming the technology being tested proves successful, it could be the city or SoCalGas. So far, SoCalGas has paid to rent the equipment being tested, and has an option to buy it from Canadian technology provider Xebec Inc.
 While it seems many customers would rather the developer put up the capital costs and own the facility, others are interested in owning the plants, Bakas says. Ameresco has recently been awarded a contract by the city of Philadelphia for a biogas recovery project at its wastewater treatment plant, and in that case the city will own it, and the company has also been shortlisted on a similar city-owned project in Washington D.C. The cost is different for every project, he adds, as they are all customized.
 Finding Financing 
 &ldquo;The size or the project, how much clean up you have to do, and how far you have to pipe the gas range all over the board,&rdquo; Bakas says. &ldquo;Cost is dependent on the nature of the technology you have to install to clean the gas, and the amount of gas you&rsquo;re processing.&rdquo;
 Finance markets have been fairly tough and lending has been difficult, but Ameresco has managed to persevere. &ldquo;We haven&rsquo;t run into a project at a plant that we haven&rsquo;t been able to do, unless it&rsquo;s a technological problem like not enough gas,&rdquo; he says.
&nbsp; The contracting process is another challenge. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s usually lengthy, because most of these facilities are publicly owned and have to go through a whole design and solicitation process,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The big thing to keep in mind if you are a wastewater treatment plant is to make sure you do a great job qualifying who you partner with, because it&rsquo;s not a simplistic venture. These are long-term marriages so make sure your partner will be there for 20 years, and have the financial wherewithal to do that, as well as the technological depth to perform over those years because inevitably things do come up. You want to make sure you&rsquo;re with a firm that can meet those challenges.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Mazanec says he believes these new projects in California will pave the way for similar projects utilizing landfill gas. The state doesn&rsquo;t currently allow landfill gas to be injected into the pipeline. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s precluded by regulation, but that will hopefully be the next step,&rdquo; he says.
 While California has a strong RPS of 33 percent by 2020, a great incentive for biogas energy projects, it doesn&rsquo;t mean they aren&rsquo;t feasible in states without them, Bakas adds. &ldquo;Because they are base-load energy plants&mdash;unlike wind or solar where power is generated only a portion of the time&mdash;they generally they have a lower cost than other renewables because the biogas is always flowing.&rdquo; Author: Anna Austin Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4968 <a href="mailto:aaustin@bbiinternational.com">aaustin@bbiinternational.com</a>

BIG ON BIOGAS: Ameresco says it is seeing a resurgence of interest in biogas production at wastewater treatment plants.

2011/05/13062475194168.jpg

ESCONDIDO ENERGY: A project in Escondido,Calif., which is in the testing stage, aims to process biogas into natural gas and inject it into the pipeline.


2011/05/1306247572282.jpg

PROJECT PARAMETERS: Ameresco put up the capital costs and owns and operates biogas plants in Dallas and San Antonio, but other projects are set up differently. 

2011/05/13062476168588.jpg

Cities around the nation are finding ways to squeeze every drop of value out of biogas generated at their wastewater treatment plants.

Maximizing  Efficiency

Clearly there are significant economic, environmental and political reasons for changing boiler fuel from fossil fuels to renewable biomass materials. Up to now the conversion of coal- or oil-fired boilers to biomass has been a costly proposition, with the boiler needing to be significantly modified or even replaced to allow the burning of biomass materials. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the past few years in the conversion from coal or oil to one or another biomass material. Many boilers have been modified to burn natural gas, but this is another fossil fuel with finite reserves.
 Development in the past few years has produced technology that could completely change the situation. One of the technologies is the combined use of two conventional processes, which have been used for many years and are currently in use in other industries. Biomass can now be converted to a material that can be fed to the boiler in place of the coal with no or minor modifications to the boiler. The two processes are torrefaction and pelletization.
 Another technology, equally known and proven, and showing equal or greater promise, is gasification. The gas produced can replace fossil fuels whether it is coal, oil or natural gas. Both of these technologies will enable &ldquo;green&rdquo; credits to be obtained, which will enhance the economics of using them.
 Torrefaction and Pelletization
 Most of us are familiar with torrefaction as the process that roasts the coffee beans to give the product we grind to make our coffee. In the process, volatile material is driven off and the remaining solid matter of the bean, which is&nbsp; biomass that is largely carbohydrate, is roasted to improve the flavor and make the beans ready for grinding. The same process applied under carefully controlled conditions to biomass, such as wood waste from the forestry industry, reduces the total dry weight of the biomass by some 30 percent while retaining about 90 percent of the thermal capacity. In effect, the process increases the energy density of the biomass by 20 to 30 percent depending on the feedstock and process conditions. The resulting energy density is similar to that of sub-bituminous coal and about twice that of pelletized sawdust.
 The torrefied biomass, which results from the process, can now be ground and pelletized also by a conventional and well-known process often used to produce animal feed as well as fuel for residential stoves. The final product is easy to handle and transport. The bulk material receiving and handling systems as well as the feed equipment of most coal-fired boilers will handle it without modification, either mixed with coal or alone.
 The torrefied pellets are delivered to the power plant using the same equipment that is used to handle coal. The pellets can be stored with the coal because torrefaction changes the biomass to a hydrophobic material, so the pellets will not absorb water in storage. The transport cost per unit of energy produced is much lower for torrefied and pelletized biomass than for bulk unprocessed biomass, due to the energy density and physical compaction.
 The pellets can be mixed with the coal before pulverizing for a pulverized coal boiler, or fired mixed, or separately in other boiler types. Emission controls will need to be checked, but current controls in place would normally be adequate for firing torrefied material.
 The greatest barrier to conversion to torrefied/pelletized biomass is availability of sufficient product. Currently, there are no operating plants in the United States, although there are demonstration plants running in the Netherlands and Sweden. Considerable work in developing the technology and equipment has been done in these countries as well as in Ukraine and Australia. Various machine manufacturers now have integrated torrefaction units and pelletizers have been available in a wide range of production rates for decades.
 So far there is only one commercial torrefaction plant operating in the world, located in the Netherlands. It supplies torrefied biomass pellets to large coal-fired power plants, which receive a green credit for each ton of biomass burned. Integro Earthfuels and Agri-Tech among others that are now planning similar plants in the United States.
 Torrefaction and pelletization of biomass provide a viable and economic alternative to the modification of coal-fired boilers. Considerable savings in the cost of conversion in the United States can be realized once commercial plants are installed and running. Capital spent in installing plants using torrefaction and pelletization will be much less than that necessary for the sum of the costs of conversion of each individual boiler.
 Gasification 
 Another technology that shows obvious promise in the conversion of coal, oil or natural gas-fired boilers to alternate renewable fuels is gasification.&nbsp; Again, this is not new technology, having been used extensively in Germany during WWII to substitute coal and biomass for scarce liquid fuels. In the recent past, gasification has gotten a bad name for poor reliability andoperational sensitivity, but new technology has resulted in gasifiers that are both simple and robust.
 One equipment supplier has developed a family of gasifiers that can process 150 to 600 bone dry tons per day per unit. These units have proven to be extremely flexible and reliable on biomass. Even more interesting is that they work equally well on refuse-derived fuel (RDF). During a trial burn, the fuel&mdash;landfill material (garbage, trash, plastic and paper) with no&nbsp; prior processing&mdash;was gasified and the gas burned without any problems.
 The conversion from coal to syngas (synthesis gas) is simple. The required number of gasifiers are installed, normally outside. Each unit has a loading/metering system feeding the gasifier. The gasifier itself is a skid-mounted, pre-erected unit requiring only a foundation, electric power and igniter fuel. The discharge from the gasifier(s) is piped into the furnace. For burning in a boiler, gas cleaning is not required. Ash is minimal out of the boiler. Most of the ash is discharged at the exit of the gasifier and consists of inorganic material and ungasified biomass, which has proven to be a valuable byproduct as a soil conditioner/fertilizer.
 Emission controls for burning syngas normally consists of a wet electrostatic precipitator. The production unit for the syngas should quickly pay for itself by avoiding continuously purchasing coal, oil or natural gas, even when using relatively pure biomass as raw material. If RDF is used the payback will be much faster.
 These two processes, whereas not fully proven commercially in the U.S., have reached a level of development, which enables a confident prediction that they will be able to significantly reduce the investment needed to convert boilers from fossil fuels to biomass, especially when factoring in the effect of green credits.
 Where biomass is readily available, torrefaction/pelletization can provide a viable and economic means of converting boilers to biomass fuel. Gasification, especially of RDF, can do likewise in areas where biomass is less available. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES &ldquo;A review of torrefaction for bioenergy feedstock production,&rdquo; Ciolkosz and Wallace, October 2010. &ldquo;A Study of Torrefaction for the Production of High Quality Wood Pellets,&rdquo; Jianghong Peng August 2007. "Torrefaction for biomass upgrading," Bergman and Kiel. Available at: www.ecn.nl/biomass &ldquo;Biomass Torrefaction as a Preprocessing Step for Thermal Conversion,&rdquo; August 2009, &copy; EverGreen Renewable LLC Handbook Biomass Gasification, edited by H.A.M. Knoef and published by the Biomass Technology Group, The Netherlands in 2005 Authors: James L. Wise P.E., Process Engineer, Baisch Engineering Inc. <a href="mailto:jwise@baisch.com">jwise@baisch.com</a> (920) 766-3521 Gareth Jones Executive Consultant, Baisch Engineering Inc. <a href="mailto:gjones@baisch.com">gjones@baisch.com</a> (920) 766-3521

2011/05/13062481124194.jpg

Torrefaction, pelletization and gasification can offer viable and economic means to convert coal- or oil-fired boilers to biomass. 


