Today, top performing U.S. ethanol plants surrender only 3 to 5 percent of corn&rsquo;s total fermentable starch, leaving it behind in distillers grains. Considering that producers were giving up twice that amount of sugar a decade ago, conversion efficiency gains should rank among the industry&rsquo;s most important modern achievements. Indeed, ethanol producers are closing in on the theoretical maximum yield from starch alone, and therefore eyeing corn fiber. The arrival of the cellulosic era, however, does not mean that optimizing grain ethanol production is yesterday&rsquo;s battle. Rather, finding ways to convert corn starch faster, cheaper and more efficiently is a virtually endless pursuit.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; In our lead feature, &ldquo;Toolkit For Ethanol&rsquo;s Next Stage,&rdquo; we look at decisions, investments and commitments producers have made during their quests for maximization. EPM Senior Editor Susanne Retka Schill reports that plant optimization, for most, is achieved over time through many interrelated campaigns and process trials. Illinois River Energy LLC, for example, has initiated 30 to 40 projects in recent years, all essentially aimed at incremental production gains. The plant&rsquo;s story is illustrative of the persistent, step-by-step mindset ethanol producers must have to be competitive in today&rsquo;s industry. Retka Schill reports that the latest mechanical treatments like selective milling, cavitation, and ultrasound, along with improved enzyme cocktails and more effective and versatile yeasts, are the current big-ticket spends producers are making to stay competitive. Still, though, the simplest way to make more money in good times is to increase throughput. For that reason, many plants are now hyperfocused on improving reliability and reducing downtime. IRE&rsquo;s former manager tells us, &ldquo;[The plant] used to have seven-day shutdowns, two or three times a year, and now it&rsquo;s five days maybe twice a year.&rdquo; In other words, being down 10 days a year versus 14 or 21&mdash;at 145,000 gallons a day&mdash;is a big deal to any profit-minded business.&nbsp; Plants are making big strides with and without big technology purchases. Pinal Energy in Arizona reduced its downtime and increased its production yields by making distillation modifications and using Six-Sigma methodology to pinpoint the plant&rsquo;s temperature and pH sweet spot. Similarly, we learn how Novozymes is able to capture plant data that a producer may use to establish its very own &ldquo;Golden Batch&rdquo; profile. Think of it as optimization via data analysis. Process optimization is not synonymous with plant enhancement, of course. The former improves the efficiency of traditional grain ethanol production, while the latter gives a plant the capability to produce new things like cellulosic ethanol, novel coproducts and low-carbon power. Writ large, however, optimization, maximization and enhancement are all about the same thing: getting more from less. And if that isn&rsquo;t the definition of sustainable, it really should be.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

2014/07/Tom-Bryan-Ethanol_14051004913603_largethumb.jpg

2014/07/Tom-Bryan-Ethanol_14051004913603_thumb.jpg

2014/07/Tom-Bryan-Ethanol_14051004913603.jpg

Finding ways to convert corn starch faster, cheaper and more efficiently is a virtually endless pursuit for ethanol producers, writes Tom Bryan of BBI International. That search is highlighted in the lead feature in the August issue of EPM. 

More From Less

Ethanol produced in Brazil, Mexico or Asia is essentially the same commodity that we produce in America. Yet we export product to Brazil and Brazil exports product to the United States. Admittedly, I don&rsquo;t know all of the intricacies of why this happens. It does, however, seem odd that ships carrying ethanol pass one another with imports from Brazil to America and America to Brazil, with producers in both countries paying the freight.&nbsp; As an industry, we seem to operate in isolation from one another globally, each country doing its own thing with very little communication. I don&rsquo;t know why. At the International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo in Indianapolis, Phil Madson from Katzen International raised this point on a panel. &ldquo;Ethanol is a global commodity and we need to start treating it like a global commodity,&rdquo; he said. One organization working on the political and educational front is the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance. This organization does represent a number of ethanol associations and producers in various parts of the world, with the ultimate goal of collectively building a stronger, more integrated industry. In terms of trade, however, we need to go further. The oil industry has its flaws, but one thing stakeholders have done very effectively is work together on an international level. Because after all, oil is oil is oil, they have perfected the art of product exchange and in doing so avoid needless shipping costs wherever possible. At the same time, they have built a global story so everyone is singing from the same hymnal. It seems to me that ethanol is ethanol is ethanol. It makes no difference where it is produced, the product is the essentially the same, the public relation problems (i.e. food vs. fuel, etc.) are universal, production and maintenance issues are similar and the technological challenges required to move to second-and third-generation ethanol are shared by countries worldwide. We can continue to address these issues individually or we can come together as a global community multiplying our strength many times over. The ethanol industry has already demonstrated what strength in numbers can achieve. I think it&rsquo;s time to take ethanol to the next level of a true international commodity that freely flows around the world without restrictions and territorialism. Are the problems facing ethanol so different in Asia than they are in Argentina that we could not learn from one another and even help one another build their industry? The oil industry thinks globally and it&rsquo;s time we start doing the same. That&rsquo;s the way I see it.
Author: Mike Bryan Chairman, BBI International mbryan@bbiinternational.com

2014/07/MIKE2005-EPM_14051004059978_largethumb.gif

2014/07/MIKE2005-EPM_14051004059978_thumb.gif

2014/07/MIKE2005-EPM_14051004059978.gif

While the oil industry works very effectively on an international level the ethanol industry could use improvement in this area, particularly in terms of trade, writes Mike Bryan of BBI International. 

