For many areas, growth in corn production has been outpacing the rate at which new grain bins are being built. This has many commercial grain facilities, including some ethanol producers, looking to alternative storage methods, like ground piling. However, some facilities have employed a different temporary storage solution in an effort to better protect their grain quality: grain bags.Unlike bins, grain bags offer the benefit of virtually unlimited storage. When one bag fills up, another can be started. The concept originated decades ago in South America, where lack of infrastructure compelled farmers to devise alternative grain storage systems. Eventually, the idea worked its way north, with grain bags and bagging equipment now being manufactured in North America.As a result, the availability of bags, equipment, and parts has become much more reliable here. These products are sold and supported by many local dealers, helping to keep customers running in the busiest times of the year. Today, this solution has been adopted by both farmers and commercial grain facilities throughout the U.S. and Canada. Nonetheless, there is still a general lack of education about grain bags, which has caused some to be hesitant to implement this system in their operations.The Equipment&nbsp; Farmers that bag their grain typically utilize 10-foot-diameter bags. Commercial operations, however, often use 12-foot-diameter polyethylene bags that are up to 500 feet long. This is the largest size bag available for purchase. The specialized polyethylene bags are often made of three layers with UV protection and warranties lasting as long as 18 months.A grain bag loader is used to fill the bags. Grain can be dumped into the loader’s top hopper using an auger, but most customers add a swing hopper for dumping hopper-bottom trailers. The grain bag loader can transfer grain at rates up to 30,000 bushels per hour—faster than many older elevators can unload trucks.Today’s grain bag loaders have numerous features to make the job easy. For instance, some have a jib crane and trolley system that helps to self-load heavy bags onto the machine. Specialized bag pans, cradles, and bag loading tarps are other items that help operators easily and confidently load and fill bags. Other benefits like precise brake adjustment help keep users fully in control of the process.To empty the bags, a grain bag unloader is used to roll up the bags while transferring the grain into a trailer. In fact, many unloaders can fill a 1,000-bushel trailer in only about seven minutes.Although slightly more complex than grain bag loaders, the unloaders also have numerous features designed to simplify things. Some manufacturers offer training videos and on-site instruction to give operators peace of mind when loading and unloading grain bags.How Bags Work&nbsp; Grain can be kept safely for months in bags without losing condition. Once the bags have been sealed, the oxygen level is reduced, and the concentration of carbon dioxide is increased. This environment virtually eliminates fungal diseases and insects. The airtight environment also slows down the natural metabolic process that leads to increased temperatures in the grain, extending the storage life of the product.Although grain bags are intended for storing dry grain, some commercial grain buyers have had success storing higher moisture corn for shorter periods of time. Thanks to the airtight environment inside the bags, grain comes out of the bag in the same condition as it goes in.Bagging Tips&nbsp; Much of the success in grain bagging comes from proper site selection and bag placement. Ideally, bags should be placed on a clear, elevated, slightly sloped, and firm piece of land with no chance of flooding. If any areas on the site do not drain naturally, then drainage channels can be dug to shed water away from the storage site. Keep in mind that poor traction on the site will make it difficult to maintain the proper filling of the grain bag during the loading process. It can also cause problems for trucks entering and exiting the site to load and unload.Next, it is recommended to position grain bags north to south on the storage site, if possible. This will allow the grain bags to be exposed to the sun evenly. Starting the grain bag on the highest elevation of the storage site will make it easier to load bags while also preventing moisture from entering the bag at either end. Also, be sure to maintain adequate space between the grain bags, allowing room for the unloading equipment and trucks to travel between them.After filling grain bags, it is best to check them weekly for punctures, especially from rodents, which can cause the most damage. Small areas of damage can be repaired with the bag manufacturer’s specified tape. However, if the damage is too great to be repaired with tape, the bags should be emptied and the grain loaded into a new bag. Unrepaired punctures in the bag can let in moisture, potentially leading to spoilage.Costing only pennies per bushel, grain bags can provide cheap insurance for preserving grain quality when the bins are full. And the transfer rates are fast enough to keep any operation moving. For ethanol producers that haven't already done so, it may be time to consider bags as an alternative storage solution. Author: Tryg Waterhouse&nbsp; Director of Sales, Loftness&nbsp; info@loftness.com&nbsp; 800-828-7624&nbsp; www.loftness.com

2024-02-06 - Bagging When the Bins Fill Up (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

small_Section-Front.jpg

thumbnail_Section-Front.jpg

Section-Front.jpg

small_Inside-1.jpg

thumbnail_Inside-1.jpg

Inside-1.jpg

small_Inside-2.jpg

thumbnail_Inside-2.jpg

Inside-2.jpg

small_Inside-3.jpg

thumbnail_Inside-3.jpg

Inside-3.jpg

Rather than open-air storage, some commercial grain operations are turning to massive, polyethylene bags. When properly maintained, they can keep grain safely for months. 