Boilers: Economic Change  From Coal to Biomass

In the late 1980s, the state of New Hampshire made sure it was economically wise and feasible to construct new biomass power plants that would help reach renewable energy goals, even though its renewable portfolio standard (RPS) was not implemented yet. Part of the state&rsquo;s push for the new, clean power included forcing its largest power distributor, Public Service New Hampshire, to enter into 20-year power purchase agreements with six independent biomass power plants. So with long-term revenue assurance in hand, those plants were constructed and each began producing between 15 and 20 megawatts (MW) for distribution to the utility&rsquo;s ratepayers.
 Fast-forward to today. Four of those power agreements have expired and PSNH has no interest in renewing them; the spot market for power and renewable energy certificates (RECs) is grossly unsatisfying due to depressed pricing; and New Hampshire&rsquo;s RPS isn&rsquo;t conducive to older renewable power.
 Without improvements to policy or increases in power and REC prices, the outlook is bleak for Bridgewater Power Co., Indeck Alexandria, and Pinetree Power Tamworth and Bethlehem, both owned by GDF Suez. &ldquo;Right now we&rsquo;re losing money,&rdquo; says Mike O&rsquo;Leary, plant manager for Bridgewater Power, owned by Harbert Power Corp. and Public Service Enterprise Group. &ldquo;If the situation continues based on the current forecast for power prices and REC prices, I don&rsquo;t see [Bridgewater] surviving until the end of this year.&rdquo;
 Contributing Factors
 &nbsp;Since the expiration of the long-term agreements with PSNH, some of the plants, including Bridgewater, were able to establish short-term agreements on the spot market with smaller utilities. But severely depressed power and REC prices don&rsquo;t support continued operations or justify longer-term agreements, O&rsquo;Leary says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re hoping we can offer a long-term agreement that makes sense to keep us operating.&rdquo;
 Exacerbating the already enormous problem is the structure of the state&rsquo;s 23.8 percent by 2025 RPS. Like some other New England RPSs, New Hampshire&rsquo;s divides RECs into classes I, II, III and IV. Biomass power can be eligible for classes I and III. A number of issues can determine biomass REC categorization, but because of their operation start dates, none of the four plants are certified for anything above Class III, and some are not even certified for that.
 REC prices are low because of an overcapacity of qualifiers, and the demand requirements of Class III RECs are based off utility load, which has gone down significantly with the economic downturn, O&rsquo;Leary says. &ldquo;With the REC program, you can&rsquo;t foresee everything and I think that the REC was really designed to compensate the renewables for the fact that renewables cost more than conventional generation and then the energy would take care of itself,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Well, unfortunately, the energy prices dropped incredibly low and the REC price dropped to a fraction of the alternative compliance payment.&rdquo;
 The RPS specifies percentage requirements for each class every year up until 2025. The problem is that no increase in Class III energy is required of utilities above the current 6.5 percent. For 2011, the Class I requirement is 2 percent, increasing 1 percent each year until it reaches 16 percent in 2025. &ldquo;Class III is already topped out,&rdquo; says Scott Tranchemontagne, president of Montagne Communications. He works closely with the biomass industry and launched a website to bring attention to New Hampshire&rsquo;s biomass issues. &ldquo;What they need moving forward is more Class I energy and less Class III energy. I firmly believe that if they were able to offer Class I RECs, they would have a much stronger chance of getting a power purchase agreement.&rdquo;
 And he might be on the right track, as PSNH has entered into a PPA with the Berlin Project, a proposed 70 MW biomass power plant in Berlin, N.H. &ldquo;It may not be a case of apples and oranges, but it is certainly a case of McIntosh versus Golden Delicious,&rdquo; says Martin Murray, PSNH senior corporate news representative. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re all biomass plants, but the fact is the [Berlin] plant will produce Class I renewable energy certificates, which are different entirely from Class III.&rdquo; But Murray also emphasizes the market price problems, saying the 20-year agreements were extremely costly to PSNH&rsquo;s ratepayers and renewals are not in the best interest of the utility&rsquo;s customers. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re just getting out from under those,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We do have an obligation to meet all our requirements; to serve customers and to procure renewable energy certificates, but we also have an obligation to do so in the most cost-effective manner. Our customers just can&rsquo;t afford anymore to be paying more for energy than what it&rsquo;s worth.&rdquo;
 Martin points out that PSNH is not the only utility that is uninterested in purchasing power and RECs from the biomass power plants and acknowledges their challenge. &ldquo;These biomass power plants are in a pickle,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;They are finding it very difficult in today&rsquo;s deregulated marketplace to sell their product and to make a product based on the market price. Their production cost is at or above market price.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 The plants are caught in a downward portion of an economic cycle, he adds, and given the cyclical nature of the business, might find success again down the road if they can survive this difficult streak. But PSNH won&rsquo;t be the saving grace in the meantime. &ldquo;They&rsquo;ve gotten our money in the past,&rdquo; Martin says. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t want to hand it over again in the future, at least not without a well-reasoned discussion about the costs and the benefits.&rdquo;
 Despite PSNH&rsquo;s seemingly steadfast refusal to renew the agreements, O&rsquo;Leary isn&rsquo;t bitter and instead expresses understanding of the utility&rsquo;s reasoning. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re not looking for a long-term agreement,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We understand that there is more risk to ratepayers. We understand that PSNH has an obligation to their ratepayers. We&rsquo;re looking for a short-term bridge that gets us to the point where the market turns around.&rdquo;
 Not-So-Quick Fix
 It seems a bridge is crucial, but it may not connect to a better market. If the push for changes such as updates to the RPS succeed, it might simply bridge the older biomass power plants to a more friendly policy environment. But a policy change will take time, making that bridge from here to there even more crucial.
 Working around policy changes, it&rsquo;s possible for the power plants to qualify for Class I RECs, but the process involves substantial upgrades that would expand capacity and in some cases add emission controls. Bridgewater currently sells energy to power distributor ISO-New England and RECs to the Class I market in Connecticut. The plant isn&rsquo;t even certified for Class III in New Hampshire because of its particulate emissions, so the investment to qualify for Class I in New Hampshire would be outrageous. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve made an offer to the utility to put in particulate emissions removal and qualify for Class III if we could get a contract for a certain period of time,&rdquo; O&rsquo;Leary says.
 So the better option seems to be a change to the RPS itself, which could include a new alternative compliance payment amount&mdash;paid by the load-serving utility to the power generator&mdash;or a percentage requirement change for REC classes, O&rsquo;Leary says. &ldquo;We feel like we are victims of short-term low natural gas prices, and we think it&rsquo;s in the best interest of the state to come up with a mechanism that keeps us going until those natural gas prices rebound, which will bring up the regional average for energy.&rdquo;
 Some of the state&rsquo;s politicians realize that sustaining operation of the plants is important, Murray says, and if the solution is subsidizing by the state, PSNH only asks that the burden be shared by all the state&rsquo;s energy customers, not just its own. &ldquo;People want to find a win-win solution,&rdquo; Murray says. &ldquo;There are discussions going on but no solution has been found because it is a real challenge.&rdquo; In fact, a number of discussions seem to be underway with multiple organizations pulling state senators and even Gov. John Lynch into the mix to help find that solution. The New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association has held a series of meetings to address the problems, drawing about 200 people to a mid-February gathering designed to discuss options to support the plants, according to the association&rsquo;s program director Eric Johnson. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re fortunate we&rsquo;re a small state and access to politicians is pretty readily available,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;A lot are small business owners themselves and understand the risks, investments. A lot have taken the perspective that this is a small business issue.&rdquo;
 Trickledown
 &nbsp;The shuttering of the plants would have an enormous impact on the state of New Hampshire, not the least of which falling on the loggers and feedstock providers, thus the push from the timber industry to solve the problem. &ldquo;Those power plants consume a tremendous amount of low-grade wood and that&rsquo;s of concern to me as a logging contractor,&rdquo; Johnson explains. &ldquo;If I can&rsquo;t get all the low-grade wood on a typical harvest, then I&rsquo;m forced to take only the nicer wood in order to make that a profitable operation.&rdquo;
 An ideal split for a timberland owner is one-third low-grade wood, one-third mid-grade and one-third high grade, he says. But more often than not the composition is 50 to 60 percent low-grade wood. It can be used for pulpwood or cordwood, but most is only used in whole tree chips. &ldquo;If we&rsquo;re going to sustain and continue to grow good wood, we need to have a market for the low-grade wood that comes out of a typical forest in New England,&rdquo; Johnson says. Each of the state&rsquo;s six independent biomass power plants use around 200,000 tons of wood annually, which is a large portion of the wood supply, he says, adding the two plants still under long-term power agreements are teetering on contract expiration, as well. The delivered price of that wood is about $25 per ton. &ldquo;Logging contractors are going to be directly impacted if these plants shut down,&rdquo; Johnson says. &ldquo;It will severely curtail their operations. They have a lot at stake.&rdquo;
 The trickledown effect is much greater than with natural gas operations because the feedstock is locally sourced and consumed, he adds. Together, the four plants employ between 400 and 500 people, including the feedstock suppliers in the woods. Studies have shown that the impact of the four biomass facilities to the state is around $50 million including fuel and wages, but Johnson says that&rsquo;s conservative and is closer to $70 million. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s a significant chunk of change that will disappear from the economy,&rdquo; he says.
 Whatever the solution to the looming closures, it needs to take effect soon to prevent significant adverse impacts to the state, not to mention the loss of hundreds of jobs for working families. The issue has been front and center for Johnson in his work for the association for the past three or four months he says. &ldquo;It has the potential to be a huge issue for us if these plants shut down. It will have a big impact on the working forest and our members.&rdquo;
 O&rsquo;Leary exudes hope for a timely resolution and continuance of biomass operations in New Hampshire. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re optimistic that the load-serving entities in the state will recognize the importance of in-state generation and the economic impact of this industry.&rdquo; Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 738-4952 <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com</a>

2011/05/1306247807772.jpg

CHIP CONVEYOR: Wood chip-fueled power plants in New Hampshire are on the verge of shutting down. 

2011/05/13062478461429.jpg

CHIP DUMP: A trailer dumps wood chips for use by New Hampshire's biomass power plants, which are losing their power purchase agreements.  

2011/05/13062478949124.jpg

With expired power purchase agreements and no interested buyers, four New Hampshire biomass power plants face possible shutdowns that would impact more than just the facilities themselves. 

Out with the Old

Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Nullam id dolor id nibh ultricies vehicula ut id elit. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Praesent commodo cursus magna, vel scelerisque nisl consectetur et. Nullam quis risus eget urna mollis ornare vel eu leo. Nullam quis risus eget urna mollis ornare vel eu leo. Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros.

Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Nullam i  . . .

