The biomass power and thermal industries have their work cut out for them trying to divert the federal government&rsquo;s attention away from biomass-based transportation fuels.
 On the heels of a $510 million investment announcement on Aug. 16 by the U.S. DOE for the development of drop-in biofuels for military and commercial transportation over the next three years, the DOE announced another award on Aug. 31 of $12 million that is designed to support three biofuel and biochemical conversion facilities.
 The biofuels industry also got a boost from the Biomass Crop Assistance Program in its latest announcements, which included project areas for Beaver Biodiesel LLC, AltAir Fuels LLC, ZeaChem and Abengoa Biofuels.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 I don&rsquo;t begrudge the biofuels industry, and I understand how important it is for the U.S. to move away from using imported crude oil for our transportation purposes, but I&rsquo;m starting to get a little frustrated.
 Fortunately developers and investors aren&rsquo;t waiting for the government to open up its pocketbook. I have had quite a few inquiries lately from people wanting more information about biomass power and thermal projects. Most of them say they are first-time investors in biomass projects, and they have questions about everything from the feedstock situation to how the biobased power makes its way to the grid.
 We at Biomass Power &amp; Thermal will learn more about the biomass power project development situation as we start making phone calls for the Fall 2011 U.S. Biomass Power Map, which have just begun. The spring 2011 map listed 49 proposed plants, whereas we had 41 plants listed on the fall 2010 list. That may not seem like a huge leap, but keep in mind that a couple of the proposed plants dropped off the fall list and some were transferred to the under construction category. Also, we only list those plants that we can confirm either by phone or email so it is by no means a comprehensive list.
 The map includes only plants that use solid biomass fuel and that supply all or a portion of their power to the grid. All plants must have at least 1 megawatt of installed capacity.
 I encourage anyone who wants their plant to be included on the list to give me a call at (701) 738-4940 or send me an email at <a href="mailto:rjohnson@bbiinternational.com">rjohnson@bbiinternational.com</a>.

2011/09/13165388266082.jpg

Fall 2011 U.S. Biomass  Power Map in Production 

Recent months have seen an increased focus on jobs in the context of a continually struggling economy. As our leaders consider ways to close the gap and get job growth back in the black, we need to keep reminding them about the need to maintain support for renewable energy&mdash;not just for clean energy but for job growth.
 Luckily, there are still some strong supporters of biomass and clean energy on both sides of the aisle who are championing our cause. In an encouraging move in early September, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., sent a letter to President Obama to express support for the president&rsquo;s clean energy plan as a jobs creator, reminding the president that we cannot let this issue slip to the side.
 Around the same time, New York State Sen. Patty Ritchie, R-Oswegatchie, came out in strong support of biomass, estimating that supporting our industry could create as many as 140,000 jobs in upstate New York. In a statement, Sen. Ritchie said, &ldquo;[New York&rsquo;s Commission on Rural Resources] was told we could create 140,000 new jobs by harnessing this emerging local energy resource. But state laws that favor renewable energy sources like wind and solar are written to specifically exclude wood, grasses and other biomass sources. If New York wants to create more private-sector jobs and investment, we need to capitalize on the rural resources we already have available on our farms and commercial forests."
 We still have our work cut out for us. President Obama&rsquo;s jobs address, while forward-looking and powerful, included not one word on energy, renewable or otherwise. In August, the Green Scissors group, an unusual alliance between conservative and environmental groups, published a report recommending drastic cuts for the industry, specifically calling out biomass.
 With the simultaneous need to address the nation&rsquo;s debt and deficit issues in the background, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our elected officials are aware of the jobs that we provide to thousands of Americans.
 The biomass industry has its challenges&mdash;but U.S. Sen. Heller and State Sen. Ritchie have the right idea. We are creating jobs in rural areas where they are most needed. One-hundred-megawatt facilities under construction in Gainesville, Fla., and Nagadoches, Texas, are both employing hundreds during the construction phase. A new 75-megawatt facility is planned for New Hampshire, which will also employ hundreds. When completed, these facilities will provide steady employment in their areas through direct and indirect jobs.
 There&rsquo;s no end to the potential job growth in the biomass sector&mdash;and clean energy to boot. Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association <a href="http://www.USABiomass.org">www.USABiomass.org</a>

2011/09/13165391556719.jpg

Biomass Industry Must Stress Job Growth  

It is well known that the USDA&rsquo;s Forest Service and Rural Development agencies have started to recognize and promote biomass thermal installations and fuel production. Additionally, in 2009, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs set off on its mission to reduce its energy footprint, and in the process became yet another government advocate for biomass thermal.&nbsp;
 A combination of comprehensive energy legislation, executive order, and internal agency mandates requires the VA to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 30 percent by fiscal year 2020. With the bulk of its emissions originating from on-site energy production and purchased electricity, the VA sought a blend of aggressive energy efficiency improvements and increased renewably fueled combined heat and power (CHP) production to reach its goal. High thermal loads and a requirement for baseload energy made biomass-fueled CHP an ideal candidate to help the VA surpass its sustainability goals. CHP systems produce two types of energy, thermal and electric, from one fuel source and typically boast energy efficiency profiles north of 70 percent (greater than approximately 30 percent for standalone electric).
 Throughout 2010 and into 2011, the VA&rsquo;s Green Management Program approved the implementation of up to 17 biomass CHP facilities and 38 feasibility studies at its health care centers nationwide. The VA places modern veterans&rsquo; care atop its operating priorities, and by embracing biomass CHP challenges those who equate biomass thermal with images of antiquated, smoky wood combustion units. In the VA&rsquo;s perspective, biomass CHP not only supports energy-intensive cutting-edge health care, but also complements the VA&rsquo;s responsibility to minimize its environmental and energy-related impacts.
 From Maine to Michigan, biomass CHP facilities are strategically positioning the VA&rsquo;s reduction and reliance on conventional fossil fuels and increased utilization of locally sourced biomass fuels. For example, at the Chillicothe VA Medical Center in Chillicothe, Ohio, the under-construction 450-kilowatt, biomass-fueled capacity CHP system is projected to power all of the electricity and steam (heat) requirements for the facility. The biomass project, seen as the first of its kind for the VA, has an expected annual savings of $896,000. Another biomass CHP project, the Veterans Affairs Medical Hospital in Canandaigua, N.Y., expects to reduce its facility&rsquo;s heating and cooling bills by 50 percent. Numerous other VA sites have explored the feasibility of similar installations, and, pending final contract and design partners, will add to the nation&rsquo;s 500-plus biomass operational CHP plants.
 The significance of another major federal agency validating biomass thermal technologies cannot be understated. The VA&rsquo;s sustainability goals and long-term operation&rsquo;s investments underscore the value of efficient, biomass-fueled thermal and CHP applications. Even more so is the espoused use from a health care provider. Flagship projects, whether at the county, state or federal level, can inspire confidence in these proven advanced thermal technologies and help leverage additional installations.
To borrow from Christiane Egger, deputy director of the Upper Austrian Renewable Energy Agency, the VA&rsquo;s leadership on renewable thermal will hopefully serve as an added &ldquo;tambourine&rdquo; to the growing biomass band, leading other adopters, private and public alike, toward biomass heating.
 Promising VA movement on renewable biomass thermal alone won&rsquo;t advance the market for biomass thermal technologies and fuels, although it is certainly a welcome sign. If our industry desires to contribute to sustainability, clean energy and economic development goals, it must work to tailor incentives that level the energy playing field and reduce high initial capital costs. Making these investments in a strained fiscal environment demands careful consideration. The VA weighed these concerns, and it took the smart step toward biomass thermal. And it will not be the last.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 For more information on the VA&rsquo;s Green Management Program, visit www.green.va.gov. Author: Joseph Seymour Acting Executive Director, Biomass Thermal Energy Council Natasha Wad Clean Energy Fellow, Biomass Thermal Energy Council <a href="http://www.biomassthermal.org">www.biomassthermal.org</a>

2011/09/13165431815748.jpg

A Salute to Biomass Combined Heat and Power

Biomass fuel is being incorporated by some coal-based power plants as an alternative to cocombustion or cogasification with coal. This cofiring strategy has demonstrated reduced sulfur and nitrogen emissions and could be used as a strategy to reduce the net carbon dioxide (CO2) emission impact of a power plant. Some consider the combustion of biomass to be essentially CO2-neutral because although the biomass produces CO2 on combustion, CO2 is taken up by the plant during its growth.
 One question that we hear a lot at the Energy &amp; Environmental Research Center regarding cocombustion of biomass with coal is in regard to the utilization of the fly ash. Many power plants burning coal sell their fly ash particularly to the cement market. The fly ash resulting from the combustion or gasification of biomass fuels, either alone or with coal, has the potential for different characteristics than fly ash from coal alone. This can affect the salability of the ash. The elevated alkaline content in fly ash from biomass cocombustion, most notably sodium and potassium, tends to make these ashes undesirable for use in applications identified as beneficial use applications for conventional coal combustion fly ash.
 According to the American Coal Ash Association, the largest utilization application of coal combustion fly ash is in concrete, concrete products and grout. ASTM International C618 &ldquo;Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete&rdquo; is the standard used to determine whether a specific fly ash is suitable for use in concrete. Some coal-biomass fly ashes have been shown to meet the ASTM C618 standard specifications. However, currently ASTM C618 does not specifically address cocombustion fly ash. Alternatively, the European standard EN 450 &ldquo;Fly Ash for Concrete&mdash; Definition, Specifications, and Quality control&rdquo; allows for the use of fly ash derived from burning of pulverized coal and cocombustion materials at high enough temperature to facilitate glass formation in the fly ash. Further details are provided within the standard.
 Both laboratory data and experience with fly ash from full-scale systems burning low percentages of biomass (less than 10 percent) indicate that fly ash from the coal-biomass blends has qualities similar to that produced with the coal alone. However, if the combustion fuel feed contains greater than approximately 10 percent biomass, the fly ash quality impact can be significant enough to affect utilization in cementitious applications. It is not anticipated that coal-based facilities that currently produce fly ash for the concrete market will use more than a small percentage of biomass fuels in the future.
 Many biomass and cocombustion fly ashes may not meet the ASTM C618 standards or be allowed for use in concrete. This does not preclude the materials from use in other applications. These fly ashes may be suitable for use in markets such as structural fill, soil stabilization for construction, and other high-volume applications. A potential application of fly ash from biomass or coal-biomass is as a fertilizer substitute since the ash often retains the nutrients of the biomass such as potassium and phosphorus.
 As with other coal combustion products, getting a good chemical, physical and/or mineralogical analysis of the biomass or coal-biomass fly ash can help determine the suitability of the specific material in various utilization applications. The EERC and other laboratories routinely provide these types of analyses.
 In summary, the suitability of biomass-derived fly ash for use in cement or other salable products is a question often asked by utilities or power providers. Since there is no standard for coal-biomass fly ash yet, most combustion systems are relegated to burning low percentages of biomass. A few states have developed rules, regulations, standards, policies or guidelines regarding coal fly ash use, and perhaps if biomass becomes more prevalent as a cocombustion fuel, similar rules will be developed for biomass. For now, applications for permission to use biomass-derived ash are handled on a case-by-case basis. Author: Loreal V. Heebink Research Chemist, Energy &amp; Environmental Research Center (701) 777-5116 <a href="mailto:LOREAL V. HEEBINK">lheebink@undeerc.org</a>

2011/09/1316543442417.jpg

Utilization of Fly Ash from Biomass and Biomass-Coal

Today&rsquo;s regulatory regime for a biomass qualifying facility (QF) is challenging. Long gone are the days when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission required a host utility to purchase a biomass QF&rsquo;s energy output and exempted the facility from most regulatory requirements under the Federal Power Act. Meanwhile, even a utility&rsquo;s mandatory purchase requirement may not provide a rate high enough to ensure profitability.
 Awareness of the current regulatory regime is critical to ensuring a biomass QF&rsquo;s success.
 The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, enacted to combat the 1970s energy crisis, created the concept of QFs as a new class of generating facilities, receiving special rate and regulatory treatment. Most biomass plants typically satisfy the size and fuel requirements for QF status.
 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 initiated a trimming of QF rate and regulatory benefits. PURPA originally required a host utility to buy capacity and energy generated by the QF at the utility&rsquo;s avoided cost. However, EPAct 2005 granted FERC the authority to terminate the mandatory purchase requirement if it determined that a QF had nondiscriminatory access to Independent System Operators/Regional Transmission Organizations-administered energy and capacity markets, or access to competitive wholesale markets that provided the opportunity to sell energy and capacity to buyers other than the host utility.
 When FERC first wielded this authority in 2006, it made such a determination for the ISO-New England, New York ISO, PJM Interconnection and Midwest ISO balancing areas. Consequently, FERC typically waives the mandatory purchase requirement for host utilities in those regions for QFs larger than 20 megawatts (MW), while providing individual QFs the opportunity to demonstrate that they have operational characteristics that prevent them from participating in a market or that their facilities lack access to markets because of transmission constraints.
 In June, FERC expanded its waiver of the purchase requirement to California&rsquo;s big three utilities for QFs with a net capacity in excess of 20 MW. FERC granted the request based on a combination of factors, the most prominent being a settlement of an agreement (awaiting final regulatory approval at press time) that establishes a new QF program for California.
 EPAct 2005 also resulted in FERC expanding the regulatory requirements QFs must now satisfy&mdash;requirements FERC previously waived for QFs. For example, although traditional PURPA contracts remain exempt from FERC regulation, as well as sales from power production facilities (including biomass) that are smaller than 20 MW, FERC now requires QFs to obtain &ldquo;market-based rate authority&rdquo; to sell energy outside these scenarios.
 Mandatory certification also was part of the 2006 changes. Previously, a generator merely needed to meet the QF criteria in FERC regulations to sell power to the host utility. Today, FERC can order a QF to make certain refunds if it fails first to certify its QF status with FERC. That&rsquo;s exactly what happened in May to several geothermal QFs.
 On top of this and other, similar legal challenges, many states set avoided cost rates too low for biomass facilities to succeed, often because such rates are based on the typically lower, estimated cost of constructing a new natural gas generator.
 One bright spot in recent FERC precedent for biomass QFs was the agency&rsquo;s explanation last October that a state may take into account its own procurement obligations&mdash;particularly any requirements to utilize renewable power in general or biomass specifically&mdash;when determining the avoided cost. This could open the door for states to develop &ldquo;feed-in tariff&rdquo; rates that set higher avoided cost rates for biomass (or other renewable resources) to recognize the true cost of placing such facilities into service.
 In conclusion, FERC has signaled that tougher enforcement and a lower tolerance for noncompliance are the way of the future. However, QFs have the opportunity to encourage their state legislatures or utility commissions to adopt tiered avoided cost rate structures that reflect the financial realities and environmental benefits of biomass power. Author: Daniel R. Simon Partner, Energy and Project Finance Group, &nbsp;Ballard Spahr LLP <a href="mailto:SimonD@ballardspahr.com">SimonD@ballardspahr.com</a>

2011/09/13166138716399.jpg

Today”s Legal Regime for Biomass “Qualifying Facilities” Under PURPA

Komptech USA hires CEO Komptech USA has appointed Marcel Vallen as its CEO. Vallen has more than 25 years of experience in the waste handling industry; starting as a machine operator and rising to plant management and then executive positions. A native of the Netherlands, he has long worked closely with European and American machine manufacturers and has a thorough knowledge of all aspects of the market, on the technical, business and operational levels. Prior to joining Komptech, Vallen was CEO of CBI Europe, importing U.S.-made grinders and shredders for the European market.
 CPM appoints AW Process as industrial markets sales team CPM Roskcamp Champion announced a manufacturers&rsquo; sales representative agreement with AW Process LLC of Lakewood Ranch, Fla., to cover the industrial markets in Florida. Andy Woodford of AW Process will be the industrial market sales representative for CPM for all of Florida, except for the Panhandle. Woodford has more than 20 years of process equipment and systems experience, including size reduction, material handling and general powder-processing applications. He will be selling CPM&rsquo;s particle size reduction equipment, including hammermills, roll crushers and lump breakers, to industrial companies. AW Process is a bulk-material-handling equipment manufacturers&rsquo; representative company that specializes in size reduction equipment, pneumatic and mechanical conveying, valves, bagging and palletizing systems, load out spouts and more.
 Metso to supply biomass boilers to US power producer Metso will supply a 100-megawatt (MW) biomass boiler island and plant automation system to the Gainesville Renewable Energy Center in Gainesville, Fla. GREC has successfully raised nearly $500 million in construction financing of which Metso&rsquo;s delivery represents more than 25 percent. The biomass boiler will utilize bubbling fluidized bed technology and use waste wood from logging and mill activity as well as urban wood waste from clearing, tree trimming and pallets as the main fuel. Metso&rsquo;s complete delivery scope includes the entire boiler island and flue gas cleaning system. Metso will also supply the entire power plant automation system. Commercial operation of the plant is scheduled for 2013, and once operational, this 100-MW boiler will be one of the largest biomass boilers in the world.
 Hillenbrand taps Kohler to lead K-Tron&rsquo;s size reduction group Hillenbrand Inc. named Mark L. Kohler president of the size reduction group, a division of the company&rsquo;s K-Tron subsidiary. Kohler&rsquo;s primary responsibility is to oversee the strategy and global growth of the size reduction group&rsquo;s three brands: Gundlach, which manufactures crushing equipment used at mining sites for coal and other minerals; Pennsylvania Crusher, which makes crushing and sizing equipment used at utilities and other industrial processors; and Jeffrey Rader, which manufactures equipment used for processing bark and wood chips for the pulp, paper, forest products and biomass industries. A 35-year veteran in the industry, Kohler began his career as a designer at Gundlach in Belleville, Ill., working his way up through positions of increasing responsibility, including vice president of manufacturing.
 WSM introduces new biomass Super Shredders West Salem Machinery has introduced a new line of biomass Super Shredders that combine the efficiency of a high-speed mill with the durability of a heavy-duty grinder. Available with rotor widths from 60 to 88 inches, the machines deliver higher tip speed for smaller, consistent fiber sizing; increased screen area for more throughput; and flexible/interchangeable tooling. The largest WSM biomass Super Shredder&mdash;the Model 4888S&mdash;operates with 400 to 800 horsepower to convert high volumes of preprocessed biomass materials. The Super Shredders have production rates of up to 100 tons per hour eliminating the need for multiple machines.
 Morbark continues to expand dealer network Morbark continues to expand its dealer network, adding six since late 2010, and expanding the territories of several existing dealers. The Morbark dealer network, which has grown to more than 65 dealers and 150 locations throughout North America, strives to improve customer service, equipment service and support. Morbark dealers signed in the past year include: Columbus Equipment Co., Ohio; Bartlett Manufacturing, eastern Michigan; White Star Machinery, Oklahoma; Fabick Caterpillar, eastern Missouri and southern Illinois; Schmidt Equipment, Massachusetts and Rhode Island; and Elliott and Frantz, Maryland and Delaware. Current full-line dealer, Doggett Machinery Services, expanded its territory to include Texas (except Bowie and Cass counties). The expansion added Texas to an already established territory of Louisiana. In addition, Newtown Power, a dealer in certain Connecticut counties, expanded its territory to cover all of Connecticut.
 Wisconsin hospital selects Hurst Boiler to help meet its green goals St. Elizabeth Hospital, part of Affinity Health System in Appleton, Wis., is one of the few hospitals in the U.S. to achieve an energy performance rating in the top 25 percent of facilities nationwide&mdash;earning it the Energy Star designation from the U.S. EPA. Working closely with Affiliated Engineers, Boldt Construction and Tweet/Garot Mechanical to design and install the energy efficient central utility plant, St. Elizabeth&rsquo;s selected the Hurst Boiler Scotch Marine Series 500 system to help meet its green healthcare initiative goals. The hospital&rsquo;s old boiler system used to cycle constantly, even in warm weather. &ldquo;Now, with outside air temperatures nearing 100 degrees Fahrenheit, our 700 HP Hurst Boilers don&rsquo;t even cycle,&rdquo; says Ron Piotrowski, plant operations for St. Elizabeth Hospital.
 ACORE&rsquo;s Weirich appointed to WCRE committee of chairpersons The American Council On Renewable Energy announced that Tom Weirich, vice president membership and corporate relations, has been appointed to the World Council for Renewable Energy&rsquo;s committee of chairpersons as the 2012 chairperson for the U.S. Weirich has been with ACORE for more than seven years. He was appointed by Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, to be vice chair of the Renewable Energy &amp; Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee in 2010. He has established a leadership role within the U.S. renewable energy industry, focusing specifically on the development of programs to expand the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy industry, including programs and policies to expand exports of goods and services of hundreds of U.S. companies. Through ACORE, he maintains international relationships with the Renewable Energy &amp; Energy Efficiency Partnership, Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century, and the International Renewable Energy Agency. Weirich will continue in his role at ACORE. His WCRE committee of chairpersons&rsquo; appointment began on Aug. 8.
 Nations Energy secures site for Kamloops biomass power project Nations Energy Corp. through its wholly owned subsidiary, Cedarhurst Forestry Products Inc., has entered into a 15-year lease agreement with Biosource Power Ltd. concurrent to their purchase of the lands, buildings and pellet manufacturing facilities in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, from Farm Credit Canada. Under the agreement, Cedarhurst will lease a portion of the property as the permanent site for its planned biomass power project pursuant to Nations Energy's selection by BC Hydro under its Community-Based Biomass Power program for Kamloops. Both Biosource and Cedarhurst plan to cooperate with respect to the use of the facilities including potential arrangements on fiber supply, for pellet production and distribution, including shared use of rail transport facilities.
 New sonic horn improves operating efficiency, consistency Martin Engineering has introduced the Martin Sonic Horn, an acoustic cleaner that reduces system downtime, maintenance and operating costs, while improving performance and prolonging equipment life. In addition to the low cost of ownership, acoustic cleaning helps avoid structural fatigue or damage, prevents dry particulate build-up and increases system efficiency. Especially effective around pipes and behind obstacles, sonic energy de-bonds particulates with a 360-degree sweep, cleaning inaccessible parts. Sonic horns produce low-frequency, high-pressure sound waves, which are created when compressed air flexes a titanium diaphragm in the sound generator. This sound wave is then magnified as it is emitted through the cleaner&rsquo;s bell. The sound pressure causes dry particulate deposits to resonate and become fluidized, allowing them to be removed by constant gas flow or gravity.

Marcel Vallen will use his expertise in the waste handling industry in Europe and the U.S. in his new role as CEO of Komptech. 

2011/09/13165458932124.jpg

Mark L. Kohler will head up K-Tron's size reduction group, which includes Gundlach, Pennsylvania Crusher and Jeffrey Rader. 

2011/09/13165459307.jpg

SUPERSIZED: WSM's Super Shredders can grind massive amounts of biomass material at a high rate of speed.


2011/09/13165459839199.jpg

2011/09/13165460365545.jpg

SOUND SCIENCE: Martin Engineering's Sonic Horn uses sonic energy to clean inaccessible equipment parts. 