Bagging When the Bins Fill Up

Over the past five years, Refractory Service Inc. (RSI) has discovered the root cause of an expensive issue impacting pollution control equipment across the ethanol sector. According to the refractory experts at the Wisconsin-based company—which has been in business for over six decades—the ethanol sector’s push to maximize output has taken a costly toll on process equipment. Specifically, the issue appears in the high-temperature and high-pressure refractory material used to line thermal oxidizers and regenerative thermal oxidizers along with dryers and boilers.“As producers started putting more output through equipment, they started having more problems,” says Mark Sullivan, an experienced refractory industry veteran who currently serves as the director of sales and marketing at RSI. “It has been difficult for other contractors that provide refractory services to understand why their products have failed so quickly.”Refractory material is used across a wide range of industries. And, depending on the industrial application, the material has an expected life span. In steel, the timeline for new refractory can be days to weeks, whereas for glassmaking it can be months to years, according to the World Refractories Association (WRA). For ethanol, Sullivan says most producers plan on some form of refractory service every six months. The issue for many plants, however, is related to that expected service timeline of refractory materials. Some plants are performing refractory lining replacements in as little as four months after a new install, which can run $200,000 plus.Sullivan and his team have not only dealt with ethanol clients experiencing refractory life span issues, but they’ve also found a solution.Ethanol Refractory Material Issues Explained &nbsp;&nbsp; When refractory material is made into refractory bricks it is pressed into shape at roughly 3,200 metric tons of pressure (or roughly the pressing power of 900 elephants) the WRA says. After that, the bricks are often tempered, or heated, for three days at 800 degrees Celsius. This process creates robust refractory material, but it doesn't last forever. &nbsp;When it eventually fails, the issue will stem from one (or more) of four reasons. Thermal shock can compromise refractory material. It shows up as cracking and happens because of temperature changes in the equipment. Improper firing, cooling, and heating rates or thermal cycling during start-up or shutdown can be the root cause. Chemical attack is another common reason for failure. Improper selection of material type, aggressive environments, and high-velocity flows can cause the erosion, dissolution, or crystallization of a refractory material. Oxidation, the third reason for failure, happens when refractories are exposed to oxygen at high temperatures. Improper sealing of the refractory material is usually the culprit.And then there is mechanical damage. Physical forces such as impact, vibration, and abrasion can cause ruptures, fractures, or dislodging of refractory bricks or castables. The cause can be related to inadequate equipment design, operation, maintenance, or, as Sullivan says is the case for most ethanol plants, running pollution control equipment extremely hard.“What we have seen is that with thermal oxidizers there are significant vibration issues that cause the linings to fail much sooner than they should,” he says.The solution to the vibration issue with thermal oxidizers was not to perform refractory material replacement services more often, Sullivan says. The solution had to address the root cause. To understand the issue, RSI looked at the issue on a microscopic level to develop a product that is vibration resistant.Sullivan and his team are hesitant to discuss openly what the exact nature of the solution is, but they are willing to talk about the results. The gist of the solution is related to the materials from which it is made. The company modified a fiber-based refractory product to create a proprietary coating that doesn’t allow the impacts of a hard-running piece of equipment to vibrate shards of refractory lining material off prematurely or shrink from an alkali attack. In one example of success, Sullivan says RSI installed a new lining for an ethanol client, and that same lining has been running—with zero failures or shrinkage—for 27 months and counting.With regenerative thermal oxidizers, the company was able to prove the success of its proprietary lining for refractory material as well. With RTOs, Sullivan says, chemical attacks related to alkali imbalances can cause the material to flake off and plug the media. The result can cause hot spots, which can be extremely expensive to fix.How RSI Works with Ethanol Clients&nbsp; Sullivan says any good ethanol maintenance manager will understand if he or she has a problem with a TO or RTO. With TO’s specifically, the first thing to show up will be infrared shell temps that are high. A shell temperature should run below 200 degrees Fahrenheit. “When you see areas of 300 to 350-plus degrees, you know you have a failure coming,” he says.RSI has a team of six that routinely goes to ethanol plants to take shell temps and monitor for other problems developing in refractory-lined equipment. If an inspection report shows a problem could be emerging, they work with the producer to create an agreed-upon plan. Sometimes there may only be one or two hot spots showing across a lining. Other times there may be 20. Typically, there are two key spots where problems arise: the roof of the boiler and the transition room or breaching areas.Any area where high velocities combine with a 90-degree turn can create vortexing, which causes vibrations. With RSI’s new refractory lining material, Sullivan sometimes tells ethanol clients to let the RSI crew apply it to the worst hot spot or area in need of dire fixing. “I tell our customers to let us prove what we can do. We are in this for the long haul, and we want to make sure our customers believe that our products are going to do what [we claim],” he says.When RSI does come in to perform refractory work, the company schedules the job during a planned shutdown. Sullivan says if the producer wants to get the maximum amount of work done on a piece of equipment, RSI will work around the clock, 24/7, to get the job done as quickly as possible.In some cases, the RSI team even prepares for work that wasn’t in the original plan. On a recent media swap out in a TO, company personnel were tasked with changing out a fiber material above and below the media inside the vessel. Because RSI knew that the material in both areas would most likely be damaged, they brought extra replacement material even though it wasn’t in the initial scope of work.In that case, a planned four-day outage turned into a seven-day project, but the material above and below the media, found to in fact be damaged, was repaired. RSI had completed the expanded job.“I recently followed up with that plant,” Sullivan says. “The first thing that the maintenance manager said is that we wouldn’t believe how much less gas the plant was using since RSI did all of that work.”The topic of that particular call has been a reminder to the RSI team. Their work to keep refractory linings free of maintenance for longer time frames by decreasing vibration-related issues stemming from hard-running plants isn’t just about plant run time. It's also about energy efficiency. By installing better refractory material, RSI now knows it is helping plants run smoother without sacrificing output.“That is an area where we need to improve,” he says. “We need to tell the story of how we can improve thermal performance and reduce the use of natural gas. Because we can.”Lining Up Ethanol Refractory Business&nbsp; Refractory is a very old business. It’s like plumbing, Sullivan says. It has been around forever and because of that, many clients think all the contractors in the industry provide the same skill set and services. Nothing could be further from the truth in 2024, he says. Some companies hire day labor to install bricks or material. For RSI, the average tenure of their masons is over 20 years. Some companies will install the most basic refractory material because it is cheap. New materials may cost more, but they last much longer.The RSI team may be in an old business, but they have certainly remained on the cutting edge. To help bring their innovative new refractory material combinations to multiple industries, they’ve brought material handling and material engineering in-house. Part of that is due to lead times on materials.“We’ve seen lead times on the products that we need to use in ethanol go up from four to five weeks to, all of a sudden, 13 to 20 weeks,” he says. “That is too inconsistent for us.”To avoid supply chain issues, RSI looked at every account it serviced, quoted, or called. Sulivan and his team decided to inventory critical product in-house. It was a big change to an old business model, but it was necessary, he says.“We wanted to make sure we have inventory for those that depend on us to keep their units running,” he says. “We’ve had to figure out how to do that on our own.”Now, RSI keeps specialty coatings and materials on hand. It creates and engineers products for the ethanol industry in-house. It is working to spread the word on its solution for refractory lining issues seen across the ethanol sector. And, as Sullivan says with a laugh, he sometimes wonders if what they’ve brought to the industry is almost too good.&nbsp;A while back, an ethanol plant maintenance manager told RSI he wanted to go three years without doing any refractory maintenance, rather than six months or a year.“Now, we are two full years into the plan without doing any maintenance, and we are asking ourselves if we are putting ourselves out of business,” he quips. But then he follows up in a serious tone that conveys just how gratifying RSI’s work in the ethanol sector is to Sullivan, who has worked for decades in the refractory business. “I’ve been in the refractory business since 1986 and this is the most exciting thing that I’ve been a part of.”Author: Luke Geiver&nbsp; Contact: writer@bbiinternational.com

2024-02-06 - Taming The Flame (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

small_Section-Front_1.jpg

thumbnail_Section-Front_1.jpg

Section-Front_1.jpg

small_Teamwork-Experience-Efficiency.jpg

thumbnail_Teamwork-Experience-Efficiency.jpg

Teamwork-Experience-Efficiency.jpg

small_Replacing-Modules.jpg

thumbnail_Replacing-Modules.jpg

Replacing-Modules.jpg

Refractory Service Inc. is bringing new solutions to its clients in ethanol production, which are running harder than ever. 