Test article to ATB

By all accounts, interest in biodiesel is on the rise again. And it&rsquo;s about time too. The past two years have been extremely tough on the industry. Some have even expected it to fall.&nbsp; We&rsquo;re still here.
You&rsquo;re still here. Now it&rsquo;s time to get to work and make this sector of renewable energy strong again. Engineering firms are telling me that calls pertaining to biodiesel have picked up in the past month or two. Consultants are expanding their groups of experts to handle an increase in biodiesel interest. Process technology companies are making deals with EPC providers to bring their technologies to market.
 On a broader level, the Obama administration is unwavering in its support for biofuel development. In April, Tom Vilsack, the U.S. secretary of agriculture, and Lisa Jackson, the administrator for U.S. EPA, toured an Iowa biodiesel plant owned by Renewable Energy Group, after which they participated in a closed-door roundtable discussion with other big names in renewable fuels, such as ethanol mogul Jeff Broin. Also, the International Energy Agency put out a report in April that states biofuels will comprise 27 percent of the global fuel supplies in 2050. Twenty-seven percent&mdash;that is huge. It represents real progress. But we have to make it happen, and we have to ensure biodiesel can fulfill and surpass its expected role in the new energy economy of the future.
 Plant safety, fuel quality, predictable long-term policy, increased market penetration, lawful RIN and wet-gallon transactions, and feedstock availability must all remain in the forefront of operations as we propel this great industry ahead. There&rsquo;s no room for shortcuts. Regarding RIN separation, EPA released a statement to the industry in April cautioning people to make sure separation occurs in one of the nine pathways prescribed by law. As RIN expert Jess Hewitt with Lee Enterprises tells me, EPA does not give extra points for creativity. In fact, it may give something else for it&mdash;a hefty fine.

2011/05/13052342479773.jpg

INCREASED  INTEREST

It is an exciting time in the biodiesel industry as technological innovations are potentially opening the door for new products, reduced costs and increased efficiencies. Developers of these technologies have a right to be excited, but must temper their enthusiasm about their technology with a realistic commercialization plan. Technology is not an end in itself, it is a tool with which to do business and make money. Understanding the relationship between the technology and making money is critical.
 Technology first must be protected from theft or misuse. Patents and trade secrets are the primary means to protect your technology and trying to commercialize technology without the most appropriate protection is foolhardy. Be careful to avoid losing your rights by making premature public disclosures or failing to get confidentiality agreements. Make sure your employees and contractors have assigned their rights as well, this is an often overlooked, but critical step. After the technology has been protected, you need to find someone to use it. Using can mean a sale of the technology, a license of the technology and/or a sale or lease of the equipment or process created by the technology.
Regardless of what you do, make sure that you understand what you are gaining and losing in each situation.
 Selling your technology means you do not own it or have rights to it any more, most often this includes improvements and derivatives. Payments can be in lump sum, over time or even a royalty. If selling for anything other than a lump sum, consider your rights and remedies in the event the buyer fails to make the payments. It is common to take a security interest in the technology until paid in full. Buyers will want assurances that you own the technology, that no one else owns it and that they can use it. This usually means selling a patent as patents are usually seen as giving more certainty to a buyer than a trade secret, however there are certainly exceptions. If you are selling internationally, royalties are often subject to double taxation. Consider this for licenses as well.
 Licensing is one of the most common ways to commercialize a technology. A license gives the licensee the right to use your technology, but not ownership. That right may be limited to a geographic region, industry, size, time, competitors, etc. The payment can be made up front, but is more usually tied to use, especially for process technologies. One common issue with a license is ownership of improvements by the licensee. Options include joint ownership of the improvements, ownership by the licensor but with a free license to the licensee (the most common) or ownership by the licensee with a free license to the licensor. A license is often required as part of a sale of process equipment, as ownership of the equipment itself does not give the equipment owner the right to use it to make the product. Think of the license you agree to when buying a piece of software.&nbsp;
 Sale or lease of equipment means you use your technology to build a device and then you sell or lease it to someone. They own or have right to use the equipment, along with a license. Consider if there are any warranties that you are giving with the equipment, if there is a service agreement required or special training. Are these your responsibilities or the buyers? If yours, do you get paid to do these? If payment for the license or equipment is not upfront, consider getting a security interest in the equipment to secure payment. Title should also only pass when the full payment is made, so you maximize your rights if there is default.
 Developing a good plan for how to commercialize your technology is just as important as the technical and engineering work. Consider the above issues as you work on that plan and think through as many &ldquo;what ifs&rdquo; as you can. It will save you time and money and help you make the most profit from your process.
 Author: Todd Taylor Attorney, Fredrikson &amp; Byron (612) 492-7355 <a href="mailto:ttaylor@fredlaw.com">ttaylor@fredlaw.com</a>

2011/05/13052349145472.jpg

Process Technology? Check. Now, Profit 

In the near future, &ldquo;multifeedstock&rdquo; and &ldquo;nonfood-based&rdquo; will provide the basis for salvation of the U.S. biodiesel industry. This change will occur through necessity and it must occur quickly in order for our industry to get back on track.&nbsp;
 In the U.S., soybeans have been the basis of the biodiesel industry, but today if you look at the price of soybean oil ($0.5882 per pound or $4.529 per gallon) and methanol ($1.50 per gallon) the raw materials cost is about $4.70 per gallon of biodiesel before you even start the chemical transformation. It is therefore little wonder that most of the biodiesel plants around the country are still idled.
 Feedstock is the primary cost of biodiesel production. The USDA has done detailed studies that model the cost of biodiesel production and concluded that more than 88 percent of the cost of biodiesel production is the cost of lipid feedstock.
 Chemically, the free fatty acid (FFA) content of a feedstock can be used as a determinant of its ability to be used as food or feed for animals. The FFA content also correlates strongly with lipid costs. Thus, it is advantageous to use fats and oils with higher FFA for the production of biodiesel.
 New biodiesel production technologies such as the Mcgyan Process offer producers the ability to use less expensive feedstocks and still produce biodiesel that meets all ASTM D6751 specifications. The Mcgyan Process uses a solid, highly porous metal oxide catalyst that continuously catalyzes the production of biodiesel (at elevated temperature and pressure) in seconds and does not use sodium hydroxide or sulfuric acid. The process does not use any water and produces no byproducts such as glycerin or soap and, most importantly, is compatible with feedstocks that contain zero to 100 percent FFA content. Biodiesel&rsquo;s future is dependent upon the development of new technologies like the Mcgyan Process that settle the question of whether the industry can become truly multifeedstock.&nbsp; Isanti, Minn.-based Ever Cat Fuels is a 3 MMgy biodiesel facility that is the first commercial plant to employ the Mcgyan Process. The facility has been operational since Sept. 11, 2009, and has produced biodiesel that meets all ASTM D6751 specifications from a variety of inedible feedstocks.
 New feedstocks that can be used to make biodiesel fuel may make it necessary to revise the ASTM quality specifications. For instance, the Mcgyan Process makes it possible for the first time to economically produce the ethyl ester by using ethanol as the alcohol in the production process. The use of ethanol will produce biodiesel under the chemical definition of biodiesel being an &ldquo;alkylester.&rdquo; However, some of the ASTM testing procedures that specifically determine the content of residual methanol left in the biodiesel fuel will be obsolete if ethanol is used as the alcohol.&nbsp;
 Other ASTM specifications may also need revision, such as the flash point. The petroleum diesel fuel flash point specification is typically from 52 to 60 degrees Celsius, but for biodiesel it is greater than 93 degrees. Presumably, this was specified due to the widespread use of soybean oil and the long-chain FFAs that it contains. Other feedstocks such as coconut oil contain much shorter FFA chains (C6-C12) and therefore the biodiesel made with these types of vegetable oils will not meet specification even though they would not alter the blended specification when they are added to petroleum diesel.&nbsp;
 Multifeedstock can also result in multicolored biodiesel fuel. Most of the differently colored biodiesel fuels meet the ASTM D6751 specifications, although not all differently colored biodiesel fuels are accepted by blenders. In fact, many blenders have internal color specifications for biodiesel fuel.&nbsp; This nonacceptance by the blenders of differently colored biodiesel, does not jibe with the fact that petroleum diesel also has different colors. A recent study reported by scientists at Minneapolis-based Augsburg College looked into the correlation between B5 blends offered at 29 different fuel stations located in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area and found no correlation between the color and biodiesel content, as measured by GC-MS and H NMR, of the diesel fuel that was being sold commercially.
 The biodiesel industry is currently in survival mode, but there are some very bright spots on the horizon. With a refocusing on nonfood feedstocks and on the use of new technologies that allow for the use of all potential feedstocks, including those available now and those available in the future (e.g. camelina, jatropha, pennycress and algae oils), there is a clear path forward to continue the replacement of petroleum diesel fuel with renewable, sustainable, domestically produced and biodegradable biodiesel fuel. Author: Clayton McNeff Board Member, McGyan Biodiesel LLC and Ever Cat Fuels LLC (763) 421-1072

2011/05/13052356713528.jpg

Biodiesel Has a Bright, Multicolored Future  

Kansas State University researchers have used a mass balance approach to evaluate the environmental and economic sustainability of algae biodiesel.
 Sustainability is an inexact term. Companies and researchers use a variety of methods to measure and project sustainability, some of which may lack a strong scientific foundation. However, a KSU research team led by chemical engineering professor Peter Pfromm, is studying the sustainability of algae-based biodiesel using a highly scientific approach: carbon mass balance.
 &ldquo;The application of mass balance is a very familiar item in chemical engineering,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s based on the scientific principle of concentration of mass, so that mass is neither destroyed nor created in a process.&rdquo;
 Mass balance is addressed in each unit of operation, including the algae pond, the distillation column, the biodiesel production process, and so on. &ldquo;These unit operations are then knitted together with mass and energy flows to represent the entire process,&rdquo; Pfromm continues. &ldquo;The idea is that mass flows into and out of an operation has balance.&rdquo; When the same amount of mass enters and leaves a system, the unit is balanced. When it does not, the system is unbalanced&mdash;and therefore unsustainable.
 Pfromm and his team have determined that algae biodiesel produced using CO2 sourced from fossil fuel is not environmentally sustainable in terms of carbon. This is because the CO2 coming from the fossil fuels is recycled to produce biodiesel, but still ultimately ends up in the atmosphere. In other words, it is not sequestered back into the ground to balance the unit operation associated with mining. However, algae produced using renewable CO2, such as that produced by an ethanol plant, is nearly environmentally sustainable. The only unsustainable portion of the operation is the fertilizer used to make the algae, which is sourced from natural gas.
 Results of the environmental portion of the evaluation, titled &ldquo;Sustainability of algae derived biomass: a mass balance approach,&rdquo; has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. A follow-up study will address economic sustainability. Additional members of the team include Vincent Amanor-Boadu, agricultural economics professor, and Richard Nelson, resource specialist.