2011/09/13165460842619.jpg

Business Briefs

A Union of Concerned Scientists report, &ldquo;A Bright Future for the Heartland: Powering the Midwest Economy with Clean Energy,&rdquo; analyzes the potential of the U.S. Midwest to utilize renewable energy with lofty goals through 2030. The report, published in July, predicts that, with careful management, biomass could play a significant role in the Midwest&rsquo;s future power needs.
 &ldquo;The study viewed the Midwest as having significant economic opportunities by greatly expanding the renewable resources in its own backyard,&rdquo; says Jeff Deyette, co-author of the report and senior energy analyst and assistant director of energy research and analysis with UCS. This region carries the most diverse renewable resources including biomass, wind and solar.&nbsp;
 Combining an abundance of natural resources with the region&rsquo;s skilled workforce, manufacturing industry, transportation and infrastructure, &ldquo;it all falls together for the Midwest to be an engine driven to a clean energy economy,&rdquo; Deyette says. Although the region has already initiated a clean energy policy, the UCS report studied the effect of an expanded effort.
 The UCS based its analysis on the energy goals of the Midwestern Governors Association, a nonprofit that includes 10 state governors, who promote agricultural, economic and energy policy. The MGA set policy recommendations for transitioning to a clean energy economy in 2009, referred to as the Energy Roadmap, calling for 30 percent of the Midwest&rsquo;s electricity supply to come from renewables by 2030 (2 percent per year starting in 2015).
 With significant biomass resources in the Midwest, the states could rely less on coal, most of which is imported to the region, resulting in major cost savings. &ldquo;Biomass is the oldest renewable energy: humans have been burning it to make heat ever since we first learned how to build a fire. Until recently, biomass has also supplied far more renewable electricity&mdash;or biopower&mdash;than wind and solar combined,&rdquo; according to the report.&nbsp;
 The report examined numerous biomass sources, including forest, crop and mill residues and planned/dedicated crops. The UCS analyzed various technologies including plants run solely on biomass, cofiring with coal, and combined heat and power.&nbsp;
 Biomass supplied more than 1,500 megawatts of generating capacity in the Midwest in 2009, which produced 0.9 percent of the region&rsquo;s electricity, according to the report. The UCS stresses that, &ldquo;the growth of biopower will depend on the availability of biomass resources; land use and harvesting practices; and the amount of biomass used to make fuel for transportation and other uses.&rdquo;
 The UCS used a modified version of the U.S. DOE&rsquo;s National Energy Modeling System to model the future effect of renewable energy initiatives in the region. To discover the possibilities of the renewable energy targets set by the Energy Roadmap, USC modeled two scenarios labeled the core policy case and the alternative technology pathway.&nbsp;
 The core policy case relied on more pessimistic assumptions regarding biopower to reflect the alleged uncertainties and constraints that affect biomass facility development, including little available data for actual biomass costs, sufficient supply issues and government permitting, Deyette says. The alternative technology pathway assumed that some of the constraints could be overcome leading to lower costs and better biopower performance.
 The report assumed that 367 million tons of biomass would be available nationally for both power and biofuel industries with 47 percent of the biomass coming from the Midwest. Of that, nearly three-quarters of Midwestern biomass would be from agricultural residues.
 The report stressed other important benefits of expanding renewable energy, including the creation of 85,700 new jobs and nearly $41 billion in new capital investments. By following the Energy Roadmap, the region&rsquo;s occupants would save $42 billion on their electric and natural gas bills by 2030.
 Midwest farmers and landowners could earn $1 billion in new income, in part, by biomass production. Large facilities could be situated in rural areas close to feedstocks.
 Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants would be reduced by 130 metric tons annually by 2030 if MGA initiatives are followed.
 To take advantage of the biomass opportunities in the Midwest, the UCS recommends the region promote a sustainable biomass supply system. The solution would arise from developing sustainability guidelines, best management practices, funding biomass research and regional strategies to develop technology. Deyette says that each state benefits individually from expanding the renewable energy industry, but the region as a whole would benefit even more through collaboration.
&mdash;Matt Soberg

MIDWEST MOMENTUM: A UCS report determined that of the 367 million tons of biomass available in the U.S., 47 percent of that could come from the Midwest, mostly in the form of crop residue. 



2011/09/13165462307657.jpg

MIDWEST MODELS: The UCS used two different scenarios to model the future effect of renewable energy initiatives in the Midwest.



2011/09/13165462787444.jpg

A UCS report displays the tremendous potential for bioenergy development in the Midwest.

Mega Midwest Biomass Potential

The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, a governmental solid waste management agency in Florida, plans to begin construction in April on a $670 million waste-to-energy (WtE) facility intended to produce bioenergy and reduce landfill capacity.
 The plant is designed to be visually impressive, energy efficient and environmentally friendly, according to the SWA. The facility will be built north of the SWA&rsquo;s existing renewable energy facility in West Palm Beach.&nbsp;
 The existing WtE plant is operating at capacity, and with the availability of excess municipal solid waste filling landfills, there was a need to build an additional facility to reduce the amount of waste being landfilled, according to Marc Bruner SWA&rsquo;s chief administrative officer.&nbsp; &ldquo;The most important aspect of the new plant is that it extends the life of existing landfills until 2045 and beyond,&rdquo; he says. The new plant will reduce the amount of waste currently being landfilled by up to 85 percent, according to the SWA. The agency intends to increase capacity from 2,500 tons per day with the existing facility to more than 5,500 tons per day once the new plant is operational in 2015, which results in total processing of well over 1 million tons per year.
 The SWA&rsquo;s combined WtE operation will produce enough energy to power approximately 80,000 homes. Bruner notes that total energy output will be 90 to 110 megawatts, with 70 megawatts contracted to utility companies.&nbsp;
 In addition to landfill reduction and power generation, the plant will include advanced control technology to reduce emissions, which are intended to be the lowest of any renewable energy facility combusting municipal waste in the U.S., according to the SWA. The agency selected SCS Engineers to develop a greenhouse gas reduction plan, as well as carbon credit and Renewable Energy Credit management systems.
 The project is in the design phase and operating under three different intended notices to proceed, according to Bruner. The first notice was the selection in April of Babcock &amp; Wilcox Power Generation Group Inc., a subsidiary of The Babcock &amp; Wilcox Co., and its consortium partner BE&amp;K Construction Co., a subsidiary of KBR Inc., to design the plant.&nbsp;
 The second notice to proceed to procure equipment and technology will occur in October, according to Bruner. The third notice to proceed to construction is planned for April with plant operations estimated to start in 2015.&nbsp;
 The SWA is a governmental agency responsible for providing an economical and environmentally conscious integrated solid waste management system for Palm Beach County. The agency has approximately 400 employees and provides waste disposal services to 1.4 million county residents.
&mdash;Matt Soberg

The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Fla., plans to build a $670 million waste-to-energy facility.

Expanding Energy, Contracting Waste 

U.S. companies are researching and developing biopowered computer data centers due to the availability of local feedstocks and the resulting competitive power pricing for consumers. Vineyards LLC has developed a shovel-ready data center campus in Colorado Springs, Colo., and intends to use local municipal waste and mountain pine beetle-killed timber as fuel. HP Labs, an advanced research group for Hewlett Packard, has released research on data center facilities powered by dairy farm waste. The Vineyards Data Center Park will utilize a 50-megawatt plant that will be built on a 100-acre development south of downtown Colorado Springs. Developers are in the process of selecting a capital partner, and expect data center units will be available for occupancy by the spring of 2012.
 The local utility, Colorado Springs Utilities, is designing, planning and constructing the plant, with an estimated completion date of 2014. The biomass plant is a joint venture, providing electricity to the Vineyards and the city of Colorado Springs.&nbsp;
 The use of biomass for energy is attractive to the Vineyards for various reasons including feedstock availability and bioenergy&rsquo;s competitive power pricing, which should be enticing to data center occupants.
 The plant will utilize municipal waste and locally derived woody biomass, particularly mountain pine beetle-killed timber from the nearby mountain region, which provides an excellent use of woody biomass from an unfortunate forestry problem.
 Greg Vernon, vice president of Wired Real Estate Group, says the Vineyards is compatible with the city&rsquo;s initiative to promote renewable energy resources, and the overall cost of the power within the utility power structure, including bioenergy, is attractive to businesses. According to Vernon, the competitive power pricing results in approximately 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Wired Real Estate Group is the data center brokerage and advisory firm that represents Vineyards.
 The development will include 800,000 square feet of building space with approximately 400,000 square feet used directly for data centers. Public and private investment in the development to completion, including the biomass plant, is estimated at $1 billion.
 The exploratory research arm of computer giant Hewlett Packard, released a study in the spring of 2010 showing scientific justification for powering data centers with cow manure. The resulting research showed how a 10,000-head dairy farm could supply enough bioenergy to power a 1-megawatt data center along with satisfying additional farm electrical needs. The methane produced from the dairy waste through anaerobic digestion is used to produce electricity for the center.
 &ldquo;The idea of using animal waste to generate energy has been around for centuries, with manure being used every day in remote villages to generate heat for cooking,&rdquo; says Tom Christian, principal research scientist at the Sustainable IT Ecosystem Lab. &ldquo;The new idea that we are presenting in this research is to create a symbiotic relationship between farms and the IT ecosystem that can benefit the farm, the data center and the environment.&rdquo;
 The study found that one cow can produce 120 pounds of manure a day, which is enough to power television usage in three U.S. households per day through 3 kilowatt-hours of electricity, and that 10,000 cows could produce 200,000 metric tons of manure per year, creating significant amounts of bioenergy. The study projected that farmers would break even from costs within the first two years and then could earn nearly $2 million annually from selling bioenergy to data center consumers.&nbsp;
 Chandrakant Patel, HP fellow and director of the Sustainable IT Ecosystem Lab, says the research took a supply and demand perspective looking directly at renewable resource availability. Patel stresses that data centers should exploit local resources, including biomass in the form of manure. The goal was to develop a template whereby data centers would be energy self-sufficient.&nbsp;
 The research conducted by the Sustainable IT Ecosystem Lab is focused on creating fully sustainable ecosystems over the long term utilizing biomass, wind and solar power. Utilizing biomass power transforms a computer data center from being a utility power consumer to being energy neutral.
&mdash;Matt Soberg

COW POWER: A study by the research arm of HP showed that a 10,000 head dairy farm could supply enough power for a 1-megawatt data center and supply the farm's electrical needs.



2011/09/13165467984993.jpg

U.S. companies plan to develop biopowered computer data centers to reap the benefits of local supply and competitive power pricing.

Biomass-Powered Data Centers

Concerned about the adverse impact they will have on its members and the wood products industry in general, the American Wood Council is pushing against the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s Maximum Achievable Control Technology rules. Of utmost concern is the rules&rsquo; &ldquo;solid waste&rdquo; classification of certain waste wood products currently burned for energy at many sawmills. The mills contend that the materials should be considered as traditional biomass fuel.
 Many wood products mills draw energy from wood scraps that have coatings integral to the wood products industry, such as resins and other glue-type products. Instead of being considered biomass boilers, they would be designated as solid waste incinerators and subject to the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator rule instead of boiler rules that govern major and area source commercial, industrial and institutional boilers and process heaters. Solid waste incinerators must adhere to emission limits about three times more stringent than those required of boilers and process heaters, burdening facilities that burn their resonated wood for energy with billions of dollars in control equipment investments. But during this fragile time in a slumping wood products industry, that amount of money would put many operations over the edge and force closures, according to Timothy Hunt, the AWC's senior director for air quality programs.
 &nbsp;&ldquo;Because CISWI is so much more difficult to meet, our wood product mills will face a dilemma,&rdquo; he says. Those operations will be forced to either continue burning their wood scraps and spend the money to comply with CISWI, or pay to landfill their wood, while paying additional money for different biomass resources or even fossil fuels to make up for the energy their own wood residue previously provided. &ldquo;You&rsquo;re throwing away your fuel to buy fuel,&rdquo; Hunt says.
 The preamble of the MACT rules does specify that resinated wood will be considered a fuel, but the rules themselves do not adhere to that concept, Hunt explains. The regulatory language is what mills and their lawyers must comply with, he continues, and that specifies a legitimacy test that leaves resinated wood in the solid fuels category. In an attempt to clear up that uncertainty, the U.S. EPA issued a paper saying it will soon issue guidance documents to determine which alternative materials might qualify as fuels.
 &ldquo;But the EPA can&rsquo;t use guidance to change a regulation,&rdquo; Hunt says. &ldquo;They need to go back and alter the regulation.&rdquo; The AWC is one of many industry organizations that are urging EPA to modify the MACT rules, but Hunt says he hasn&rsquo;t seen the agency moving in that direction. He says the groups have one main message for EPA: &ldquo;We seem to agree that our goal was to make sure these materials were fuels, but you didn&rsquo;t follow through in your regulatory language to make that happen. Please modify the rule to make it line up with the preamble and your intent.&rdquo;
 If EPA is unwilling to make regulatory changes, new legislation is the only option. Both the U.S. House and Senate have existing bills that would do just that.
 Even complying with the existing boiler MACT rules would cost the wood products industry about $1 billion, but is better than the $3 billion it would cost if the solid fuels regulatory language isn&rsquo;t adjusted, Hunt says.
 &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a lot economically at stake, and obviously, then there&rsquo;s the job implications,&rdquo; he says.
&mdash;Lisa Gibson

WRANGLING RESIDUE: The "solid waste" definition in the EPA's MACT rules is still a concern for the wood products industry, despite a recent document designed to clear up the confusion.


2011/09/1316546893636.jpg

New EPA document does little to clear up concerns about MACT”s “solid waste” definition. 

What's Waste?  

Taylor Biomass Energy has been recognized as a Greenopia Distinguished Business, substantiating the company&rsquo;s level of commitment to the environment. Taylor Biomass is the first business bestowed with the honor from Orange County, N.Y.
 Taylor Biomass is a family-owned business specializing in technology that transforms waste into energy. President and CEO James W. Taylor Jr. is well-known for developing innovative green renewable energy solutions and maintaining a high environmental integrity.&nbsp;
 &ldquo;I am honored to have earned this designation for being &lsquo;green&rsquo; and aimed at sustainability in all aspects of conducting business,&rdquo; Taylor says. &ldquo;You are never done. It is something that is extremely fluid and you are constantly moving forward to make your business a better neighbor.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Greenopia is the green seal of sustainability for the business community, and is one of the highest sustainability designations for any business to pursue and receive, Taylor adds. With the energy industry being under a public perception microscope, Greenopia is a tool that can support businesses that are good neighbors in their communities.
 Greenopia is a California-based company that provides reviews of business and industry to determine organizations that maintain high ecofriendly standards. The company strives to be the most comprehensive resource for those who want to live green every day. The directory and review include everything from restaurants and transportation to alternative energy companies such as Taylor Biomass.
 A business does not become Greenopia distinguished just by saying it is &ldquo;green.&rdquo;&nbsp; The review system is a selective, multileveled qualification process and environmental criteria are unique for every type of business.&nbsp;
 The process includes weighted questions and algorithm-driven mathematics to develop a computed score of ecofriendliness. Greenopia conducts lengthy investigation, due diligence and oftentimes field research to determine sustainability.
 &ldquo;Taylor Biomass Energy is so innovative and detail-oriented, it is certainly qualified for the Greenopia distinction,&rdquo; according to Doug Mazeffa, Greenopia&rsquo;s research director.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Taylor Biomass Energy is in the process of building a 20-megawatt plant in Montgomery, N.Y., that will transform waste into energy through biomass gasification. The company has developed the Taylor Gasification Process, which is a new technology to convert biomass energy for commercial use. This process can provide overall power generation efficiency of more than 40 percent, which is double the increase in power when compared to current recognized combustion technologies.&nbsp;
 &nbsp;There is no one thing the business did to become sustainable, Taylor says. &ldquo;Our biomass gasification technology for transforming organic wastes into renewable electricity will add even more points to our sustainability scorecard,&rdquo; he adds.&nbsp;
 &ldquo;Taylor Biomass Energy is head and shoulders above others in its attempt to utilize biomass as an alternative fuel while also encouraging recycling to protect the environment,&rdquo; Mazeffa says.
&mdash;Matt Soberg

James W. Taylor Jr.'s Taylor Biomass Energy was recognized as an ecofriendly business by California-based Greenopia.  


2011/09/13165473473505.jpg

Taylor Biomass Energy satisfies Greenopia's rigorous review to distinguish it as a sustainable business.

Distinguished Sustainability

In a multifaceted experiment, NRG Energy set out in 2009 to not only cofire dedicated biomass in its Big Cajun II boilers in Louisiana, but also grow the biomass on-site. Unfortunately, the test crops yielded discouraging results and the power company has shelved its biomass cofiring project for the 1,495-megawatt generating station.
 &ldquo;It was a combination of things that led us to basically shelving the effort for right now,&rdquo; says David Knox, NRG spokesman.
 For the crop trial, a 20-acre plot was seeded with warm-weather and cold-weather switchgrass and sorghum. The warm-weather variant didn&rsquo;t grow at all and the cold-weather crops produced just 60 percent of NRG&rsquo;s expectations, according to Knox. &ldquo;It wasn&rsquo;t what we had expected and in today&rsquo;s environment, we decided, let&rsquo;s move on.&rdquo; NRG, as well as seed supplier Ceres Inc., is evaluating what factors led to the disappointing yields.
 Equally important are two assumptions Knox says were made at the onset of the project that proved incorrect: the fact that a mandatory carbon tax was expected but not implemented; and gas prices then were $15 per million Btu and expected to remain high, but today are $4 per million Btu. Still, while the trial didn&rsquo;t yield the anticipated results, NRG set out to determine whether the crops could grow successfully in Louisiana&rsquo;s climate and did just that, he adds.
 &ldquo;It&rsquo;s not the right time,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re still very interested in any effort that would allow us to reduce our carbon profile and our carbon intensity, and biomass is definitely a part of that.&rdquo;
 Moving on, NRG will work on compliance with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology rules, tweaking backend controls instead of incorporating biomass into the mix. The MACT rules set emission limits for a range of boilers and process heaters. Knox says NRG currently has no plans to replant or plant other types of biomass crops for similar testing and possible use at Big Cajun II.
 &ldquo;[The test] did exactly what we wanted,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We wanted to test the crops, and the focus right now is to take care of some other things while we&rsquo;re evaluating the potential for biomass to be an economically viable way to reduce carbon intensity.&rdquo;
&mdash;Lisa Gibson

TESTING GROUND: NRG's switchgrass and sorghum tests didn't produce the yields they were anticipating, so the utility has shelved its biomass cofiring plans for now. 

2011/09/13165474922112.jpg

Following disappointing trial crop yields, NRG Energy shelves its biomass project.

Trying Trial

While he understands the concerns and doesn&rsquo;t place blame for the lack of understanding, Richard Schroeder, forester and president of biomass supplier BioResource Management Inc., wants to dispel misinformation regarding the biomass supply for the proposed Gainesville Renewable Energy Center in Gainesville, Fla.
 Worries about an increase in wood fiber pricing and insufficient biomass supply to feed the plant have circulated in the region, even among foresters. Schroeder coolly explains in a letter to the editor of the Gainesville Sun that there is indeed an adequate supply for the 100-megawatt facility, and that it will bring extensive benefits to landowners, timber producers and mills currently using other forest products.
 Gainesville-based BioResource Management will be the biomass supplier for the GREC, securing about 580,000 dry tons of woody biomass per year, sourcing more than 40 percent from the urban landscape including tree canopy material, Schroeder explains. A number of in-depth studies to which Schroeder refers have found that there is plenty of unused biomass generated annually to sustain the facility.
&ldquo;This biomass use is not reducing existing inventory,&rdquo; he writes. &ldquo;It is harvesting more of what is being grown each year.&rdquo; The plant will use stunted, low-grade and otherwise nonmerchantable wood that needs to be thinned to prevent forest fires, but lacks a market. The material is fuel for devastating wildfires, common where population is encroaching into wild areas, he says. &ldquo;The logical way to mitigate that is to remove the fuel,&rdquo; he says.
 Schroeder further assures worried parties by referring to the due diligence process, including extensive research into sustainability and impacts to related industries, every biomass plant developer must complete in order to secure that all-important and often difficult aspect of a project: money. &ldquo;In order to get a plant financed, you have to go through a mountain of due diligence,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Ask the loaners and the bankers.&rdquo;
 GREC will be the fifth start-up project in BioResource Management&rsquo;s portfolio, Schroeder points out, adding that his experience tells him this one will be a success. &ldquo;This project is a reality and will begin receiving biomass material in about 20 months.&rdquo;
 Schroeder says his hope is that the GREC will be good for all landowners, and with his letter to the editor, set out to clear away unfounded and unnecessary worry, specifically addressing a previous letter sent by a fellow forester that outlines concerns with wood price increases. &ldquo;All I wanted to tell him was there&rsquo;s a lot of good reasons that shouldn&rsquo;t happen,&rdquo; Schroeder says.
&mdash;Lisa Gibson

A forester and biomass supplier attempts to quash misinformation about Florida's biomass availability.

Setting the Record Straight 

PurposeEnergy Inc.&rsquo;s Biphase Orbicular Biodigester, or BOB for short, is ideally suited to process waste streams with more solids than traditional anaerobic digesters. With that capability in mind, the company is focusing on the brewery market, and its waste streams such as spent grains.
 &ldquo;The system we&rsquo;ve developed is specifically designed for high-solids waste,&rdquo; says Eric Fitch, PurposeEnergy founder. The novel system combines three types of digesters into one process, Fitch says, declining to divulge details of those three components.
 The first digester breaks down the waste stream into soluble elements, which then are sent through the second two reactors. The first commercial system is currently operating at Magic Hat Brewery in Burlington, Vt., processing 500,000 gallons, Fitch says. It began in July of 2010, shutdown when the brewery shut down over the holiday season, and started up again in June.&nbsp; During that shut-down period, PurposeEnergy made upgrades to BOB from what operators had learned, including replacing a pump that would frequently get plugged up from the spent grains, according to Fitch. He adds that the cleaning process was time consuming and messy.
 &ldquo;These things happen when you build a plant like this,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s probably a million pieces involved. You kind of throw things at the wall and see what sticks.&rdquo;
 The system produces 330 kilowatts of power for the brewery, as well as steam for its boilers, or to control the temperature of the bioreactor during cold Vermont winters, Fitch says. &ldquo;The brewery process is very steam-intensive,&rdquo; he says, adding that the biogas replaces the need to purchase natural gas. BOB was designed with breweries in mind and Fitch says PurposeEnergy has a few projects in the pipeline, declining to release a timeline or location for startup of the next installation. &ldquo;We have a competitive advantage when it comes to solids, and breweries have the same solids problem around the world.&rdquo; He adds, though, that a number of other industries have inquired about BOB, presenting additional interesting applications.
&mdash;Lisa Gibson

BREWERY BIOGAS: PurposeEnergy has a novel AD system that is ideal for brewery waste. 

2011/09/13165477535286.jpg

PurposeEnergy is eyeing the brewery industry for its novel AD cogen system.