Ethanol,  A Global Commodity

Ethanol will once again take center stage in August as 500,000 motorcyclists from all over the world roll into Sturgis, S.D., to celebrate the 74th annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. For the sixth consecutive year, the Renewable Fuels Association is a proud sponsor of the motorcycle rally, leading the way in motorcycle education.&nbsp; Downtown Sturgis is lined with motorcycles during the rally&mdash;often reaching four deep&mdash;presenting an opportunity to dispel misinformation that has spread throughout the motorcycle world concerning ethanol use in motorcycles. Bryan O&rsquo;Neill, a mechanic and member of the Iron Order Motorcycle Club, spoke at the National Ethanol Conference in February to explain the misleading claims. He noted, &ldquo;Naysayers are erroneously pointing out so-called problems with ethanol, using catchy terms like &lsquo;phase separation&rsquo;, to cast ethanol in a negative light. &hellip; This is the kind of misinformation that is being spread throughout the motorcycle community that is causing distrust in a product that we have been using for years.&rdquo; The Sturgis rally offers RFA a unique chance to reach a half million bikers with a message that not only counters the false information, but highlights the cost-saving, high-octane benefits of ethanol. RFA takes this opportunity to point out that motorcycle manufacturers&mdash;including Harley-Davidson, Kawasaki and Yamaha&mdash;approve the use of E10 in motorcycles, and explain that ethanol saves American drivers an average of $1 per gallon. One of the many ways RFA promotes ethanol is through the widely-popular &ldquo;Free Fuel Happy Hours,&rdquo; offering a free tank of E10 93-octane fuel to riders at the Sturgis Buffalo Chip campground. The promotion amasses lines 100 bikes long and gives our staff an opportunity to answer questions and dispel concerns about ethanol use in motorcycles.&nbsp; In addition to the &ldquo;Free Fuel Happy Hours,&rdquo; RFA maintains a large presence at the Sturgis Buffalo Chip campground. The campground has been the epicenter of the rally since it opened in 1981. Popular names like Florida Georgia Line, Zac Brown Band and ZZ Top grace the main stage where RFA reaches the crowd of more than 100,000 people with a message of &ldquo;Ride Safe, Fuel Right.&rdquo; Last, but certainly not least, RFA gives back to the Sturgis community through sponsorship of the annual &ldquo;Legends Ride.&rdquo; The event&rsquo;s proceeds are donated to local charities, including the Black Hills Special Olympics. All &ldquo;Legends Ride&rdquo; participants receive free &ldquo;Fueled with Pride&rdquo; giveaways and informational materials on ethanol before they embark on the ride that originates in Deadwood, S.D. The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally allows RFA to directly and effectively educate motorcycle riders on the cost-saving benefits of ethanol. Low-cost fuel is essential to bikers, because as they like to say, &ldquo;A good long ride can clear your mind, restore your soul and use up a lot of fuel.&rdquo;
&nbsp;
Author: Bob Dinneen President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association 202-289-3835

2014/07/Bob-Dineen_14068330879389_largethumb.jpg

2014/07/Bob-Dineen_14068330879389_thumb.jpg

2014/07/Bob-Dineen_14068330879389.jpg

Ready To Ride:  Bikers line up to fill up with a free tank of E10, courtesy of  RFA, during the annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. 

2014/07/RFA-Sturgis-EOM14_14051002938549.gif

The Renewable Fuels Association will once again have a presence at Sturgis, writes Bob Dinneen of RFA. The rally, which includes ""Free Fuel Happy Hours," is a unique chance to reach out to half a million bikers. 

Leading the Way  in Motorcycle Education  

The greatest challenge the ethanol industry faces is making higher blends of our product available to consumers nationwide. Producing ethanol is not the problem, it&rsquo;s getting the fuel into the marketplace.&nbsp; The production efficiencies of ethanol continue to improve: less energy, less water, less greenhouse gas&nbsp; emissions and higher yields, which makes our industry the envy of the world.&nbsp; Meanwhile, all the new oil gains from fracking and tar sands are taking the nation in the wrong direction, higher costs, increased use of resources and greater risks to our environment and air.&nbsp;&nbsp; Incredibly, despite overwhelming evidence about oil&rsquo;s dangerous practices and impacts, the renewable fuels industry is blamed by Big Oil and special interests for damaging the environment. It is as if Big Oil is living in an alternate reality. The facts speak for themselves, tens of thousands of spills a year, earthquakes from fracking and who could forget the BP spill in Gulf of Mexico or the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska? The list goes on and on.&nbsp; Our industry is often unfairly criticized for receiving federal tax subsidies when, in fact, we volunteered to give up the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit in 2011. However, oil tax subsidies began over 100 years ago and continue today. And, if that&rsquo;s not enough, our industry is blamed for higher food prices. In reality, the World Bank found that the biggest driver of food price increases is the cost of oil. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse! In all my years in Washington, that is the biggest whopper I have ever heard. Time and again, Big Oil damages our environment and actively propagates misinformation to keep the American consumer addicted to their product, and fearful of a cleaner, greener homegrown alternative to fossil fuels. The real reason for all this misinformation is simple. It is a fight over market share. The ethanol industry already has captured 10 percent of the market because of all the benefits it offers to consumers and the oil industry knows we have the capability to secure even more.&nbsp; All of the misleading rhetoric and all of the fights over the renewable fuel standard (RFS) in Congress, along with all of the efforts to get U.S. EPA to roll back the RFS is for one reason: market share.&nbsp; They are spending millions, not for what&rsquo;s best for America, or our environment, air, health or energy security, but to simply protect their monopoly on transportation fuels. The key to success is simple, breaking down the barriers to give consumers a choice at the pump. We know ethanol is a better performing fuel, cleaner, less expensive, higher octane and renewable. And, we have seen consumers actively choose higher blends of ethanol when given the choice. That is why we need to continue to fight to expand infrastructure and availability of higher blends. The demand is there and now we must overcome the legal, regulatory and public relations hurdles Big Oil has put in place in attempts to block market access for our product. Luckily, we have the facts on our side. In reality, the investment is not the burden, as consumer demand and competitive advantage will mitigate any short term spending with future growth in profit margins. Higher performance and lower fuel costs will keep customers coming back. The only hindrances are the misinformation Big Oil is spreading to mislead consumers about E15. Independent retail chains are beginning to realize that E15 offers them a price advantage and better margin opportunity. Chains such as Mapco, Minnoco and Murphy USA and others have all committed to expanding E15 offerings. In fact, retailers who currently have E15 available to consumers have reported the sale of the blend accounts for nearly 30 percent of all sales while providing better profit margins for the retailer.&nbsp;&nbsp; For anyone who is paying attention, E15 is the clear choice.&nbsp; Consumers can rest easy knowing that by using homegrown renewable fuels they are investing in American jobs and the American economy.&nbsp; By continuing to fight for our share of the market, spreading the word to our neighbors and increasing availability of higher blends throughout the country, we will win this fight.&nbsp; It is obvious higher blends of ethanol are what is best for America&rsquo;s energy future. Author: Tom Buis CEO, Growth Energy 202-545-4000 tbuis@growthenergy.org

2014/07/DRIVE-EPM-tom-1210_14051001021649_largethumb.gif

2014/07/DRIVE-EPM-tom-1210_14051001021649_thumb.gif

2014/07/DRIVE-EPM-tom-1210_14051001021649.gif

Big Oil is living in an alternate reality, blaming the renewable fuels industry for damaging the environment and receiving federal tax subsidies, writes Tom Buis of Growth Energy. The real reason for the misinformation is the fight for market share. 