SEEKING SUSTAINABILITY: Kansas State Researchers have found that algae biodiesel production using renewable CO2 is nearly sustainable.

2011/05/13052358334311.jpg

KSU study marginalizes algae's continued viability

A Scientific Approach to Sustainability

The American Soybean Association has teamed with up other U.S. oilseed producers and industry organizations to encourage the federal government to take action to protect soybean export markets. The EU passed its Renewable Energy Directive in April 2009. Among the many impacts of the directive is a requirement that biodiesel feedstocks meet certain sustainability requirements. This includes soybeans and soybean oil imported from the U.S. While only two of the 27 member states have adopted the RED to date, implementation of the program could negatively impact the U.S. soybean industry.
 This spring, the ASA, National Oilseed Processors, North American Export Grain Association and other supporting organizations sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk outlining concerns related to the impacts the RED is having on access for U.S. agricultural products to EU markets.
 &ldquo;I think there is a need for a concentrated coordinated effort on behalf of U.S. ag to work on how this directive can be complied with from the United States,&rdquo; says Steve Wellman, ASA first vice president. &ldquo;One of the main concerns that we have is the impact this would have for letting a country dictate to the United States how we need to produce and ship soybeans. In this case, it&rsquo;s strictly for biodiesel, but we don&rsquo;t like the precedent being set that could spread to food and feed requirements also. If the EU can set requirements on the United States, then some other country might try this also.&rdquo;
 The two components of the RED of greatest concern, Wellman says, are the sustainability requirements and the certification of those sustainability requirements. He says the greenhouse gas reduction requirements included in the directive are based on outdated production and transportation data source from Brazil. Actually, data from the U.S. would obviously lead to different results, Wellman says. &ldquo;We also question the methodology that the EU is using because we have other studies from the U.S. using other methodologies that show a bigger greenhouse gas reduction,&rdquo; he says.
 To comply with the RED, countries are given the option to develop what is called a voluntary scheme, which must be approved by the EU. While other countries, such as Argentina, are working to develop these voluntary schemes, the sheer scale of the U.S. soybean farming community would make that difficult here. &ldquo;One of the hurdles we have in the United States is we have more than 500,000 soybean farmers and about 17,000 first gathering points for soybeans,&rdquo; Wellman says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a huge number of people and systems that have to get certified and comply with the voluntary scheme. It seems like it would be cost-prohibitive in the U.S. It would reduce efficiencies and would demand some sort of a premium on the purchaser, which would be the EU, to make it worthwhile for private industry to do that here.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Another option offered under the RED is for the U.S. government to enter into bilateral agreement discussions with the EU.

EXPORT ISSUES: The American Soybean Association and a variety of other agricultural and industry organizations are working to ensure foreign countries arenâ€™t allowed to dictate how U.S. crops are grown and shipped. 

2011/05/13052359349012.jpg

EU, U.S. don't see eye-to-eye on soybean biodiesel sustainability 	

Defending US Agriculture

Thomas Arrington, chairman of Tidewater Biodiesel, a future 10 MMgy Virginia biodiesel facility that was recently approved by the city of Chesapeake&rsquo;s planning commission to build on a 5-acre site, knows the importance of location. As any biodiesel developer would do, Arrington spoke before the commission and outlined the benefits a future facility would bring. &ldquo;Chesapeake is the perfect location for this facility for three important reasons,&rdquo; he explains. The first reason should come as no surprise.
 &ldquo;Tidewater Biodiesel will create countless business opportunities for companies who are indirectly affiliated with biodiesel,&rdquo; he says. In addition, he told the commission about the facility&rsquo;s ability to play a role in reducing dependence on oil from foreign nations. But it was his explanation of the location of the facility that should act as a reminder to any producers looking to expand or build new facilities, that even with biodiesel, location is key. &ldquo;Having a facility that creates fuel locally,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;will only add to the ammunition that our local senators need&rdquo; to counter a call by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission for the reduction of Navy personnel in the area.

To convince a planning commission, Tidewater Biodiesel touts regional benefits

Keep it Local

Michelle Lacourciere, director of the Sirona Cares Foundation, a sister organization to California-based biodiesel producer Sirona Fuels, doesn&rsquo;t believe that jatropha is some kind of magic bullet for biodiesel. But that hasn&rsquo;t stopped her from visiting Haiti and her network of roughly 1,000 jatropha farmers every eight weeks. And although she does say that producing jatropha-based biodiesel from wild jatropha will &ldquo;really blow their (the farmers) socks off,&rdquo; her work reveals an often overlooked, but invaluable aspect of the biodiesel production process. Sometimes it&rsquo;s not about the end result but, instead, a different aspect within the production process that makes all the time spent working on transesterification worth it.
 Take it from Lacourciere who has firsthand experience of this idea. While she notes that jatropha may not be the best feedstock for biodiesel, she does add that &ldquo;for Haiti,&rdquo; and the country&rsquo;s need for reforesting (92 percent of the country is deforested, she says), &ldquo;it is really wonderful for holding the soil and adding value back to the soil, that is what they need at the very most.&rdquo; The farmers have proven her sentiments as well. After the devastation of the earthquake, Lacourciere thought all planting efforts would be lost, but to her surprise, the farmers had already started planting only a short time after the disaster.
 But it&rsquo;s not just the farmers&rsquo; use of jatropha to solidify their soil that shows why every part of the production process matters. A group of students from a Chicago school won the regional President&rsquo;s Environmental Youth Award for making a solar-powered biodiesel processor. They created the unit and then donated it to Haiti, gaining them recognition from the most powerful man in the world, the U.S. president.

PLANTING SUCCESS: Michelle Lacourciere, director of the Sirona Cares Foundation, visits her Haitian network of jatropha farmers every eight weeks. 

2011/05/13052360915684.jpg

In Haiti, it's about soil and for some Chicago students, it's about recognition

Biodiesel: More Than Meets the Eye

The EPA issued a notice in April regarding separation of renewable identification number (RIN) credits. The notice was in response to RIN separation activity outside the parameters set by law. &ldquo;Parties may separate RINs assigned to a volume of renewable fuel only pursuant to one of the nine conditions described in 40 CFR &sect;80.1429(b)(1 through 9),&rdquo; the EPA stated in its April notice. &ldquo;Parties that meet one of the specified conditions for separation may separate up to 2.5 assigned RINs per gallon of renewable fuel pursuant to &sect;80.1428(a)(4). Records documenting separation events must be maintained pursuant to &sect;80.1454. Within five days of separating a RIN from an assigned volume, the separating party must report the action in EMTS pursuant to &sect;80.1452.&rdquo;
 EPA went on to say, &ldquo;Note that there is no condition that permits a party to separate (or retire) assigned RINs because the downstream purchaser of their renewable fuel is not able to accept RINs due to not being registered for RFS2. RINs, whether they are assigned or separated, may only be transferred to parties properly registered for the RFS2 program pursuant to &sect;80.1450.&rdquo;
 Wayne Lee, principal of biodiesel consulting firm Lee Enterprises, says the question for biodiesel and biomass-based diesel producers is, &ldquo;Do you know what to do with excess RINs when your buyer is not registered with the EPA for the RFS2 program?&rdquo; Lee Enterprises&rsquo; RIN trading expert, Jess Hewitt, says, &ldquo;The EPA doesn&rsquo;t give extra points for creativity&rdquo; when it comes to RIN separation. He says with the high biomass-based diesel RIN prices today, biodiesel producers are getting calls from brokers encouraging them to separate the RINs from the gallons at the plant, something that could get the biodiesel producer, and the purchaser, in trouble with EPA.
 One would think biodiesel/RIN purchasers would simply register with the EPA to avoid any potential trouble with EPA, but Hewitt says the cost and paper trail to go through annual attestations is prohibitive for some distribution players.
 Biodiesel and other biomass-based diesel producers are advised to check out who their customers are to make sure they are registered with EPA, and if they are unsure, call an expert and have them figure it out.

The agency sends notice to industry on nine legal ways to separate RINs

Red Flagged

The Canadian Trucking Alliance is speaking out against the 2 percent renewable fuel standard for biodiesel that is set to come into force July 1. According to the CTA, the mandate could cost Canadians $2.5 billion over the next 25 years and create a wide variety of problems related to fuel handling and vehicle operability. The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association has responded to the data released by CTA by accusing the organization of &ldquo;misleading Canadians.&rdquo; CTA, in turn, has accused the CRFA of being &ldquo;clearly defensive.&rdquo;
 Biodiesel Magazine spoke with the CTA in April to learn more about their concerns and how their issues with the renewable fuel standard might be overcome. According to Stephen Laskowski, CTA vice president of economic affairs, it is necessary to clarify that Canada&rsquo;s mandate is not for B2, it is for an average of 2 percent renewable content in biodiesel. &ldquo;One of the pressing concerns CTA has with the averaging of B2 means that currently the way the regulation is proposed, we&rsquo;re going to see B5 blends and we are also going to see&hellip;the availability of product that is above B5, which is out of the warrantee ranges of most vehicles on the road,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I think your readers need to understand that this is not a B2 mandate. In fact, if it was a B2 mandate, it would be a lot clearer and a lot easier to deal with.
 Regarding a biodiesel mandate, Laskowski says that the CTA wants to see elements such as quality assurance programs, manufacturing assurances, infrastructure assurances and price control measures. He notes that Canada currently doesn&rsquo;t have its own quality standard for biofuel production. A nationwide quality standard for the fuel needs to be developed, he continues.
 Price is also a primary concern. &ldquo;We are not willing to pay more for this product,&rdquo; Laskowski says, noting that the CTA knows biodiesel will cost truckers more and add unnecessary complications into the industry&rsquo;s operations. &ldquo;Basically [they] are asking the trucking industry to subsidize biofuel producers, and we&rsquo;re not interested,&rdquo; he continued.
 CTA also questions the results of the National Renewable Diesel Demonstration Initiative study that was completed by Natural Resources Canada. The study found virtually no operability issues with low blends of biodiesel, such as B2 and B5. The vast majority of issues that were attributed to the use of B20 during winter, which resulted in some filter plugging and cold flow issues.
 According to Laskowski, CTA was involved in the NRDDI study and questions it&rsquo;s applicability to real-world trucking operations. &ldquo;It was a very controlled experiment,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Carriers were specifically selected, and they were educated to deal with this product. Most importantly, the fuel that was sourced was highly screened and controlled. What the study showed is if we do everything right, including fuel standards and educating carriers, etc., that operationally this could work in the winter. We do not have those assurances now.&rdquo;

DISPUTING DETAILS: The Canadian Trucking Association is speaking out against Canadaâ€™s biodiesel mandate, claiming several needed components of the program have been overlooked. 