BioBeer

Is construction and demolition (C&amp;D) wood debris considered waste?&nbsp; Do standardized specifications like those for the paper and metal markets exist for C&amp;D wood?&nbsp; How should industry streamline the C&amp;D wood market?&nbsp;
 Answers to these and other questions can now be found in Construction and Demolition Wood-Derived Product Specifications, the result of a recent collaboration of the Construction Materials Recycling Association and the National Solid Wastes Management Association.&nbsp;
 Issued in May after a year of research and investigation, the specifications are a uniform standard for grading C&amp;D wood product to ensure suitable fuel burn in combustion systems.
 Through the formation of stakeholder groups and task forces that included C&amp;D processing, hauling and boiler companies, the organizations had the advantage of obtaining practical industry knowledge and experiences.
 The standards were derived from actual specifications currently used by C&amp;D processors and boilers in the marketplace along with various government permitting regulations. &ldquo;It was a challenging task in the sense of standardizing numerous other specifications, rules and permitting practices,&rdquo; says Chaz Miller, NSWMA director, state programs.
 The organizations intend to promote marketability by standardizing the C&amp;D wood industry. High-quality product will maximize the burn for potential purchasers.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Necessary Uniform Standard
 The CMRA and NSWMA believed it was necessary to create grading specifications to streamline processors and purchasers to foster the C&amp;D wood fuel market. Members of the organizations who process C&amp;D debris communicated the need for a uniform specification to help them negotiate with the boiler market.&nbsp;
 The new standards are designed to make C&amp;D wood a commodity to be purchased and to connect processers with boiler operators to facilitate the market.
 &ldquo;The intent was to make the wood a commodity or a product similar to that of the metal market,&rdquo; says CMRA Executive Director William Turley. &ldquo;Wood has value. It is not waste.&rdquo;
 Wood is a primary material generated at demolition sites, and makes up sometimes 30 percent of C&amp;D debris, notes Dan Costello, chair of CMRA&rsquo;s Material Standards Committee and president of Costello Dismantling.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Compared to other debris, recyclables and waste, C&amp;D wood seemed to be getting left behind in the industry. Established uniformity existed for the paper and metal markets, while variable practices were inhibiting the wood market, creating a significant need to align C&amp;D wood with other forms of fuel.&nbsp; &ldquo;No specific process regulated C&amp;D companies aiding the transfer and sale of their product for boilers,&rdquo; says Miller, who is involved with numerous environmental and recycling related projects nationwide including many related specifically to wood debris from construction and demolition activities.
 The necessity for standards arose from the need to bridge the gap between sellers and buyers. If companies process material in a different fashion than how boilers intend to burn it as fuel, the two sides cannot connect. This makes the marketplace unpredictable, unreliable and uncertain. &ldquo;There must be a meeting of the minds, and hopefully the uniform specifications can aid in this negotiation,&rdquo; Miller says.
 &ldquo;The specifications will help standardize wood chips processed at C&amp;D processing facilities and expand markets for this valuable biomass fuel,&rdquo; Costello says.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Grading C&amp;D Wood Product
 The Construction and Demolition Wood-Derived Product Specifications provide a range of specific grades and sizing of C&amp;D wood debris. Certain grades are acceptable in the C&amp;D marketplace. Variable C&amp;D product inhibits the ability for reliable negotiations and sales.&nbsp;
 The specifications define C&amp;D wood-derived product as, &ldquo;a renewable, biomass product prepared from wood materials generated at construction and demolition sites that is processed to create a commodity that can be used as fuel for a boiler and/or other energy generation technology (e.g. gasification). This product can also include biomass materials such as boxes, crates, pallets and other wood products from industrial and post-consumer sources.&rdquo;
 The product grading system categorizes C&amp;D product on two essential levels: grade and size. According to the specifications, the grade defines the acceptable amount of undesirable materials (those that pollute or inhibit efficient burn). Sizing defines the range of sizes acceptable to purchasers for burning purposes.&nbsp;
 The specifications define three grades of the product, which is based upon the percentage of restricted materials included in the product. Restricted materials include lead-based painted wood, CCA (chromated copper arsenate)-treated wood, plastic, plaster, and all non-combustibles such as rocks, concrete and aggregate.&nbsp;
 The highest grade, Grade 1, is defined as having 1 percent or less restricted material. Any C&amp;D product with 5 percent or greater restricted material receives a Grade 3 rating.
 The specifications divide sizes into four categories ranging from very fine material up to 10 inches in any dimension. The smallest, size A, provides that the product must be 3 inches or less in any dimension. Size D is the largest and requires that a minimum of 90 percent of the product must be 6 inches or greater in any dimension. Also, to qualify for size D, all material must be 10 inches or less in any dimension.&nbsp;
 In addition, the specifications stress other dynamics that affect burning. Factors such as moisture content and ash qualities hinder combustion. Suppliers are encouraged to minimize rain exposure during dismantling and processing.&nbsp;
 Proper combustion is achieved with smaller (size A) C&amp;D product, while the better grade (Grade 1) provides more efficient and clean burning. The CMRA and NSWMA encourage all C&amp;D processors to follow the specifications to provide the highest quality product.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Relationship with EPA
 The purpose of grading is to improve product reliability and characteristics of the wood fuel. C&amp;D waste is considered hazardous when it includes lead-based painted woods, treated woods and asbestos materials, therefore the specifications strongly discourage the processing of unwanted materials. The removal of unwanted materials is also aimed at aligning the specifications with U.S. EPA regulations.&nbsp;&nbsp; The specifications provide an initial baseline for preparing proper C&amp;D product. They are mindful of EPA rules, and stress to the market the need to independently address all regulations and other laws. The goal is to provide the highest quality C&amp;D product in accordance with all legal regulations.
 Nearly simultaneous to the launch of the specifications, the EPA set definitions and regulations specific to C&amp;D debris. According to Miller, the EPA&rsquo;s regulatory definition of C&amp;D wood and its application to the practical C&amp;D market is not clear and creates some uncertainty.
 In response, the CMRA and NSWMA specifically reminded those in the C&amp;D industry to address independently the &ldquo;identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste&rdquo; 40 CFR Part 241, and the EPA Commercial, Industrial, Solid Waste Incinerator rule when applying the specifications.
 Turley strongly stresses that the CMRA is not combative with the EPA but is working diligently to cooperate in the regulatory process. If the specifications can mesh with the EPA regulation
s, it can only standardize the market for the betterment of the C&amp;D businesses and the environment. Turley notes his desire to see C&amp;D regulated the same as any other traditional fuel. Although uncertainty exists, it appears the EPA regulations may be a step in the right direction in the attempt to define C&amp;D wood product as a fuel.&nbsp;
 Practical Application
 In a February report supporting its rule making on C&amp;D materials, the EPA determined that C&amp;D wood residues are commonly used for boiler fuel where the biomass can either be combusted directly or converted through gasification. In comparison to the incineration and ash process, gasification limits conversion so biomass is converted into intermediate products and further used for energy recovery.
 The EPA estimated that 164 million tons of building-related C&amp;D debris was generated in 2003. Construction activities produced approximately 47 percent, while demolition activities produced 52 percent. Of the 164 million tons, between 33 million and 49 million tons was C&amp;D wood.&nbsp;
 The EPA found that approximately 50 percent of the C&amp;D wood debris is of acceptable size, quality and condition to be considered available for recovery with limiting factors being contamination. The EPA reported that dry woody materials with 0 percent moisture produces between 15.5 million and 16.4 million Btu per ton.
 Although it is too early to tell the ultimate success of the standards, the organizations have received positive feedback from the initial application of the specifications. Along with the consensus that they were necessary, there has been a common understanding that, &ldquo;it is really about standardizing the process for the marketplace by directing the specifications to companies as producers and boilers as consumers,&rdquo; Miller says.&nbsp;
 All states are encouraged to use the specifications to aid the market. Although they are not laws and were not intended to be promoted directly to state governments, the most interesting result from its launch was the requests and interest from government agencies, according to Turley.&nbsp;
 It appears that regulatory bodies are attempting to get an idea of what is accepted in the marketplace so that they can properly derive laws and regulations that are applicable to the practical market. In the future, Turley sees the specifications as a living document that is modified and refined as necessary for the benefit of the C&amp;D industry. He would like to see them have practical and broad applications for making wood a fuel commodity and not a waste.
 &ldquo;The best thing about C&amp;D wood-derived product is its Btu value,&rdquo; Turley says. &ldquo;The&nbsp; other option is the landfill. Which one would you like to take?&rdquo; His comment epitomizes the need to maximize the burn. Author: Matt Soberg Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 746-8385 <a href="mailto:msoberg@bbiinternational.com">msoberg@bbiinternational.com</a>
&nbsp;
About the CMRA: The Construction Materials Recycling Association represents companies from many C&amp;D materials recycling industries internationally. CMRA provides support and representation to the industry and CMRA members in legislative and rule making venues that impact the recycling business. CMRA acts as an advocate to promote C&amp;D recycling and the recycling business in every manner possible that benefits CMRA members. The CMRA promotes the safe and economically feasible recycling of more than 325 million tons of C&amp;D materials generated in the U.S. annually.&nbsp; For more information, go to www.cdrecycling.org. About the NSWMA: The National Solid Waste Management Association is a trade association representing for-profit companies in North America that provide waste recycling and disposal services, and companies that provide professional and consulting services to the waste services industry. The association promotes the management of waste in a manner that is environmentally responsible, efficient, profitable and ethical, while benefiting the public and protecting employees. It accomplishes this mission by providing its members with education and training opportunities, research, and federal and state advocacy capability.&nbsp; For more information, go to www.environmentalistseveryday.org.

2011/09/13165480544547.jpg

Chaz Miller of the NSWMA says the C&D wood standards are necessary to aid the transfer and sale of the material for boilers.

2011/09/13165480851297.jpg

William Turley of the CMRA says the standards will help expand markets for the wood biomass portion of C&D. 

2011/09/13165481125916.jpg

CMRA and NSWMA have crafted standards for grading C&D wood so it can be utilized in combustion systems.

Maximizing the Burn

Northern Spain&rsquo;s 321,000-person province of La Rioja produces 2.13 megawatts of electricity for the grid, using the organic portion of its own municipal solid waste (MSW). The operation has been a point of pride for the region for years, but recently increased its efficiency with the installation of a separation technology that decreases the amount of organics lost, while increasing the amount of inerts ejected from the process.
 The anaerobic digestor at the MSW facility processes about 130,000 metric tons (143,300 tons) per year and is one of nine biomethanization operations in Spain. After trying a number of sorting technologies, the plant became the premier organic separation installation for an X-ray-based sorting technology previously known only for its work in other sectors.
 &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve now entered this organics segment,&rdquo; says Alexander Wolf, sales engineer for TITECH Group, a global developer of the X-ray sorter, dubbed TITECH x-tract, along with other sorting technologies.&nbsp;Sufi S.A., which owns and operates the La Rioja anaerobic digester, needed a better solution for separating organics at the facility, so TITECH stepped up to the plate with its existing x-tract technology, Wolf explains.
 While Spain&rsquo;s developing waste-to-energy market has stalled, the U.S. still lags behind it and other European markets, attributed in part to a lack of source-separated waste. Although separation is still required in Spanish facilities, recycling sorting in Spain seems to have set the stage for its organic waste-to-energy development.
 Source Separated Superiority
 &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a lot of MSW processing going on for many years in Spain,&rdquo; Wolf says. When the country joined the European Union, it had to work to achieve recycling goals set for EU member countries, he explains. So Spain implemented a source collection system for recyclables, he continues.
Unfortunately, the country still couldn&rsquo;t meet those goals so it had to recover recyclables out of MSW, which then put it far above the EU regulations. &ldquo;They basically sorted their own residential waste and that has a lot of organics in it, so they said, &lsquo;OK, we&rsquo;ve got to do something with these organics.&rsquo;&rdquo; One of the solutions was wet anaerobic digestion (AD), which made the country a perfect market for TITECH&rsquo;s sorting technologies. In fact, TITECH has spread its target market to areas within Portugal as well, with three projects in the pipeline waiting for commissioning, according to Judit Jansana, head of TITECH technical sales in Spain, Portugal and Latin America.&nbsp;
 Still, Jansana says the Spanish organics market has experienced problems at existing facilities, leaving it behind Germany&rsquo;s, due partially to much more sophisticated source separation. &ldquo;The Spanish market is not so [advanced] in technology as the German country,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Their recycling quota is higher than the Spanish quota.&rdquo;
 Subsequently, Germany has a better market and, in fact, is a primary target for BIOFerm Energy Systems&rsquo; dry anaerobic fermentation digestion technology, according to Caroline Chappell, BIOFerm application engineer. The system uses concrete chambers to digest a more solid and dry feedstock than traditional AD can handle. Germany-based BIOFerm has a few applications in Germany using the organic portions of MSW, all source separated and delivered ready to process.
 Anaerobic digestion is much more attractive to customers who don&rsquo;t have to worry about separating out the organic portions of waste before feeding it into the digesters, Chappell says, adding that BIOFerm is working to install systems in North America, the U.K., Italy and Japan, as well. &ldquo;We know it&rsquo;s not going to be perfect, but it&rsquo;s definitely better if it&rsquo;s separated to the best extent possible,&rdquo; she says. The first U.S. application of the system is set to begin operating this fall at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, running on a mix of feedstock that will include unsalable food products from supermarkets, delivered unpackaged and ready for the digesters.
 But when using organics from MSW, that ideal AD feedstock suitability is uncommon in the U.S., both Wolf and Chappell agree. San Fransisco is the lone U.S. city they cite where waste is source separated. &ldquo;The challenge is, when you look at the U.S., there are very [few] areas that have source-separated organics,&rdquo; Wolf says. &ldquo;Everything that doesn&rsquo;t go into the recycling bin goes into the garbage bin, and so do the organics.&rdquo; The organic content in residential waste is generally around 30 to 40 percent, but can be as high as 50 percent, he adds. &ldquo;The way to recover organics from residential garbage sounds quite simple: you basically screen that out.&rdquo;
 Traditional screening, however, can leave behind objects such as glass, batteries and plastic in the concentrated organics. &ldquo;There are a lot of foreign materials that, of course, are not desirable with the organics,&rdquo; Wolf says.
 But not to worry: The U.S. can still develop an organic-waste-to-energy sector sans source separation, using instead a plethora of more advanced technologies than screening that allow a more refined separation from the remaining fractions of MSW.
 Separation Technologies 
 Without the proper extraction of inerts from the organic AD feedstock, glass and other intruders can bake together and form a concrete-like material that requires frequent cleaning, rapidly decreasing efficiency, Wolf explains. X-tract, however, uses a sensor to measure silicone density, which is not present in organic material. &ldquo;That is how we can recognize inerts,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;They have higher density.&rdquo;
The material is fed into the system on a high-speed vibrating conveyor, and inorganic materials the system detects are ejected to another conveyor through air jets. &ldquo;The ejects still have organics in it because it&rsquo;s not possible to singulate all the organics on the x-tract conveyor,&rdquo; Wolf says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s all mingled together and organics are very stringy so you can never make a perfect singulation on it. There will always be some organic losses, but you do recover a good portion of those organics.&rdquo;
 Before Sufi S.A.&nbsp;adopted the x-tract system, it used traditional ballistic separation, which takes advantage of both density and elasticity differences to separate organics from waste streams. Material is dropped on a rotating drum or spinning cone and the resulting trajectory differences bounce out glass, metal and stones. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s not very efficient, but it&rsquo;s what we did in the plant before x-ray technology,&rdquo; Jansana says.
 But of the 3,000 TITECH units installed worldwide, 2,500 are not x-tract, but instead TITECH autosort, Jansana says. The technology uses a near-infrared spectroscopy detector to remove polymers, as well as ferrous and nonferrous metals. &ldquo;Our main, main, main market is the near-infrared,&rdquo; she says. The system is not just used to separate organics, but also paper and cardboard in other industries.
 Another possible route is air separation, which has been used in the combustion industry for years. Material is inserted into an air column that blows light materials up and out, while heavier ones fall directly out of the column. Air separation will likely require more sorting in order to achieve the proper organic concentration.
 Green Power Technologies Inc. has combined a few different options into its separation system, which is more suitable for autoclave processing than for AD, but could be used for both, according to Steve Gilchrist, vice president of the company&rsquo;s U.S. branch. The use of autoclaves on organic MSW to produce a dryer, densified biomass energy product is common in Britain, he says, but Green Power has reversed and improved the traditional process. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve taken an opposite strategy,&rdquo; he says.
 In Britain, the material goes through an autoclave first, where injection of high pressure and high temperature steam sterilizes it and also shrinks the volume by about 60 percent. Next, the plastics, metals and glass are separated from the organics. That separation is made more difficult, though, by the fact that the autoclave deforms plastics, trapping some organic materials within them.
 So, Green Power&rsquo;s process first shreds all the material, thereby increasing the efficiency of the magnets in the next step that extract ferrous metals. Then, eddy current separation, an electromagnetic process, goes to work removing nonferrous metals, followed by lasers that work similarly to the X-ray technology, detecting density to extract plastics. &ldquo;It not only pulls out the plastic,&rdquo; Gilchrist explains. &ldquo;It separates type 1 and type 2 plastics from all the rest, which significantly increases the profitability.&rdquo; Glass can be removed manually or through an automated system, he continues, leaving only organics behind. If the organic material is destined for an autoclave, this is the point it will enter. Afterwards, the material passes through yet another magnet to remove small metal pieces, such as staples, Gilchrist says.
 Green Power is focused on autoclaving uses for its technology, but the organic material could be a great candidate for AD, as well. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a function of time,&rdquo; Gilchrist says. &ldquo;An anaerobic digester takes a lot longer than autoclaving, and so depending on the volume you&rsquo;re dealing with, you might have a throughput issue.&rdquo;
 Organic autoclaving results in a product perfectly suited for cofiring with coal, representing an enormous market in the U.S. for Green Power&rsquo;s specific organic separation technology. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a tremendous potential in the U.S.,&rdquo; Gilchrist says, citing the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s new emissions regulations and the cessation in production of thousands of megawatts at shuttered coal plants.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Green Power will have its first autoclave facility running in Hamtramck, Mich., in late 2012 or early 2013. The company has financing in place, as well as waste supply contracts with Detroit suburbs.&nbsp; Available Everywhere
 Whether using an anaerobic digester to produce biogas, or using an autoclave to manufacture a densified biomass fuel, organic MSW represents an always-available and viable source. It presents otherwise nonexistent opportunities in areas that don&rsquo;t have a steady, sustainable supply of woody biomass or other renewables.&nbsp;
 &ldquo;Every state has municipal solid waste,&rdquo; Gilchrist says. &ldquo;The only thing I can guarantee you&rsquo;ll find in any market that has a demand for electricity is people producing solid waste. It is the only potential form of biomass where you can have an almost perfect correlation between population, availability of the fuel and the demand for the energy.&rdquo;
 With innovative technologies in place to help advance the separation of organics from that ever-ready waste stream, the U.S. and the rest of the world can create a solid power-producing sector from its own trash. Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com</a> (701) 738-4952

2011/09/1316548313859.jpg

X-TRACTING EXTRAS: TITECHS's x-tract X-ray system separates organic portions of waste at this installation in La Rioja, Spain.  

2011/09/131654835912.jpg

WASTE NOT: The North American debut of BIOFerm's dry anaerobic fermentation digester is set to begin operating this fall on the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh campus. 

2011/09/1316548438087.jpg

Steve Gilchrist is vice president of the U.S. branch of Green Power Technologies, which has reversed and improved a common British waste processing practice.

2011/09/13165484917385.jpg

Utilization of municipal solid waste sorting technologies could speed up the development of anaerobic digestion in the U.S.  

Separation Anxiety 

Of New Jersey&rsquo;s 28 wastewater treatment plants employing anaerobic digestion (AD) systems, at least 10 have infrastructure in place to utilize the resulting biogas, many producing heat and/or power. It may not seem like an overwhelmingly high count, but the number is more impressive when also considering the fact that the entire country has a total of 1,500 wastewater treatment facility AD systems. With only 250 of those wastewater treatment plants using their biogas, New Jersey&rsquo;s position is suddenly much more progressive.
 &ldquo;It&rsquo;s certainly in the upper-middle third of all states,&rdquo; says Patrick Serfass, executive director of the American Biogas Council. New Jersey is close behind its fellow northeastern state of New York, which has 16 wastewater treatment AD systems that use their biogas, and behind Connecticut, at 21. Oregon has 22 that use the methane they produce, and California tips the scale at 50, with several others having one or two, Serfass cites.
 The remaining plants with AD systems that choose not to use their methane for energy, simply employ the process because it reduces the volume of the waste, much like a cow&rsquo;s stomach digests food, Serfass says. In addition, it improves the quality of the waste on the backend. &ldquo;The active digestion upgrades the product that you&rsquo;re digesting,&rdquo; he says. Typically, without an anaerobic digester, the material is classified as a Class B biosolid, which is a hazardous material. &ldquo;If you take that sludge and put it through a digester, you make heat, you make biogas, and then you make digestate, which is both in a liquid and solid form.&rdquo; The solid that comes out of the digester, in comparison to the solid that comes out of the primary wastewater treatment, is a Class A biosolid and nonhazardous. It can be sold as compost or fertilizer, in addition to occupying a much lower volume. &ldquo;Therefore, depending upon how much biogas they&rsquo;re making and what the will is of the municipality, they may or may not even want to use the biogas, which we think is a total waste,&rdquo; Serfass says. &ldquo;But that&rsquo;s their own business decision, and we&rsquo;re trying to encourage folks to use that biogas.&rdquo;
 Exploring Options 
 The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities agrees that unused biogas is a waste and is tasking the state&rsquo;s newly formed Renewable Natural Gas Work Group with three assignments: identify the number of locations currently producing biogas through AD, identify plants without digesters that would be good candidates for them, and determine how much unused biogas is currently available. The group is divided into subgroups that focus on three potential areas: wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and freestanding locations such as farms or food processors. &ldquo;These three scenarios are all at different stages of development,&rdquo; says group co-chair Dave Specca, who is also the assistant director for bioenergy technologies at the Rutgers EcoComplex. Besides the recognition of the potential for increased use of existing biogas, the research is also being conducted based on the understanding that New Jersey could produce much more usable biogas than it currently does, he says. &ldquo;We also see that there are new technologies being developed on a smaller scale for things like compressed natural gas.&rdquo;
 The work group&rsquo;s study might even show that more than 10 of the 28 facilities that currently employ AD use their biogas, according to Richard Kunze, member of the wastewater treatment branch of the group, and director of technical services for Ocean County Utilities Authority. Kunze speculates that the study will show biogas use by 60 percent or more.
 The study is ongoing, but landfills are likely the furthest along in AD development potential, as most already have gas collection motors to produce electricity, Specca says. But second in line are wastewater treatment plants.
 In fact, that enormous potential prompted the League of Women Voters of New Jersey to dedicate an entire track to the hot topic at its April 2010 conference. The league produced a report and presented its findings at the event, spurring a slew of follow-up inquiries from several wastewater officials in the state. &ldquo;What prompted it was our local sewerage facility recently bought a special digester to speed up the process of sludge digestion,&rdquo; says Eleanor Gruber, who led the team dedicated to researching the sewage sludge-to-energy industry for the conference. &ldquo;We looked online to find out that we were not alone in the state in doing this.&rdquo;
 &ldquo;Wastewater treatment plants are good candidate sites for a lot of this work,&rdquo; Specca says. &ldquo;They already have the infrastructure and a way to handle the digestate.&rdquo; Many have laboratories and crucial on-site expertise, as well. The work group will come up with models to illustrate how the systems would work at each of the three scenario locations, using what the operations already have on-site, as well as additional potential sources such as food waste.
 Food scraps, fats, oils and grease produce the most biogas of any digestible feedstock, Serfass says. &ldquo;If you happen to have a good supply of food scraps or fats, oils, or greases that your wastewater facility is set up to process, you might produce a lot more biogas, and you might get a tipping fee from whoever is giving you their waste because it&rsquo;s cheaper for them to give the waste to a wastewater facility than it is to put it in a landfill.&rdquo;
 Such opportunities pile on even more potential for AD systems in New Jersey&rsquo;s wastewater treatment sector, especially for smaller plants that might not have enough input on their own for biogas-production components to be advantageous. The general rule of thumb for the minimum size of a facility to benefit from an anaerobic digester is between 1 million and 5 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater input, Serfass says. &ldquo;So if you&rsquo;re over that, there&rsquo;s a very high likelihood that you will significantly benefit from having a digester at your facility.&rdquo; The benefits to facilities between 1 million and 5 mgd will depend on a number of factors, including electricity and gas prices paid by the plant, as well as access to additional feedstocks. Any facility below 1 mgd, however, likely would not realize meaningful benefits.
 The majority of the 10 New Jersey plants Serfass cites that currently use their biogas have inputs of below 5 mgd, but the group also includes facilities that process 75 million, 23 million, and 17 mgd.
 Ramping Up Ridgewood
 The Ridgewood wastewater treatment plant processes only 3 mgd of raw sewage sludge, but still uses its biogas to heat its own digesters, according to Robert Gillow, the facility&rsquo;s superintendent. The plant is the only wastewater operation in the northeastern New Jersey village of Ridgewood, and its anaerobic digester has been running for more than 40 years, but now more options are being evaluated for its biogas.
 &ldquo;We have more methane than we can use,&rdquo; Gillow says. So Ridgewood will explore the potential to further the use of that resource instead of wasting it, looking into an electricity-production component. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s been put out for bids just to see what it would cost and how much it could benefit the town.&rdquo; Gillow says research into state tax incentives is ongoing and Kunze adds that the state does offer grants for biogas projects through its clean energy program.
 Even with an added power-production component, however, the Ridgewood treatment plant would still not be capable of producing excess power for the grid. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re probably not big enough to produce enough to sell,&rdquo; Gillow says. &ldquo;Basically just enough to run this facility, and maybe not even 100 percent.&rdquo; Kunze says that&rsquo;s not an unusual position for New Jersey&rsquo;s wastewater treatment operations. &ldquo;Generally speaking, a wastewater treatment plant will not produce more energy than it needs,&rdquo; he says.
 Ridgewood is also the focal point of Gruber&rsquo;s team report, as it illustrates perfectly the progression toward fulfillment of the statewide desire to increase the use of biogas produced from readily-available wastewater. The Renewable Natural Gas Work Group set a deadline of the end of September for its preliminary report on the topic. A final report will be distributed to state legislators and state departments, Specca says, setting the stage for educational seminars on the findings. Specca, along with the rest of the group and the state&rsquo;s wastewater treatment plant industry, hopes the results will prompt policy development to help New Jersey take advantage of its existing potential to increase both biogas production and use, fostering a robust wastewater-to-energy industry.
 &ldquo;After all,&rdquo; Gruber points out, &ldquo;We never run out of sewage, do we?&rdquo; Author: Lisa Gibson Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal <a href="mailto:lgibson@bbiinternational.com">lgibson@bbiinternational.com</a> (701) 738-4952

2011/09/13165487754617.jpg

New Jersey is already a top-ranked state in on-site
utilization of biogas produced by wastewater treatment plants, but ongoing research could help craft incentives to push it even higher. 