Higher Blends Best For  America's Energy Future

We work in an industry that is measured in some very large numbers. Sometimes numbers in the billions, millions, trillions or quadrillions just meld together as we hear them or read them so that it&rsquo;s difficult to put them in perspective and compare them to something familiar. Carl Sagan, the &ldquo;billions and billions&rdquo; guy&nbsp; some of us remember, created one of the most famous solutions to this large-number challenge when he created a timeline that showed the history of planet earth as if it were one year. Most of what we know of human history happened in the final 60 seconds of Dec. 31, with Columbus discovering America one second before midnight. I don&rsquo;t have a chart like that to explain the state of the world&rsquo;s energy. But there have been some large energy numbers reported in the last month and I found them, and the reaction to them, fascinating. Last month, BP released its Statistical Review of World Energy, which is widely regarded as the oil industry&rsquo;s definitive report on how much oil and gas is out there, who has it, and how long it will last. Most news reports about the oil side of the study touted the fact that BP&rsquo;s estimate of proven reserves (Huh? Is it estimated or proven?) increased from 1.65 trillion barrels of oil to 1.67 trillion barrels. That&rsquo;s a lot. One trillion, 670 billion (rounded up) is a big number. The actual BP number looks like this: 1,669,000,000,000. If you convert that to gallons, it&rsquo;s 70,980,000,000,000 gallons. That&rsquo;s huge, right? BP&rsquo;s report also increased United States&rsquo; proven reserves from 31 billion barrels to 35 billion barrels. That&rsquo;s 35,000,000,000 barrels, 1,470,000,000,000 gallons or one and a half trillion gallons of oil. Even if you take that oil and figure out how much gas you could make for cars, it&rsquo;s a big number. Utilizing 700 billion gallons of gas in the U.S., 32.5 trillion gallons of gas could be produced from the worldwide proven oil reserves. Now, when you divide the 1.67 trillion barrels of oil among the 7 billion (7,180,000,000) inhabitants of the planet, you come up with 232 barrels of oil per person. You could make that into 4,500 gallons of gas and more than 2,000 gallons of diesel fuel.&nbsp; And those numbers are probably low, because a lot of the people on the planet use no fossil oil at all. But think about how much gas you use. How many years would it take you to burn up 4,500 gallons? Most responses to the article, and especially the comments below, fell into the category of &ldquo;See, they&rsquo;re lying. We have PLENTY of oil out there, and they&rsquo;re probably underestimating that.&rdquo; Ironically, the brave, &ldquo;so what&rdquo; comments came from Americans, who may not have realized that the 35 billion barrels we have, is roughly what we would use in five years. A commenter on one online story about the report said that there were probably 75 billion more barrels in the U.S. that we could recover. He didn&rsquo;t mention cost, but I suspect those additional gallons would require the same kind of shift in recovery cost that moved us from $20 a barrel to $120 in the past 15 years. And if it&rsquo;s there, it would bring the U.S. up to a total of 15 years of oil reserves. But then there one other number in the report that got most of my attention: 53. The report says we have enough oil left on planet Earth to last 53.3 years. That number stood out because I just celebrated my 53rd birthday. If my dad and the rest of the world had seen a report like this BP report on the day I was born, and did nothing, we would be out of oil by now. Fifty-three years does not feel like a long time to me. I plan to use my next 53 years to help all of you render that oil number irrelevant. &nbsp; Author: Ron Lamberty Senior Vice President American Coalition for Ethanol 605-334-3381 rlamberty@ethanol.org

2014/07/Lamberty,-Ron-2012_14051000186695_largethumb.gif

2014/07/Lamberty,-Ron-2012_14051000186695_thumb.gif

2014/07/Lamberty,-Ron-2012_14051000186695.gif

Ron Lamberty of the American Coalition for Ethanol outlines some very large numbers from BP's Statistical Review of World Energy. The number 53, in particular, caught his attention because it's the number of years the oil on planet earth will last. 

What's 1.67 Trillion  Divided By 53?  

Europe is in the process of reshaping its balance of power. The first step was the European Parliament elections in May. Later this year there will be a new European Commission and finally a new president of the European Council.&nbsp;
The elections in May revealed an important shift towards a more &ldquo;nationalistic&rdquo; Europe. As expected, the more eurosceptic powers won in strength that will force the pro-European parties like Christian-Democrats (EPP), Social Democrats (S&amp;D) and Liberals (ALDE) to work more in unison. Even though out of a total of 751 seats, the EPP kept its leading position (221), it has no other option but to work closely with the S&amp;D (191 seats) to obtain the majority needed to adopt legislation. Like in a classical prisoner's dilemma, only in this way the Parliament can counterweight the Council of Member States. This &ldquo;nationalistic&rdquo; shift in the balance of power will certainly have an impact on how in the next five years the European Commission will conduct its business. Notwithstanding that Jean-Claud Juncker, the designated Commission president, is a true European, he cannot ignore the almost 25 percent of the members of European Parliament that are highly critical of the European Union. The present Commission has understood this already when it published its 2020-&rsquo;30 energy and climate policy plans that foresees a much bigger role for the member states than we have seen ever before. What are the expectations for the biofuel industry and policy under the new balance of power? With almost 50 percent newly elected members of European Parliament, there must be a good opportunity to reset the discussion on biofuels. Interestingly, most of the members who were highly vocal in the indirect land use change (ILUC) discussion didn't succeed in re-election. But the emphasis in the debate needs to change. In the past, there was an almost exclusive focus on the environmental impact of biofuels. Now the industry needs to underline the benefits of biofuels for the economy and the opportunity to increase domestically produced energy. There might be new opportunities now that the EPP has taken the leadership in three crucially important parliamentary committees: energy, environment and agriculture. The S&amp;D will lead the Economic Affairs Committee, which may signal that for this political group economic recovery is what counts. In the past five years, a German Socialist who had a major influence in the discussion on ILUC&mdash;not to the benefit of the industry&mdash;presided over the environment committee. The Green group shrunk in size, which also creates an opportunity. However, the much larger group of eurosceptics could become a force that will express itself against an EU based biofuel policy from the point of view that the market should decide what transportation fuel to use. The challenge for the European ethanol industry is fourfold: 1) Rebrand by putting more emphasis on economic impact, domestic energy supply, agricultural opportunities, and technology push; 2) Inform new members of Parliament ASAP; 3) Scout for champions or a group of champions who will defend the industry; and 4) Put much more emphasis in the lobby at the national level. This stage of rebuilding political support for the ethanol industry cannot be underestimated. The ILUC-debate in the past two years demonstrated the tremendous impact only a few members of Parliament can have on the general perception of biofuels and the direction the decision making can take. As far as the new European Commission is concerned, it is too early to tell how it will position itself on the biofuel policy. Also very likely in this institution, we may see a shift that could be to the benefit of the industry. Much, however, will depend on what person (nationality) will head the Climate Action Department. If, again, this will be someone who dislikes biofuels, like the present Commissioner, we are in for a difficult time. Here too, finding a supporter of biofuels, is crucial. Author: Robert Vierhout Secretary-general, ePURE Vierhout@epure.org

2014/07/ePURE-EPM-rob-2013_14050998875478_largethumb.gif

2014/07/ePURE-EPM-rob-2013_14050998875478_thumb.gif

2014/07/ePURE-EPM-rob-2013_14050998875478.gif

The European biofuels industry is in need of a champion or champions to defend the industry, writes Robert Vierhout. As almost half of the elected members of parliament are new, it's a good time to reset the discussion on biofuels. 