2011/05/13052364675573.jpg

Canadian Trucking Association opposes Canada's renewable fuel requirements

Fighting the  Mandate Up North

S2G Biochemicals knows what to do with glycerin byproduct created through biodiesel production and, after attending an investment event that allowed the company to present its abilities to a group of Silicon Valley investors, a lot more people might now know what it does with glycerin too. The company has developed a process that converts renewable sugars like C6 glucose or fructose, C5 xylose or arabinose, or most importantly for biodiesel producers, C3 glycerin. According to the company, &ldquo;The two-stage, sugar-to-glycol process involves a catalytic hydrogenation&rdquo; of the feedstocks to intermediate alditols (e.g., xylose to xylitol), which is followed by a second hydrogenolysis stage that converts the alditols to mixed glycols. Those glycols can then enter what the company says is an $18 billion market for glycols.
 S2G Biochemicals employs a continuous, liquid phase reaction at high temperatures and pressures using metal catalysts it says are widely available and economical. &ldquo;The overall conversion efficiency is 85 to 95 percent.&rdquo; Working with International Polyol Chemical Inc., a sugar-to-glycol hydrocracking technology developer, the company put the process to the test in 2005 at a Northern China pilot plant and in 2007, it built a 200,000 ton per year plant that boasts $200 million in revenue per year, according to the company. S2G Biochemicals already partnered with an engineering firm and Lignol Innovations Corp. to test Lignol&rsquo;s C5/C6 &ldquo;soup&rdquo; with the glycol production process.
 Dallas Kachan, managing partner of Kachan &amp; Co., a cleantech consulting firm that helped put on the event, explained that the investment firms present liked what they saw.

A Canadian company uses a China facility to prove glycerin glycol process

Could Glycerin from Biodiesel Enter an $18 Billion Market? 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average price of on-road diesel in the U.S. as of April 18 was $4.105 per gallon, more than a $1 higher than the price one year before. While the per gallon price of B100 biodiesel is still technically higher than petroleum-based diesel, the gap is closing. However, when the biodiesel blenders credit and high RIN prices are taken into account, the per-gallon cost of biodiesel drops to around $2 per gallon. It seems that these blending economics should lead to increased demand for biodiesel and higher profitability for biodiesel producers, but this hasn&rsquo;t necessarily been the case&mdash;at least not yet.&nbsp;
 Lee Enterprises principal owner Wayne Lee says there are several factors at work in the market that need to be considered. While market economics change daily, Lee notes that the spreads have been good in recent days, weeks, and months. However, he also notes that it&rsquo;s important to remember that biodiesel producers are the ones who have taken on the vast majority of the market risk. &ldquo;[The producer] has but the capital investment into the project, so&hellip;it&rsquo;s his money at stake,&rdquo; Lee says. &ldquo;If he doesn&rsquo;t sell [the product] to an oil distributor at price, then somebody else will. The competition between the biodiesel producers to sell at those rates is pretty steep.&rdquo;
 Another factor mitigating the potential for increased demand might stem from smaller oil distributors. According to Lee, many may not have yet been enticed to set up a system to deal with RINs and collect subsidies. &ldquo;Also I think it may be that the smaller oil distributor&hellip;may be a bit hesitant to make an investment in blending technology at his site,&rdquo; Lee says. &ldquo;I think the issue becomes how long does it take for the oil distributor to come to the realization that the alternative fuel producer is part of his life and is here to stay.&rdquo;
 Lee also stresses that it is in everybody&rsquo;s best interest&mdash;even obligated parties&mdash;for biodiesel producers to make a profit. &ldquo;Alternative fuels are mandated by the RFS2, so obligated parties need to have RINs and they need to demonstrate compliance,&rdquo; Lee says. &ldquo;If [producers] don&rsquo;t make money, there will be less biodiesel out there, which means there will be fewer RINs, which means that the ones that are in existence go higher in price.&rdquo;
 One company that is making the blending economics work is Ultra Green Energy Services. The company just committed to selling biodiesel-blended fuel at a discount to rack pricing though the end of the year. UGES regional wholesale manager Danny Falcone points out that the explosion of RIN prices has only taken place over the past six months. &ldquo;The downstream end users don&rsquo;t [necessarily] translate that directly into the tank [and the price], Falcone says. For most middle market distributors there are also added costs to the fuel associated with handling the product, financing the product, bringing it downstream, blending it, and selling it, he continues. &ldquo;Hence there is a lot of opportunity for lots of major companies,&rdquo; Falcone says. &ldquo;If obligated parties see that the fuel is cheaper, they&rsquo;ll take it off the market, stick it into their distillate pool, enjoy the RIN value and still charge their price, because they can. Whereas middle market distributors such as ourselves fight to get those positions, try to buy as many spot opportunities as we can and offer those downstream. But, they are short lived. Not many people like to buy product cheap today and then have to pay higher prices again tomorrow.&rdquo; What makes UGES able to offer biodiesel-blended fuel at a reduced price is the risk management and hedging strategies it employs.

BLENDING POTENTIAL: Some in the biodiesel industry are questioning why high RIN prices and the blenders credit arenâ€™t translating into higher demand for biodiesel. 

2011/05/13052367744351.jpg

Biodiesel economics are better than ever, which should increase demand 

Measuring Up Price and Demand 

A week after testifying before the Senate&rsquo;s Environmental and Public Works committee on the topic of biofuels, USDA&rsquo;s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack headed home to Iowa, and although the trip included stops at a livestock operation and a row-crop farm, a majority of his destinations centered around biofuels. While visitors like Vilsack at such facilities as Renewable Energy Group Inc.&rsquo;s Newton, Iowa, biodiesel plant, may not create an immediate impact on the price of biodiesel, or instantly extend a tax incentive, or magically increase the mandate for biomass-based biodiesel, there are some guests that should always be welcomed.
 REG&rsquo;s President and chief financial officer, Daniel Oh, might attest to that. Oh had the opportunity to lead a roundtable discussion with Vilsack, in which ethanol industry leaders Jeff Broin, CEO of Poet LLC, and Todd Becker, president and CEO of Green Plains Renewable Energy, also participated. Are any government officials better qualified to speak on biodiesel&rsquo;s ability to meet RFS2 obligations, reduce imported petroleum or help U.S. fleets in their quest to use alternative energy? Few, if any, and although a visit from Vilsack can reinvigorate and remind everyone involved with biodiesel how important their efforts are, a special part of the agriculture secretary's visit was that he was accompanied on the tour by U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, an occurrence that Vilsack noted doesn&rsquo;t happen often. &ldquo;I think this was a very historic opportunity,&rdquo; he said of Jackson&rsquo;s visit. &ldquo;Those who were in attendance could not remember the last time an EPA administrator had visited the state of Iowa.&rdquo;
 Jackson&rsquo;s presence helps clarify why government officials or other big names who tour a biodiesel facility are important, even if those visitors aren&rsquo;t typically bringing a list of potential investors or a loan guarantee with them. Following the tour, Jackson explained that of all that she learned, the most important point to remember, she said, was that &ldquo;biofuels are about innovation,&rdquo; a positive message one might hope all visitors would leave a biodiesel facility thinking&mdash;especially considering the number of people to whom a decider like Jackson can spread that message.

HONORED VISITORS: Ag secretary Vilsack, left, and EPA Administrator Jackson, right, toured several spots in Iowa and had a roundtable discussion on renewable energy afterwards. 

2011/05/13052368585072.jpg

REG's Newton facility got a visit from Vilsack and Jackson	

A Dog and Pony Show (That Matters)

The U.S. Foodservice wanted a more environmentally sustainable fleet, and now it is one waste vegetable oil (WVO) collection business closer. The food company recently purchased WVO Industries out of South Carolina, a company that collects and purifies the oil before shipping it off for biodiesel production. The plan is to relocate the WVO assets to a Columbia location where the oil will be processed. Producers who may be concerned that U.S. Foodservice will be gobbling up a high volume of feedstock can relax. While the company says it will collect roughly 5 million pounds of WVO per year (which equates to 400,000 gallons of renewable feedstock) it will only be using 200,000 gallons of it for its personnel fleet, and the remaining feedstock will made available to outside companies.
 Tom Murray of the Environmental Defense Fund says the acquisition is a step to reduce the fleet&rsquo;s environmental impact, and Michael Frank, U.S. Foodservice vice president of operations excellence, speaks to the level that impact may achieve, and it&rsquo;s not just limited to South Carolina. &ldquo;We expect to duplicate the success of the Columbia biodiesel operation,&rdquo; Frank says, &ldquo;at other U.S. Foodservice divisions.&rdquo;

VERTICAL INTEGRATION: U.S. Foodservice recently purchased South Carolina-based WVO Industries to secure feedstock for biodiesel in another effort to reduce its carbon footprint. 

2011/05/13052371819982.jpg

Could a move to fleet sustainability mean less available feedstock in South Carolina? 