Watts from Wastewater 

Renewable energy is on the radar of every nation in the world as they all try to find the best sustainable solutions.
 Various political leaders support renewable energy and are advancing different legislative solutions that include everything from clean coal to solar and wind power, and geothermal. With the perceived difficulty of deciding on which energy stream to focus, the political net appears to be cast rather wide. In March, President Obama expressed the need for sustainability by introducing the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. &ldquo;We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security,&rdquo; he said. The blueprint outlined a three-part strategy to develop and secure America&rsquo;s energy supplies, to provide consumers with choices to reduce costs and save energy, and to innovate our way to a clean energy future.&nbsp;
 Although the biomass industry shares Obama&rsquo;s sentiment, biomass seemed to be left out of the energy security equation. It was only briefly mentioned and generally linked with wind, solar and geothermal energy.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 To narrow the focus, U.S. Reps. Charles Bass, R-N.H., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., have taken their support a step further by co-chairing the first caucus focused directly on biomass. &nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; Biomass-based energy benefits provide needed solutions to the blueprint&rsquo;s three-part strategy because it uses local renewable resources, it has been proven to reduce costs and it is certainly ecofriendly.&nbsp;
 With the inherent need to promote and educate the masses on Capitol Hill, Bass and Welch hope the first Congressional Biomass Caucus can put the industry on the front burner of policy and legislative change.
 Long Overdue
 While numerous renewable energy-driven caucuses meet on Capitol Hill, including liquid transportation fuel initiatives and others, no caucus has existed specific to biomass power and thermal. Likewise, there are tax credits and mandates for other renewable resources, but few support the biomass industry.&nbsp;
 Joseph Seymour, acting executive director of the Biomass Thermal Energy Council, notes that biomass as an alternative energy was relatively absent in congressional discussions at the time of BTEC&rsquo;s inaugural year 2009. Policymakers need to understand that thermal energy is approximately one-third of the nation&rsquo;s energy portfolio, Seymour says.&nbsp;
 &ldquo;The first Congressional Biomass Caucus is long overdue,&rdquo; says Patrick Rita, legislative representative for BTEC. Rita credits Bass, and his long history of renewable energy experience, with spearheading the caucus. &ldquo;When Rep. Bass came back to Congress in 2010, he made biomass a priority,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp; &nbsp; BTEC and other allied groups worked with Bass to initiate the caucus. Welch agreed to co-chair and to help seek the involvement of other members. The original idea was to include a diverse membership from each region, and to do it in a bipartisan way.&nbsp;
 The intent was to create a member-led government affairs group that would spread bioenergy initiatives. BTEC plans to help build the caucus from the ground up.&nbsp; &ldquo;The biomass caucus needs to be active, and BTEC intends to visit Congress regularly to keep the initiative alive.&rdquo; Rita says.&nbsp;
 Co-Chairs at a Glance
 Along with being co-chair of the biomass caucus, Bass is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and numerous other environment- and economy-related subcommittees. Bass was elected to represent New Hampshire in 2010, after having served the state from 1995 to 2007. He has a history of promoting clean, alternative energies that help lessen the nation&rsquo;s dependence on foreign sources of oil.&nbsp;
 His experience with the bioenergy industry includes an appointment to the board of managers at New England Wood Pellet, a wood pellet manufacturer in Jaffrey, N.H. The company produces pellet fuel from clean sustainable biomass to reduce the demand for fossil-based heating fuels.
 The congressman also served as a senior adviser to Laidlaw Energy Group, a company that manages a portfolio of renewable energy facilities through development, acquisition and conversion. The group promotes biomass power initiatives nationwide.
 Bass regularly communicates the importance of sustainability to his constituents, and the biomass caucus provides the avenue to promote bionergy to Congress for policy purposes.&nbsp;
 Welch is a member of the House Agriculture Committee and various subcommittees dealing with biotechnology, rural development and agriculture. He has served Vermont, which is in the biomass-rich northeast region of the U.S., since 2007.
 Vermont has an existing bioenergy industry and a solid base of constituents interested in renewable energy. According to Welch, Vermont is a good source state for harvesting biomass and it&rsquo;s a model for producing efficient energy through biomass.&nbsp;
 The representative specifically mentions Middlebury College&rsquo;s biomass system in Middelbury, Vt., as a good example of how biomass-derived energy is beneficial to the community. The college strives to be a sustainability leader and considers its biomass gasification plant to be a milestone in carbon neutrality.&nbsp;
 The gasification system uses locally obtained woody biomass as a fuel source, and provides power and thermal energy to the campus. Twenty percent of the college&rsquo;s electricity needs are provided through the high-pressure steam produced by biomass gasification. The institution previously used fuel oil, however, with the gasification system it has reduced its dependence on oil by half, saving roughly $1 million per year.&nbsp;
 Welch stressed that Vermont has been an example of how renewable energy initiatives help the local economy. Middlebury reports that its system cuts carbon dioxide output by 40 percent while simultaneously stimulating the local, renewable energy economy.
 Call for Members
 Through their personal and business experiences, Bass and Welch determined there was a need to focus on biomass at the legislative level. Earlier this year, the congressmen issued a joint call for members, to elevate awareness and involve other legislators with similar bioenergy interests.
 In a joint press release, the representatives emphasized that biomass &ldquo;is part of the key to breaking America&rsquo;s dependence on foreign fuels for transportation, electricity and heating,&rdquo; as America deals with the rising cost of foreign fuels and the decrease of conventional energy sources.&nbsp;
 The release also stressed that biomass is a homegrown resource available to every community in the nation. The term biomass was first introduced by Congress in 1978 as an alternative fuel that can be produced from many sources including crops, crop residues, plants, algae, wood and wastes such as animal, food and yard wastes.
 &ldquo;Green energy is the next step towards American energy independence, and biomass represents a viable and economical option,&rdquo; the representatives stated.&nbsp; Providing several unique benefits of biomass production, including local economic development and environmental sustainability, the congressmen invited members to join the bipartisan caucus.&nbsp;
 The interest has been steady and positive, according to Welch. To date, the caucus includes Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Aaron Schock, R-Ill., William Owens, D-N.Y., Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., Bill Cassidy, R-La., Russ Carnahan, D-Miss., Wally Herger, R-Calif., Mike Michaud, D-Maine, Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Paul Tonko, D-N.Y.
 The caucus is diverse with nearly all U.S. regions represented. Diversity is key, because how biomass is used in Oregon will vary from how it is used in Vermont, Welch notes. The type of feedstock and the industry itself will differ from one region to the next and it is important to get viewpoints and input from legislators across the nation.
 Importance of Bipartisanship
 As Seymour and Rita note, the initial intent of the caucus was to be regionally diverse and bipartisan. As co-chair, Welch also believes the caucus must be active in a bipartisan way.
 &ldquo;Being a bipartisan caucus is crucial,&rdquo; Welch says. With Congress deadlocked and struggling to get things done, the caucus must be able to get out a message that the legislative branch can work together with a common goal.&nbsp;
 The representative sees the biomass caucus as an opportunity to set an example that opposite positions can work together.&nbsp;
 &ldquo;We think biomass is important to the environment and the economy,&rdquo; Welch says. &ldquo;Bipartisanship is fundamental to a strong American economy. Partisan politics and division hurt America. We want the biomass caucus to be a good example of how to create solutions and make America stronger.&rdquo; An active bipartisan caucus may be well on its way to making good policy.
 Caucus Objectives
 According to Welch, the first Congressional Biomass Caucus has two goals: promote biomass initiatives and address specific biomass concerns through education. Members must understand and recognize the significant local benefits of biomass.
 Although the industry includes complexities, questions and even some disagreement, Rita notes that the importance of the caucus is to be an educative platform to answer questions and ease any biomass-related concerns.
 Similarly, Welch acknowledges that not all biomass is the same, and questions exist that need to be answered. Members hope the caucus will answer how the nation meets its energy goals and how biomass affects the energy industry in a sustainable fashion.
 Bioenergy is straightforward and noncontroversial, according to Welch, not an issue such as global warming or cap and trade. &ldquo;It simply is a sustainable technology, the benefits of which go directly to rural or local economies,&rdquo; Welch says.&nbsp;
 Potential biomass legislation should not result in Congress being hopelessly deadlocked. All members should have the common goal of developing alternative energy.
 Welch expects an active caucus with members starting immediately to educate, answer questions and develop policy ideas. The caucus is intended to be constructive where the members think of ideas, questions and answers to how biomass affects their constituencies.&nbsp;
 The intent is to &ldquo;roll up the sleeves and be proactive with this caucus,&rdquo; Rita says.&nbsp; The hope is to see the caucus host in-depth briefings on biomass issues that provide information and education to spur on policy and legislation.
 According to Rita, there is a need for an active and creative group whose mission is to create biomass-based law. Welch concurs, saying that once policymakers understand bioenergy&rsquo;s benefits, the goal with the first Congressional Biomass Caucus is to make biomass policy and legislation. &nbsp; Author: Matt Soberg Associate Editor, Biomass Power &amp; Thermal (701) 746-8385 <a href="mailto:msoberg@bbiinternational.com">msoberg@bbiinternational.com</a>

BIOMASS BACKER: Rep. Bass, right, supports clean, alternative energy like this outdoor wood pellet furnace at New England Outdoor Furnaces in New Port, N.H.

2011/09/1316549181799.jpg

Rep. Welch, D-Vt., says Vermont with its biomass resources is a model for producing efficient energy through biomass.

2011/09/13165492385379.jpg

GASIFICATION 101: Rep. Welch often refers to Middlebury College and its biomass gasification system as a perfect example of how to use locally sourced fuel to save on energy bills. The gasification system saves the college about $1 million a year.


2011/09/13165492797977.jpg

Two U.S. lawmakers create the first Congressional Biomass Caucus to put the industry on the front burner of energy policy.

A Caucus of its Own

The U.K., along with all members of the European Union, is evolving its energy base to meet the ambitious target of 20 percent of fuel originating from renewable sources by 2020. The Conservative-Liberal coalition government believes that the biomass market is worth taking a bet on.
 New biomass plants could be sprouting up all over the U.K. with planned developments from Forth Energy&rsquo;s projects in Scotland in Dundee, Leith and Grangemouth, to Peel Energy&rsquo;s plant in Manchester, all the way down to the southern coast with Helius Energy&rsquo;s wood fuel plant in Southampton.&nbsp;
 Incentivizing Biomass
 Despite endorsing more severe spending cuts compared to other comparable economies, the coalition government has supported the biomass market with generous subsidies, mainly because of the cost of biomass in relation to other renewable energy sources.
 &ldquo;Biomass heat is the lowest-cost renewable in terms of the [metric tons] of CO2 saved per pound invested, usually by some margin,&rdquo; says Jim Birse, commercial director of Econergy Ltd., a U.K.-based provider of biomass solutions. &ldquo;The Renewable Heat Initiative, that will provide financial assistance to the generators of renewable energy including long-term tariff support to big heat users, will cost a lot less per metric ton of CO2 than the feed-in tariffs for PV (photovoltaic).&rdquo;
 &ldquo;Heating and heating fuels account for 45 percent of the U.K.'s CO2 emissions, and heating accounts for 70 percent plus of a typical home's energy use&mdash;any energy policy aiming to reduce CO2 must tackle this sector,&rdquo; Birse says. &ldquo;Biomass boilers are directly compatible with standard heating and hot water systems, and can be used to raise MPHW (medium pressure hot water) and steam for industry applications.&rdquo;
 An official report produced for the Department for Energy and Climate Change by AEA, a provider of analysis, advice and data on economically sustainable solutions for energy and environmental issues, concludes that U.K. feedstocks are projected to provide one-third of bioenergy by 2020, producing about 1,800 petajoules of bioenergy supply, equivalent to 20 percent of current primary energy demand in the U.K.
 There will be exponential increases in imports, however, as the forecast is for the proliferation of energy crops being planted globally. The EU, Eurasia and non-EU countries could provide 70 percent of potential imports by 2030, and there remains the juicier prospect of China becoming a big export market if it also increases its crop. This is also why many of the U.K.&rsquo;s new biomass plants are being built in coastal areas in ports.
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Feedstock Supplies
 Even though a reliance on import markets has been anticipated, the U.K. still possesses a substantial market supply of its own. Wood waste fuels that are being consumed for combined-heat-and-power (CHP) boilers are increasingly being used by local authorities in residential and industrial properties. That is despite the much remarked upon initial steep outlay for biomass boilers, which are priced at about &pound;11,000 ($18,000) compared to &pound;4,800 for installing solar power.
 Agricultural waste including dry residues from straw, corn stover and poultry litter can be burned by medium-scale biomass power plants and CHP sectors to produce between 10 and 50 megawatts of electricity.
 Food waste is also there for the taking, with huge amounts of organic waste material being created from manufactured foods and drinks, including beer, whiskey and wine, and cheese. It has been estimated that 92 percent of brewing ingredients end up as waste, mostly spent grains, and that dairy products produce 40 million cubic meters annually, mainly for cleaning, which produces effluent containing high levels of organic residues.
 Additionally, energy crop growth has potential, and projections may ensure plans are made for increased planting. For example, 700,000 hectares (1.7 million acres) is 3.7 percent of U.K. agricultural land and is the area that used to be &ldquo;set-aside&rdquo; under EU agricultural policy. &ldquo;If this area were to be planted with woody energy crops, we'd expect an annual yield of something like 9 million tonnes (9.9 million tons) per year,&rdquo; Birse says.
 &ldquo;The U.K. possesses considerable untapped biomass resources,&rdquo; says Keiran Allen, technology acceleration manager at the Carbon Trust. &ldquo;Up to 4 million tonnes exists in under-managed private forestry alone, and the Forestry Commission estimates that up to 2 million tonnes could be sustainably extracted in England for fuel use every year. Beyond this, large volumes of waste wood are still currently going into landfills and between 3 million and 5 million tonnes per annum could instead be used for fuel. Marginal land could also be used for energy crop planting.&rdquo;
 &ldquo;In the U.K. we are starting from a low base with lower levels of affinity with biomass and wood as a fuel,&rdquo; Allen says. &ldquo;We also face lower absolute availability of materials relative to our total annual heat demand and there is a shortage of forestry-specific skills which must be developed to enable the industry to grow.&rdquo;
 Other constraints may be affected by finance and confidence in the supply chain, and for markets to become successful may depend on the regulatory framework that any nation implements. As the report produced for the DECC states, there is extensive room to grow energy crops in the international marketplace including in the U.K.
 Opposing Forces
 While biomass may be a much-vaunted renewable energy source in certain quarters, it is not without its detractors, who question the carbon neutrality of burning wood plus the aftereffects of any deforestation, and whether this will outweigh the emission savings in the long run. Taking into account capital and largely populated cities, whether more greenhouse gases released in the air is appropriate is dubious.
 This view is supported by Biofuel Watch, which keeps an eye on the negatives of bioenergy. &ldquo;I suspect that they are concerned about 'keeping the lights on' when nuclear plants are due to be decommisioned combined with public fears about safety; then there are concerns about energy security from Middle Eastern oil and Russian gas,&rdquo; says a spokesperson for the organization. &ldquo;The negative effects of biomass in comparison to other renewable energies are numerous and include rainforest destruction and other habitat loss leading to a reduction in biodiversity, land evictions and other human rights abuses, water and soil degradation, genetically engineered plantations with increased fire risk and water use, loss of carbon sinks, food sovereignty and food security issues and lastly but by no means least, air pollution and black soot.&rdquo;
 The debate about biomass rages in the U.K. as the prospect of reliance on it increases, however the watchdog&rsquo;s view is forcefully dismissed by Geoff Hogan of the government-funded Biomass Energy Centre.
 &ldquo;There are all sorts of rubbish published about the carbon impact of biomass, often along the lines of &lsquo;cutting down trees to burn is bad,&rsquo;&rdquo; Hogan says. &ldquo;If managed properly biomass for fuel is sourced as a byproduct of existing good forestry practice and is poor quality material removed as a part of thinning operations and trimming of side branches, slab wood, chips and sawdust from the processing of the high-quality timber in sawmills for use in construction and joinery. Trees are essentially grown for timber; biomass for fuel is a byproduct of the industry.&rdquo;
 &ldquo;However, it can also be done unsustainably and inappropriately giving unacceptable direct and indirect land-use impacts, poor carbon savings and negative social impacts,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;Legally harvested timber in the U.K. is subject to the U.K. Forestry Standard, imposed via felling licenses and is therefore sustainably sourced. Illegally obtained wood in any country is unlikely to be sustainable.&rdquo;
 Advocates of biomass should also be wary of &lsquo;not in my backyard&rsquo; groups&mdash;or as the colloquial term would have it NIMBYs&mdash;who are against biomass construction. This has erupted more conspicuously against Helius Energy&rsquo;s plans for a 100-megawatt wood fuel plant in Southampton, even though they announced they would not source fuel from protected areas in an attempt to bat off local protests. Vociferous opposition from local residents criticized the &pound;300 million building, which included a 100-meter-long chimney stack, in the docks area of the city as an eyesore and possessing no positive environmental impact.
 Developers are now being forced into retreat by the protests with a delay on fresh consultations for the plants&rsquo; designs to extend community consultation, and this comes after it was announced that the original designs are being downsized.
 The significance of this should not be dismissed when taking wind energy into account. There is thought to be more than 230 localized campaigns against wind energy, and they have campaigned to great effect as existing council laws defer to the concerns of local residents&rsquo; priority over turbine building. As a result, approval rates for turbines have dropped by 50 percent, say Renewables Energy U.K., who believe local developers are alarmed at the consistency of negative decision making on wind farm building. According to figures from law firm McGrigors LLP, who have six offices across the U.K., 48 percent of onshore farms are being refused planning permission.
 Alison Jones, community relations manager of the U.K. and Ireland development at the RES Group, who have a biomass project in the planning stage in North Blyth, and about to begin the pre-planning public consultation on an Alexandra Dock project in Liverpool says &ldquo;RES is experienced in renewable energy project development and we take community consultation seriously. A comprehensive process of consultation that engages with local people and stakeholders from an early stage allows an informed debate to take place. This helps us to identify issues of concern, negotiate solutions and design a low-impact project that will be welcomed as a positive asset by the local community.&rdquo;
 The coalition government and developers will be hoping that progressive steps such as these will work&mdash;making that bet worth taking after all. &nbsp; Author: Peter Taberner Freelance Writer <a href="mailto:tabernerp@yahoo.co.uk">tabernerp@yahoo.co.uk</a>

2011/09/13165497102444.jpg

2011/09/13165497301469.jpg

Ambitious EU renewable energy goals prompt the U.K. to support biomass-based energy development.

Betting on Biomass

Environmental stewardship has been a core philosophy for Anheuser-Busch Inc. since the company&rsquo;s inception in the late 1800s. Back then, the company recycled surplus grain from its brewing process as cattle feed, among other sustainable measures. That practice continues today along with the implementation of new technological processes, including advanced wastewater pretreatment and treatment systems, which keep the 12 U.S. A-B breweries running at optimum efficiency while successfully establishing the company as a responsible citizen within the communities where they are based.
 A-B produces more than 100 different beers, and alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages. Not only must each in-house treatment system meet all state and federal regulatory standards, it must also meet A-B&rsquo;s own high aesthetic standards, including a zero-odor tolerance policy. Several of the A-B breweries serve as tourist destinations, so the brewer places particular emphasis on plant cleanliness and an odor-free environment. For wastewater treatment, the company uses anaerobic digestion systems, Bio-Energy Recovery Systems, or BERS in company nomenclature, at 10 of its breweries.
 In fact, A-B is the largest operator of anaerobic digesters in the world. Anaerobic digestion is a natural fit for breweries and has become a proven and energy-efficient way to clean brewery wastewater. Low energy use, a small reactor surface area, lower chemical usage and minimal sludge handling costs are advantages of this technology over aerobic alternatives. The technology does not require blowers and mixers like an aerobic system, and the anaerobic reactor produces biogas (methane) that can be used within breweries to fuel boilers or combined-heat-and-power units. In addition, anaerobic reactors are sealed, so no odor escapes. This is a special advantage for A-B facilities that provide daily tours, such as the company&rsquo;s brewery in Merrimack, N.H.&nbsp;
 The Merrimack Brewery
 The A-B Merrimack Brewery, built in 1969-1970, is set on 294 acres in the scenic Merrimack Valley and is contained within a 1-million-square-foot plant. The brewery is the New England home to the Budweiser brand. It hosts tours daily as well as a number of special events each year and is home to the world-famous A-B icons, the Budweiser Clydesdale horses.
 When A-B elected to upgrade its existing pretreatment system at its Merrimack brewery in 2004, it contracted Biothane, a Veolia Water Solutions &amp; Technologies Co., to design and install the upgrades. Biothane had worked with A-B on seven previous brewery projects, and the Merrimack project merged the best technologies from prior BERS plants with design improvements based on experience to provide an extremely efficient BERS plant for the brewery.
 Typical brewery wastewater chemical oxygen demand (COD) consists mainly of easily biodegradable organic compounds such as sugars, ethanol and soluble starch. As each brewery has different production practices, a study was conducted to determine the characteristics of A-B Merrimack&rsquo;s effluent as well as the stringent site requirements in order to select the most appropriate system. Based on this study, the final design for the upgrades included the installation of the Biobed Expanded Granular Sludge Blanket (EGSB) technology, a high-rate anaerobic digestion process.
 Groundbreaking for the project commenced in May 2005 with the laying of foundation piles and construction of the BERS began the following September. Although Biothane faced a number of challenges during construction, such as a brutal New England winter during which building construction wrapped up, and a 100-year storm that caused the adjacent Merrimack River to flood the job site, the plant was commissioned in August 2006&mdash;three weeks ahead of schedule.
 System Overview
 The site for the upgrade was tight, which was one of the reasons for the EGSB reactor selection. The system features significantly smaller reactor volume, compared to other anaerobic technologies, due to its ability to handle high COD volumetric loading rates. The system&rsquo;s smaller footprint and fewer material requirements provide for compact installation and lower investment cost.
 Each day, the system treats 500,000-750,000 gallons of wastewater from the Merrimack Brewery. The treatment system modifications take up the waste stream&nbsp; and direct it to an influent well prior to entering a 320,000-gallon equalization tank, where pH is adjusted.
 After equalization, the wastewater is pumped into a 250,000-gallon Biobed EGSB reactor through an influent system that evenly distributes the wastewater into the reactor base and biomass bed. The biomass/wastewater mixture subsequently flows upwards through the tank. As wastewater contacts the biomass (anaerobic organisms, which ball together to form granular particles), contaminants contained in the wastewater are converted into biogas in an oxygen-free medium. The biomass, or self-creating black granules, are 2-4 millimeters in diameter, with a high-settling velocity of greater than 50 meters per hour and a density of 40-80 kilograms of dry solids per cubic meter.&nbsp;
 No mechanical agitation of the reactor contents is required because the biomass mixing effect inside the reactor is essentially brought about by the feed distribution system, which maximizes the contact of the biomass with the influent. Production of biogas occurs during the natural upward current that begins in the lower reactor section. A three-phase settler at the top of the reactor separates treated water, biomass and the produced biogas. A portion of the treated effluent water flows back to the equalization tank where it is mixed with raw influent wastewater for another pass through the reactor.
&nbsp; The biogas produced in the reactors flows through a gas holder, which buffers flow gradients, and is then compressed for use as a supplementary fuel source for the brewery&rsquo;s boilers. Recirculation of the treated water and removal of degassing carbon dioxide within the equalization tank helps control alkalinity in the system.
 Biomass build-up in the Biobed EGSB is sold as seed for new anaerobic plants, thereby avoiding the biomass storage and disposal issues encountered with aerobic systems. Following anaerobic treatment, the effluent may be flash aerated to remove odor through sulfide oxidation before it is discharged into its own sewer system at the brewery&rsquo;s previous treatment plant&rsquo;s discharge point.
 The Results
 The EGSB reactor complies with A-B&rsquo;s zero tolerance policy regarding odors. The reactors form a closed, gas-tight unit, which positively prevents biogas from escaping into the atmosphere. All other odor-producing components of the BERS, including the equalization tanks, are connected to the BERS off-gas scrubber system that pulls out and oxidizes the odorous compounds before releasing the air into the atmosphere.
 The plant upgrades have led to immediate cost savings. A-B has achieved energy savings by idling energy-intensive brewery residuals processing units and by generating biogas to help offset costs for fueling its boilers. A-B Merrimack&rsquo;s BERS provides approximately 10 percent of the fuel used in its steam boilers.
 An average 70 percent of total COD and 88 percent of soluble COD is removed in the BERS anaerobic step. The town of Merrimack has benefited from these upgrades by avoiding costly upgrades to its own treatment plant due to reduced loadings. By working together with the town to resolve environmental and financial issues related to wastewater treatment, rather than relying on the town&rsquo;s facility to treat all of its wastewater, A-B has developed a process that works to the benefit of everyone.
 A-B holds itself to stringent standards, and is an industry leader in finding and implementing efficient and environmentally friendly technologies to optimize brewery processes. In addition to adopting anaerobic treatment at its breweries, other pollution prevention approaches have led to A-B facilities recycling 99 percent of their solid waste. In addition, at A-B&rsquo;s Fairfield, Calif., brewery, a 1.18-megawatt photovoltaic system constructed in 2008 generates about 3 percent of the brewery&rsquo;s electricity needs. The company&rsquo;s Newark, N.J., brewery has also recently added a 1.1-megawatt photovoltaic system. A-B&rsquo;s Houston, Texas, brewery has started using biogas recovered from a local landfill. When combined with the biogas recovered from the brewery&rsquo;s BERS installation, biogas provides approximately 70 percent of the Houston brewery&rsquo;s energy needs.
 An Award-Winning Approach 
 In 2008, the A-B Merrimack Brewery received the New Hampshire Governor&rsquo;s Award for Pollution Prevention, in recognition of the energy-efficient measures installed at the brewery. The award-winning environmental improvement project carried out at the brewery has reduced emissions by 178 metric tons, energy consumption by 1.02 million kilowatt-hours and has resulted in a net savings of 91,000 MMBtu. These comprehensive measures, which have resulted in significant reductions in energy and water usage, also qualified the A-B Merrimack brewery for an Association of Energy Engineers Energy Award in 2009. Authors: Bradley Smith Engineering Manager, Biothane LLC <a href="mailto:brad.smith@veoliawater.com">brad.smith@veoliawater.com</a> Denise Johnston Vice President Marketing and Sales, Biothane LLC <a href="mailto:denise.johnston@veoliawater.com">denise.johnston@veoliawater.com</a>

2011/09/13165500507677.jpg

2011/09/13165500709821.jpg

By adding high-rate anaerobic reactors to the wastewater pretreatment system at its Merrimack, N.H., brewery, the plant has reduced air emissions and fossil fuel purchases, and shut down labor-intensive, energy-inefficient equipment. 