Champion Time

Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings Inc. has announced the promotion of Mark Beemer to president and CEO. He joined the company as acting president in 2012. His responsibilities include corporate turnaround and leadership, strategic planning, capital expenditures, and implementing revenue initiatives through commodity risk management and disciplined financial management. He previously served as chief commercial officer at Osage Bio Energy and served on the board of Hawkeye Renewables. In 2006, he founded Alternative Energy Sources Inc., completing development of two 100 MMgy ethanol plant sites. Aventine also recently promoted Brian Steenhard to the position of chief financial officer. He joined the company in January 2013, with responsibility for financial reporting, budget and forecast modeling, strategic turnaround business initiatives, and providing commodity-hedging strategies for risk management. He previously worked at Hawkeye Energy Holdings LLC. In addition, Aventine has announced the promotion of John Valenti. He will now serve as vice president of operation and is responsible for overseeing the company&rsquo;s four ethanol plants and the development and execution of capital investments. Valenti joined Aventine in 2011 and previously worked at B&amp;G Foods in Portland, Maine.&nbsp; The Kansas Grain Sorghum Commission and the Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association have entered a cooperative agreement that will allow the two organizations to share office space and staff. KGSC will be the administrator of the two organizations.&nbsp; Norfolk Southern Corp. has announced recipients of its Thoroughbred Chemical Safety Award, which recognizes safe business practices in 2013. Among the 60 recipients are Abengoa Bioenergy, The Andersons Inc., Cargill Inc., Green Plains Inc., Poet Ethanol Products, and Valero Marketing &amp; Supply.&nbsp; Phibro Ethanol Performance Group has hired Larry &ldquo;Cam&rdquo; Fowler as senior director technical affairs at EPG, a division of Phibro Animal Health Corp. Fowler will be responsible for the operation and strategic direction of EPG&rsquo;s technical resources. He most recently served as a staff scientist and technical services manager with Novozymes North America.&nbsp; St1 Biofuels Oy announced it will deliver an Etanolix plant producing waste-based ethanol to North European Oil Trade Oy in Gothenburg, Sweden. The 5 MMly (1.32 MMgy) facility will take in food waste as feedstock. It is expected to be operational early next year. Syngenta has announced an agreement with Cellulosic Ethanol Technologies LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Quad County Corn Processors, to license its Adding Cellulosic Ethanol technology. John Campbell, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture, has joined Ocean Park Advisors, a corporate finance advisory firm. His duties will be to broaden the company&rsquo;s relationships, develop new business and help execute transactions. Campbell is credited as being one of the driving forces behind the creation of the U.S. biodiesel industry. He was also engaged in the ethanol industry starting in the 1990s, and served as president of the Nebraska Association of Ethanol Producers. Addax Bioenergy recently announced its facility in Makeni, Sierra Leone, has begun production of sugarcane ethanol and electricity. The company is expected to produce 85,000 cubic meters (22.45 million gallons) per year by the end of 2016. Addax Bioenergy is certified under the Roundtable of Sustainable Biomaterials and complies with the most stringent global sustainability standards. Dyadic International Inc. has appointed Michael Tarnok to its board of directors. He will also serve on the company&rsquo;s audit and compensation committees. Tarnok has extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry across many key areas including finance, operations and marketing. He is the current chairman and former interim CEO of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc. and spent the majority of his career at Pfizer Inc.
Strategic Environmental &amp; Energy Resources Inc. has announced that its subsidiary, MV Technologies, has been awarded a contract to supply one of its H2SPlus systems for removal of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) at the Pixley Biogas anaerobic digestion facility in California. The facility will be constructed adjacent to the existing Calgren Renewable Fuels Biorefinery. Biogas generated by the digester will be used to reduce natural gas consumption at the ethanol production facility. The U.S. Grains Council has promoted Katelyn Parsons to manager of communications. She will be responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of the USGC&rsquo;s social media, publications and online communications strategies.
Monsanto Co. has appointed Marcos Lutz to its board of directors. Lutz is the CEO of Cosan SA and a director of Cosan Ltd. He joined Cosan in 2007 and has served as CEO of Cosan SA and a director of Cosan Ltd. since 2009. Prior to joining Cosan, Lutz held senior leadership roles at Companhia Siderurgica Nacional SA. His appointment is effective immediately, and he will stand for election to the board at the 2015 annual meeting of shareholders. Lutz will serve on the science and technology committee and the sustainability and corporate responsibility committee.