Getting into the Feedstock Game

As we near the half-way mark of the year, we are approaching&nbsp; an important opportunity to assess the state of the industry to date and prepare for the demands of the coming months.
 After experiencing the devastating lapse of the federal blenders tax credit last year, the industry is rebounding. We have experienced two quarters of industry growth through the implementation of biodiesel&rsquo;s first renewable fuel standard.
 Public policy remains a significant driver in creating certainty and stability for the biodiesel industry. In June, National Biodiesel Board members from across the country will meet face-to-face with elected officials in Washington, D.C. Our NBB Legislative Affairs team has spent a great deal of time to ensure successful Congressional visits for all NBB members in attendance. These grassroots visits continue to be paramount to achieving our industry&rsquo;s long-term vision and legislative priorities.&nbsp;
&nbsp; Whether you are headed to the nation&rsquo;s capital or not, I encourage you to reach out to NBB&rsquo;s Washington, D.C., team to get involved. In spite of our industry&rsquo;s turnaround, there is much work to be done to reinforce and grow our position in the nation&rsquo;s energy complex.
 EPA Committed to RVO Compliance 
 The renewable fuel standard (RFS2) is creating the nation&rsquo;s first requirement for biodiesel blending at the petroleum refiner and distillate importer level and is supportive of reducing our nation&rsquo;s dependence on imported petroleum.
 It is estimated that 30 to 45 percent of the 800 million gallon biomass-based diesel renewable volume obligation will be met by blending biodiesel in states with existing infrastructure. States such as Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Pennsylvania require biodiesel in every gallon of diesel fuel and have built extensive blending infrastructure. States with market-driving incentives such as Iowa, Ohio, Texas and Illinois (which consumes more biodiesel than any other state in the nation) also have blending infrastructure in place. State legislators and governors play a critical role in creating and implementing programs that move our industry forward. The NBB State Government Affairs team is actively engaged in state-level policy creation, and I urge you to stay in touch with state policy makers and the NBB team regarding biodiesel policy development and movement in your state.
 While Congress enacted RFS1 in 2005, the U.S. EPA is responsible for implementing and enforcing RFS2. This spring, I was fortunate to participate in a renewable fuels roundtable with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at Renewable Energy Group Inc.&rsquo;s biodiesel facility, during which she voiced her support for the biodiesel industry, the industry&rsquo;s role in meeting RFS2 and our position as part of the administration&rsquo;s goals for reducing our dependence on imported petroleum.&nbsp;
 The NBB D.C. team continues to coordinate open dialogue between members and EPA staff to ensure successful implementation.&nbsp; As a result, the EPA has assured the industry it will maintain renewable volume obligation compliance levels for 2011 and 2012&rsquo;s biomass-based diesel category.&nbsp;
 The EPA has not yet announced the renewable volume obligation for RFS2 for 2013 and beyond. I recommend that all members participate in comment requests as the NBB staff continues to work closely with the EPA in order to establish biodiesel&rsquo;s future role in RFS2.
 Promote Biodiesel&rsquo;s Advantages as America&rsquo;s First Advanced Biofuel
 Biodiesel can play a major role in the solution to meeting the EPA&rsquo;s requirements for advanced biofuels utilization. In order to position biodiesel as &ldquo;America&rsquo;s Advanced Biofuel&rdquo; the NBB, in coordination with numerous soybean associations, is launching the Advanced Biofuel Initiative. This multimillion dollar campaign is targeting biodiesel&rsquo;s opposition groups as well as decision makers and the public. We must differentiate ourselves in a sea of fuels and technologies. Tens of millions of dollars are being invested to saturate the media with misinformation. The Advanced Biofuel Initiative is our way to meet myths and misinformation head-on.
 The campaign will target those that label soybean oil-based biodiesel a &ldquo;first-generation, conventional biofuel.&rdquo; We will showcase biodiesel&rsquo;s role in global protein production. We will differentiate biodiesel from other fuels in the marketplace. We will begin to turn the tide on public opinion.
 The scope of the Advanced Biofuel Initiative is designed to make a notable and lasting impact within narrowly defined audiences. This proposal spans three years and is aimed at permanently filling existing information voids among those audiences that have the potential to be the most influential or, conversely, the most detrimental.&nbsp;
 I&rsquo;m proud of the work done to bring this plan to fruition and ask that all NBB members take advantage of the new resources coming your way and promote &ldquo;Biodiesel: America&rsquo;s Advanced Biofuel.&rdquo;
 Rally Support for Federal Biodiesel Tax Incentive 
 More immediately, the industry must rally in support of our federal biodiesel tax incentive program. The federal blenders tax credit has been one of the most successful pieces of energy legislation in the history of America. Since its inception in 2004, it&rsquo;s done what we said it would: create jobs, build brick-and-mortar renewable refinery capacity, stimulate economic development, and generate tax revenue that exceeded its cost to the U.S. Treasury.
 The tax incentive has promoted America&rsquo;s role in worldwide biodiesel production and consumption. Global biodiesel production continues to strengthen and could pose a challenge to domestic biodiesel production.&nbsp;
 After last year, we all now recognize how difficult it can be to navigate the legislative process even with a well-supported, bipartisan policy. With another federal incentive fight ahead, we must avoid the temptation to move anywhere but straight ahead. We can only accomplish what we need to through a unified voice. We&rsquo;ve achieved great initiatives and policy before, and together we can do it again.
 As we enter the third and fourth quarters of this year, we must work together. The NBB will continue to work for the success of our whole industry through the maintenance and growth of RFS2, the Advanced Biofuels Initiative campaign and the continuation of a federal biodiesel incentive. Gary Haer Chairman, National Biodiesel Board

2011/05/13052969391073.jpg

Biodiesel Industry Rebounding, Looking Toward a Strong End of the Year

Starting this summer, catch the new biodiesel spot during Sunday morning news shows. The 30-second television ad is a first for the National Biodiesel Board. The effort includes a national ad and local cable ads during the popular network news talk shows. Local cable advertising is targeted at the Mid-Atlantic region.
 The ad is part of NBB&rsquo;s Advanced Biofuel Initiative. With a $3.5 million annual budget, the initiative is the single largest project ever in NBB&rsquo;s history. It is designed as a three-year project to establish biodiesel as an advanced biofuel among opinion leaders and likely detractors. The project began in January and is slated to run through December 2013.
 The commercial concept and content were created based on research within the target audiences.
Focus groups held in Washington, D.C., and Baltimore showed that the starting line to effectively reach this group of high-level opinion leaders was further back than originally believed.&nbsp; Among the research conclusions was the reality that the target audience knows little to nothing about biodiesel, biofuel or agriculture. For example, in addition to confusing jatropha, corn and soybean plants, participants made comments including:&nbsp;
 &bull; Engines aren&rsquo;t designed for biodiesel yet, and it has less energy per gallon than diesel fuel, and it&rsquo;s rumored that I could pour corn oil into my fuel tank and drive around on it, but I&rsquo;m certainly not going to try it.
 &bull; For motor vehicles, you can&rsquo;t use it in Maryland. I&rsquo;m not sure about surrounding states. Based on this research, the ad is presented in a simple-to-understand testimonial style format and set in Dallas. It features biodiesel hard at work in buses, city equipment and emergency vehicles. Print, radio and online ads will reinforce both the images and the messages in the television commercial.
 The advertising effort is just part of the overall Advanced Biofuel Initiative. The program also includes opportunities for direct outreach to likely detractors such as environmental organizations, all designed to establish biodiesel as an advanced biofuel.

NBB spearheads industry's first-ever national television ad

One of the priorities of the National Biodiesel Board is to represent the biodiesel industry nationwide at industry events, and the first half of this year has been full of important meetings, conferences and trade shows. The events that NBB staff and contractors participate in include federal policy events, international feedstock conferences, petroleum industry association meetings, regional and national original equipment manufacturer (OEM) conferences, U.S. DOE Clean Cities events, local, regional and national sustainability events and much more.
 The level of participation varies depending on the event but includes speaking roles on plenary session panels at national conferences, featured expert speakers for events and webinars, sponsor partnerships, media partnerships, trade show exhibits and more.
 &ldquo;NBB&rsquo;s participation in the wide variety of conferences and events helps to get the biodiesel industry&rsquo;s story out to a very diverse audience,&rdquo; said Jessica Robinson, communications director for the NBB. &ldquo;An individual biodiesel producer or distributor would have a very difficult time effectively reaching a national audience and running their business at the same time. That is where the trade association steps in to carry the message.&rdquo;
 NBB staff often partner with member companies when participating in events.
 &ldquo;We often have local members help out in a speaking role or at regional trade shows,&rdquo; Robinson added. &ldquo;This helps carry the message of the biodiesel industry as a whole, as well as gives them an opportunity to be active in their local communities.&rdquo;
 Notification of events and the opportunity to participate in regional and national events alongside the national industry trade association is one of the many services and opportunities NBB provides for members. Attending events and tradeshows is just one of the ways NBB represents the biodiesel industry and is a key part of an ongoing effort to educate fleet managers, decision makers and opinion leaders on the benefits of biodiesel.

NBB staff presented a biodiesel symposium along with representatives from Ford and General Motors at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

2011/05/13052971537361.jpg

NBB represents the biodiesel industry at many national events including the recent Commodity Classic trade show in Tampa, Fla.

2011/05/13052971942428.jpg

NBB partnered with the Kentucky Soybean Board and United Soybean Board to provide biodiesel information at the Mid-America Trucking Show in Louisville, Ky.

2011/05/13052972201035.jpg

NBB represents the biodiesel  industry nationwide

The American Soybean Association recently announced Ed Ulch and Brian Ulch as the winners of the 2011 ASA Conservation Legacy Award. The father and son pair from Solon, Iowa, grow soybeans, corn and hay on 2,300 acres. Ed Ulch is vice chair of the National Biodiesel Board.
 The Conservation Legacy Awards Program is a national program designed to recognize outstanding environmental and conservation achievements by U.S. soybean farmers. Selection is based on each farmer's environmental and economic efforts on their farm. Judges look for dedication to the land through cropland management practices, farmstead protection, and conservation and environmental management.
 Ed serves on the board for the Iowa Soybean Association as well as serving on NBB&rsquo;s governing board. &ldquo;It is no coincidence that the biodiesel industry is linked so closely with a Conservation Legacy Award Winner,&rdquo; said Don Scott, Director of Sustainability for the National Biodiesel Board. &ldquo;Sustainability is one of the key principles of both agriculture and the biodiesel industry.&rdquo;
 The Ulchs have been leaders in the conservation farm movement in Johnson County, Iowa, and have served as leaders to other farmers in promoting the adoption of best management practices. The Ulches are committed to reduced tillage operations and have implemented no-till practices on their farm for nearly 20 years.
 &ldquo;These types of conservation practices and other advances in agriculture are leading to higher yields and lower inputs with the same acreage,&rdquo; Scott added. &ldquo;Biodiesel producers are already providing a very sustainable fuel and these advances in agriculture ensure that as the biodiesel industry continues to grow it will do so in a sustainable way.&rdquo;
 Along with the American Soybean Association, the Conservation Legacy Awards Program is co-sponsored by Monsanto and the Corn &amp; Soybean Digest.