Anheuser-Busch Brews Up Biogas with High-Rate Anaerobic Treatment

Biorefining technology does not grow on trees but there is no shortage of innovative ways to turn biomass into an advanced biofuel or a biobased chemical. Some of those technologies, like the mechanical pretreatment &ldquo;cellunator&rdquo; approach developed by EdeniQ Inc. or the delignification pretreatment process created by GE and now refined by Lignol Energy Corp., have even sprouted into process technologies on the threshold of commercialization. We wanted to know what it took for those similar, but very different companies and process approaches to make it to where they are today. EdeniQ recently broke ground on a corn-to-cellulosic migration pilot plant, and Lignol has a pilot plant up and running already. So how did both companies turn their respective concepts into process approaches that not only pump out product, but pay off investors? The short answer: research, testing and enough due diligence&mdash;the kind that runs into millions of dollars, so that in the end, as Ross MacLachlan, president and CEO of Lignol tells Biorefining Magazine, &ldquo;you can be confident that your estimates are in the ballpark.&rdquo; If you want the long answer from MacLachlan, however, you&rsquo;d better clear your schedule because the journey to a feasible and validated process is a long one. As he asked us, &ldquo;Do you have a month and a half to talk about it?&rdquo; EdeniQ&rsquo;s Version EdeniQ&rsquo;s California-based pilot facility cost roughly $25.5 million. Because the project was partially funded by the U.S. DOE&rsquo;s Integrated Biorefinery Program for $20.5 million, Peter Kilner, vice president of business development for the company, says the project was split into two parts. The first phase ran a little over $3 million and allowed EdeniQ the ability to focus solely on the design of the project. The second stage was just over $22 million and will be all about the construction and operation of the facility. The EdeniQ version of process validation represents what a biorefining company that has received some kind of loan guarantee or grant might look like. But regardless of whether a company does actually have that financial backing from the government, Kilner says there are several things a bench-scale or pilot-scale ready technology user can learn from EdeniQ. &ldquo;From my years of experience,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;the important thing is to have a scale-up plant that is appropriate for your technology.&rdquo; Make sure, he says, that you can get representative information that can inform a proper scale-up to commercialization. While that scaling process is taking place, however, he explained the importance of risk, of not being too small but not being too big. &ldquo;It is a trade-off,&rdquo; he says. A technology needs to be big enough so that it can be representative, but it can&rsquo;t get too big at the risk of unexpected problems that will be too costly to deal with and fix. To make the leap from the phase one design stage to the build-out of the pilot facility, EdeniQ went through a process Kilner says is important for every company. In addition to constant process checks from the in-house engineering team, the company brought in and partnered with an outside firm, Logos Technologies Inc. &ldquo;There was an extra effort to have an outside engineering firm,&rdquo; he says, adding that it is &ldquo;always good to have a double-check of your internal engineering. It&rsquo;s an expensive process and you want to get it right the first time.&rdquo; Although it may seem obvious, bringing in the outside &ldquo;eyes&rdquo; is a must, but in the case of EdeniQ, they didn&rsquo;t have a choice. &ldquo;Before proceeding with the construction phase of the project,&rdquo; Kilner explained, &ldquo;we had to satisfy the DOE which relied on an independent engineering firm.&rdquo; So for EdeniQ, it wasn&rsquo;t one set of eyes or even two, three different engineering teams looked over the process. The work with the other teams taught Kilner one very important piece of strategy to use in the scale-up process, and even the technology validation process. Partnering is a plus. Why? Because he says a partner might already have invested in similar infrastructure. If an outside company has an improvement on a similar process, then a company like EdeniQ can negotiate a deal that can accelerate commercialization. Partnering isn&rsquo;t the only strategy EdeniQ used, though. Kilner says they developed a &ldquo;sophisticated risk management program,&rdquo; where all the major process risks were identified and given mitigation plans so for all the key areas of risk, there is a plan B and a plan C. Logos Technologies helped form the risk assessment program, but Logos also helped in another way, proposal writing. &ldquo;We brought in Logos to write the proposal to the government because we didn&rsquo;t have experience working with government contracting.&rdquo; Now, there is a team of five permenant members from Logos working at the EdeniQ pilot location. Lignol&rsquo;s Version Lignol is no different from most other companies for one reason: its concern with making a profit. And, its version of process technology validation has benefited from recognizing that. Because their process deals with lignin, MacLachlan says all of the primary process considerations &ldquo;revolve around extracting the maximum value out of the lignin.&rdquo; To do that, Lignol has adopted an approach they call &ldquo;open innovation.&rdquo; What that means, Kilner says, &ldquo;is that we recognize in the biorefining industry there will be areas of expertise that will be fundamental to us and us alone, but,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;we do recognize that there will be touchpoints in certain parts of the equipment we use,&rdquo; and because of that, they are looking for partners. Sound familiar to EdeniQ&rsquo;s approach? MacLachlan believes Lignol has adopted a viral approach of working across different sectors in the biorefining space, as well as different industries to really provide his company with a robust set of inputs to help in the overall design of a commercial facility. And, like EdeniQ, one of those sectors is certainly an outside engineering firm. One of the greatest advantages of an engineering firm is access to that outside firm&rsquo;s outside ideas, solutions and equipment packages that may not have otherwise been considered, MacLachlan says. That doesn&rsquo;t de-emphasize the importance of the in-house engineers understanding the process, however, because if the scientists and engineers understand the entire process and can even create an early design package, the outside engineers can move more quickly. &ldquo;I think it is a mistake that a lot of people make,&rdquo; he says. Companies will go to a firm with an idea or concept instead of a well-researched plan, expecting that engineering firm to help that idea in a capacity that in most cases, they can&rsquo;t. For the companies that have performed months or even years of research, who understand their process technology and simply want to check their perceived notion of their cost benefit analysis, there are companies such as Burns and McDonnell Engineering. Ron Jones is the business development manager at the St.Louis-based firm, and like both Kilner and MacLachlan, he believes the best path a biorefining firm looking to validate the feasibility of their process is to bring in or work with partners. &ldquo;One of the really cool things about this industry is that it is evolving around that basis, even the big guys, the BPs, the Valeros, are taking a partnering approach, and for a culture like ours that is pretty exciting,&rdquo; Jones says, &ldquo;because we prefer to be part of a team, rather than a second tier supplier that is feeding a commodity into the system.&rdquo;&nbsp; Jones says his team will look at heat mass balances, run simulations and have his team look over all of the documentation regarding the performance of a given process when they work with a biorefining company looking to validate their technology before taking the scale-up steps. Jones and his team are currently working with ZeaChem on the construction of a plant in Boardman, Oregon. Some of the common hurdles his teams run into start when a technology developer comes in with an inadequate amount of research. &ldquo;People come in sometimes with an idea and want to get a price on that, and that is difficult to do,&rdquo; he says. Because of that, his job changes from company to company. Typically he says, the more baseline work and the more experience the owner of the project has, the closer the results are between the internal and external engineering teams, but they are never the same. In most cases, the process will go from baseline work research by the engineers, followed by a face-to-face visit with the internal engineers and scientists before the actual testing begins. From his time working on projects like ZeaChem&rsquo;s, Jones says he has learned several things, but two variables seem to show through in every project. The first he says, is that every process technology developer out there is looking to find readily available commercial-scale equipment that they can piece together to make their process work. The second common theme he sees is the &ldquo;look&rdquo; of most new advanced biofuels technologies, which he says look basically like chemical and refining processes already used today in the petroleum industry, a point he says helps his team to find answers to both performance issues as well as equipment possibilities. EdeniQ and Lignol, even ZeaChem, are all taking different approaches to scale-up, using different technologies. By understanding their technology, by validating their costs, and, as each company we spoke to has shown, by finding the specific partner to work with, each may have a shorter, smoother ride to commercialization. Authors: Bryan Sims, Luke Geiver Associate Editors, Biorefining Magazine (701) 746-8385 bsims@bbiinternational.com lgeiver@bbiinternational.com

What it takes to prove the feasibility of a process technology

The Path to Validation

Due in part to its strong chemical industry and logistical advantages, Holland is uniquely suited to become a central biorefining hub in Europe. According to Renee Bergkamp, director general of innovation at the country&rsquo;s Ministry of Economic Affairs-Agriculture and Innovation, Holland&rsquo;s chemistry sector created &euro;48 billion ($69 billion) in revenue during 2010. &ldquo;The chemical industry represents nearly 20 percent of our exports,&rdquo; she says. When coupled with the logistical advantages of being home to Europe&rsquo;s first and fourth largest ports and the fact that both public and private entities within the region are diligently working to create a biobased economy, it is clear that the Netherlands offers an attractive opportunity for biorefining companies looking to develop projects in Europe. According to Bergkamp, the chemical and biobased industries are already an important driver of research and development activities within Netherlands. &ldquo;This is important because we want to be a knowledge economy,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a sector that is the core of Holland and we know it is a knowledge power. It&rsquo;s working on a sustainable future and ...[and putting] that into successful business&hellip;Knowledge is nice, but you have to make business of it.&rdquo; Bas Pulles, commissioner of the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency, adds that his country already boasts the 16th largest economy in the world, which is particularly notable considering the relatively small geographic area it occupies. Furthermore, Pulles stresses that a significant portion of Holland&rsquo;s economic base has been built on trade and investment. This existing economic base should help drive development of the region&rsquo;s biobased economy. According to Pulles, there are several reasons Netherlands represents an attractive opportunity for foreign investors, including the regions, strategic location and infrastructure. The country&rsquo;s ports, airports and IT infrastructure allow companies that establish operations in Holland to service all areas of Europe, he says. In fact, 60 percent of all European distribution centers are located in Holland, he adds. Regarding logistics, Holland is home to the Port of Rotterdam, which is the largest in Europe, and the Port of Amsterdam, Europe&rsquo;s fourth largest port. While those logistical attributes may seem to imply that Holland has an economic base that is predominantly manufacturing oriented, Pulles says that is not the case. Rather, he notes that Holland&rsquo;s economy has a strong service base rather than the strong manufacturing base that is found in many other parts of Europe. This means that the country features many highly skilled and educated workers. The existing chemical industry alone employs approximately 65,000 highly educated workers, Bergkamp says. &nbsp;There are also relatively few hurdles that foreign investors must overcome in order to establish operations in Netherlands, Pulles says, adding tax incentives have been specifically developed to benefit foreign investors that set up operations in Holland. Tax incentives have also been developed to make the region attractive to skilled workers from other countries. &ldquo;We felt there was a shortage of highly-skilled labor in the region,&rdquo; Pulles says. To help attract more skilled workers to the country, there is a policy that allows these workers to negotiate income tax incentives. According to Cornelis Mijnders, manager of Holland&rsquo;s National Program for the Bio-Based Economy, the main drivers of his country&rsquo;s biobased economy are currently innovation, economic development and environmental policy. One way the government is working to support innovation in the sector is through the development of open-source pilot plants, which are being made available to a wide range of companies and projects within the country. Mijnders estimates that those pilot plants will be in use by June. In addition to countrywide programs to support development of Holland&rsquo;s biobased economy, regional initiatives are also underway. According to Eisse Luitjens, manager of Ontwikkeling &amp; Innovatie, a development agency that works in the northern region of Netherlands, his organization supports its local biobased economy through both venture capital investments and manpower. He notes that his organization has developed a three-part roadmap to guide future investments in the biobased economy. One portion of the roadmap focuses specifically on the development of sustainable feedstocks for the chemical industry, and another focuses on the development of biopolymers. Fuels, Plastics and Chemicals The northern region of Netherlands already boasts the world&rsquo;s first commercial-scale biomethanol refinery, which has been developed by BioMCN. The facility currently produces 200,000 metric tons of biomethanol annually using waste glycerin from biodiesel plants as feedstock. BioMCN is also developing a new plant that would produce the same biobased chemical from woody biomass. BioMCN&rsquo;s existing production capacity has been retrofitted into an existing fossil-based methanol plant. The company purchased two methanol plants four years ago. The previously idle plants originally produced methanol from natural gas. To date, a portion of one plant has been retrofitted to convert glycerin into biobased methanol. According to BioMCN CEO Rob Voncken, the facility is being retrofitted in two phases. Once phase two is complete in 2013, the plant will be capable of producing 400,000 metric tons of biomethanol annually. The second plant will likely remain idle, he says. As completion of phase two of the retrofit continues, BioMCN is working with a consortium of companies and sponsor organizations to develop Woodspirit, a proposed 900,000 metric-ton-per-year wood-to-methanol plant. The new facility, which would be located adjacent to the company&rsquo;s existing operations, would take in 1.5 million tons of wet wood feedstock per year. The feedstock would be dried and converted into a syngas, which would be further catalyzed into biomethanol. According to Voncken, BioMCN has applied for a subsidy from the European Union that would help support development of the plant. He explains that the EU has committed to subsidize two renewable energy projects in each of its member countries. A total of three projects have been nominated for the subsidy in Holland. Voncken says a final decision is expected to be handed down in May 2012. He also notes that seven companies have already approached BioMCN to express interest in supplying feedstock to the proposed plant. BioMCN aims to have the project operation by 2015. While BioMCN continues development its newest project, Amsterdam-based Avantium is developing a solution to produce biobased plastics using existing infrastructure. The catalyst technology developer spun off from Shell Oil Co. in 2000 and began transitioning into biobased material development in 2005. According to Frank Roerink, Avantium chief technology officer the company now focuses nearly 50 percent of its efforts on the biobased industry. Avantium is currently developing a biobased plastic material called polyethylene-furanoate (PEF), which is an analog to traditional fossil-based polyethylene-terephthalate (PET). The 100 percent biobased and recyclable PEF material is designed to be produced in existing infrastructure. &ldquo;You have to have a production process that can compete with today&rsquo;s supply chain,&rdquo; Roerink says, noting that today&rsquo;s supply chain is built on using chemical catalysis to produce fuels and chemical building blocks. According to Roerink, Avantium has developed a method to economically convert biomass into plastic using existing industrial assets. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve always worked [under] three simple concepts,&rdquo; Roerink explains. &ldquo;Our process has to compete on price, it has to compete on performance and it has to have a better environmental footprint.&rdquo; Avantium is continuing to optimize its process to further enhance certain characteristics of its biobased plastic, including color, molecular weight and bottle design. A pilot plant is currently under development and is expected to become operational later this year. The facility will focus on further product optimization as well as the development of product applications, Roerink says, noting that commercial production could begin as soon as 2015. Another Holland-based company, Purac, is working to develop biobased plastics. The company&rsquo;s technology converts biomass into lactic acid via a fermentation and purification process. The resulting plastic material, polylactic acid (PLA), can be used in a variety of application processes. According to Purac CEO Rop Zoetemeyer, his company is working improve its process by developing a gypsum-free lactic acid manufacturing process. The new process will not only be simplified, Zoetemeyer notes it will also feature a lower environmental impact. Algae Research While most algae projects seem to be associated with warm, sunny locations, such as the American Southwest, several companies in the Netherlands are working to develop regionally adaptable algae production and processing technologies. A pilot-scale project in Olgeren, Holland, is investigating the use of algae cultivation as a method to remove nutrients for wastewater. The project, under development by Ingrepro Renewables, is housed at Waterstromen bv, a water treatment facility. The pilot-scale facility currently consists of three 300-square-meter open ponds. According to Marcel Oogink, Ingrepro&rsquo;s managing director of renewables, the three ponds allow his company to evaluate the impact of production variables, such as pH level and nutrients, on algae yields. &ldquo;The algae is a development project, and we are testing several effluents from [the water treatment process]&hellip;we can also mix several streams with each other and then send it to the ponds,&rdquo; Oogink says. The plant produces 5 to 10 tons of algae per year, he says. &nbsp;To harvest the algae, Ingrepro Renewables uses a system that has traditionally been used in other wastewater treatment applications. A company representative explains that the system creates tiny air bubbles in the algae solution that rise to the surface, carrying the algae cells with them. The algae is then skimmed off the surface. According to Oogink, Ingrepro Renewables is also developing an algae encapsulation technology. Information supplied by the company shows that wastewater would flow around the encapsulated algae beads, allowing for the efficient absorption of nutrients. Since the algae is encapsulated in beads, Ingrepro says the process to dewater the algae would be simplified. FeyeCon, another company located in Holland, has developed several spin-off operations that are active in the algae sector. One of FeyeCon&rsquo;s areas of specialty is using high-pressure, supercritical carbon dioxide to separate valuable components from biomass materials. For example, the technology can be used to extract valuable oils from algae. According to FeyeCon&rsquo;s CEO Maaike van Roosmalen, there are several reasons why carbon dioxide is an attractive option for this separation process. It is nontoxic, odor free, colorless, nonflammable and cheap, she says. Algae Biotech SL, one of FeyeCon&rsquo;s various spin-offs, is focused on creating products and processes in the algae sector. According to the company, it aims to improve all aspects of downstream algae processing, including harvesting and extraction. CleanAlage SL, another operation established by FeyeCon, is specializing in developing affordable cultivation technologies for algae. The company works closely with Algae Biotech and currently maintains algae cultivation facilities in Spain. Author: Erin Voegele Associate Editor, Biorefining Magazine (701) 540-6986 evoegele@bbiinternational.com

Fast-tracking bioenergy development in Holland


Creating a Biobased Economy

The down-select process means a lot to Tom Faust and John Holladay. They&rsquo;ve spent many sleepless nights over the past eight months thinking about it. They&rsquo;ve felt extreme enthusiasm over the opportunity such a process could bring to the advanced biofuel industry, and they&rsquo;ve been plagued with anxiety wondering about unintended consequences it might breed. And why not? Faust, the principal investigator and consortium director for the National Advanced Biofuels Consortium, and Holladay, the chief technology officer for the NABC, have been given one of the most unprecedented tasks the industry has ever seen. Along with a team of experts compiled from nearly every major lab in the U.S., on Aug. 12 the NABC will do what it set out to do nearly eight months ago and pick from six of the most promising, innovative, and in some cases, the most commercially backed, and at least partially proven, technologies in existence. The down-select process involves narrowing the field of choices, and Faust&rsquo;s and Holladay&rsquo;s duty of &ldquo;picking&rdquo; has nothing to do with favorites or any other form of subjectivity, Faust points out. Instead, it&rsquo;s based on an intricate system and complex set of criteria that range from fuel quality to life-cycle analysis to economic viability, which Faust and his team worked on for nearly five months before the objectives of the NABC were ever even announced. Their objective is to down-select, based on the research efforts that will answer the questions posed by that complex system and criteria, which of the six advanced biofuel process strategies is the best. At least, as the guidelines of the program reveal, they attempt to select the best process strategies that can reach true commercialization and create a real impact in the shortest amount of time. &ldquo;I think that this is a bold adventure,&rdquo; says Bruce Gates, chair of the NABC&rsquo;s technology advisory council. Just look at the number of parties involved in the consortium, 17, and the companies that have agreed to work on the project: BP, Amyris Biotechnologies, Virent, UOP, NREL and several others. For Gates, the ability of the consortium members to work together and not &ldquo;trip over each other&rsquo;s feet&rdquo; is quite a remarkable event. &ldquo;If you look at the history about how advancements have been made in the area of fuels,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;what you come up with is the word antitrust.&rdquo; Oil companies have been restrained from working together, he says, &ldquo;so you don&rsquo;t find a history of consortium.&rdquo; For Gates, that is the storyline of the NABC, the act of several companies, institutions and national labs working together without competing. The NABC is certainly a testament to strong leadership and lofty goals, but the real impact of the program may still be too difficult to quantify. The Chosen Six The six process strategies the NABC has been working with are: fermentation of lignocellulosic sugars; catalytic conversion of lignocellulosic sugars; catalytic fast pyrolysis; hydropyrolysis; hydrothermal liquefaction; and syngas to distillates. To even be chosen as one of the six, Faust and Holladay say, speaks to the real promise of those approaches to make an impact in the next few years, but choosing the partners who will help the NABC answer the questions linked to each approach was not easy. &ldquo;We got a lot of frequent flier miles in putting this together,&rdquo; Faust says. In addition to several face-to-face meetings with the potential partners on the project, meetings meant to feel out the willingness of the partners and their ability to contribute to the program, Faust and his team also performed a thorough assessment of a lot of factors. &ldquo;People make some pretty ridiculous claims, and if there isn&rsquo;t anything substantiated, then it calls into question the validity of those claims,&rdquo; he says. So, one of those factors that helped the team to decipher which process strategies would make the initial six was based on the amount of available, yet credible, information on those particular processes. In addition to the available information, the team would also identify the lead entities working on a given process strategy and gauge their willingness to share their intellectual property and other information for the benefit of the program. &ldquo;We looked at environmental impact as well,&rdquo; Faust adds, noting that every strategy will achieve at least a 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction when compared to petroleum-based gasoline. And on top of all those factors, they also tried to determine the scalability of each process, particularly in the refinery industry. &ldquo;We wanted to leverage the existing refinery infrastructure,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;That is one of the challenges to rapid scale-up. In the freeze up of the capital markets&hellip;we wanted to look at technologies that could potentially maximize that leverage.&rdquo; Not everyone who Faust visited with, however, made the cut. Some of the candidates or companies that wanted to participate in the consortium were not chosen. &ldquo;A lot of people ask us to give a prioritization of the factors,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;but we really intentionally didn&rsquo;t do so. We didn&rsquo;t want to artificially weight one factor,&rdquo; adding that, &ldquo;we thought it was really the tandem of all those considerations.&rdquo; Along with all the time spent speaking with each possible partner in the project, Faust spent five full months creating an operations strategy and research approach that each project team would follow in the quest to learn everything there is to know about pyrolysis or syngas to distillates. &ldquo;You&rsquo;re never 100 percent sure about the decisions that you made,&rdquo; he says about the early stages of the project, but he adds that, so far, &ldquo;the data coming in shows we did.&rdquo; The Importance of Aug. 12 It should come as no surprise that Faust and his team want more time and more money to fully alleviate all of their scientific concerns related to the six process strategies. But, because the original proposal to the U.S. DOE stated that after one year, the team would announce from one to four process strategies that would be pursued further (and the others would be left behind), the plan is to make the tough decision on Aug. 12. And to say it is a tough decision might be an understatement. John Holladay says they have followed a very aggressive schedule up to this point, but, the down-select &ldquo;will set the scope and focus of our work for the next two years.&rdquo; For the past few months, Holladay hasn&rsquo;t been doing any real research on the processes, but instead, he&rsquo;s been hammering out the criteria, along with help from the other members of the leadership team, that will be used to go from six to four or three, or whatever number of processes they settle on. And that, along with those unintended consequences Holladay and Faust mention might happen from the down-select process, is what keeps them up at night&mdash;and what makes the real impact of this whole project nearly impossible to predict. &ldquo;I&rsquo;d like to make a point on the down-select,&rdquo; Holladay says. &ldquo;This is not so much a grade of the process strategy as being promising or less promising. It is really to get some technology to move rapidly towards piloting. It&rsquo;s really,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;for a blend of both. What is the opportunity that each of these strategies have for a short-term piloting basis.&rdquo; That is the goal, as Faust puts it, to take one or more advanced biofuels or drop-in hydrocarbons and build a pilot-ready program in three years, and after those three years send out a &ldquo;son or daughter&rdquo; of the NABC in a semicomplete design package that can give companies like ICM a high level of confidence that the numbers in the lab can be duplicated on a large scale. Of course, they say, that is the great part of this consortium, but those that don&rsquo;t make the down-select are what they worry about. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m really concerned that given this one year, we are going to down-select some technologies and risk putting a bad label on them.&rdquo; A label, Faust believes, could wrongly make it to the investment community and significantly impede any financial progress a company based upon a nonselected technology company may have been making. The whole consortium might be different if it were similar to other consortiums based on &ldquo;scientific breakthroughs,&rdquo; but in this case the NABC is about &ldquo;commercial breakthroughs.&rdquo; Because of the commercial nature of the work, Faust says each process team could have spent much more time tweaking and fine-tuning each strategy, but he adds this was not the point of the work. In August, the NABC team, the U.S. DOE and the rest of the country will be two years closer to having an exhaustively researched process strategy to produce a replacement for fossil-based fuel. While the three years might fly by for Faust, Holladay and the rest of the team, there is a lot to look forward to in August, and even beyond that. For one, to have the efforts in this area is a big win for the industry, as Gates explains. &ldquo;The impression I have,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;is that if you just left it up to the large, established fuel companies, they might not be putting the resources in to really shake it out and realistically assess in a short time what we can do.&rdquo; It might be hard to argue that considering the five Big Oil companies posted all-time record profits in the first quarter of this year. And although not every process strategy backer will be happy about the down-select process, as Holladay infers, it doesn&rsquo;t mean an end. &ldquo;Some really promising and important information is being gleaned&rdquo; from all the process strategies, &ldquo;and it will give people a chance to build off that.&rdquo; Author: Luke Geiver Associate Editor, Biorefining Magazine (701) 738-4944 lgeiver@bbiinternational.com

Three years, six technologies, one consortium to pick the best—will it work? 