Taming The Flame

Carbon capture and sequestration—and the quest to build pipelines for it—is not the only near-term CO2 utilization option available to U.S. ethanol producers. Companies like Carbon Sink LLC, CapCO2 Solutions, and HYCO1 have developed on-site carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technology platforms capable of turning waste CO2 streams into high-value products. Their respective tech packages have different origins and serve different end-use industries, but each offers a viable alternative for ethanol plants still waiting for—or off route from—one of the proposed multistate carbon pipelines still jostling through the middle stages of regulatory development and land right-of-way negotiations. &nbsp;Ethanol, Carbon, and the Global Shipping Industry&nbsp; Based in Arlington, Virginia, Carbon Sink brings a roster with rich experience in energy project development and finance, fuels, chemicals production, and systems integration. It also boasts some big-name partnerships. Formed roughly three years ago, Carbon Sink has signed agreements with Maersk, the global shipping giant, along with Haldor Topsoe, a global technology provider. The company’s focus is green methanol, which it produces via renewable energy from hydrogen derived from water and waste CO2—preferably in pure form, like the CO2 captured from corn ethanol plants. Shipping companies want to use green methanol in place of diesel—and they need a lot of it.According to Jim McVaney, communications director for Carbon Sink, when the company was formed roughly three years ago, there was a single shipping vessel in the North Sea that was known to occasionally run on green methanol. Today, the Carbon Sink team has now identified more than 160 ships that are, or will soon be, running on the clean fuel. Maersk is among the first to do it with massive container ships. Household brands like Nike, Ikea, and Syngenta have all communicated their intent to work with companies such as Maersk to make carbon reduction or utilization a priority, McVaney adds.While it seems almost futuristic for Maersk and other larger shippers to go all-in on the transformative repowering of marine shipping, the technologies behind green methanol production are not novel. McVaney says all the equipment used in Carbon Sink’s process is readily available, commercially proven, and backed with an EPC guarantee.Topsoe’s Henrik Wolthers Rasmussen, managing director of the Americas, says the company is excited to have a cooperation agreement in place with Carbon Sink. “The U.S. market is an ideal environment for broad utilization of our world-class methanol synthesis and electrolyzer technologies, and Carbon Sink is well positioned to identify and execute a multiplant development strategy to meet growing market demand for low-carbon methanol,” Rasmussen says.Carbon Sink is already working with Red River Energy, a 35 MMgy corn ethanol plant near Rosholt, South Dakota, to develop its system. The design requires roughly 12 acres, along with access to water, storage, and rail. CO2 from the ethanol plant will be piped into the adjacent Carbon Sink facility where renewable energy (i.e., wind) will power a system supplied by Topsoe.McVaney says that a single standard-size Carbon Sink plant will make enough fuel for three Maersk ships each year (roughly 30 MMgy of methanol). The production process also creates excess heat, which could be sent back “over-the-fence” to the host ethanol plant. As for contracts, the team is looking at three options: long-term supply agreements, joint ventures, and plant acquisitions. Red River Energy opted for a long-term supply contract with a fixed price for its CO2. Ethanol plants located in wind-producing regions are best suited for a Carbon Sink adjacent project (i.e., colocation). Although they have not disclosed their power supplier, the team says they have an agreement with a globally recognized green power provider.CapCO2 Solutions Goes Modular&nbsp; CapCO2 Solutions, based out of New York, is also developing a process to produce green methanol using CO2 sourced from ethanol production as a main feedstock. “The best source of bio-CO2 anywhere in the world is from an ethanol plant,” says Jeff Bonar, CEO.Bonar and his team have also familiarized themselves with the shipping industry, which is broadly interested in green methanol. While Bonar recites similar facts about the shipping industry's growing interest in, and active adoption of, green methanol, he also points out another fact important to CapCO2’s version of the green methanol story.“Green methanol is not as hard to produce as sustainable aviation fuel,” he says. “So we can do it right now.” And according to one of Bonar’s presentations on the potential of methanol production from ethanol fermentation CO2, some ethanol producers could be “sitting on a gold mine,” as one large methanol broker said recently.To make green methanol right now, CapCO2 will utilize a unique, modular technology created by Real Tech Carbon out of Poland. The patented process can fit inside a shipping container. Although traditional methanol production methodologies require a big capital investment and big footprint, CapCO2 can produce its product with only a few methanol modules at each ethanol plant.According to Real Carbon Tech, the Polish company designing the modules, traditional methanol synthesis technology relies on so-called loop methods. The loop method requires complex production steps, including repetitive feedstock purifications and syngas production stages. Conversely, the CapCO2 process will eliminate the syngas phase. Where other processes use multiple reactors, compressors, columns, drums, boilers, and other equipment, the CapCO2 process achieves 100 percent efficiency in a single cycle with a much smaller reactor.Real Carbon Tech first tested and showed the viability of its process at a cement plant in Poland. According to Bonar, cement plants produce dirtier CO2 than ethanol plants. The modular design is compact and efficient, and only requires a CO2 interconnect at the plant to to nearby production modules.Adkins Energy, an ethanol plant in Illinois, is the first U.S. ethanol facility to sign on with CapCO2. Bonar expects the system to be up and running this summer. The Adkins facility sources its electricity from nuclear energy, which helps the plant’s carbon score. Other plants not linked to nuclear energy will need to have access to wind, solar, or other forms of renewable energy.When CapCO2 was working to bring the designs of Real Tech Carbon’s system to the U.S. its management team initially thought there were only a few manufacturers that could build or supply the high-pressure vessel needed for the system. One was in Japan, the other in Germany. But Bonar and his team have now found options in the U.S. They are still talking with several fabricators to fine-tune their build-out process as they work to expand across the U.S.“It’s not complicated,” Bonar says of the value proposition of their system. “We focus on CI score and revenue.”The CapCO2 process can reportedly reduce a plant’s CI score by roughly 25 to 30 points. The company’s website claims the system could potentially generate $100 million—per plant (based on 260,000 tons of CO2 captured per year)— in annual revenue.“Our plan is to do carbon capture and utilization as a service,” Bonar says. “We’ll supply the equipment, and we’ll arrange the green methanol buyer, and then we’ll have a generous revenue split.” In some cases, ethanol plants have expressed interest in owning the equipment themselves, and Bonar says the company is open to that process as well. Bonar has also created a map of possible ethanol plant sites where the CapCO2 process would work, given all the details and energy requirements. The map, he says, includes many ethanol plants well suited for running a CapCO2 modular system.HYCO1: From Houston to the Ethanol Sector&nbsp; HYCO1 is actively developing multiple high-value CO2 utilization projects in collaboration with ethanol producers, says Greg Carr, president and CEO of the Houston-based firm that intends to make high-value products from waste CO2 streams.The company has already tested and proven its tech in the field. In the spring of 2023, the company announced its partnership with Lyons, Kansas-based ethanol producer Kansas Ethanol to develop a CCU facility dubbed Green Carbon Synthetics Kansas LLC. The facility will utilize the catalyst-based system that turns carbon dioxide and various methane sources into chemical-grade syngas. Its catalyst is noncoking, so it lasts a long time. It is also made from base metals, not expensive noble metals. At 95 percent per pass, the catalyst is also highly efficient at converting CO2. Like other systems that utilize carbon, excess heat will be made from HYCO1’s process.Once complete, the facility will produce roughly 4,000 barrels per day of synthetic base lubricating oils and low-carbon jet fuel, methanol and alternatives to so-called “group 4” base lubricating oils, high-melt paraffin waxes and specialty solvents, ammonia, acetic acids, and commodity chemicals.Carr says the company has additional projects in development. Mike Chisam, CEO of Kansas Ethanol, offers some insight as to why HYCO1 and other carbon utilization tech providers are gaining serious traction across the industry.“Although most ethanol producers are considering or pursuing underground carbon sequestration in our industry to decarbonize,” Chisam said of the HYCO1 project, “we believe that carbon utilization, which supports a circular carbon economy, represents the best use of our CO2 and positions us more competitively in the market.” Author: Luke Geiver&nbsp;&nbsp; Contact: writer@bbiinternational.com