2014/07/Beemer-Aug14_14050997249396.gif

2014/07/Campbell-Aug14_14050997259975.gif

2014/07/Fowler-Aug14_14050997271573.gif

2014/07/Parsons-Aug14_14050997281058.gif

2014/07/Steenhard-Aug14_14050997291346.jpg

2014/07/Tarnok-Aug14_14050997300348.jpg

2014/07/Valenti-Aug14_14050997310504.jpg

Business Briefs

There are multiple options in the ethanol producer&rsquo;s toolkit in the ongoing quest to improve efficiency and yield. They can be as basic as staying on top of maintenance and improving the reliability of the dozens of systems in the plant to reduce downtime. Some require systematic approaches to evaluating process parameters to identify the sweet spot. Other efforts may mean investing in new machinery or system upgrades, or choosing from an array of new products, with the accompanying challenge of validating their efficacy. Where have producers focused their attention in recent years and what lies ahead? &ldquo;From the moment you start up a plant and start producing ethanol, there&rsquo;s always a search for, how can I produce more ethanol with less inputs?&rdquo; said Lars Dunn, director of technical service for DuPont Industrial Biosciences and the 2014 recipient of the Award of Excellence at the International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo. Hands down, the most important investment of the past five years has been corn oil extraction, estimated to be installed at 90-plus percent of ethanol plants. However, there&rsquo;s a new round of mechanical improvements underway, Dunn pointed out. The new equipment is designed &ldquo;to get more of the starch, more of the fermentable sugars out of the matrix of the grain and into solution where it can be converted to ethanol,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;Things like selective milling, cavitation, ultrasound&mdash;some kind of mechanical treatment to get more starch out of the grain.&rdquo;&nbsp; At the same time, enzyme companies, like DuPont, Novozymes and others, have developed new enzymes that achieve &ldquo;the same things as the mechanical means, but without the capital investment,&rdquo; he said. On top of that, genetic engineers have developed a corn variety that produces its own alpha amylase and yeast that produces its own glucoamylase. Two ethanol producers, Keith Kor, general manager at Pinal Energy LLC, and Neal Jakel, former general manager at Illinois River Energy LLC, recently acquired by CHS Inc., echoed Dunn in naming the main technologies being adopted across the industry but gave equal emphasis to incremental improvements.&nbsp; Jakel said the team at IRE has 30 to 40 projects on the books, looking for incremental gains. &ldquo;You need a plan, both long term and short term,&rdquo; he stressed. In times of poor margins, such as in 2012, those plans may focus on low-cost, high-return projects, while periods of healthy margins open the door for larger investments. &ldquo;You have to be ready for that,&rdquo; he advised, adding that improvements need to be ongoing, if nothing else, to survive the next downturn, and provide returns to investors in spite of the margin environment. One area to focus on, he said, is to improve reliability and reduce downtime. &ldquo;We used to have seven-day shutdowns, two or three times a year, and now it&rsquo;s five days maybe twice a year,&rdquo; which, he pointed out, results in a substantial increase in gallons of ethanol produced. At Pinal Energy, Kor said they reduced downtime significantly through modifications in distillation. The team installed new trays in the beer column and rerouted feeds to run thin stillage through all three evaporators, modifications that reduced fouling and thus downtime. The big gain at Pinal Energy in Arizona came from a systematic evaluation of process variables, Kor said. The team tested a number of changes. &ldquo;What happens if we change the pH, increase or decrease enzymes, or change when we pitch the yeast? What happens if we raise the temperature 5 degrees?&rdquo; Using Six-Sigma methodology, the Pinal team found the sweet spot, which improved ethanol yield from 2.68 to 2.76 gallons per bushel of corn, according to Kor. Finding the sweet spot has been the goal for Nicholas Giffen, senior scientist, data analyst with Novozymes North America. Speaking at the FEW, he described his work in helping to develop the company&rsquo;s Golden Batch software. The system uses statistical analyses of operational data to identify correlations among various process parameters to find those giving the best yield: the golden batch. Giffen showed an example from a 110 MMgy plant, and how a statistical method called recursive partitioning found a correlation between slurry solids, cell counts and temperature. Analyzing multiple fermentations, a certain combination of the three parameters resulted in ethanol yields of 1.2 percent above the average and increased the frequency of golden batches from 15 percent overall to 35.5 percent. Once the statistical analysis identified the three key parameters, a root cause analysis determined the solids were being impacted by an enzyme issue at low solids. A cell count issue was caused by inconsistent propagation times and fermentations that were too fast at high cell counts. And, an analysis of prop temperature found lower temperatures increased viability. Using those insights, the set points for solids and prop temperature were adjusted and plant operators were trained to send the prop at the correct time to ensure proper cell counts. The Golden Batch analysis was then used to validate the implemented changes. In the applications to date, Giffen reported, each ethanol plant has proved to be unique, with different sets of three to five key variables rising to the top in the Golden Batch analysis. Six-Sigma and Golden Batch are just two systems that can be applied to process control. Other speakers at the FEW described other approaches, including Hank Brittain from OPX Control, who spoke on scoring and improving process control systems; Srinivas Budaraju with Rockwell Automation, who discussed model predictive control; Bill Whitlock with Novozymes described InDex, an analytical method for cook process optimization, and Glen Bowen with Ashland Water Technologies spoke on performance-based monitoring in process and water treatment chemical programs. Trialing Technologies Conducting proper trials is a big part of evaluating new technologies, and was the focus for other speakers at the FEW. Small, incremental improvements bring potentially substantial profits, but can be hard to validate. Chris Richards with Lallemand Biofuels and Distilled Spirits, outlined the elements of a successful plant trial in the panel on approaches to evaluating new process or technology deployments. The protocol should state the trial objectives and any assumptions, he advised, and outline how the trial will be implemented&mdash;the duration, how the baseline is to be set, sampling methodology, how comparisons between the baseline and trials are to be done. The protocol should define the responsibilities of the various parties involved and include steps to reduce risk, such as running a trial in a single fermentor and waiting for results before entering the full trial or implementing changes incrementally. Fred Clark with Arisdyne Systems described his company&rsquo;s approach to conducting trials, including outfitting a mobile laboratory to bring to sites to reduce disruptions from the added test runs. Ethanol plant operations are inherently variable with multiple sources, he pointed out, such as feedstock conditions, enzyme and yeast nutrition dosing, ambient and process temperatures, pH, backset and distillation, not to mention time. Everyone struggles to show small yield lifts, he said, yet small, incremental improvements potentially translate into substantial profits. Looking Ahead The FEW producer panel in the opening general session posed the question of what the next stage for ethanol innovation will be. Kor and Jakel spoke on the panel, along with James Moe, president of Poet Plant Management, and Paul Koehler, vice president corporate development at Pacific Ethanol Inc. All mentioned the expectation that cellulosic ethanol technologies will be adopted. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s the guys with the strong balance sheets that are in the front of that,&rdquo; Jakel said. The future will be a continuous evolution, said Moe, &ldquo;looking at the entire landscape of technology and identifying the opportunities. It may be hardware technology, maybe chemical or cellulosic. It might be market opportunities in our specific locations. It should be an exciting time in the industry.&rdquo; Jakel put product diversification high on his list of changes ahead. Many plants are going to build on oil extraction to tool their distillers grains for the best market near them, be it cattle for producers in Nebraska and Kansas or monogastrics for those further east in the Corn Belt. &ldquo;The next thing will be precursor chemicals such as biobutanol, adipic acid and succinic acid,&rdquo; he added. For Koehler, driving down the carbon score is the focus ahead for Pacific Ethanol&rsquo;s plants that serve the California market. That will include improvements to existing assets, plus bringing in new feedstocks to add to the corn now used. Better carbon scores for product being shipped to California is big on Kor&rsquo;s horizon as well. Pinal Energy will be adding biomass-fueled combined heat and power, he reported. Using wood waste from the Phoenix area just 40 miles north of the plant, Pinal Energy will get between 5 and 6 MW of electrical power plus process steam. Looking ahead at the ethanol industry, Kor predicted just as producers widely adopted oil extraction in the past five years, the industry is going to move into fiber extraction for cellulosic ethanol in the next five. New coproducts are going to emerge, with corn oil-to-biodiesel very likely, along with zein protein extraction, which has a variety of food and industrial uses, for use in biodegegradable plastics, among others. &ldquo;You&rsquo;re going to see more and more ways to get the best value,&rdquo; he said, &ldquo;and we&rsquo;re going to make plants more efficient.&rdquo; &ldquo;In the 1980s,&rdquo; Kor continued, &ldquo;2.62 gallons per bushel and 10 percent alcohol in the ferms were good. Now it&rsquo;s not. Now we see 16 and 17 percent alcohol in ferms and 2.9 to 3 is the gold standard to achieve for yield.&rdquo; Energy use has been nearly halved, he added. &ldquo;In the early days, energy use was around 40,000 to 44,000 Btu per gallon produced. &ldquo;Nowadays, we&rsquo;re at 18,000 to 26,000 Btu per gallon. Nobody thought we&rsquo;d ever get there, but we did. We&rsquo;ll continue to see improvement in all these areas.&rdquo; Dunn used terms of efficiency in the conversion of fermentable sugars to ethanol to quantify the industry&rsquo;s improvement. &ldquo;In the 1980s, we were in the low 80s in efficiency. We&rsquo;ve made a big leap in the last decade, going up by 10 percent,&rdquo; he said. The average in modern ethanol plants is at 92 to 93 percent efficiency, he added. &ldquo;The really good ones might be up there at 95 percent. What you&rsquo;re getting at is an improvement of a few percent.&nbsp; With scale, for a 100 MMGy plant, 2 percent is 2 million gallons.&nbsp; At $2.50-plus a gallon, that&rsquo;s a substantial amount of money.&rdquo; Author: Susanne Retka Schill Senior Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com &nbsp;