The Down-select Debate

What can common household cleaners like Pinesol tell us about wonder bugs and microbes used to produce advanced biofuels? Andrila Mukhopadhyay knows, and with help from her team at the University of California Berkeley&rsquo;s Joint BioEnergy Institute, she has an entire library of data to tell us how. For the past two and a half years she has been studying the effects of antimicrobial-like compounds and their effect on biofuel-producing microbes that are, in most cases, hindered by the same compounds they produce. &ldquo;There are two things that act as impediments when you are trying to make biofuels,&rdquo; she says. The first hurdle for the microbes stems from the compounds (which are actually used in both biojet fuel and Pinesol) and the level of toxicity in the compounds that can actually kill the microbes. The second, she says, is that even in the cases where a microbe produces nontoxic compounds suitable for advanced biofuels, those microbes are usually inhibited by the amount of compounds produced that cannot escape the microbial cells. &ldquo;With these [two impediments] in mind, a lot of people have started to study and find tolerant bugs.&rdquo; Instead of searching for the right bug, Mukhopadhyay decided to &ldquo;cut to the chase&rdquo; and simply search for the direct mechanism that makes a bug more tolerant and capable of reaching industrial-strength production levels. The answer, she found, was efflux pumps. Efflux pumps are proteins in the cytoplasmic membrane whose main function is to transport, or pump, toxic substances out of the cell. &ldquo;They are basically natural mechanisms that provide tolerance to antimicrobial compounds,&rdquo; she says. To find the best available pumps, her team screened for a few good candidates and then searched for every similar sequenced species that might have similar qualities. &ldquo;We put each pump against each other and created a culture competition to see which pump would win,&rdquo; she says. Even though her team found the winning pumps they were looking for, she says they still were unsure of one thing: would a winning pump actually help to produce more molecules from the microbes? &ldquo;To our surprise,&rdquo; she says, &ldquo;our hypothesis was correct. Strains that can export these compounds actually make more.&rdquo; So what does this mean for advanced biofuel production? Mukhopadhyay says it means a lot, but the work isn&rsquo;t done yet. Although the team now has a library of pumps that will provide a microbe with more tolerance to both toxic compounds and help to stop product inhibition by exporting more of the compounds out the cell, she says they still need to find a way to turn the pumps on or off in an industrial setting. At this point, the team simply supplied an additive to the mix of sugar that would start the pumps, but this she says is unfeasible in an industrial setting. Overall, however, she says the discovery of the winning pumps will play a huge role in future strain development of designer bugs. &ldquo;Think about how industrial strength strains are tested,&rdquo; she points out. The strains will be subjected to the rigors of the industrial setting over and over until the researchers know what the strain will do. If any of those conditions change, however, such as feedstock, temperature or anything else, the results can change. But by understanding the pump&rsquo;s role, strain developers will have a better understanding of the microbe to begin with.&nbsp; &mdash;Luke Geiver

Joint BioEnergy Institute researchers make designer bugs even better


Production vs. Survival Problem

The Louisiana Board of Regents believes in algae. The board has given a research clean technology grant to Louisiana State University&rsquo;s Agricultural Center and Aquatic Energy, a Louisiana-based algae developer, based on its plans &ldquo;to address one of the biggest bottlenecks in microalgae biofuels,&rdquo; says Chandra Theegala, an associate professor at LSU&rsquo;s AgCenter. The bottleneck she refers to is created by effective cell harvesting. While the news is great for the AgCenter and Aquatic Energy, the grant highlights the popularity and belief in algae development. This is because the winning proposals chosen by the Board of Regents went through a multistep process that included expert analysis from in- and out-of-state participants. Algae didn&rsquo;t win in this case because of a good feeling or a subjective thought; algae won because it matched the specifications for the winners well. Those specifications include scientific and technical merit, potential contribution to the state&rsquo;s economic development, evidence of private sector involvement, and more. The main goal of the work will be to utilize Aquatic Energy&rsquo;s R&amp;D facility and further advance its dewatering and extraction techniques, all in the hope (at least for the Board of Regents) that the work will have a positive economic impact on the state.&nbsp; &mdash;Luke Geiver

A cleantech grant could advance algae oil extraction

Another Reason to Root for Louisiana 

According to the theory of indirect land use change, any acre of land used to produce biofuel feedstocks in the U.S. causes additional land in other parts of the world to be brought into agricultural production for food and feed. A study undertaken by Michigan State University scientists Seungdo Kim and Bruce Dale has failed to find evidence to support this theory. To complete the study, Dale says his team looked back at agricultural data to see if there was any evidence of indirect land use changes resulting from the buildup of the biofuels industry through 2007. &ldquo;We found that there was not,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;What we did was look back in the patterns of trading corn and soybeans between the United States and our various grain trading partners, and their use of their own land,&rdquo; Dale says. The team attempted to find statistical evidence that the U.S. biofuel industry actually caused indirect land use change. &ldquo;We determined there was no such evidence,&rdquo; Dale says. &ldquo;If indirect land use change has actually occurred through 2007, you can&rsquo;t tell it from the data.&rdquo; According to Dale, the results of the study can be seen as a commentary on how efficient U.S. agriculture has become. &ldquo;The idea for indirect land use change is that new acreage will get cleared to replace acreage that is devoted to biofuels production,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That might happen, but the fact that you can&rsquo;t observe it [in the data] means that agriculture is actually quite remarkably productive and it keeps increasing the output on the same amount of acreage.&rdquo; In other words, it appears that demand for biofuels feedstock has been soaked by existing acreage and doesn&rsquo;t require new acreage at current production levels. &ldquo;I think that is kind of remarkable,&rdquo; Dale says. Dale&rsquo;s study focused on first-generation biofuels. However, as second-generation biofuel and biochemical production ramps up, it&rsquo;s possible the same claims will be made about dedicated energy crops. &ldquo;The data we used [in the study] is empirical data,&rdquo; Dale says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s evidence from the literature. Because second-generation biofuel volumes are so small, we wouldn&rsquo;t expect them to have any indirect land use change impact yet.&rdquo; In order to make comparable measurements for second-generation biofuels, the researchers would need to wait until production ramps up significantly and the relevant data is available.&nbsp; &mdash;Erin Voegele

MSU study results testify to efficient agricultural practices 

Evidence of Indirect Land Use Change Lacking

Sustainable Aviation Fuels Northwest released the results of a 10-month study on the potential for biobased aviation fuel production in the Northwest in May. The study, which explores the feasibility, challenges and opportunities for creating a biojet industry in the Pacific Northwest, was completed in partnership with Boeing, Alaska Airlines, Portland International Airport, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Spokane International Airport and Washington State University. According to the study, in order to make a sustainable biofuels industry a reality in the region, an integrated approach is needed. This includes the use of a variety of diverse feedstocks and technology pathways, including oilseeds, forest residues, solid waste and algae. The study also examined all phases of aviation biofuel development, from biomass production and harvesting to refining, transport, infrastructure and actual use by airlines. Results of the study highlight the importance of developing renewable alternatives for the aviation industry. While other energy sectors, such as ground transportation, heat and power, have various fuel options they can pursue, the study points out that the aviation industry has the clearest need for liquid, energy-dense fuels. According to the authors, the aviation industry is a critical sector of our economy and should take priority for biofuel development. The SAFN stakeholders point out that our nation needs a strong aviation industry for economic, cultural and security reasons. As demand for sustainable alternative energy grows, the study notes that we will have to make strategic choices regarding the most effective use for biomass feedstocks. According to the study, the aviation industry enjoys many structural advantages that make it an attractive option for biobased fuels. This includes a relatively small number of locations that distribute the fuel, which creates concentrated demand and an existing fuel delivery structure. The authors of the study point out that this facilitates the development of economically viable, advanced biofuel supply chains. The study also points out that supportive government policies will be critical to jump-starting the industry and attracting investment. While the SAFN does not advocate for permanent government financing, the authors note that focused public investments and policy support will be needed to create an economically competitive basis for the industry. &ldquo;The course is clear that aviation biofuels are key to the future of sustainable air travel,&rdquo; says Lawrence J. Krauter, CEO, Spokane International Airport. &ldquo;We can no longer base our future on imported petroleum, especially if the United States wants to remain an aviation leader. The SAFN study proves domestic biofuels are feasible and offers an economic opportunity for us to remain competitive as an industry and move toward a sustainable, domestic fuel supply.&rdquo; &mdash;Erin Voegele

A new study outlines an approach for success

Jumpstarting a Biojet Industry in the Northwest

For the major U.S. oil and gas companies, the elimination of $4 billion in tax deductions is nothing. Given the record profits many of the large companies have reported in 2011, and, depending on how one does the math, the elimination of tax provisions or subsidies that allow the companies to pay nothing on drilling expenses incurred on federal land, which also allows companies to claim deductions for drilling in foreign countries, would only make less than a 1 percent impact on their bottom lines. But as President Obama said, this is $4 billion of taxpayer money that is being given to these companies when they are making record profits, and those same taxpayers are paying nearly record prices at the pump as consumers. The obvious answer would be to end those tax subsidies and provisions, and some members of Congress tried&mdash;with an emphasis on tried. A bill voted on in the Senate to end those subsidies failed. The implications of the failed attempt might signal a trend that appears to be unbreakable, the oil and gas industry&rsquo;s ability to avoid nearly every economic hurdle thrown its way. While there might be several lessons to learn from the failed attempt to end those tax subsidies, including the apparent fact that oil lobbies continue to be powerful, one has to remember that the cost of oil isn&rsquo;t always caused solely by those companies making record profits on the commodity. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is currently suing two crude oil traders for manipulating oil prices. The CFTC alleges that James Dyer of Oklahoma&rsquo;s Parnon Energy and Nick Wildgoose of Europe-based Arcadia Energy, manipulated oil prices in 2008 to earn $50 million for themselves. &ldquo;First,&rdquo; the CFTC explains in its statement on the lawsuit, &ldquo;they purchased large quantities of physical WTI crude oil&hellip;even though they did not have a commercial need for crude oil.&rdquo; The CFTC says they purchased the oil &ldquo;pursuant to dominate and control the already tight supply&hellip; to manipulate the price of WTI upward and to profit from the corresponding increase in value of their WTI futures and options contracts.&rdquo; Next, after the WTI reached artificial highs, the CFTC says, the accused sold short on their derivatives, and sold their physical holdings, all in one day to drive the price of their short position derivates back down. While the case is still pending and history shows that manipulation cases are tough to prove, this might only be the first of many similar cases brought against fraudulent oil speculators who unlawfully drive up the price we pay at the pump. Obama has already set up a task force with one job, &ldquo;rooting cases of manipulation or fraud in the oil markets that might affect gas prices,&rdquo; including, the president notes, &ldquo;any illegal activity by traders or speculators.&rdquo; Already, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has voiced his concern about the presence of big oil subsidies, calling attention back to the original &ldquo;Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act.&rdquo; Unfortunately, in the case of Big Oil, talk is always cheap, but more is expected of words uttered from Obama&rsquo;s lips. &ldquo;Instead of subsidizing yesterday&rsquo;s energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow&rsquo;s,&rdquo; said the president during the same speech in which he called for an end to Big Oil&rsquo;s tax subsidies.&nbsp; &mdash;Luke Geiver

A case against two oil speculators for driving up fuel prices

Will Cheap Talk on Big Oil Ever Change?	

Adam Regelmann has been in the lab since he was in high school and now, with a doctorate in immunology and a completed residency in internal medicine, he can confidently say that labs can be a &ldquo;pretty disorganized&rdquo; place to work. To organize those labs and help with the productivity of the researchers, he says he decided to create a comprehensive tool to alleviate issues of knowing where certain inventory was, how to use it, or how to order equipment if it wasn&rsquo;t around. He created Quartzy, an online platform that acts as database, an ordering system and just about anything else a lab manager or scientist would want. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; To date, Quartzy has had hundreds of thousands of inventory supplies uploaded by participating scientists (currently near 5,000), has won Innovator of the Year awards and has been covered by the New York Times. &ldquo;What we&rsquo;ve found is actually quite interesting,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;People in completely different spaces are using this site.&rdquo; The site he says is intended for the life sciences labs all over the country, but even places like the Metropolitan Museum of Art use it to keep track of inventory of chemicals used for conservation. The software is free to scientists and always will be, he says, and already people in the biotechnology sector are using it. He hopes others working on the next great bug or advanced catalysis system will check it out, Regelmann says. Why not, considering Quartzy can &ldquo;make things faster for scientists&rdquo; and &ldquo;put a method to the madness.&rdquo;&nbsp; &mdash;Luke Geiver

Labs can be disorganized and slow to progress, so Quartzy may be the answer

A Tool Every Lab Should Have

Having the intellectual property, or in some cases even a living, breathing piece of innovative and proven process technology, is great, but having the kinds of relationships that will allow others to learn, test or trust that technology is even better. As an example, imagine for a moment that an unnamed company came out with a new, proven Fischer Tropsch process that has been tested for the past two years at a facility in Alaska. To commercialize that process, to license out that technology to other users, that company might have to hit the phones and the technology showcase circuit to spread the word. Or, if that company had the clout, and the means to create the right relationships, it could just have other companies spread the word for them. That&rsquo;s exactly what BP and Davy Process Technologies just did with their FT process, proving that good technology gets better with the right partners. BP signed on with three engineering, procurement and construction contractors, CB&amp;I Lummus UK Ltd., Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and the Shaw Group, to &ldquo;seek deployment opportunities&rdquo; for the process, BP says of the collaborations. Mark Howard, BP&rsquo;s vice president for conversion technology, says &ldquo;their involvement will help with the early identification and evaluation of opportunities&hellip;to support potential licensees.&rdquo; This arrangement serves as a reminder that a great technology is largely about the people behind it.&nbsp; &mdash;Luke Geiver

BP, Davy use others to commercialize their FT process

Why Good Technology Needs Great Relationships

The Biomass Crop Assistance Program, commonly known as BCAP, was originally authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill. Although the program experienced a rocky start, those who advocate for the biorefining industry agree that the program is integral to overcoming the chicken-and-egg scenario associated with biomass production for second-generation biofuel and biochemical refineries. | Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, stresses that the if we want to bring new energy crops into commercial production, it is important that programs like BCAP are funded by Congress. Although initial implementation of the program did not go as smoothly as most hoped, it&rsquo;s certainly possible to improve the program. &ldquo;I&rsquo;d rather see us fix the problems than jettison the whole program,&rdquo; McAdams says. &ldquo;Quite frankly, I think this is part of the overall trend line to try to reduce government spending, and we need to be very thoughtful and surgical about it. If there were concerns about the way the existing program was being run, let&rsquo;s address those concerns. The fundamental premise of the program is very important, and it&rsquo;s very sound.&rdquo; McAdams stresses he is hopeful that lawmakers will find a way to restructure the program so that it delivers its original intent. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think anybody argues that we want our government to economically and efficiently administer programs that &hellip; are in the best interests of our nation,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;If there are fundamental issues that are part of this past program, let&rsquo;s revisit those issues and figure out how to fix them.&rdquo; According to Matt Carr, policy director for the Industrial &amp; Environmental Section of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the biomass industry has made great strides in developing purpose-grown energy crops. &ldquo;The challenge is to provide farmers with the structure that will give them confidence to adopt these new and tested feedstocks, and that&rsquo;s what [BCAP] does,&rdquo; he says. Most of the new bioenergy feedstocks that are being developed are perennial crops, Carr says. &ldquo;They take a number of years to establish, and during that time a farmer will not have the benefit of revenue from sale of the biomass,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;What the BCAP program does is help the farmers with payments for crop establishment, to help prepare the fields for planting and then also to cover the period before the first sale of biomass.&rdquo; Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate at the Environmental Law &amp; Policy Center, notes that a primary problem with the BCAP program revolves around how its two parts were implemented. Rather than implementing the portion of the program that helps farmers establish biomass crops first, Olsen says that the USDA Forest Service first moved to implement the portion of the program that provides matching payments to biomass producers. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s very important to get the establishment program going,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s the priority. By just funding the existing buyers of the biomass, all they really did was to make a large subsidy to those industries,&rdquo; which led to complaints from industry sectors that were negatively impacted. That said, Olsen says it&rsquo;s important to remember this is the first version of the BCAP program and that the knowledge and experiences that have been gained should be used to improve upon the program in the next Farm Bill. In order for that to happen, those in the biomass and biorefining industries need to speak up and stress to their congressional representatives how important the program is. McAdams agrees. &ldquo;I think it&rsquo;s incumbent upon the industry to redouble our efforts and make the case on how important this program is to the future of cellulosic and advance biofuels,&rdquo; he says. &mdash;Erin Voegele

House subcommittee moves to eliminate funding for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program

Untimely Death for BCAP?

Agrivida may be the frontrunner for a new enzymatic approach to breaking down cellulose, but its story is more of a reminder that, in the biorefining industry, not all good ideas go to waste. Formed by a couple of chemical engineers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology nearly six years ago, the company has developed an innovative approach to genetically modify plants such as corn to house the same enzymes that will eventually be used to break down the biomass during cellulosic ethanol production. While innovative ideas and approaches to push the advanced biofuels industry to real commercialization are plentiful in this space, in most instances those same ideas are eventually lost or forgotten. This is not the case with Agrivida. The USDA&rsquo;s Secretary Tom Vilsack can attest to that. Vilsack toured the Boston-based facility and listened to Mark Wong, CEO of Agrivida, who says the visit was &ldquo;very exciting.&rdquo; But even the high of Vilsack&rsquo;s visit shouldn&rsquo;t cloud the true potential of this young company, Wong says. &ldquo;At some point we&rsquo;ll have to form a partnership with one of the big corn seed companies who have most the market share.&rdquo; And, that idea&mdash;along with the theory that Agrivida could work with the major enzyme players to develop a process involving biomass grown with an inserted enzyme system followed by the inclusion of an enzyme cocktail like that of Novozymes&mdash;will also, according to Wong, not go to waste. &ldquo;We are in discussions with those companies,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp; &mdash;Luke Geiver

Agrivida's enzyme approach could forever change cellulosic ethanol

A Successful Startup

Lignin can be produced as a byproduct of the chemical pulping process. According to nonprofit research institution FPInnovations, the potential market for lignin-based products is massive. The material can be used as a renewable replacement for many substances traditionally derived from petroleum, including fuels, resins, rubber additives and thermoplastic blends. In order to provide potential buyers of lignin with samples, FPInnovations has partnered with the Centre for Research and Innovation in the Bio Economy, Natural Resources Canada (RCAN) and AbitibiBowater to develop a black liquor and lignin evaluation center in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. The core of the center is a lignin demonstration plant that ties directly into the black liquor stream of AbitibiBowater&rsquo;s kraft pulp mill. When fully operation, the demonstration plant will produce up to 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of lignin per day. The resulting byproduct will be supplied to research and development labs for evaluation. According to Tom Browne, FPInnovations&rsquo; program manager for the biorefinery, the basic process employed by the demonstration plant was actually employed commercially in the 1940s. A revamped and improved technology is now being employed in the demonstration plant. Browne notes that he cannot discuss the details of the technology improvements due to pending patents, but does say the process essentially precipitates lignin out of black liquor, which is the spent cooking liquors that result from the kraft pulping process that is used commonly in the pulp and paper industry. Although the process employed by the demonstration plant is specifically designed to extract lignin from black liquor, other lignin extraction processes will likely be employed at cellulosic biorefineries in the future. The work being done by FPInnovations and its partners is designed to help build markets and demand for lignin, which will also benefit other lignin producers. Browne also notes that lignin extracted from different processes and different feedstocks will have different qualities. For example, the molecular weight distribution will differ and each lignin product will have its own type and level of impurities. &ldquo;The idea is to match the lignin product to the end users&rsquo; needs,&rdquo; Browne says. &ldquo;There will be places where a cellulosic ethanol plant makes more sense and other places where you would prefer lignin from a chemical pulping mill.&rdquo; &ldquo;The lignin evaluation plant provides us an opportunity to move wood-based products beyond traditional markets,&rdquo; says Doug Murray, general manager of AbitibiBowater&rsquo;s Thunder Bay Operations. &ldquo;We feel very fortunate to be part of this initiative.&rdquo;&nbsp; Frank Dottori, chair of CRIBE, adds that whenever you create alternatives to fossil fuels, you create opportunities that will span generations.&nbsp; &mdash;Erin Voegele&nbsp;