2024-02-06 - How CCU Platforms Stack Up (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

small_iStock-1686004993.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-1686004993.jpg

iStock-1686004993.jpg

small_Red-River-Energy-Rosholt-SD.jpg

thumbnail_Red-River-Energy-Rosholt-SD.jpg

Red-River-Energy-Rosholt-SD.jpg

small_Ane-Maersk-ship.jpg

thumbnail_Ane-Maersk-ship.jpg

Ane-Maersk-ship.jpg

small_Adkins-Energy.jpg

thumbnail_Adkins-Energy.jpg

Adkins-Energy.jpg

small_HYCO1system.jpg

thumbnail_HYCO1system.jpg

HYCO1system.jpg

With carbon capture and sequestration pipeline projects delayed, ethanol producers are finding—and adding—carbon utilization technology platforms of all kinds.  

How CCU Platforms Stack Up

As some ethanol producers are developing strategies to reduce their CI scores and access new markets or opportunities, life cycle analysis is a good—often necessary—way for producers to understand which plant upgrades will be the most beneficial and what credits they qualify for in different markets. Life Cycle Associates works to help fuel producers and material suppliers understand their GHG impacts and comply with regulations. Stefan Unnasch, managing director and founder of LCA, says the company helps clients access credits, assess new markets, and identify effective strategies to reduce their carbon emissions. As Unnasch puts it: “Helping [clients] develop strategies to value their emissions reductions.” He explains further that it’s often a matter of evaluating all available options, like an alternative use for distillers grains. “Well, &nbsp;it depends on how you’re monetizing your corn ethanol, and then once they have a certain strategy, then we make sure they can get it verified.”&nbsp;Part of LCA’s analysis includes helping producers understand the opportunities available to them in different markets. The company’s chief economist, Brian Healy, uses his past experience in global market development for the corn and ethanol industry to advise producers on commercial opportunities provided by various policies. For example, if a plant is interested in sending ethanol to California under the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or adding a new technology, a life cycle analysis can help plant management know if they have an advantage under the LCFS and how a new technology would impact their carbon intensity.&nbsp;“We will help them collect their data so they can submit [an LCFS] pathway. Ethanol plants all have EPA pathways, right?” Unnasch says. “If they need [an LCFS] pathway, then they must &nbsp;have data that complies with CARB requirements, and this can become complicated if they have co-located facilities. For example, they might have J-grade ethanol processing, which isn’t used for fuel grade but might have coproduction with different feedstocks, maybe it’s waste starch, etcetera. We make sure that all their ducks are in a row for an LCFS application.”Sending ethanol to California is only one of many potential market opportunities for producers in places that may have low carbon fuel programs in place. Unnasch lists several international markets as well, including Canada, Colombia, Brazil, Europe and, potentially, Japan. Applications in these places are all vastly different, with various greenhouse gas accounting frameworks. As Unnasch puts it, “it’s like filing your taxes in Minnesota versus Switzerland.” It’s esentially the same thing, but with a different rule book and different factors to consider. “For example, if you’re shipping to Europe under the RED (Renewable Energy Directive), they require that you have your feedstock certified, and we work with farmers to make sure that we have sufficient farming data,” he says. “And those calculation methods are different than what’s required for the LCFS.”&nbsp;The range of policies ethanol producers can monetize is wide, ranging from the Renewable Fuel Standard, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive, and the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Some of these policies are exclusive, for example, a producer that exports to the European Union is not able to take advantage of RINs from the RFS.&nbsp;It does not make sense for producers to get certified in every potential market because the time and cost of certification is usually prohibitive relative to revenue, Unnasch explains. Often producers pick a couple of markets, get verified and export there when the markets are favorable. LCA also executes technoeconomic analyses to help producers figure out which markets are the best option for their fuel, as well as what investments in their plant’s efficiency will give them access to more markets or credits.&nbsp;One favorable market for U.S. ethanol producers has been north of the border. “We’ve been exporting ethanol to Canada at 330 million gallons for the last decade, ever since their clean fuel regulation went into place in 2009,” Healy says. “What we’ve seen in the last year and a half is the near doubling of our exports to that market, more than 600 million gallons in response to increased blend rates in Ontario and the national clean fuel standard, and [that’s because their] &nbsp;GHG reduction threshold is attainable.” The inflow of U.S. ethanol—some of which comes from Canadian-owned plants in the U.S.—has played a role in some Canadian producers shipping their ethanol to the EU, taking advantage of their free-trade agreement and duty-free access to that market, explains Healy.&nbsp;The process of gathering a producer’s data and getting it verified is necessary to comply with regulations and customer demands, explains Unnasch. He says it can be challenging to locate all of the necessary data and organize it in a way that meets the expectations of a regulatory body. “For example, if you’re carving out your J-grade ethanol, you need to think about how much energy went to that extra distillation,” Unnasch says. “And plants don’t have energy meters but rather steam meters, [which] measure the mass of steam, not energy. And so, the energy is the change in enthalpy between the steam going into the process and the return steam, and that all needs to be worked out to the verifier’s satisfaction.”Life cycle assessments are good for more than helping producers put together data for applications. LCA also helps associations, such as CORSIA, evaluate the GHG emissions of a new process or find answers to investors’ questions about a project by, for example, looking at different uses for naphtha in emissions reduction. “There are lots of interesting ways to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, [and some] require more than just the prescribed calculation methods [offered by] the low carbon fuel programs,” Unnasch says. Other technical pursuits LCA has explored include studying scenarios on the impact of a low carbon fuel standard in different regions of the U.S., examining the supply and demand of credits in various pathways, and evaluating areas of potential competition between LCFS programs.&nbsp;Unnasch says there are several key areas of ethanol production that offer the potential for CI reduction. Natural gas usage is one obvious category, and Unnasch recommends moving toward, for example, heat battery technology as a potential solution. “The IRA is saying, ‘we’ll give you money if you don’t burn that natural gas, but now you’ve got to find another way to do it,’” Unnasch says. Other big opportunities for CI reduction that Unnasch has identified include regenerative agriculture and renewable electricity.Although the specific version of the GREET model that producers will be able to use for calculating CI for sustainable aviation fuel is uncertain, the Argonne GREET model is used for determining carbon intensity in the Clean Fuel Production Credit under the 45Z section of the Inflation Reduction Act. “We spend thousands of hours [studying] the GREET model and you know, [really understanding] the carbon intensity of a typical corn ethanol plant,” he says. “And we can tell you where every single number comes from and its provenance, whether it’s reasonable, and how it affects the ethanol producer.” Author: Katie Schroeder&nbsp;&nbsp; Contact: katie.schroeder@bbiinternational.com