NBB congratulates 2011 ASA Conservation Legacy award winner

The National Biodiesel Board has a strong online presence that includes www.biodiesel.org, the all-inclusive source for biodiesel information, a biodiesel sustainability website, a BQ-9000 website, a biotrucker website and more. One of the most important features you may not know about, however, is the NBB Members Only site.
 The Members Only site is a password-protected secure area where NBB member companies can access vital industry information.
 The site features six content-specific areas, a news-you-should-know section, a rotating featured member, and a section for committee activities and hot topics. Content managers from each of NBB&rsquo;s project areas frequently upload important documents. The Member Files section features membership forms, a member directory, meeting minutes and a secure online location to report volume dues and production reports. The Federal Affairs section contains detailed RFS2 information, pending legislation, current laws, current grants, tax credit information and other important federal information. The Communication section features prepared talking points, NBB Member news releases, biodiesel stories in the press and other educational materials. The Technical section features ASTM specifications, OEM industry updates, petroleum industry activity and more. The State Affairs section contains current state laws, pending legislation, state mandates, fuel quality laws and regulation by state, and other pending state actions. The Economics/Feedstocks section is home to economic impact studies, USDA reports on crop production and other reports.
 Along with important documents, whitepapers, talking points and other valuable resources, the Members Only site is home to the Members Media Center which holds videos ranging from NBB presentations to on-site RFS2 workshop videos to recent Member Town Hall Webinars. The NBB Members Only site continues to be the go-to place for NBB Members to access the most up-to-date information.
 While the site continues to have content added to it on a regular basis, a redesigned Members Only site is scheduled to be unveiled this summer.

The NBB Members Only website is home to many valuable industry resources. 

2011/05/13052973531559.jpg

NBB Members Only site provides platform for important industry information

Little Rock, Ark.-based biodiesel consulting group Lee Enterprises has developed a new strategic alliance with an executive recruiting agency, and added two new members to its team. Lee Enterprises recently announced the formation of a strategic alliance with Ft. Myers, Fla.-based Executive Leadership Solutions. The group has assigned George &ldquo;Mason&rdquo; Carpenter to work directly with Lee Enterprises in finding experienced professional employees for biodiesel plants. Carpenter is a senior executive recruiter who specializes in recruiting and placing candidates in the alternative energy sector. He is a Certified Personnel Consultant and has placed engineers, scientists, project managers, and traders/risk managers in alternative energy companies across the country. The group also added appraiser Catherine J. Rein to its team of biofuels consultants. Rein received her bachelor&rsquo;s degree in chemical engineering from Colorado School of Mines and her MBA from the University of Houston. She is an accredited member of the American Society of Appraisers in Machinery and Equipment and is the principal owner of Louisville, Colo.-based Sandalwood Valuation LLC. Earl Stout II has also joined Lee Enterprises. Stout is a retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel with more than 40 years of experience in government and private sectors.
 Ultra Green Energy Services LLC was scheduled to celebrate the grand opening of a new biodiesel transload facility May 16. The Whippany, N.J.-based facility features rail-to-truck transloading and red dye capabilities. According to Michael Cooper, UGES&rsquo; vice president and director of sales and marketing, his company has been looking to develop a transloading location in New Jersey for years. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve found a location that gives us the opportunity to deliver ourselves railcars [of biodiesel] in an economical manner,&rdquo; he said. UGES has added several pieces of equipment to the Whippany location. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve brought in our own mechanical equipment,&rdquo; Cooper says. &ldquo;We need to heat the biodiesel when it comes in, so we put in our own boiler to generate heat to steam the cars in the winter. We also brought our own pumping system; a 600-gallon-per-minute, diesel-biodiesel-powered pump.&rdquo; The location can handle any number of railcars, from two to 50. &ldquo;We can line them up and heat them and move them down the process,&rdquo; Cooper says.
 A report released April 20 by the International Energy Agency determined that, when produced sustainably, the widespread deployment of biofuels can play an important role in reducing CO2 emissions in the transportation sector. The report, titled &ldquo;Technology Roadmap: Biofuels for Transport,&rdquo; also noted that biofuels can help enhance energy security. It states the production of biomass-derived fuels is a key technology that will aid in carbon dioxide emissions reductions. The report also demonstrates that global biofuel consumption can increase in a sustainable way, from 55 million metric tons of oil equivalent today, to 750 million metric tons of oil equivalent in 2050. The report defines sustainable fuel production as that which results in significant life-cycle environmental benefits without compromising food security. The projected increase would ultimately mean that total percentage of petroleum-based transportation fuels replaced by biomass-based counterparts would increase from approximately 2 percent today to 27 percent in 2050.
 A new program in New York aims to promote the use of biodiesel-blended fuel in diesel generators. The BioGenset Project is administrated by Biodiesel Industries through a grant awarded by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. According to the project, the use of B5 in New York generators could eliminate up to 110,000 tons of carbon emissions annually while displacing 13.6 million gallons of petroleum diesel. &ldquo;A 2000 estimate by NYSERDA indicates use of 720,000 gallons [of diesel] a day, or over 250 million gallons annually, in electric generators,&rdquo; states the BioGenset website, noting that nearly half of petroleum diesel in the U.S. is used to fuel electrical generators and boilers. There are several kinds of portable and stationary diesel generators, says Steven Levy, managing director of Sprague Energy and president of the New York City Lower Hudson Valley Clean Communities program. The BioGenset Project aims to educate users of this type of equipment that the use of biodiesel-blended fuel can significantly reduce emissions while helping to drive down the nation&rsquo;s dependence on fossil fuels.
 A new simulation program developed at Iowa State University allows students to gain hands-on experience running a biorefinery. The Interactive Biorefinery Operations Simulator (I-BOS), which is modeled after real biodiesel and ethanol plants in Iowa, operates like a flight simulator. The system has been built into an actual control room modeled after the ones at Lincolnway Energy LLC&rsquo;s Nevada, Iowa-based ethanol plant and a local Renewable Energy Group Inc. biodiesel plant. The simulation control room at ISU even includes a security video loop of feedstock offloading that is synchronized with the software. It took more than two years to develop the program. The I-BOS system will be integrated into a biorenewables technology class. The program also keeps track of how much energy is used during a simulation. If students forget to turn off motors or are wasteful with energy use, the I-BOS system will track that.
 Biofuels and industry advocates in Spain are encouraging the Spanish government to follow in the steps of France, Italy, Greece and Portugal by taking action to protect the country&rsquo;s domestic biodiesel industry. According to information released by Spanish trade union Confederaci&oacute;n Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO), biofuel imported to Spain at below market prices has resulted in plant closures, downsizing and layoffs. The organization and its federation FITEQA recently met with officials in the Spanish government to discuss these concerns. The CCOO stresses that it is necessary for the government to take decisive and consistent political action to mitigate the impacts of low-priced imports that have resulted from &ldquo;deliberate distortion of charges and exemptions.&rdquo; Roderic Miralles, president of Asociaci&oacute;n de Productores de Energ&iacute;as Renovables (APPA Biofuels), has also encouraged government action to support the economic sustainability of Spain&rsquo;s biodiesel industry. APPA has asked the Ministry of Industry to commission a mechanism that would ensure that only biodiesel produced in Spain could be used to meet the country&rsquo;s biofuel obligations.
 A program in St. Louis is offering citizens the opportunity to become involved with algae biofuel development by collecting algae samples that will be analyzed for oil content at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. The second annual Backyard Biofuels Citizen Science Project was scheduled to kick off May 7 with AlgaePalooza. The event will be held in the Life Science Lab at the St. Louis Science Center, co-hosted by the Center for Advanced Biofuel Systems at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. More than 500 people were expected to attend.&nbsp; Those interested in participating in the Backyard Biofuels project who cannot attend AlgaePalooza can pick up algae collection kits throughout the spring and summer at the Danforth Center or the St. Louis Science Center. Each algae kit contains everything you need to collect an algae sample.
 Through a $50,000 donation, Evonik Industries will &ldquo;help prepare individuals for work in the biotechnology and milling industries,&rdquo; it states. The money will be used to operate the Washington County Technology Center at the Cargill-owned Blair, Neb., BioRefinery Campus for five years. The hope is to train future employees for technical jobs within the campus. Alan Brewer, vice president of Evonik&rsquo;s Health and Nutrition Business Unit in North America, notes the critical need for highly trained, highly qualified people to work at the Evonik plant in Blair, which produces lysine, an amino acid used as a feed additive in the swine and poultry industry. &ldquo;In the past,&rdquo; Brewer says, &ldquo;Evonik has hired people and trained them. Now, graduates of the Technology Center program will have a leg up on qualifying for jobs offered by Evonik and other businesses.&rdquo; During a two-year program, students will develop skills in chemistry and other processes used at the facility on the way to earning an associate degree in applied technology. The current employee numbers at the campus equal roughly 200, and the total amount of contribution dollars to the Blair facility from Evonik and industry partners equals more than $500,000 to date.
 Planned expansion of corn oil production at all of Poet LLC's ethanol plants will produce enough raw material for up to 60 million gallons of biodiesel. Poet, which owns a total of 1.7 billion gallons of ethanol refining capacity, is now selling trademarked Voil&agrave; corn oil from Poet Biorefining-Hudson in South Dakota into biodiesel and feed markets, and its success has prompted Poet to start plans for rolling out its patent-pending production to its other plants. The rollout schedule is still being set, but the company will begin installation this year on the first plants. Poet&rsquo;s specific brand of corn oil is different thanks to the low-energy BPX fermentation process (&ldquo;cold-cook&rdquo;), which eliminates heat from fermentation. When corn oil is captured on the back-end of that process following BPX, it is a higher-quality product with a lower amount of free fatty acids.