A pilot plant in Canada extracts lignin from black liquor

Proving Lignin's Potential

1. Montreal-based Enerkem Inc. announced in June the closing of $60 million in financing. Valero Energy Corp. became a new investor in the company as part of an equity round, joining existing investors Waste Management Inc., Rho Ventures, Braemar Energy Ventures and Cycle Capital. According to Bill Day, Valero&rsquo;s executive director of media relations, the investment in Enerkem is one of a series of investments his company has made in renewable fuels and biofuels companies. &ldquo;Valero itself does not do a lot of research or development into renewable fuels,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We prefer to do investments in companies that are doing that research, or in some cases, just buy the research itself.&rdquo; He says Valero thinks Enerkem&rsquo;s project is one of the more viable and practical of the emerging biofuel technologies. Day says Valero is very interested in integrating cellulosic technology into some of its 10 existing corn ethanol plants, and there are off-take possibilities for Valero and Enerkem as well. Credit Suisse acted as the agent for the financing round. The company also recently received $130 million in funding from the USDA and U.S. DOE to support the development of a plant in Pontotoc, Miss., expected to break ground in 2011. Construction is already underway on a 10 MMgy facility in Edmonton, Alberta. 2. Two Italian companies have formed a joint venture to build a biorefinery at a petrochemical plant in Italy. Through the agreement, Eni, an oil and gas company, and Novamont, a bioplastics and biobased products developer, will work to build a &ldquo;biorefinery integrated in the local area,&rdquo; according to the companies. The biorefinery will be refered to as a Green Centre and will be located at the Porto Torres petrochemcial plant owned by Eni. Eni will assist in the design, construction and management of the facility that will eventually produce biomonomers, biolubricants, biofillers, biointermediates or additives, elastomers and finally bioplastics, all of which will be produced from renewable resources like agricultural or municipal solid wastes. The two companies hope to create &ldquo;supply chain integration with the development of local crops&rdquo; as well. The center will cost roughly $18 million to build and the intial plans will follow a three-step approach. First, the joint venture will look to build facilities to produce biomonomers for bioplastics, biolubricants and additives. Second, a facility to build biofillers will be constructed, and third, greater capacity will be added. 3. Diamond Green Diesel LLC, a joint venture of Darling International Inc. and Valero Energy Corp., has secured financing for the construction of its renewable diesel plant in Norco, La. According to information released by Darling, the financing will be provided internally by Valero. The proposed 137 MMgy facility will be located adjacent to an existing Valero oil refinery, says Bill Day, Valero&rsquo;s executive director of media relations. Darling will provide the joint venture project with feedstock from its rendering process, while Valero will oversee construction of the plant, Day adds. Construction on the facility is expected to commence later this year and be complete by the beginning of 2013. The joint venture originally sought a loan guarantee from the U.S. DOE to support the project. &ldquo;That [process] was so burdensome and so slow and it ended up being so costly that the joint venture&mdash;Darling and Valero&mdash;decided to withdraw the application for the DOE loan guarantee,&rdquo; he says. Instead, Valero will provide funding for the project. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s just easier and quicker that way.&rdquo; 4. Biorefinery developer ZeaChem Inc. announced in June a binding multiyear joint development agreement with Procter &amp; Gamble to accelerate development of ZeaChem&rsquo;s product platform beyond C2 through commercialization of drop-in biobased chemicals and other products. ZeaChem&rsquo;s process uses renewable feedstocks such as poplar trees and agricultural residues to produce the highest yield and lowest carbon emissions of any known biorefining technology, the company says. It has begun fermentation work on this new product platform using the same processes and equipment that the company used to prove and scale up its C2 product platform. The new platform also enables ZeaChem to ultimately deploy its technology for the production of other biobased chemicals as well as drop-in fuels. The two companies will utilize ZeaChem&rsquo;s existing infrastructure at its lab in Menlo Park, Calif., pilot facility at Hazen Research in Golden, Colo., and demonstration-scale biorefinery in Boardman, Ore. Together, P&amp;G and ZeaChem will research, develop and demonstrate, scale-up, and commercialize this new product platform. &nbsp; 5. Over the past few years, Novozymes has formed research partnerships to develop biomass-to-plastics, biomass-to-glycols and now, through early-stage collaboration, the company will be entering the biomass-to-food additives sector. Meihua Group, an agricultural processor based in China, has signed a framework agreement with Novozymes to develop an enzymatic process to turn ag residue such as corn stover and cotton stalks into sugar for use in food additives. The idea is to follow the enzymatic process created by Novozymes with a fermentation step that would allow Meihua to produce amino acids such as glutamic acid, lysine or threonine, all of which are used as food enhancers and nutritional supplements. Novozymes says there are still many unanswered questions about the partnership, but notes that &ldquo;as the sugar fermentation strains used for amino acid production and ethanol production will request different sugar quality, purity and concentration&hellip;we expect different innovation is needed for the sugar production process for amino acid from biomass.&rdquo; Novozymes says China is the world&rsquo;s largest consumer of monosodium glutamate (MSG), using roughly 1.8 million tons per year of the flavor enhancer. The Meihua group is worth $800 million, employs 13,000 and already accounts for one-fifth of the MSG market in China. The country is developing so fast, says Meng Qingshan, chairman of Meihua Group, that the demand for food has outpaced the increase in food supplies. 6. An international collaboration of nine partners from seven countries has formed The BIOfuel Algae Technologies Project (BIOFAT) that focuses on the feasibility of producing ethanol, biodiesel and other bioproducts derived from microalgae on a commercial scale. Abengoa Bioenergia Nuevas Tecnologias, a subsidiary of Abengoa Bioenergy, will lead the transnational consortium drawn from the academic, industrial and public sectors for the project. ABNT centralizes its research and development activities and is focused on the production and development of biofuels for transport, including ethanol and biodiesel from biomass feedstock. Among others, the project includes the University of Florence (Italy), A4F-AlgaFuel (Portugal), Ben-Gurion University (Israel), Fotosintetica and Microbiologica (Italy), Evodos (Netherlands), AlgoSource Technologies (France), IN SRL (Italy) and Hart Energy. Specifically, BIOFAT aims to maximize the benefits from algae while minimizing environmental impacts. The development team will train on existing prototypes in Israel, Portugal and Italy, and then scale up the process to a 10-hectare (24.7 acres) demonstration plant&mdash;called an &ldquo;algorefinery&rdquo;&mdash;to be located in Spain. The process will begin with strain selection and proceed to biological optimization of the culture media, monitored algae cultivation, low energy harvesting and technology integration. The project, expected to last four years, will produce approximately 900 tons of algae annually. Funding was provided by the European Commission&rsquo;s Seventh Framework Program, the EU&rsquo;s primary instrument for funding research and demonstration activities from 2007 through 2013. 7. Australia-based mining company MBD Energy Ltd. has placed a firm order for a large-scale algae extraction system from California-based OriginOil Inc. to be installed at its coal power station in Tarong, Australia. The order by MBD Energy follows recent collaborative trials of OriginOil&rsquo;s equipment focused on optimizing capacity to handle large volumes of algae on a continuous basis. The system on order, OriginOil&rsquo;s Single Step Extraction Technology, is expected to process up to 1,100 liters (300 gallons) per minute of algae culture continuously, which would be enough to process the daily harvest at MBD&rsquo;s one-hectare site at Queensland&rsquo;s Tarong power station, according to OriginOil CEO Riggs Eckelberry. Once the large-scale system is installed, the mobile unit will be deployed at future power station pilot sites. The 1 hectare facility will sequester the power station&rsquo;s carbon dioxide-laden flue gas to feed a Bio-CCS (Biobased Carbon Capture and Storage) Algal Synthesizer. It will serve as proof of concept for a larger, second-stage facility of up to 80 hectares (197 acres) before being progressively scaled up to a larger third-stage facility. 8. Waste Management Inc. has forged a strategic investment in Delaware-based Agnion Energy Inc. to advance Agnion&rsquo;s thermochemical gasification technology. Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, Munich Venture Partners and Wellington Partners joined Waste Management in the investment. Agnion employs an indirect (or allothermal) gasification process that can convert solid biomass feedstock into rich hydrogen and carbon monoxide syngas ideally suited for combined heat and power applications. It can further be converted into liquids, hydrogen and methanol dimethyl ether and/or a substitute natural gas. With a pilot plant already demonstrating the viability of its process, Agnion is currently building a commercial facility in Grassau, Germany, to further validate its technology platform. Tim Cesarek, managing director of Organic Growth for Waste Management, says the investment in Agnion presents an opportunity for Waste Management to evolve with Agnion&rsquo;s novel technology as it matures and identify North American sites where Agnion&rsquo;s gasification units could be deployed. 9. Toronto-based GreenField Ethanol Inc. has announced the launch of G2 BioChem, a collaborative partnership that will acquire, validate and commercialize GreenField&rsquo;s cellulosic ethanol production technology. According to information released by GreenField, G2 BioChem is backed by a group of partners and collaborators that includes Andritz AG and Novozymes. GreenField Vice President of Business Development Barry Wortzman adds that the new company has a limited partnership structure, with one general partner and several limited partners. The technology developed by GreenField involves enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation. &ldquo;The core of our technology is our conditioning and pretreatment,&rdquo; Wortzman says. &ldquo;We have designed a very flexible process technology that can process at the front end a variety of different feedstocks, and has the capability to generate what I call very clean, discrete strains of C5 and C6 sugars from the hemicelluloses and cellulose material, respectively. What that means in simple terms is you have a very good environment for your enzymes and your fermenting yeasts to operate.&rdquo;

In light of the current economic state of affairs, owners of existing biorefineries are looking at ways to reduce costs and boost revenues. Upgrading and optimizing current facilities appears to be at the top of the list.&nbsp; Incorporating new technologies and equipment into existing facilities can optimize yields and even create new revenue streams. When considering upgrades to technology, management is wise to consider the impact such activities have on previously executed financing or development agreements, technology licenses, or permits. The following is a list of some common project-related documents, the terms and conditions of which should be considered when exploring technological modifications to an existing biorefinery: Financing Documents: Existing lenders and capital providers to a facility will, in most instances, encourage optimizing activities that clearly show cost benefits to the plant&rsquo;s operations, whether it improves efficiencies or adds new revenue streams. Discussions of any of the aforementioned modifications should include a dialogue with the company&rsquo;s lenders and other strategic capital funding sources. For example, in the case of facilities that are still subject to construction, term and/or working capital loans, there are likely several loan document restrictions that require lender consent to any significant changes to the plant. Also, subdebt/convertible debt providers and/or preferred equity holders likely have rights under their relevant agreements that warrant consideration in advance of any plant modifications. A review of all financial and operational covenants as well as any rights and preferences under preferred equity arrangements is warranted, as a number of provisions might be triggered by such proposed investments in optimizing a facility. Before approving new capital investment, lenders and other stakeholders will want to review all background materials about the proposed project, including revenue enhancing and payback projections to ensure such figures are based on sound assumptions. The last thing any lender will approve is a capital project that costs more than it should or won&rsquo;t provide the projected financial enhancements to the plant because of flawed assumptions.&nbsp; If management is seeking to finance plant modifications and grant liens on the new improvements, it is important to recognize that its current secured lenders likely have blanket liens and security interests in all existing and future acquired company assets. In such instances, each lender will likely need to agree to appropriate subordination and intercreditor arrangements. Finally, if financing the optimization activities, most lenders will ask for a collateral assignment of relevant project agreements and warranties, such as any technology license agreements, construction contracts, operational agreements, equipment warranties and off-take agreements. Technology Licenses: In most instances, a technology license agreement is included in the overall construction or document package. This document is typically executed between the process technology provider as the licensor and the entity developing the project as the licensee.&nbsp; Technology licenses in this arena generally include language governing the scope of use of the initial process technology. Further, in most instances, such agreements include specific language regarding each party&rsquo;s rights, duties and obligations related to subsequent technological modifications that the licensee may make or consider making to the initial licensed process.&nbsp; Such language generally sets forth what modifications can or cannot be made to the process, how the final ownership of such modifications will look and what notice and disclosure activities are required in the face of such modifications. It is not unusual to see provisions in the license agreement where the licensor grants the licensee a limited license to use the technology solely in connection with the initial design, construction, operation, maintenance and repair of the facility. Such language seeks to limit the licensee&rsquo;s ability to use the process technology to the initial plant design and configuration, and excludes such use for purposes of a plant or process that has been modified. Further, many licenses contain provisions stating that any and all modifications to the process technology are deemed the property of the licensor and that the licensee agrees to assign all rights, title and interest in such modifications to the licensor. Such provisions not only create issues for the licensee, but moreover will create issues for any third party whose optimization technology is being considered for installation by management. Thus, a close examination of the terms and conditions of the applicable technology license agreement and the respective parties&rsquo; intellectual property rights thereunder is warranted in the face of optimization strategies that involve technological modifications. A failure to make such and examination of the applicable technology license agreements may result in several unexpected technology ownership issues for both the plant owner and the follow on technology vendor. Permits and Site Control Issues: The effect that any proposed optimization projects may have on a facility&rsquo;s environmental controls likewise cannot be overlooked. Although permits are management&rsquo;s main focus when initially developing and financing a biofuel refinery, they often become a nonissue as the-day-to-day operations of the facility take over. In the face of considering any plant modifications, much like when initially developing the facility, permitting should become top of mind. With regard to both air and water, plant upgrades and optimization activities can trigger management&rsquo;s need to obtain new or revised permits. Regulatory review is often required when physical changes to the facility or changes in the method of the facility&rsquo;s operation result in or may result in increased or modified air emissions or changes to water appropriation and/or water discharges at the plant. Such regulatory reviews will determine if additional permitting is required for operational compliance of the facility in its optimized state. Even if the resulting increased air emissions or changes to water appropriation and/or water discharges will meet existing permit limits, such regulatory review is likely required.&nbsp; Author: John Eustermann Partner Attorney, Stoel Rives (208) 387-4218 jmeustermann@stoel.com

Incorporating new technologies into existing facilities can be a path to new revenue streams


Optimizing for Better Economics

Biofuels and biorefining are new industries, and many of the emergent processes, systems and technologies that support these promising industries have no plants in commercial operations. Those wanting to enter the biofuels or biorefining sector are left with the daunting task of identifying and validating these new technologies, the determining factor in the success or failure of the venture.&nbsp; Technology identification and validation is, to a certain extent, a subjective process and it depends on the business requirements of a particular project. This process is time consuming and technically demanding and is best left to those with experience in the field.&nbsp; A technology partner with the technical expertise and practical business sense can bring together, in an effective manner, the technical and business needs of the project or venture. However, even if you hire an expert, you will still need a roadmap to understand the key decision mileposts in the technology identification and validation process. Identification: Emergent technologies may be found in the trade literature (Biorefining Magazine, Biodiesel Magazine, etc.), web searches (universities, patent office, etc.), trade shows, or by using an experienced technology partner. Business goals must be clearly and quantifiably defined for each project. Compare each technology against the business goals and identify those that make the cut. Economics: Preliminary economics of the technologies, which are provided by the technology supplier, will be compared to the economic requirements of the project. Insist on having all basis and assumptions (capital cost and scope, feedstock, energy and labor costs, catalyst, waste disposal cost, cost of capital, etc.) clearly defined to ensure an &ldquo;apples to apples&rdquo; economic analysis and comparison between technologies. A good technology partner will help put all economic data on the same basis, define which technology provider will be able to meet the economic requirements of the project, and determine how the technologies stack-up against each other. Proof of concept: This step should answer the questions, &ldquo;does it work?&rdquo; Is the science sound? Up until this point, the technology identification and validation process is based primarily on the claims of the technology supplier.&nbsp; The proof of concept should include as much independent data as possible. This milestone may include a literature search to define if similar science has been tried at universities, peer reviewed articles, pilot data from the technology supplier, and witnessed pilot tests. During proof of concept, a good technology partner with the proper skill-set will confirm the validity of the claims and benefits of the technology with independent data/information. He/she will also compare the proposed process with similar technology in other industries to confirm feasibility.&nbsp; Scalability: Once a technology provider has been chosen, the next step is to make sure that the chosen technology can be implemented at commercial scale. While the most conservative approach would be to use a technology that has already been implemented in the field, most of biofuels or biorefining technologies that promise profitability are new and have no plants in commercial operations. To validate scalability, one may use a semi-commercial pilot unit together with an independent engineering review. A reputable engineering company may be recommended by the technology provider. A technical feasibility analysis can be performed at this stage to define how the technology will work with all other pieces of the plant.&nbsp; Deployment: At this stage, the front runner technology has been solidified and one must ensure that the technology can be deployed in the field. Critical to deployment is equipment: most of the equipment should be available &ldquo;off the shelf,&rdquo; which is easier to acquire, install, replace and maintain; catalyst: there should be a secure and verifiable source of catalyst supply; and alliances with engineering companies and/or fabrication shops that ensure enough resources to deliver the technology. A basic engineering review is generally used to complete this milestone. In addition to answering most of the above questions, the basic engineering review provides a more in-depth look at the technology, including equipment sizing, process drawings, updated economics, better defined operational issues and more. This is the last stage of the technology identification and validation process.&nbsp;&nbsp; Following this a producer will have identified a technology that meets the business goals, confirmed preliminary project economics, ensured the technology is sound, scalable and can be deployed in the field; hence, the technology has been validated and the project can be kicked off. A good technology partner can manage this process and help reduce risks associated with the identification, validation and implementation of emergent technologies. Other nontechnical aspects of the technology identification and validation process are funding and acquisition of the chosen technology. These critical business aspects must be addressed concurrently with, and require input from, the technical team, but include another group of specialists: finance, business and legal. Author: Roman Wolff President, Enhanced Biofuels (713) 301-8660 rwolff@enhancedbiofuels.com

A roadmap to successful biorefining project development


Process, System and Technology Validation

Every two years leaders from around the world in academia, governments, nonprofits, science, agriculture and industry gather in Sao Paulo, Brazil, for an engaging summit focused on every facet of the biofuels world, debating and discussing the value and significance to our collective futures. It is a truly global event that I am particularly proud to play a small part in as a representative of our domestic biofuels industry. The significance of each event has grown each year it is held and this year&rsquo;s summit is more important, with more attention, than any others before it. We know the U.S. isn&rsquo;t alone in its endeavor to invest, develop and deploy renewable energy alternatives, but a quick glance at the stakeholders here in Brazil demonstrates that any hesitation by our elected leaders in Washington could very well jeopardize the leadership position we&rsquo;ve worked hard to stake out. In fact, Brazil is no rookie to this and continues to court world leaders and make headlines as it announced in May it no longer needs to import gasoline, essentially declaring its energy independence as it created the right balance between their hydrocarbon and renewable fuels. As I write this from Sao Paulo in early June, however, drivers across the U.S. are pulling up to $4-plus prices at the pump, and as we head toward celebrating our own independence as Americans, I have to wonder whether the U.S. must reach a milestone similar to the Brazilians&rsquo; to retain our leadership in deploying advanced biofuels and in the greater renewable energy space. Energy policy in the U.S. has to start with the realization that we work within a global framework. Our nation now finds itself at a point that we can, and must, leverage our diversity in supply within our shores, across all renewable platforms, not just biofuels, but solar, wind, and geothermal and others so that we have a portfolio approach to energy, an approach which will position the U.S. economically relative to the rest of the world. We can&rsquo;t escape the fact that we will always be an integral part of a global market place. Don&rsquo;t get me wrong, I am not suggesting our industry take a back seat, because from my vantage point, the core of this diverse energy portfolio must be a robust, thriving advanced biofuels market. Over this past year I&rsquo;ve shared, in bits and pieces, how we can get to that point and I thought as we have independence on our mind this month, what better time to put it all together. Below are some guiding principles for consistent public policies to foster growth of the domestic biofuels industry in America. Technology Neutrality: Don&rsquo;t pick a winner! The government&rsquo;s track record of picking winning technologies does not compare with the free market. Instead, government should support objectives that allow companies to compete unfettered by regulatory or tax preferences. Subsidy Parity: Whatever role government chooses to take to support the development of biofuels, the terms of engagement should be at parity. Giving one fuel $1 and another 50 cents is not a successful strategy if the goal is to back out foreign oil with as many gallons as possible. Feedstock Neutrality: Like it or not, we have already dedicated a significant number of available farm acreage to certain crops. Any serious effort to replace foreign oil must recognize that all feedstocks have to be part of the equation moving forward. Those principles could help guide the following legislative maneuvers to ensure the all-important consistency and smarter investments of taxpayer&rsquo;s dollars. The Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) is currently being implemented and is successfully driving commercial investment in advanced fuels. We must maintain the integrity of the RFS2 in the near term. Because it guarantees a market, the RFS2 is the single most important market driver in the advanced biofuels space. Congress should allow the capital markets more time to sort out the best technologies. Tax Policy Certainty is critical to creating jobs and domestic infrastructure. The federal government should extend the length of biofuels tax credits. By providing long-term support such as a five-year time frame, the federal government would provide a stable platform, creating certainty for the investment community. This would play a significant role in enabling investors to build the next round of commercial advanced biofuels facilities. Equal Participation in renewable energy tax credits and incentives is needed. Programs such as the renewable energy Investment Tax Credit have been instrumental in catalyzing more than $7 billion in development in the wind and solar industries. Expanding eligibility to include advanced and cellulosic biofuels producers would have a similar positive effect of spurring commercialization to accelerate the growth of new production capacity. We should give all renewables an equal opportunity to participate under the law. Long-term Contracting Authority allows the federal government to directly purchase fuels over a long period of time, helping to provide the necessary revenue flow to commercially build advanced biofuels plants. Congress should extend the length of purchasing time for up to 15 years for advanced biofuels. Author: Michael McAdams President, Advanced Biofuels Association (202) 469-5140 Michael.McAdams@hklaw.com

How Brazil's milestone can reinvigorate America's quest for energy freedom

Is Independence Down South Good for the US?

In late May, the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency hosted a tour of the region&rsquo;s prolific biorefining and bioenergy sector. The agency also showcased some of the economic and logistic advantages Netherlands can offer new companies in the biobased industries. Fortunately, Biorefining Magazine Associate Editor Erin Voegele had the opportunity to travel to Europe and participate in the week-long event. While there, Voegele met with representatives of the country&rsquo;s Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, and she also toured nearly a dozen biorefining projects ranging from commercial-scale operations to research and development initiatives. She says by the end of the week, one thing was clear: &ldquo;The Dutch government has recognized the economic development opportunity the biorefining sector can offer and is taking the necessary steps to attract investment to its growing biobased industry.&rdquo; While the importance of sustainability is growing across the world, there is no region that emphasizes it more than Europe. Voegele says on the tours, representatives of nearly every company involved stressed how important sustainability targets are to their operations and growing business sectors. &ldquo;In fact,&rdquo; she says, &ldquo;one project highlighted at Wageningen University, known as Biocomet, is working to directly produce chemicals as part of a photosynthesis process. Another project at the university currently aimed at increasing food production is working to increase the amount of solar energy plants can convert into carbohydrates.&rdquo; In addition to touring several bioplastic and algae operations, which you can read about in her feature article on page 30, Voegele also visited a biomass gasification and torrefaction project housed at the Energy Research Center of Netherlands, one of Europe&rsquo;s leading renewable energy research institutions. She says the center is working to develop a torrefaction process that can convert a wide variety of biomass materials into a fuel powder or pellets that could be used on their own or cofired with coal to produce heat and power. A five to 10 ton-per-hour demo plant is currently under development. She also says the center has developed a gasification technology it refers to as a Milena gasifier, which features an indirect fluidized bed gasifier and an innovative tar removal system.

EURO TRIP

Experts in biodiesel-blended heating oil will converge in Pittsburgh on Oct. 11 for the Bioheat Northeast workshop, organized by BBI International in conjunction with the National Biodiesel Board. My editorial staff and I developed the solid agenda and we look forward to delivering it to you in October. The workshop will be co-located with BBI&rsquo;s Northeast Biomass Conference &amp; Trade Show. The oilheat industry made a commitment two years ago to green its image by embracing
incrementally increasing Bioheat blends. In order to do that, several issues need to be worked out. On the policy side, the Northeast states&mdash;the region where most U.S. heating oil is consumed&mdash;are moving toward mandates that trigger when surrounding states pass similar legislation. Since the region is geographically compact but population dense, the distribution network crosses state lines all the time, making it necessary for New England states to have uniform heating oil regulations. A panel of experts will discuss these regional policy issues, as well as federal and local or citywide initiatives, in Pittsburgh.
 In addition to policy conducive to expanding the Bioheat market, there are technical aspects to consider in the oilheat industry&rsquo;s move toward increasing Bioheat blends. These questions include: what are the industry plans for moving forward with higher levels of biodiesel in ASTM D396? What levels can be used in existing burners without changing equipment? What&rsquo;s the industry&rsquo;s &ldquo;move forward,&rdquo; or progressive, blend and why? How does biodiesel affect NOx in home heating oil applications?
 Other items of discussion at the Bioheat Northeast workshop will include a panel on the essentials for oilheat distributors who want to move toward Bioheat blends but don&rsquo;t know where to start. Also, a panel for property owners and building managers regarding the switch to Bioheat will cover the need-to-know information to entice environmentally conscious tenants and businesses into your property.
 Register today at www.biomassconference.com/northeast today and we&rsquo;ll see you in Pittsburgh on Oct. 11.