2024-02-06 - Going Low To Send It High (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

small_FeatureLede.jpg

thumbnail_FeatureLede.jpg

FeatureLede.jpg

small_Corn-Farming.jpg

thumbnail_Corn-Farming.jpg

Corn-Farming.jpg

small_Canada-Ontario.jpg

thumbnail_Canada-Ontario.jpg

Canada-Ontario.jpg

The life cycle analysis of GHG emissions is essential in a world full of credits and customer requirements revolving around carbon intensity. Life Cycle Associates knows how to help ethanol producers square it all up to maximize value.  

Going Low To Send It High

Nearly 19 months after the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, which established tax credits for sustainable aviation fuel made from low-carbon feedstocks, ethanol producers are still waiting for clear guidance on how they can join the push to decarbonize air travel. For many months, the ethanol industry waited for guidance on which carbon intensity models would be allowed for calculating the required 50 percent emissions reduction compared to standard jet fuel. The IRA states that producers must use CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting Reduction Scheme for International Aviation)—a carbon intensity measurement tool created and governed by the International Civil Aviation Organization. But the legislation also says “similar” methodologies may be used, and industry representatives and SAF project developers alike have championed the Argonne Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model for emissions. They argue that GREET is more accurate, broadly relied on in the U.S., and adjusted annually with new research. In December, long-awaited guidance from the U.S. Department of the Treasury was released, receiving mixed reactions from the ethanol and SAF industries—and creating a guessing game about what’s to come this spring. &nbsp;The December 15th guidance states that producers will soon be able to use any of three models to measure the carbon intensity (CI) their product: CORSIA, Argonne's GREET, or a similar model used by the U.S. EPA in its oversight of the Renewable Fuel Standard. The IRS will also accept producers that replace synthetic blending components for jet fuel that generate D3, D4, D5, or D7 RINS and are validated by a Quality Assurance Program, or QAP, under the EPA’s facility-specific pathways. The guidance also stated that because the 2010 GREET model falls short of the EPA’s standards, the agency will develop a new “40B” GREET model that addresses these concerns; the new model is expected to be unveiled in March.Industry Response&nbsp; Ethanol industry associations, including the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, and Growth Energy, all brought their expertise to bear on the mid-December announcement, sharing their initial reactions to the guidance and their hopes for the 40B version of GREET.Brian Jennings, CEO of ACE, is optimistic that the updates made to the GREET model will be scientifically sound and fair to grain ethanol. CORSIA’s land-use-change values are based on data from 2007 to 2012, he explains, which has a detrimental impact on CI—about 15 points. “A lot has changed in that time, and the GREET model is much more up-to-date; it’s updated annually. So, that’s just one glaring example of where the GREET model is more scientifically sound, because it’s more advanced and [research current],” Jennings says. He thinks the rationale for making updates to GREET may stem from the EPA’s concerns about Argonne’s approach to estimating methane emissions as well as the carbon intensity of not corn but rice production and livestock. “It’s my understanding [that] this has a lot to do with making sure those approaches are uniform,” he says. “And I am reasonably confident that most corn ethanol will be at least 50 percent cleaner than petroleum, which is the trigger that you have to reach to qualify for the sustainable aviation fuel tax credit.”Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the RFA, tells Ethanol Producer Magazine “the jury is still out” as to how the guidance and the updated GREET model will impact the ethanol industry, but he is “cautiously optimistic.”Growth Energy has a similar position. The guidance is “an important first step” for the use of GREET as a GHG methodology, explains Joe Kakesh, general counsel with Growth Energy. “I think the top line here is it’s ‘wait and see.’ We’re glad they’re taking action, but the devil is in the details,” he says. “They’ve got to get the modeling right, and that gets down ... into some components of the model that we haven’t seen a lot of detail on yet.”Novozymes’ Director of Future Fuels and Digital, Clemens Heikaus, shares the perspective of a yeast and enzyme supplier. He expresses the importance of growing and futureproofing the ethanol industry through diversification. “For us, with Novozymes being a partner to a lot of [major] players in the ethanol industry, this is a very important element to [not only] continue to lower the carbon intensity, increase the yield, and diversify the byproducts, but also diversify the uses of ethanol beyond light-duty road transportation,” Heikaus says.Members of the SAF industry are also waiting to see how the guidance plays out. Patrick Gruber, CEO of Gevo, explains that the updated GREET model with the EPA’s comments is a concern because of the use of 2010 models. “EPA, remember, used 2010 data, and they like to stick to those; that’s not good for anybody,” Gruber says. “I’m waiting to see what the updated [model looks like] before I get too excited.”Lindsay Fitzgerald, vice president of government relations at Gevo, explains that the EPA did a modeling comparison in 2023 and noted changes in its assumptions as well as the evolution of models over time. “I was a little surprised that they did not step up their game and [acknowledge] that they’ve already done a lot of this work,” she says. &nbsp;They didn’t have to land where they landed, in my opinion.”The creation of safe harbors in the RFS, with an EPA-approved QAP and an RFS version of the GREET model in the guidance, is a win for LanzaJet and the SAF industry, explains Alex Menotti, vice president, government affairs, policy, and sustainability. However, he emphasizes the importance of measuring SAF with the same methodology used for other biofuels under the IRA. For example, the Clean Fuel Production Credits under 45Z instruct the use of the GREET model; and Menotti explains that achieving &nbsp;“modeling parity”—using the same models across programs—is vital to fulfill Congress’ desire to create stronger incentives for SAF production. &nbsp;GREET v. CORSIA&nbsp; GREET has estimated corn ethanol’s overall carbon intensity at 45 grams per megajoule (g/MJ), according to Michael Wang and colleagues at Argonne who, together, authored a 2021 white paper titled “Retrospective Analysis of the U.S. Corn Ethanol Industry for 2005–2019: Implications for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions.” When combined with GREET’s 2023 default indirect land-use change (ILUC) number of 8.6 g/MJ, the total becomes 53.6 g/MJ. Cooper also explains that most ethanol plants currently score in the low to mid-50s. If the carbon intensity of upgrading to jet fuel is included—between 20 and 25 CI points—the total under GREET is 71.6 g/MJ, according to a U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office article from 2021, written by Jim Spaeth.The ICAO lists corn ethanol’s overall CI score, including upgrading to jet fuel, at 77.9 g/MJ in the alcohol-to-jet pathway and 90.8 g/MJ in the ethanol-to-jet pathway. The differences between the methods are highlighted by the induced—not without debate—ILUC number. However, Jennings says ILUC’s hit to CI is between four and eight points under 2023 GREET, while ICAO’s numbers are 22.1 and 25.1 for the ATJ and ETJ fuel conversion pathways, respectively. Jennings explains that the EPA and the California Air Resources Board has significant ILUC penalties for ethanol as well, 29 points and 19 points respectively.CORSIA uses a consensus strategy to determine the CI scores for various feedstocks, explains Steve Csonka, executive director of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. “They create methodologies that [account] for the fact that you might have two very different views of two very different countries involved in ICAO, [and what to]do when that happens,” he says. “And so, they establish some rules.” He explains that the default scores assigned to individual feedstock pathways are just that—default values—and producers can petition ICAO for a CI score specific to their process.