2014/07/Ethanols-NextStage_14050987785415_largethumb.gif

2014/07/Ethanols-NextStage_14050987785415_thumb.gif

2014/07/Ethanols-NextStage_14050987785415.gif

2014/07/Jakel,-Neal_0527_14050987799717.gif

2014/07/kieth-kor_14050987822968.gif

2014/07/lars-dunn_14050987844349.gif

PLANT OPTIMIZATION:  Pinal Energy took advantage of an extended downtime in the poor margin environment of 2012 to improve plant efficiencies.

2014/07/pinal-energy_14050987876556.jpg

INLINE TRIALING:  Thanks to a University of Arizona research project, Pinal Energy has two small fermentors fully integrated into the process line which can be used to test process tweaks and new products.


2014/07/pinal-energy2_14050987906252.gif

Forward-thinking producers will build on technological improvements implemented in recent years.

Toolkit For Ethanol's Next Stage

Nearly 560 ethanol producers, representing 86 percent of installed capacity and a total of 205 production facilities, attended FEW this year. Ron Beemiller, president and CEO of WB Services LLC, and Ray Defenbaugh, president of Big River Resources, participated in the grand opening event. Defenbaugh filled attendees in on Prime the Pump, a new three-year, ethanol producer-led marketing effort to build infrastructure to help retailers offer ethanol blends, and encouraged service providers to support it. &ldquo;If the industry does well, you will do well,&rdquo; he said. The June 10 general session was packed. The keynote address was given by Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, who highlighted the positive changes since last year. Although challenges remain, the industry will triumph if it stays active in the arenas of policy, politics, regulations, public relations and legal battles. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re going to win this fight, he said. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s not going to be easy but we&rsquo;re going to win it.&rdquo; Two panel presentations featured ethanol producers looking ahead to ethanol&rsquo;s next stage and long-time members of the industry, who addressed the industry&rsquo;s future through the lenses of the past. Speaking as part of the producer round table were Paul Koehler, vice president of corporate development for Pacific Ethanol Inc.,&nbsp; Keith Kor, general manager of Pinal Energy LLC, Neal Jakel, former general manager of Illinois River Energy LLC, James Moe, president of Poet design and construction and Poet plant management, and moderator Tim Portz, executive editor of Ethanol Producer Magazine. The other panel presentation included David Kolsrud, president of DAK Renewable Energy, Dave Vander Griend, CEO of ICM Inc., Phil Madson, president of Katzen International, Larry Johnson, president of LLJ Consulting, Lucy Norton, managing director of Iowa Renewable Fuels and moderator Mike Bryan, chairman of BBI International. Retiring CEO of National Corn Growers Association Rick Tolman also spoke, giving an overview of the state of American corn farming. Awards were presented to two long-time ethanol industry advocates: Lars Dunn, director of technical service for DuPont Industrial Biosciences, received the Award of Excellence, and Shirley Ball, chairperson of Ethanol Producers and Consumers, received the High Octane Award. Next year&rsquo;s FEW is set for June 1-4 in Minneapolis. Author: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com &nbsp;

PRODUCTION EXPERTISE:  Ethanol producers address issues facing the industry, now and in the future, during the general session. 

2014/07/FEW_GeneralSession_14050981771699_largethumb.gif

2014/07/FEW_GeneralSession_14050981771699_thumb.gif

2014/07/FEW_GeneralSession_14050981771699.gif

FULL HOUSE:   Attendees take in the general session program on June 10. The 30th anniversary FEW event was held in Indianapolis. 

2014/07/FEW_Crowd2_14050981761595.gif

2014/07/FEW_People_14050981782393.gif

NETWORKING:  Conference goers enjoy conversation during a break between speaker presentations. The Indiana State Capitol building can be seen in the background. 


2014/07/FEW_Scene_1405098179171.gif

KICKOFF TIME:  Ron Beemiller of WB Services LLC, center, cuts the FEW grand opening ribbon while Tom Bryan of BBI International and Ray Defenbaugh of Big River Resources assist.

2014/07/FEW_Scissors_14050981801718.gif

MEET AND GREET:  Tom Mascara of Connell Brothers Co. of Australia, left, and Jay Shetty of DuPont talk with another FEW attendee. 

2014/07/FEW_Talk_14050981811435.gif

CORN PROGRESS: Rick Tolman, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association, who is retiring this fall, outlines significant advances in corn farming. 

2014/07/FEW_Tolman_1405098182138.gif

WE WILL WIN:  Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy gave a rousing speech about the industry's fight for market share. 

2014/07/FEW_TomBuis_14050981831474.gif

PLANT EXPERTISE:   Lars Dunn, who travels around to various ethanol plants as part of his job with DuPont, accepts the Award of Excellence from Tom Bryan.


2014/07/FEW-Award_14050981841133.gif

TIRELESS ADVOCATE:  Shirley Ball, center, accepts the High Octane award from BBI International representatives Tim Portz and Tom Bryan. 


2014/07/FEW-Award2_14050981851828.gif

VICTORY FIELD:   A group of FEW attendees take in a Minor League Baseball game between the Indianapolis Indians and the Durham Bulls on June 11. 

2014/07/FEW-Ballgame_14050981862604.gif

CORN IS KING:  The Emerging Corn Production Technologies & Science Forum, an event collocated with FEW, was held June 9. Shown here, left to right, are speakers Fred Below, Beth Calabotta, Robert Little and David Meyer.