2011/05/13052974726228.jpg

2011/05/13052974400189.jpg

2011/05/13052975159245.jpg

2011/05/13052978996208.jpg

When BioFuelBox, the biodiesel process technology company that designed, built and ran a 1 MMgy biodiesel facility in Idaho based on the principles of the supercritical process&mdash;high pressure and high temperatures&mdash;won the 2010 Technology Pioneer award from the World Economic Forum, one could argue that a new beginning in biodiesel production methods for alternative feedstocks was set. After all, look at the success of some of the previous winners, most you've probably heard of. In 2010, along with BioFuelBox, the social media company Twitter received the same award. In 2007, it was Mozilla and, in 2006, Amryis Biotechnologies received the award. If these don't make a compelling case that the supercritical process for biodiesel production was well on its way to becoming the norm after the 2010 award, consider the winners in 2002, Google and PayPal.
 &ldquo;We took a technology that had been done in labs, and we took it to full scale,&rdquo; says Christina Borgese, former senior engineer for BioFuelBox. &ldquo;We were selling product to a corporation that said we had the best biodiesel they&rsquo;d ever seen.&rdquo; Unfortunately, that World Economic Forum award didn&rsquo;t come with a guarantee for future economic prosperity, and today, BioFuelBox is no more, a victim of an extremely difficult financial climate seen in 2010 within the biodiesel industry: an innovative company all but forgotten. Borgese, who says &ldquo;it was a big accomplishment to have scaled supercritical beyond the lab bench,&rdquo; is now co-founder, senior engineer and president of PreProcess Inc., along with her partner and other co-founder Marc Privitera, who was also formerly on the BioFuelBox team.
 As Borgese would attest, there is much the biodiesel industry can learn from the brief, wondrous life of BioFuelBox, perhaps most importantly that supercritical biodiesel technology has been proven to work at commercial scale and, in the right situation, might prove to be the best. But, as the name implies, a number of factors should be evaluated before a producer looks to retrofit or initiate an operation using&nbsp; principles of high temperature and high pressure.
 What We Already Know
 Randy Weinstein, chair of the department of chemical engineering and program director of a one-year-old sustainable engineering program at Villanova University, says supercritical fluid has a bad name. &ldquo;It kind of scares some people that don&rsquo;t really know what it is. They kind of equate it with nuclear reactors,&rdquo; Weinstein explains. The process is, of course, complex, but nothing close to nuclear levels.
 Borgese, an expert on the subject, describes it this way. &ldquo;A supercritical fluid can be any material that has been taken to a temperature and pressure higher than its critical point. At this state, distinct gas and liquid phases do not exist. Supercritical fluids can exhibit effusion rates similar to gases and can dissolve materials into its components like a liquid.&rdquo; Combine that with the fact that during the process, a catalyst is not required to create a reaction and the feedstock can be much higher in free fatty acid (FFA) content than traditional feedstocks, and the process appears to be intriguing. &ldquo;There are a lot of potential reaction sites because the more the material moves around, the more reaction potential there is,&rdquo; Borgese adds, and the result is far less glycerin product. In a typical process, one leg of a triglyceride will be broken off at a time, forming diglycerides, and from there other legs are broken off forming monoglycerides. With a supercritical process and the higher number of reactions, the overall amount of glycerin is cut down. Less glycerin is inherently produced in supercritical processes because higher FFA materials are typically used. The byproduct of an FFA esterification reaction is water whereas the byproduct from a glyceride transesterification is glycerin. A supercritical process &ldquo;has the potential to cut down on your processing time because you are going to do a lot of quicker separations,&rdquo; Weinstein says.
 But even though the elements required to drive a supercritical reaction that ultimately create an indistinguishable mix of both gas and liquid are certainly achievable, Borgese does, however, caution that not everyone can do it. &ldquo;Supercritical is not something that you just do in your backyard,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;When you are dealing with methanol at a supercritical fluid state and the letdown of the temperature and pressure, you have to have all of your purge systems in place, which can be done,&rdquo; she adds, &ldquo;someone just has to do it right.&rdquo;
 Bevan Dooley, managing director for InProTek, an Australian-based engineering firm that has created a supercritical system of its own, conveys the same message as Borgese and points out one of the main factors everyone needs to know about the process is safety. &ldquo;These (supercritical) conditions create additional safety concerns that require careful management and [that] intrinsic safety measures to be designed into the plant.&rdquo;
 As for the supercritical processes, when safety measures go up, so do the capital costs. Because the process involves taking fluids to 800 degrees Fahrenheit and 3,000 PSI, Borgese says equipment requirements include class 2100 flanges and other material that can withstand those pressures and temperatures. Weinstein points out the need for special steel alloys; Borgese says there can&rsquo;t be any plastic that comes in contact with the supercritical fluid at one of these plants; and Dooley sums it up by saying, &ldquo;material selection at these temperatures and pressures is paramount.&rdquo;
 In an odd twist, it&rsquo;s the necessity for safety that has formed one of the commonly held beliefs, or to be more accurate, truths, about such a process&mdash;it costs more upfront. And the need for certain materials isn&rsquo;t the only aspect driving up the capital costs of a supercritical process. As Weinstein points out, producers aren&rsquo;t &ldquo;going to have a lot of in-house expertise on supercritical fluids.&rdquo; While Borgese says that a return on investment is dependent on the chosen feedstock and a few other aspects, installing a supercritical process could show reasonable one to one-and-a-half year paybacks of capital, but that is without including the engineering costs. Add in those costs to a volatile biodiesel landscape and it might be a bit clearer why such an award-winning technology hasn&rsquo;t taken off.
 For a research study titled &ldquo;Economic Issues Related to Continuous Supercritical Biodiesel Production,&rdquo; co-authored last year by Michael Popp, an economist for the University of Arkansas, much of the data used was on bench-scale research. Popp&rsquo;s team took high FFA feedstock, blended it with methanol and raised it to high temperatures under high pressure in the absence of a catalyst to generate their own supercritical data. Although Popp says the process is attractive based on its ability to allow producers to be highly feedstock flexible, &ldquo;and basically go shopping for whatever you can get that is giving you the least price per pound,&rdquo; he also says one of the factors holding back growth of supercritical processes is related to what already exists in the industry.
 &ldquo;We probably have excess capacity using different technology,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;so why would people convert to a new technology when there is excess capacity using other proven technologies where they know the yields upfront?&rdquo;
 In addition to what we already have, Borgese says that fluctuations in energy prices also factor into the processes growth. &ldquo;Right now the biodiesel market fluctuates back and forth with fuel prices, so when you have fuel prices really high, then everyone is into biodiesel, and when they go down, investors pull out.&rdquo; On top of those factors, Weinstein says that there is just not a readily available provider of this technology.
 Even with all of the factors that might detract from the allure of producing biodiesel without the presence of a catalyst, there are, however, a number of reasons why it could still be the next best approach.
 Why Supercritical Will Happen
 To start, Dooley might disagree with Weinstein&mdash;sort of. His team of engineers, which features a background in the construction of supercritical steam generators and high temperature and pressure oil cleaning processes, has worked in the biodiesel industry before and felt that the development of a supercritical process &ldquo;was the next logical step.&rdquo; Now the team has developed a system it plans to unveil that they say can create margin improvements of up to $140 a ton: $50 a ton generated from the catalyst cost savings, $40 a ton from a 4 percent yield increase over base-catalyzed reaction and $50 a ton through the neutralization of chemicals.
 The InProTek system may not yet be here, but developments are happening in this technology sector and, under the right circumstances, more could be on the way. Popp says that if the industry were to expand, supercritical might be the process used in future plants based on its feedstock flexibility aspects. Weinstein says you have to start looking to the future &ldquo;when everybody is starting from scratch from other oils not being produced from soy. Then you might be able to start designing something around that which would be a supercritical process.&rdquo;
 Borgese says the supercritical method can process feedstocks with 85 percent FFA and higher and, in doing so, can tap into otherwise untouchable feedstocks that might otherwise be landfilled. With today&rsquo;s biodiesel prices, she adds that there is more room to work with given the price of biodiesel a year ago. That things are different than they were a year ago may be the best for the supercritical process. Next year, it&rsquo;s safe to say the same will apply. BioFuelBox didn&rsquo;t make it, but the project showed the industry something very important about supercritical technology. And if we want to know what the future of supercritical processing methods will look like, maybe we should just take the word of someone who has been there and done that. &ldquo;The reaction technology works,&rdquo; Borgese says. &ldquo;At this point, it is just a matter of getting feedstock. As these materials like soy oil rise,&rdquo; she says, &ldquo;an increased look at further waste materials will happen.&rdquo; And as every producer knows, feedstock plays the biggest role in the technology used. Author: Luke Geiver Associate Editor, Biodiesel Magazine (701) 738-4944 <a href="mailto:lgeiver@bbiinternational.com">lgeiver@bbiinternational.com</a>

It's a major award-winning process—so where is it?

June 2011

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

EERC Biomass '11 Conference Set for July

Biomass Policy and Finance Roundup

Biomass Conference Takeaways

Massachusetts Policy Troubling for Renewable Energy Development

INCREASED INTEREST

Process Technology? Check. Now, Profit

Biodiesel Has a Bright, Multicolored Future

Featured

Gateway to Biomass

Biomass Power: Pillar of a New Japan?

Maximizing Efficiency

Out with the Old

Test article to ATB

Proving Out Supercritical Processing

Making a Great Fuel Even Better

Homogenous Catalyst and Effects on Multifeedstock Processing

Contributions

Boilers: Economic Change From Coal to Biomass

Cost of Operations: ULSD vs. B20

Centrifugal vs. Coalescing Separation Technologies

June 2011.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

EERC Biomass '11 Conference Set for July

Biomass Policy and Finance Roundup

Biomass Conference Takeaways

Massachusetts Policy Troubling for Renewable Energy Development

INCREASED INTEREST

Process Technology? Check. Now, Profit

Biodiesel Has a Bright, Multicolored Future

Featured

Gateway to Biomass

Biomass Power: Pillar of a New Japan?

Maximizing Efficiency

Out with the Old

Test article to ATB

Proving Out Supercritical Processing

Making a Great Fuel Even Better

Homogenous Catalyst and Effects on Multifeedstock Processing

Contributions

Boilers: Economic Change From Coal to Biomass

Cost of Operations: ULSD vs. B20

Centrifugal vs. Coalescing Separation Technologies

June 2011