“The two methodologies don’t really take that different of an approach to estimating carbon intensity; it really all boils down to whether the methodology uses current data, [like] the Argonne GREET model, verses methodology that uses outdated, old information,” says Cooper.There is potential for regenerative agricultural practices, such as reduced tillage, proper application of fertilizer, and cover cropping—all of which increase the amount of organic carbon stored in soil and prevent the release of atmospheric CO2—to be included in the updated GREET model. However, exactly what that will look like is still unknown. Cooper explains that flexibility is needed in each methodology’s ability to account for all carbon reduction strategies—including regenerative agriculture—that are available to ethanol producers. “We also know there are many things farmers are doing today to reduce the carbon intensity of corn production,” Cooper says. “Future iterations of this model will incorporate, or allow producers to incorporate, the benefits of some of those practices, you know, both at the farm level and at the ethanol biorefinery. I think what we are advocating for is the most flexible methodology possible or available.”Gruber explains that the use of Argonne’s GREET model is vital for the development of the sustainable aviation fuel industry. However, he has concerns about the uncertainty caused by the end of the dollar-per-blended-gallon tax credit, replaced by the IRA credits, which have come with significantly more ambiguity due to the use of the CORSIA method. And he says a year and a half of uncertainty about what other methods could be used, and limiting the credits to a three-year timespan, are also perplexing. All of these factors, as well as delaying the guidance from the summer of 2023 to December, have made financing a large-scale SAF project, like Gevo’s proposed Net Zero 1 facility in South Dakota, a challenge.There are several questions that the lack of guidance has made impossible to fully answer, Gruber explains. “What’s the margin? How much revenue can we generate? How are we supposed to put a project finance plan forward when we don’t know what the ... margin is? What’s the price to the customer? Who’s going to step up for it?” In other words, he says, to help the SAF industry move forward, the March guidance must bring clarity.A transparent methodology is also vital for the future of SAF production. “I’m interested in something that I can explain to other people and [is] transparent and visible—so we can say, ‘here’s what it is and why,’ and explain it and go,” Gruber says. “[But] if we have this black box ... that’s a problem, fundamentally, [and] we will get attacked by all sides eventually.”Fitzgerald agrees, emphasizing the need for clarity around ILUC values since the value difference between methodologies is so significant. “That swing is based on an economic model that has a lot of opinions and feelings in it,” she says. “And we need something that’s based on science that we can take to our investors and others and say, ‘here’s what this means, it’s black and white, and here’s how we measure.’ [Then, we would be able] to say, ‘we can do better; we can make a difference.’ It’s really hard to say you can make a difference ... based on something that’s gray and sort of [subjective]. It just doesn’t work.”Making Changes&nbsp; Broadly considered, the incorporation of GREET into the nation’s incentive program for SAF is a big win for ethanol producers, but forthcoming changes to the model give the industry reason for concern. It is unknown how much the updated model will resemble the existing, annually updated GREET, explains CAAFI’s Csonka. He lists new components that are almost certainly going to be included. “It will incorporate, not for the first time, but in an indirect way, the emissions for crop production, livestock activity, and other greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies, like carbon capture and storage, use of renewable natural gas, renewable electricity, climate smart ag practices, etcetera,” Csonka says.Menotti emphasizes the importance of making sure that climate smart ag practices are accounted for in the updated GREET model. “We are awaiting further guidance on what climate-smart agriculture practices, such as soil carbon sequestration, will be considered for the production of SAF,” Menotti says. “While the interagency group also indicated that it intends to account for renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, and renewable natural gas, the criteria for accounting for these carbon intensity reductions will be crucial.”The lack of policy and regulatory certainty has made it challenging to get buy-in from private investors. “It is imperative that the Treasury Department confirms Congress’ intent for ethanol-based SAF to also utilize the GREET model, as otherwise producers will opt to make renewable diesel and other fuels (where the GREET model is already allowed under 45Z and 45V) as opposed to focusing on much-needed SAF,” Menotti says. “At the end of the day, the GREET model revisions, while a foundational piece for SAF, won’t matter without momentum on the tax credits extension.” He explains that GREET, as a model used to access 40B credits, will not provide enough certainty for the accelerated growth the administration is looking for if the time frame for the credits is not lengthened significantly.The IRA’s intentions of building out the domestic sustainable aviation industry may well run awry without certainty and clarity to allow producers to make investments in reducing their CI scores and move ahead with &nbsp;large-scale projects. The irony of the IRA for the U.S. ethanol industry is the open door it lends to the Brazilian ethanol industry, while muddying the waters for U.S. biofuel producers. “It’s a little ironic that for an American statute that’s intended to spur the growth of American biofuels, under today’s guidance, Brazilian cane sugar bioethanol qualifies for the credit, but it’s unclear, you know, how and to what extent American corn-based ethanol does,” Kakesh says. “I think Treasury should take that to heart. There’s a lot of emphasis within the administration about advancing American industry in a number of different sectors, and biofuels should be included in that as well.”Author: Katie Schroeder &nbsp;&nbsp; Contact: katie.schroeder@bbiinternational.com&nbsp;