2014/07/FEW-CornForum_14050981884027.gif

TALKING SHOP:   Jessica Karras-Bailey of RTP Environmental Associates Inc. speaks to other conference goers in the expo hall. 


2014/07/FEW-Expo_14050981890514.gif

HEAVY EQUIPMENT:  Pat Sexton talks about the New Holland combine on display at this year's FEW. 


2014/07/FEW-Expo2_14050981902302.gif

FEEDBACK:  Marla Luther of the U.S. FDA asks a question following a breakout session presentation. 

2014/07/FEW-MarthaL_14050981911304.gif

DATA FLOW:  The event featured more than 150 speakers and moderators, including Sharine Ma of Rockwell Automation. 

2014/07/FEW-Speaker_14050981921397.gif

2014/07/FEW-Tour_14050981931747.gif

The 30th anniversary International Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo was held in Indianapolis June 9-12. 

Making Connections at FEW

When Charlie Good, mechanic and owner of Good &amp; Quick in Nevada, Iowa, started preparing to add E15 to his product offerings at his independent gas retail store, he noticed his contract with ConocoPhillips said he couldn&rsquo;t sell anything with an ethanol content higher than E10. He called his supplier and was told he&rsquo;d have to either wait several months, until his contract was up, or pay $30,000 to get out of it. In the end, Good negotiated an agreement that he would put his own canopy up and just fly the ConocoPhillips flag for the remainder of the contract. Good sees absolutely no downside in letting his ConocoPhillips contract run out and going with an unbranded fuel supplier. Still, he admits it was a difficult decision. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not going to lie to you and tell you I wasn&rsquo;t afraid of doing this,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;&hellip; I know how the big boys can eat you up if they want to.&rdquo;
Nationwide, there are 135,000 retail gas stations, with 84,000, or 63 percent, under single ownership, says Mike O&rsquo;Brien, vice president of market development for Growth Energy. And, unbranded or independent retailers, some of which are under single ownership and some that are not, are starting to offer E15. Over time, this will give those companies a competitive advantage and, eventually, force major oil brands to start selling it, he adds. Good agrees, saying that offering alternative fuel blends is a way for independent retailers to survive and excel against oil majors by finding a niche. &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t believe you will see Casey&rsquo;s or Kum &amp; Go or any of these majors adapt to these fuels, until the public demands it,&rdquo; he says, naming his two competitors in Nevada. Since his central Iowa gas station switched to an unbranded fuel, there have been no problems with fuel quality and Good is so confident there won&rsquo;t be, he 100 percent guarantees the fuel. So far, the only complaint Good has received is that that store no longer takes ConcoPhillips credit cards. Other than that, his customers couldn&rsquo;t seem to care less that the canopy no longer displays the name of an oil major. &ldquo;Brand loyalty means nothing now,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s all about what it&rsquo;s going to cost me.&rdquo; In fact, the end of May, Good had sold nearly 7,000 more gallons of fuel as compared to the same time last year. &ldquo;The big mistake that I made was, I only put one blender pump in,&rdquo; he says, adding that although he spent half a million dollars updating his station he wishes he had found the extra money to make all three of his pumps blender pumps. In all, 15 to 20 percent of his fuel sales is ethanol. There are other benefits. He&rsquo;s spending 2 to 7.5 cents less a gallon on unbranded fuel stock and saving significantly on credit card fees. His new supplier charges him a 1.7 percent fee on credit card payments from customers, down from 3 percent, his previous rate, saving him about $3,000 in one recent month. Detour Ahead Good isn&rsquo;t the only retailer encountering pushback from big-name petroleum distributors attempting to limit retailers&rsquo; options when it comes to selling ethanol blends, says Robert White, director of market development for the Renewable Fuels Association. That&rsquo;s been true for E85 but it&rsquo;s particularly been an issue with E15. &ldquo;The majors, at least until they feel a pinch from competitors, are pretty much either requiring that they put in all new equipment, label it to the nines, which would basically scare off any reasonable person, or they can&rsquo;t put it under their canopy at all.&rdquo;&nbsp; Darin Schlapia, the branch manager of Creston Farmer&rsquo;s Co-op in Iowa, encountered difficulty when he attempted to negotiate a brand agreement with Cenex for a new Farmer&rsquo;s Co-op location, which will be built in Mount Ayr, Iowa, this fall. Even though Cenex markets ethanol and distillers grains and recently acquired a 133 MMgy ethanol plant in Rochelle, Ill., its contract requires gas retailers offer at least two different grades of gas, E10 and straight gas with no ethanol content. In order to sell E15 and other higher blends, as the co-op planned, the gas station would have had to add additional equipment. Schlapia knew from sales numbers at the Farmer&rsquo;s Co-op station in Afton, Iowa, that the cooperative would sell more gallons of fuel if it offered E15 and other ethanol blends instead of ethanol-free gas. &ldquo;Afton sells regular 87 gasoline and we might sell 50 gallons a day at the most,&rdquo; he says, adding, for comparison, that the store could sell about 600 gallons of E10 in the same day. &ldquo;People are definitely choosing the higher ethanol blends. To spend that much money on equipment, just to have another grade of gasoline, was not economical.&rdquo; The Mount Ayr station will still purchase its fuel from Cenex but, because it&rsquo;s not a Cenex branded station, it isn&rsquo;t allowed to display that logo anywhere. Schlapia is disappointed in the Cenex stance on E15 and thinks it needs to be re-evaluated. And yet, he understands that the company is trying to make sure all Cenex branded stations have a consistent offering of the same fuels, he says. In Kansas, Scott Zaremba says Phillips 66 created new rules designed to keep him from selling E15 after he&rsquo;d already moved forward with becoming a registered E15 retailer. The oil company told him he had to sell E15 on a yellow E85 hose, which actually goes against U.S. EPA requirements for selling E15 to heritage vehicles. So he paid $380,000 to get out of his contract and changed the name of his seven gas stations from Zarco 66 to Zarco USA. &ldquo;They told me if I used anything with 66 in my name they&rsquo;d hang me out to dry,&rdquo; he says. The move was well worth it, in his opinion. &ldquo;We have to be able to sell whatever products we want out of our retail facilities that we own and we operate,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;&hellip; They were just trying to dictate what was going to happen at the facility and we weren&rsquo;t going to let them.&rdquo; In Minnesota, the Minnesota Service Station &amp; Convenience Store Association is working with independent retail stations to band together under one logo and the name Minnoco. So far, four retailers in the Minneapolis, St. Paul area have joined, says Lance Klatt, executive director of MSSA. Although selling alternative fuels isn&rsquo;t a requirement for Minnoco retailers, most are doing just that. With the help of various funding sources, including Growth Energy, the Minnesota Corn Growers, Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Lung Association, Minnoco retailers have received financial support to install equipment to sell E15 and other higher ethanol blends. That&rsquo;s a big draw for retailers who might not be willing to take a chance on E15 otherwise, Klatt says.&nbsp; Retailers have responded enthusiastically, appreciating the opportunity to bring new fueling options to their customers and make their own decisions on how to run their business. Klatt expects there will be 25 Minnoco stations offering E15 and higher ethanol blends by November. &ldquo;Right now we feel like it&rsquo;s the most sought after image in the Minneapolis marketplace,&rdquo; he says, adding that retailers like the look of the logo as well as the opportunity to manage their own brand.&nbsp;
 Of those stations already signed up, 15 or 20 percent of their sales are E15, E30 and E85. That&rsquo;s driving increased fuel sales to current and new customers. There&rsquo;s also work being done in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Agriculture Department to possibly launch E15 statewide, labeling it as the new midgrade fuel, he says.&nbsp; Author: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