2011/09/13154979662143.jpg

Bioheat  Northeast

Are you are considering purchasing a biodiesel plant or new equipment to expand or upgrade an existing facility? Don&rsquo;t miss the opportunity to take advantage of depreciation deductions since these federal tax advantages sunset this year on Dec. 31.
 Section 179 deductions enables small businesses to deduct 100 percent of the cost of an asset or portion of an asset in the year the asset is placed in service. To qualify for this deduction, the property must be tangible section 1245 property (not buildings) and can be new or used; income limitations may apply. Any excess section 179 is carried forward to future years. The section 179 expensing limits and thresholds are as follows:
 &bull; For years beginning in 2010 and 2011, the expensing limit is $500,000. This limit is reduced by the amount that section 179 property placed in service in the tax year exceeds $2 million.
 &bull; For years beginning in 2012, the expensing limit is $125,000 and the threshold is $500,000.
 &bull; For tax years beginning after 2012, the expensing limit is $25,000 and the threshold is $200,000.
 Bonus depreciation allows 50 percent of the cost of an asset to be deducted in the year placed in service. To qualify for this deduction, the property must be new and have a recovery period of 20 years or less. This would not apply to most buildings as they typically have a recovery period of 39 years. The expensing percentages and dates are as follows:
 &bull; The 2010 Tax Relief Act provided for 100 percent bonus depreciation on new assets placed into service Sept. 9, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2011.
 &bull; 50 percent bonus depreciation will be available on new assets placed into service Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2012.
 Regarding the 100 percent bonus depreciation, there is an election available for the tax year that includes Sept. 9, 2010, that allows a taxpayer to use 50 percent bonus depreciation for dates both before and after Sept. 8, 2010.
 What does this mean to biodiesel plant owners? According to Wayne Lee, CEO of Lee Enterprises Consulting, &ldquo;It means that those in the industry that are looking at purchasing equipment for expansion, renovation, and those buying biodiesel plants, should all be exploring the opportunities that exist in 2011 that might not exist in the future.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Christianson &amp; Associates PLLP is a strategic partner of Lee Enterprises Consulting, and handles accounting services for the group&rsquo;s clientele. &ldquo;As the world&rsquo;s largest biodiesel consulting firm, it is important to us to have someone within our group that stays abreast of tax matters and upcoming changes, Lee said. &ldquo;These kinds of changes can have very significant impacts on our clients, and keeping us informed is precisely why we chose Christianson &amp; Associates as a strategic partner,&rdquo; he said. Lee notes that everyone in the biodiesel industry should make certain to enlist the services of those accountants and attorneys that understand the tax code as it relates to the biodiesel industry.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Biodiesel plant owners and purchasers should get competent advice to ensure that their purchases are structured correctly. For those purchasing biodiesel-related equipment, there is an opportunity available this year that will not be available after Dec. 31. Author: Sherry Jean Larson Manager of Assurance and Advisory Services, Christianson &amp; Associates PLLP (320) 441-5513 <a href="mailto:sherry@christiansoncpa.com">sherry@christiansoncpa.com</a>

2011/09/13154981081076.jpg

Depreciation Opportunities Sunset Dec. 31 

Rick Davis, general manager of Soy Energy in Mason City, Iowa, recently shared with me his challenges of the past several years. Shortly after hiring him, the company halted plans to build a biodiesel plant in Marcus, Iowa. They were already in early stages of construction. But this year, the implementation of the revised renewable fuel standard (RFS2) and the passage of favorable Iowa legislation gave them new hope to return to the biodiesel business.&nbsp;
 Rather than building a new facility, Davis and his board negotiated to buy a shuttered biodiesel plant in Mason City, Iowa. Soy Energy has since resurrected the 30 MMgy facility, transforming it into a state-of-the-art plant, able to handle many feedstocks. Davis expects it to be running at full capacity within a few months.&nbsp;
 This is just one of many stories of biodiesel facilities on the rebound. The implementation of the RFS2 has breathed new life into the struggling biodiesel industry, and nowhere is this more evident than in Iowa. Home to 15 plants with 315 million gallons of capacity annually, virtually all of our state&rsquo;s plants shut down or operated at reduced capacity in 2010. Today, most of the same plants that held on by their fingernails are operating again, many at their full potential. Other idled plants have changed hands, and I am buoyed by the fact that they are not lost to us. The dreary silence of vacant plants will soon be replaced with the humming of American ingenuity&mdash;and our slow economic recovery.&nbsp;
 The RFS2 has also stimulated an investment in infrastructure, which is critical to the long-term success of biodiesel in our nation&rsquo;s energy portfolio. In Iowa, Magellan Pipeline has announced plans to install equipment for biodiesel blending at its Des Moines terminal. Other Iowa terminals carrying biodiesel are in Mason City, Ottumwa and Fort Madison. The RFS2 serves as a stabilizing force that will make these investments pay off over the long-term. Despite claims of RFS2 opponents, the needed infrastructure is falling into place.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 For all our hard work, and everything we&rsquo;ve done right as an industry, ultimately our anticipated record biodiesel production is the result of policy. It&rsquo;s our leaders who recognize our nation&rsquo;s need for domestically produced, renewable advanced biofuel that have helped this important new industry thrive. I&rsquo;m proud to say that Iowa&rsquo;s entire congressional delegation signed on as sponsors to federal legislation to extend the biodiesel tax incentive for three years, a move that would support thousands of new U.S. jobs and spur economic growth in Iowa and across the country. Iowa is the first state to have a clean sweep of co-sponsors to the legislation.
 At the state level, Iowa successfully passed a bill this year that does three things to promote the growth of Iowa biodiesel. The legislation:&nbsp;
 &bull; Extends and expands a tax credit to encourage retailers to make biodiesel available at the pump.
 &bull; Provides a production incentive.
 &bull; Helps fund infrastructure needed to move biodiesel in the state.
 Biodiesel champions in Iowa worked to pass a requirement, like a handful of other states, that would have ensured Iowa uses its own products while displacing foreign oil. Despite our disappointment in the legislators rejecting that effort, the legislation they passed is a step in the right direction. States that enact policies to make their own biodiesel industries a priority will be the states where the RFS2 is delivered.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Davis, who is also a soybean farmer, told me that despite four years in limbo, he hasn&rsquo;t wavered because he is still a believer. He believes in making Iowa the renewable energy capital of the world. He believes that we should use our own products, and in the importance of energy policy that reduces foreign oil. Why should we spend billions of dollars on foreign oil when our farmers can grow so much energy from their own fields, and our producers can deliver economic development through green energy? Let&rsquo;s help our lawmakers keep that question at the front of their minds as they continue to make difficult decisions for America, while making economic development a priority.&nbsp; Author: Randy Olson Executive Director, Iowa Biodiesel Board (866) 683-4172 <a href="mailto:randy@iowabiodiesel.org">randy@iowabiodiesel.org</a>

2011/09/1315498564255.jpg

The Rebounding Effect of Good Energy Policy 

Anne Steckel believes the political atmosphere in Washington, D.C., is fluid and unstable, but as the new vice president of federal affairs for the National Biodiesel Board, she believes this is an exciting time for the industry. Steckel was attending a biodiesel retreat in Missouri, just two days into her new role, when Biodiesel Magazine reached her to ask about her experience, view of the industry and goals for the coming months.
 Although the easy assumption of Steckel&rsquo;s near-term focus might be based on renewing the biodiesel tax incentive set to expire at the end of the year, Steckel explains that she has larger plans. &ldquo;My biggest goal is to grow the industry,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;The tax incentive is on my agenda, and making sure the RFS is implemented correctly,&rdquo; but she stresses, &ldquo;the number one thing is to grow the industry.&rdquo; &nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; To do that, Steckel plans to draw on her experience in Washington. Since 1997, she has lived in the nation&rsquo;s capital and worked in a variety of policy-based roles. &ldquo;I worked on Capitol Hill for nearly a decade on both the House and the Senate side,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve done energy and agriculture policy, they&rsquo;ve kind of been my specialties.&rdquo; She has also lobbied for both the American Farm Bureau and Growth Energy, one of two leading trade organizations for the ethanol industry. Steckel's most recent position was as chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and previously she served U.S. Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
 One might think the record year for biodiesel production may seem to be a great thing happening during a bad political time, but that isn&rsquo;t how Steckel sees it. &ldquo;Members are very energized and excited, and so I&rsquo;m thrilled to be part of an organization that is moving in the right direction,&rdquo; she says. And although the political climate on the Hill is &ldquo;very fluid,&rdquo; she says people have operated under a certain set of rules for a long time, but those times are changing. &ldquo;I think we see that the old rules don&rsquo;t really apply.&rdquo;
 Her entrance into the Washington NBB office couldn&rsquo;t come at a better time, she says, as Congress will be in recess, allowing her to get acclimated to her new home as she takes over for Manning Feraci, former vice president of federal affairs, who left for a role in the solar industry. In 2010, the NBB was able to get the tax incentive extended through a larger package of tax-based legislation, but given the uncertainty of the current climate (Steckel points to the near debacle with the debt ceiling as an example), she explains that she will be exploring all options for finding a vehicle of legislation to renew the tax incentive. &ldquo;It depends on what is going to be moving in Congress,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;There are not a whole lot of vehicles that are going to be moving through Congress, so assessing what is actually moving and how we can insert ourselves is something we will be looking at.&rdquo;
&mdash;Luke Geiver

2011/09/13154988822031.jpg

Anne Steckel is excited, energized and ready for the new rules of Washington 

NBB Federal Affairs VP Eyes Industry Growth

To say that Imperium Renewables and its 100 MMgy biodiesel facility located on the Port of Grays Harbor in Aberdeen, Wash., is on the cusp of fading into obscurity compared to when it boisterously entered the market four years ago would be severely premature. In the past couple years, while the company struggled with unstable markets, lost contracts, layoffs, executive changes and other upsets, today&rsquo;s more reliable markets are lending the company renewed enthusiasm and optimism to flourish again, says CEO John Plaza. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re really starting to be more bullish on the future,&rdquo; Plaza tells Biodiesel Magazine.
 Plaza points to his company&rsquo;s ability to supply canola-based biodiesel to regional markets in Oregon, and Alberta and British Columbia, Canada&mdash;all of which have mandates in place requiring a certain percentage of diesel to be from renewable sources&mdash;as a driving factor behind Imperium&rsquo;s successful run to remain profitable for much of 2010 and into 2011.
 &ldquo;We do a lot of export into Canada and also export on a global basis where the markets create the demand for high-quality canola biodiesel such as ours,&rdquo; Plaza says.
 Canola sourced in Canada is not yet an approved pathway for biodiesel production under RFS2, but Plaza notes that Imperium has been working with the U.S. EPA, the Canadian Canola Association and the Canadian government to green light it, adding that he expects a decision soon.
 &ldquo;It has sort of prevented us from playing in the RFS2 market because we can&rsquo;t produce a RIN-qualified fuel, so really the only market we have is the export market,&rdquo; Plaza says. &ldquo;Luckily, the export market has been significant. Once the EPA approves Canadian biomass&mdash;which includes Canadian canola&mdash;that will give us a chance to supply that market.&rdquo;
 With an established distribution channel stabilized to supply those markets for its canola-based biodiesel, Imperium intends to delve into the aviation fuel market, Plaza says. He testified before the U.S. Senate Aviation Operations, Safety and Security Subcommittee in August, where he announced plans for a $250 million renewable jet fuel production facility to be co-located on site with the company&rsquo;s existing biodiesel facility in Grays Harbor. Plaza also advocated for the military to be allowed to sign longer-term offtake contracts for fuel, specifically biojet. Subsequent to Plaza&rsquo;s subcommittee hearing, the U.S DOE, USDA and the U.S. Navy announced a $510 million, three-year expansion of the biojet market, an area to which Plaza, a former pilot, is no stranger. Plaza says that Imperium intends to become a participant in the biojet market.
 &ldquo;The announcement is a significant milestone for the potential growth of the industry,&rdquo; Plaza says. &ldquo;It will likely be another year before actual volumes of biojet fuel enter the market, but we&rsquo;re going to do everything we can to be the successful bidder of that opportunity, should it arise.&rdquo;
&mdash;Bryan Sims

TO THE SKY: Imperium is committed to the biodiesel industry but aspires to produce biojet fuel to the emerging market in a new facility co-located with its existing mega-sized biodiesel refinery. 

2011/09/13154997981911.jpg

Imperium Renewables poised to reemerge as a leader in the biodiesel, biojet industries

A Sleeping Giant Awakens

When the $1-per-gallon federal blenders tax credit went away in 2010, Illinois&rsquo; biodiesel industry managed to thrive while producers in other states struggled. Much of the credit behind that success rides on strong policy that supports biodiesel production and consumption. Specifically, the state employs a sales tax exemption for biodiesel blends of B11 or higher sold by retail stations in the state, which is good through Dec. 31, 2013. Created in 2003, the policy also provides a sales tax exemption of 20 percent on biodiesel blends from B1 to B10. Blends above B10 receive a total exemption from the state sales tax of 6.25 percent, which essentially creates an Illinois-specific market for B11.
 B11 is a preferred blend sold by retail stations, and while consumers continue to use higher blends in their vehicles with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), Illinois has been fortunate to not have encountered serious issues related to performance in diesel vehicles, particularly those whose manufacturers typically warranty up to B5, says Rebecca Richardson, consultant for MARC-IV and regulatory and education specialist for the National Biodiesel Board.
 Richardson credits the success in minimal issues related to B11 usage to the proactive work by the Illinois State Bureau of Weights and Measures under the USDA, which provides oversight on fuel quality control to assure the fuel meets proper ASTM specs mixing with ULSD to correct issues before the fuel enters a consumer&rsquo;s tank.
 &ldquo;Since 2003, there have been virtually no problems or complaints,&rdquo; Richardson tells Biodiesel Magazine. &ldquo;Occasionally, there will be a flash point out of specification or there&rsquo;ll be some element of the specification that&rsquo;s out, but by and large, the fuel samples they pull proactively for surveillance, virtually none of them are out of specification.&rdquo; In 2006, Richardson organized the Illinois Biodiesel Stakeholder group, which meets collectively with OEMs, petroleum marketers and weights and measures personnel to proactively address concerns related to fuel performance and talk about fuel quality surveillance&mdash;before it becomes an issue. &ldquo;So far it&rsquo;s worked well,&rdquo; Richardson says. &ldquo;We have great partners that come to the table that do their own research.&rdquo;
 In the event that fuel happens to be out of specification, Richardson explains, the weights and measures agency would take proactive steps to address the issue beginning at the retail station level. &ldquo;When a fuel is out of specification,&rdquo; Richardson says, &ldquo;the agency would go back to the retailer and tell them their fuel is out of specification, and they would pay a fine depending on the type of violation. If it&rsquo;s a fuel quality issue, the fine is lower, but if it&rsquo;s a [cetane] issue or something that could be perceived by the consumer that the retailer might be doing something on purpose, the fine would be higher.&rdquo;
 Richardson says the majority of issues that pop up can be traced back to fuel handling, improper storage tank maintenance and so forth, in which case the Weights and Measures agency returns and reeducates those parties to remedy the situation. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a constant educational process,&rdquo; she says.
&mdash;Bryan Sims

When the $1-per-gallon federal blenders tax credit went away in 2010, Illinoisâ€™ biodiesel industry managed to thrive while producers in other states struggled. Much of the credit behind that success rides on strong policy that supports biodiesel pr

2011/09/13154999001998.jpg

ANY GIVEN STATION: Pull into any truck stop in Illinois and the diesel fuel of choice is B11, as a result of the stateâ€™s fuel tax exemption on blends above 10 percent. 

2011/09/13154999383976.jpg

More than Just an Incentive

The Middle East is renowned for its crude oil production. Now, a new initiative spearheaded by the foreign investment promotion arm of the Dubai Department of Economic Development (Dubai FDI) will bring waste grease recycling and biodiesel production to the region.
 Dubai FDI-supported Neutral Fuels LLC, under a long-term contract, will convert used vegetable oil collected from fast-food chain McDonald&rsquo;s Corp. outlets across the United Arab Emirates. The resulting fuel will be used by the UAE in its logistics fleet to reduce emissions and cut the fleet&rsquo;s carbon footprint.
According to Dubai FDI, the new enterprise is the first commercial producer of biodiesel in the Middle East.
&mdash;Erin Voegele

A Dubai entity partners with McDonald's to convert waste grease to biodiesel

Renewables in the Heart of the Middle East

There might be little need for a multi-step algae-to-biodiesel method as long as Lindsay Soh of Yale University continues her research. Soh is creating a process that involves supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) to extract the lipids from algae and through her work at the Zimmerman lab, led by Julie Zimmerman, associate professor of green engineering, Soh has also created what she refers to as one-pot biodiesel. The idea, as Soh explains it, combines the process of supercritical CO2 lipid extraction with the use of a solid catalyst, all in the same reactor. &ldquo;You can actually put algae in your vessel and you will be getting biodiesel out,&rdquo; she says, all of which will improve the efficiency of the process and cut down on the number of steps.
 According to Soh, CO2 is a great solvent that is ideal for lipid extraction, and it is more environmentally friendly than chlorinated or industrial solvents. The use of CO2 also allows for a more selective extraction process resulting in a better end product, according to Soh. &ldquo;We found that in our lipid extract, we had fewer pigments and less nitrogen,&rdquo; which she says &ldquo;will be better for combustion and it will create less NOx production. Once we transesterified, we were also able to find that the biodiesel we produced had basically the same properties as those produced using industrial solvents.&rdquo;
 To this point in her research, Soh says the challenges have been finding the right temperature and pressure conditions to make the process viable and occur in a reasonable amount of time. In addition to those challenges, she also points to the difficulty in finding a suitable solid catalyst that can be used to drive the reaction after the lipids have been extracted.
 Zimmerman calls the research based on the idea of a one-pot algae biodiesel method the most significant accomplishment of her three-year-old lab. &ldquo;The nice thing,&rdquo; Zimmerman says, &ldquo;is that you can actually recycle your CO2 so that when you are at industrial-scale and you release your pressure, you can actually capture that CO2 and recycle it for the next extraction.&rdquo;
 &mdash;Luke Geiver

Yale grad student Lindsay Soh has the research to prove how it works	

A One-Pot Approach to Algae Biodiesel

Since 2006, the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance advocated an independent certification system for sustainable biodiesel sold at the pump, and the program is now beginning to take shape. Introduced last year to provide sustainability during music tours, the organization, alongside Small Business Association members in three states, unveiled the first retail locations scored through the program for biodiesel at the pump, marking the first time a sustainability assurance program has been implemented for an alternative fuel at the retail level in the U.S.
 SBA business members participated in the new system that scores biodiesel based on a host of requirements that include feedstock type and origin, how the fuel was produced and how far it traveled to the point of sale. These questions and many others determine a numeric score for the fuel that translate into a bronze, silver, gold or platinum rating for biodiesel. The SBA teamed up with Piedmont Biofuels of Pittsboro, N.C., Pacific Biodiesel in Hawaii and SeQuential Biofuels in Oregon where they began offering SBA-scored sustainable biodiesel at eight retail locations in three states in August. In addition to the eight locations, the SBA plans to announce more retail sites across the country throughout the rest of the year.
 &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve been waiting for a sustainability labeling system for years and we&rsquo;re delighted that our fuel scored at the top,&rdquo; says Lyle Estill, president of Piedmont Biofuels. &ldquo;Not all biodiesel is created equal. Thanks to the SBA, the driving public now has a way to discern the difference between one biodiesel and another.&rdquo;
 According to SBA Executive Director Jeff Plowman, the purpose of the sustainability scorecard was to provide transparency for consumers to make informed decisions when they purchase biodiesel at the pump.
 &ldquo;This scoring tool will help American consumers make informed decisions about their fuel choice, and I&rsquo;m confident we will see people choosing a more sustainable product,&rdquo; Plowman says.
 While the SBA is still working on an independent third-party certification system, the retail biodiesel scoring system is a first step toward accomplishing this goal. The SBA intends to mirror successful certifiable programs that have taken hold in consumer markets such as the Organic Food Certification and Free Trade Certifications and believes sustainable, locally produced fuel is a natural next step in efforts to drive purchasing decisions toward environmentally and socially friendly products.
&mdash;Bryan Sims

Biodiesel quality assurance at the retail level is important to the SBA

Sustainability at the Pump Is Here

While canola oil is gaining traction as both a biodiesel feedstock and edible oil, the vast majority of the U.S. crop is grown in North Dakota and Minnesota, where this year&rsquo;s flooding has affected crop production.
 The U.S. Canola Association estimates that approximately 90 percent of crops grown in the U.S. are planted in these two states. USDA statistics show a decrease in the acres of the canola planted and harvested this year compared to last year, and significant spring and summer flooding events in the Northern Plains have clearly played a role in this year&rsquo;s reduced production.
 According to the USDA, the area of planted canola in 2011 is estimated at 1.09 million acres, which is down 4 percent from the department&rsquo;s June estimates, and a 25 percent reduction when compared to last year&rsquo;s statistics. The area for harvest has been forecasted at 1.07 million areas, which is also 4 percent down from June&rsquo;s report. Planted area in North Dakota is currently estimated to be 890,000 acres. This is a 5 percent reduction from June estimates and a 30 percent reduction when compared to 2010.
 &ldquo;Excessively wet spring weather conditions prevented canola growers from planting the intended 1.4 million acres forecast earlier this year in the March 30 Projected Plantings Report,&rdquo; said the Northern Canola Growers Association in a release reacting to the new USDA figures. &ldquo;Tight supplies of canola are expected to result in continued strong demand for canola.&rdquo;
 &mdash;Erin Voegele

2011/09/13155057275602.jpg

Flooding Out Canola Production 

While the 2011 return of the biodiesel tax credit was expected to result in depressed RIN prices, this has not happened. &ldquo;The current market for 11D4&rsquo;s (2011 biodiesel RINs) is extremely bullish,&rdquo; says Sam Gray, a fuel trader with Ft. Worth, Texas-based VICNRG LLC. &ldquo;And, when prices start running as they have recently, you must look to see how the oil majors are going to deal with such increases in compliance&nbsp; cost.&rdquo;
 According to Gray, many of the obligated parties that are short 2011 biodiesel RINs have not adequately developed a wholesale market to distribute product. &ldquo;Either they develop such markets, purchase other marketers that have developed such markets, or continue to be short RINs and go to the open market to buy compliance,&rdquo; he says.
 As we near the next RFS2 compliance period, Gray says he expects RIN prices to continue to climb. &ldquo;There is simply demand that is staying ahead of supply, and this demand is tied to mechanical buying rather than producer or blender margins,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;Plain and simple, 2011 is the year of biodiesel. Producers are making the highest margins on record, downstream blenders are seeing wholesale biodiesel prices 30 to 40 cents under rack, and both of these events are tied to the current high RIN price. Any producer or blender not seeing a positive bottom line is completely out of touch. If the RIN buying from obligated parties was correlated to producer and blend margins&mdash;both at historical highs&mdash;then there may be some contraction of these margins and RIN prices would be much lower. However, short is short, and a short squeeze can persist in this market for some time.&rdquo;
 Regarding the expectation that RIN prices would drop with the 2011 reinstatement of the biodiesel tax credit, Gray notes that the RIN prices behaved completely opposite of what he was expecting. He also says that the real shocker was seeing the overall lack of domestic infrastructure available to get biodiesel blends to the end user. &ldquo;The industry had been spoiled for too long with a splash and dash model whereby U.S. taxpayers subsidized Europeans to purchase our fuel and there was no feeling as to what other domestic blender margins would have to be to entice marketers to splash diesel with biodiesel,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Clearly this margin is well above the historic margins seen by petroleum diesel marketers, and the size of this margin this year has guaranteed that infrastructure would be added to achieve necessary blends.&rdquo;
 The pending expiration or renewal of the biodiesel tax credit in 2012 will likely impact the price of RINs next year. According to Gray, whether RIN values have to rise proportionally to compensate for the lack of the $1 tax credit will depend, in part, on how much value is carved out of a pound of feedstock in the event the credit vanishes. He also says it&rsquo;s conceivable that RIN values could be reduced in 2012 due to the wildcard factors of biodiesel imports from Argentina, Malaysia and Indonesia, if those countries receive permission to export biodiesel to the U.S. and generate RINs.
Alternatively, Gray says if the biodiesel tax credit is reinstated for 2012, we&rsquo;ll simply continue to have subsidy on top of a mandate. &ldquo;This will ensure that biodiesel feedstocks continue to carve out their profit share of volumes up to and above the RFS mandated volumes of biomass-based diesel,&rdquo; he says.
&mdash;Erin Voegele

UNEXPECTED: Sam Gray, a fuels trader with VICNRG LLC, says biodiesel RIN prices this year have done opposite of what he and many others expected. 

2011/09/13155060009233.jpg

A Bullish Run

Dynamic Fuels LLC, a 50/50 joint venture between Syntroleum Corp. and Tyson Foods Inc., achieved a significant milestone in July when Syntroleum reported in its quarterly earnings report that the jointly owned renewable diesel facility in Geismar, La., achieved record production of 5.4 million gallons for the month. While Dynamic Fuels&rsquo; Geismar plant has a maximum installed capacity of 75 MMgy, the facility is on pace to produce 65 MMgy if it demonstrates similar production rates to July.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 &ldquo;We have focused 100 percent of our energy since last October on bringing our first-of-a-kind advanced biofuels plant up to commercial production rates,&rdquo; says Syntroleum CEO Gary Roth. &ldquo;Now that we have accomplished this, we intend to focus our efforts on optimizing the plant&rsquo;s performance, enabling us to produce more and more of the drop-in renewable fuels needed to meet the growing demand for biofuels.&rdquo;
 The plant, which broke ground in 2008, uses Syntroleum's proprietary Bio-Synfining technology to produce renewable diesel from nonfood-grade animal fats produced or procured by Tyson Foods, including beef tallow, pork lard, chicken fat and greases. In addition to renewable diesel, the plant is also capable of producing high-value specialty distillate chemicals that can be used in a wide variety of applications such as base oils, solvents and ink toner.
&mdash;Bryan Sims

PRIMED: The largest stand-alone renewable diesel plant in the U.S., Dynamic Fuels in Geismar, La., hit 5.4 million gallons of production in July.

2011/09/13155062661901.jpg

How the Dynamic Fuels renewable diesel plant is hitting full stride

October 2011

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Fall 2011 U.S. Biomass Power Map in Production

Biomass Industry Must Stress Job Growth

A Salute to Biomass Combined Heat and Power

Utilization of Fly Ash from Biomass and Biomass-Coal

Today”s Legal Regime for Biomass “Qualifying Facilities” Under PURPA

Optimizing for Better Economics

Process, System and Technology Validation

Is Independence Down South Good for the US?

EURO TRIP

Bioheat Northeast

Depreciation Opportunities Sunset Dec. 31

The Rebounding Effect of Good Energy Policy

Featured

Maximizing the Burn

Separation Anxiety

Watts from Wastewater

A Caucus of its Own

Betting on Biomass

The Path to Validation

Creating a Biobased Economy

The Down-select Debate

Building Out for Bioheat

Streamlining Downstream Delivery

The Complexities of Biofuels Logistics

Contributions

Anheuser-Busch Brews Up Biogas with High-Rate Anaerobic Treatment

Biodiesel Reaction and Separation Technology

October 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

Business Briefs

Columns

Fall 2011 U.S. Biomass Power Map in Production

Biomass Industry Must Stress Job Growth

A Salute to Biomass Combined Heat and Power

Utilization of Fly Ash from Biomass and Biomass-Coal

Today”s Legal Regime for Biomass “Qualifying Facilities” Under PURPA

Optimizing for Better Economics

Process, System and Technology Validation

Is Independence Down South Good for the US?

EURO TRIP

Bioheat Northeast

Depreciation Opportunities Sunset Dec. 31

The Rebounding Effect of Good Energy Policy

Featured

Maximizing the Burn

Separation Anxiety

Watts from Wastewater

A Caucus of its Own

Betting on Biomass

The Path to Validation

Creating a Biobased Economy

The Down-select Debate

Building Out for Bioheat

Streamlining Downstream Delivery

The Complexities of Biofuels Logistics

Contributions

Anheuser-Busch Brews Up Biogas with High-Rate Anaerobic Treatment

Biodiesel Reaction and Separation Technology

October 2011