2024-02-06 - Waiting for Takeoff (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

small_iStockCommercialJet.jpg

thumbnail_iStockCommercialJet.jpg

iStockCommercialJet.jpg

small_iStock-ICAO-headquarters.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-ICAO-headquarters.jpg

iStock-ICAO-headquarters.jpg

small_Cornfield.jpg

thumbnail_Cornfield.jpg

Cornfield.jpg

small_Brazilian-Sugarcane-Ethanol.jpg

thumbnail_Brazilian-Sugarcane-Ethanol.jpg

Brazilian-Sugarcane-Ethanol.jpg

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s late 2023 guidance on carbon-intensity modeling is a potential step in the right direction for ethanol becoming a major feedstock for SAF. But many questions remain.    

Waiting for Takeoff

Last year marked significant milestones in Canadian and American renewable fuels policy: Canada fully implemented its Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), and the U.S. celebrated the first year of the Inflation Reduction Act. Although these policies operate in different contexts and countries, both aim to promote cleaner fuels for their environmental and economic benefits, relying on life cycle carbon assessment (LCA) to do so.LCA is a key tool for investors and companies to decide where to put their money. Correctly executed, LCA captures a product’s total carbon emissions at every stage, requiring rigorous science and quality data. However, regulatory and political pressures can lead to oversimplification, which reduces accuracy, undermines producers, and jeopardizes investment and growth.Sound economic policies can free up capital in the same way that fuel LCA models can serve as either a springboard or a hurdle for investors. As we continue to navigate these waters, here are some key considerations for Canadian and U.S. lawmakers regarding their LCA models and approaches, and why LCA integrity should be a priority.Data Availability and Quality: LCA models are only as good as their data. For this reason, LCA must incorporate data sets that balance regional and national data and acknowledge optimization of production processes at ethanol facilities. Without this, the true value of capital investments in energy efficiency and clean technologies cannot be fully appreciated, and investment risks in clean technologies will not be properly mitigated.Sound Science and Methodology: Corn ethanol can achieve very low and even negative carbon intensity with existing technologies. Fair LCA modeling is crucial because models that ignore or undercut carbon reductions from technology, like modern farming and carbon capture and storage, weaken policy performance and discourage investment.Crop and Geographical Diversity: Different crops have diverse environmental impacts that significantly influence LCA results. Unfortunately, some special interest groups advocate for incorrect land-use changes, opposing the inclusion of crop-based biofuels in clean fuel investment, production tax credits and sustainable aviation fuel incentive programs. Therefore, it’s crucial to ensure that LCA models maintain their scientific integrity and accurately reflect the sustainability of biomass feedstocks.Transparency and Expertise: LCA models need clear guidelines in legislation and must use the latest information on biofuels and inputs. Agencies and engineers have carefully developed trusted LCA models like GREET and GHGenius over many years. When new LCA models are introduced (e.g., the Canadian CFR), it's vital to involve industry experts with real-world experience. Without this collaboration, there’s a risk of incorrect emissions calculations, leading to policy errors, lost investment opportunities, and hindered domestic low-carbon fuel production.Harmonized Policies: Ethanol policy between Canada and the United States is a cornerstone for energy security. By emphasizing science-based assessments in LCA on both sides of the border, coordinated policy ensures that investors and consumers know that biofuels are produced and consumed in an economically advantageous and environmentally responsible manner, regardless of their end-use destination.As the evolution of low-carbon policies in Canada and the United States underscores, the ethanol industry must stay at the forefront of LCA modeling to ensure clear market signals and unleash the full economic potential of these game-changing policies. The task of fine-tuning the details is intricate, but no one is better equipped than us—the trailblazers of "well-to-wheel" economics and the seasoned experts of the “farm-to-pump” life cycle—to tackle it.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Author: Andrea Kent Past President and Board Member, Renewable Industries Canada Vice President of Industry and&nbsp; Government Affairs,&nbsp; Greenfield Global Inc.

2024-02-06 - Springboard or Hurdle? LCA in Clean Fuels Policy and Investment (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

small_Andrea-Kent-2019.jpg

thumbnail_Andrea-Kent-2019.jpg

Andrea-Kent-2019.jpg

Life cycle carbon assessments (LCA) are used in clean fuels policy. They are also key tool that can help investors and companies decide where to invest their money, but LCA integrity must be a priority. 

Springboard or Hurdle? LCA in Clean Fuels Policy and Investment

Toward the end of last year, I had the privilege of sharing the biofuel industry’s perspective on the future of sustainability and clean energy during two high-profile forums in Washington, D.C. The first was Tech for Climate Action’s U.S. Clean Energy Transition Conference, where I was joined by lawmakers and industry leaders, including Argonne National Laboratory Director Paul Kearns. The second forum, hosted by POLITICO, was titled The Sustainable Future: Driving Toward Clean Fuel, where I spoke alongside energy industry peers from Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions and the American Council on Renewable Energy. My message was simple: the biofuels industry is blazing a new trail toward a clean-energy future that is both affordable and sustainable.It is an exciting time for the bioeconomy. Our members are driving investments in climate-smart agriculture that will benefit America’s farmers for decades to come. They have raced to the front lines of carbon capture technology and are redirecting emissions into all kinds of useful applications, from treating municipal water to storing vaccines. Our industry’s high-protein animal feed (derived from DDGs) has gone from “just a coproduct” to the most important nutrient-rich animal feed in the world. Moving forward, our members are positioned to supply vast new markets for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), which has already gone from powering 500 flights annually to 500,000.Some believe we must choose between a future of abundance and one of environmental responsibility. The bioeconomy demonstrates the opposite. &nbsp;We are proving that America’s economy can grow in sync with nature, rather than at her expense.As a leading voice for America’s biofuel industry, Growth Energy is proud to showcase how our members are cultivating a new generation of plant-based solutions that are helping Americans meet our energy needs, our economic demands, and our nation’s carbon reduction goals—all at the same time.That’s why we work so hard to remind elected leaders how our members are expanding America’s bioeconomy by inspiring new ways to create more with less. More yield with less waste. More energy with less pollution. More prosperity with less dependence.Those efforts have paid off over the past few years. We helped our members secure new landmark tax incentives, win more funding for blending infrastructure, and lock down a summer waiver for E15 and a stronger Renewable Fuel Standard. Just a few years ago, our industry was still talking about the so-called blend wall of ten percent ethanol for cars and trucks. Today, we’re on offense and moving forward, pushing beyond ten percent and breaking new ground.Our progress continues, which is why late last year Growth Energy launched a full rebrand. Our name didn’t change, but we upgraded our look and feel across the organization. Our new brand is designed to put our industry’s innovative spirit front and center.You can review our new logo and website at GrowthEnergy.org. We also invite you to join our push to showcase the full extent of our value chain, including the science, labor, and investment that allows our industry to produce an endless variety of products from renewable, plant-based feedstocks.Author: Emily Skor&nbsp; CEO, Growth Energy&nbsp; &nbsp;

2024-02-06 - Expanding the Bioeconomy (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

thumbnail_EmilySkor.jpg

EmilySkor.jpg

Growth Energy new brand is designed to put the biorefining indsutry's innovative spirit front and center. 

Expanding the Bioeconomy

It almost goes without saying these days that U.S. ethanol producers are hyper-focused on the transformational opportunities of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). At press time, the industry was buzzing with news about POET and Summit Carbon Solutions broadening their CCS partnership. It was a strong reminder that CO2 pipelines, while not a reality yet, remain poised to catapult our industry to a whole new level—SAF production and beyond. Waiting for what’s possible, however, isn’t for everyone, and many U.S. ethanol producers are opting to pursue what’s in reach today—opportunities that match their production profile, location, and objectives—like new uses for CO2 and increased plant efficiency. We cover those and other topics this month, while not overlooking the fact that momentous decisions are being made at this very moment about ethanol’s future role in SAF.In “Waiting for Takeoff,” on page 14, we present mixed reactions from the industry on the U.S. Treasury’s recent guidance on carbon-intensity modeling—specifically, the administration’s openness to accepting Aronne’s GREET model—with some tweaks—to be an alternative to the status quo CORSIA methodology, and what it all means for existing ethanol producers hoping to get in on the decarbonization of air travel. This was a tough assignment, with the biofuel and SAF sectors still deciphering the government’s intentions in January, and with material decisions from the U.S. EPA expected to land about a month after press time.In related reporting, we look at the relationship between carbon intensity (CI) reduction and the study of life cycle GHG emissions. In “Going Low to Send It High,” on page 22, we report on how the life cycle analysis of GHG emissions can be an essential tool for producers looking to sync up their technology investments and market ambitions.Indeed, that kind of decision making was necessary for each of the producers that show up in our cover story, “How CCU Platforms Stack Up,” on page 26, which looks at three unique carbon capture and utilization (CCU) platforms with active projects under development at U.S. ethanol plants. CCU is often framed as an alternative to CCS—something pursued when sequestration isn’t possible—but in reality, it is sometimes the most viable and profitable end-use of fermentation CO2. A CCU derivative currently getting a lot of attention is green methanol, which is being tapped by international shipping giant Maersk to repower its massive ocean-going vessels. As the CEO of one technology company recently conveyed, ethanol producers “could be sitting on a gold mine” if this takes off.Next, we go inside (quite literally) the industry’s hottest equipment in “Taming the Flame,” on page 32, which looks at the unique service—and craft—of refractory relining. Ethanol plants are running hard, and also rather hot, these days, which generally causes the linings inside equipment like rotary drum dryers and RTOs to wear out faster than they otherwise might. At least that was presumed to be the case before Refractory Service Inc. introduced a proprietary new method of doing its namesake work. The bottom line: clients are happy with the results.Enjoy the read.Author: Tom Bryan&nbsp; President and Editor

2024-02-06 - Doing What’s Possible While Waiting for What’s Next   (Ethanol Producer Magazine)

small_Bryan-Tom-2016-MAIN.jpg

thumbnail_Bryan-Tom-2016-MAIN.jpg

Bryan-Tom-2016-MAIN.jpg

The latest issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine addresses sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), carbon intensity (CI) reducitons, and carbon capture and utilization (CCU). 

Doing What’s Possible While Waiting for What’s Next  

thumbnail_Mar24-EPM-Cover.jpg

Mar24-EPM-Cover.jpg

March 2024

March 2024

Columns

Springboard or Hurdle? LCA in Clean Fuels Policy and Investment

Expanding the Bioeconomy

Doing What’s Possible While Waiting for What’s Next

Featured

Taming The Flame

How CCU Platforms Stack Up

Going Low To Send It High

Waiting for Takeoff

Contributions

Bagging When the Bins Fill Up

March 2024.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}

Columns

Springboard or Hurdle? LCA in Clean Fuels Policy and Investment

Expanding the Bioeconomy

Doing What’s Possible While Waiting for What’s Next

Featured

Taming The Flame

How CCU Platforms Stack Up

Going Low To Send It High

Waiting for Takeoff

Contributions

Bagging When the Bins Fill Up

March 2024