REBEL WITH A CAUSE:  Good, owner of an independent gas station in Iowa, sells straight premium, E10, E15, E20, E30, E85 and biodiesel blends. 

2014/07/E15-FeatureFront-EPM14_14050976989493_largethumb.gif

2014/07/E15-FeatureFront-EPM14_14050976989493_thumb.gif

2014/07/E15-FeatureFront-EPM14_14050976989493.gif

NEW IMAGE:  Scott Zaremba was featured on the cover of EPM in February 2013, as the first station owner to offer E15 as a registered fuel to his customers. Since then, he changed the name of his stores to Zarco USA. 


2014/07/E15-FlexFuel-EPM14_14050977008425.gif

GROUNDBREAKING:  The Mount Ayr Farmerâ€™s Co-op gas station, which will be built this fall, received $225,000 in funding from the state of Iowa and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Infrastructure program. Schlapia is at far left and Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad 

2014/07/E15-Groundbreaking_14050978532539.gif

GOING MINNOCO GREEN:  Retailers that offer E15 and other ethanol blends donâ€™t just have to pay for additional equipment. Thereâ€™s also the cost of new signage, Klatt says. Thatâ€™s why funding from the ethanol industry and others, to pay for equip

2014/07/E15-Minnco-EPM14_14050977043646.gif

ITâ€™S A SUMMER THING:  Thanks to the U.S. EPA volatility rules, Good had to label E15 for flex fuel vehicle use. Itâ€™s confusing for customers, he says. 


2014/07/E15-Pump-EPM14_14050977062384.gif

Facing roadblocks from big name gasoline suppliers, nimble gas station owners change course to offer customers midlevel blends.     

E15 Retailers Get Creative

Water is essential for life&mdash;and ethanol production. To the ethanol industry, the name U.S. Water Services is as ubiquitous as they come, thanks to the company&rsquo;s solid reputation developed over the past two decades, offering ethanol clients increased efficiencies, conservation of resources and boosted profits. How did U.S. Water Services get its start?&nbsp;&nbsp; I had been working with Nalco for about 14 years in the sales division and really began seeing a shift in the industry with large-scale rollups taken by General Electric, Danaher and Nalco. I saw a need for a national alternative to middle-market companies that not only offered water treatment, but one that could offer system integration. That&rsquo;s really what set the whole thing in motion. In 1997, I mortgaged my house, cashed in my 401K and with the help of Stacey, my wife, Randy Meyer, our acting chief sales officer and Mike Bertrang, our acting regional manager for the Minneapolis/St. Paul and surrounding territories, we began our adventure. We started out with zero customers and no revenue, but a unified vision to bring innovative and state-of-the-art water treatment chemistries together with the equipment and engineering side of the business into an integrated package that maximized on-site efficiencies for the customer. We got our start in the ethanol industry by providing start-up water treatment services and programs to all but two of the ICM-constructed plants. I think what really helped us keep our stance in the industry, and continue to be a leader, is the fact that we innovate for the customer rather than to the customer. We strive to help them realize continuous improvement, developing products that help increase efficiency, production and profitability by removing bottlenecks in their system, which, in turn, help them stay competitive in the market. We realized a long time ago that success isn&rsquo;t only defined by company growth and milestones; it&rsquo;s also defined by helping customers realize their success in whatever way that is defined for them. Could you explain U.S. Water&rsquo;s integrated solutions approach to water treatment?&nbsp; What really differentiates us from our competitors is our ability to offer system integration combining water treatment chemistry and process chemistry, engineering, equipment and service that address a variety of concerns including safety, variability control, risk and or exposure mitigation, brand assurance, capital equipment integrity, yield, profitability, final ethanol quality and compliance. Part of the reason U.S. Water has seen so much success in the ethanol sector is our ability to use our integrated approach to find each customer a personalized solution. One size does not always fit all. By combining chemical, equipment, engineering and service into a seamless program, we provide not only continuous improvement to our customer base, but also measurable immediate and long-term ROI (return on investment). What does &ldquo;solution neutral&rdquo; mean in your approach to water service?&nbsp; It means that we keep the customer&rsquo;s best interest in mind. We train our representatives on chemical, mechanical and operational methods so they can focus on, and truly find, the best answer for the customer. It&rsquo;s not just about the differentiated product offerings we provide; it&rsquo;s the knowledge we&rsquo;ve gained through years of earned industry experience that enables us to package these products together in a solution-neutral way&mdash;finding an optimal resolution to your most challenging water, process and energy needs. How has water use at ethanol plants changed over the past 20 years? &nbsp; Ethanol plants need a constant supply of water, from 3 to 5 gallons per gallon of ethanol, which equals approximately 500 to 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm), depending on plant size and efficiency. Water conservation is critical as risks of water scarcity, wastewater disposal limitations and sustainability issues mount. Consequently, water use in ethanol production has decreased by half in the past 20 years. The Renewable Fuels Association&rsquo;s 2014 Ethanol Industry Outlook reports that, in 1994, 5.8 gallons of water was used to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. In 2014, this dropped to 2.7 gallons. Further efficiencies in water and energy use in the industry are necessary to meet future regulations that will continue to limit water use and impose stricter water discharge regulations. Producers must find ways to minimize water treatment and discharge costs in order to afford costs incurred by potential changes in regulatory compliance requirements. Plant operators must also plan ahead, ensuring they can renew discharge permits, so it is essential to know the plant&rsquo;s water footprint and operational effects of water quality in dry-grind ethanol production. &nbsp; How can ethanol producers reuse, recycle and conserve water in their operations? The ethanol production process requires significant amounts of water. Although process flows can be 600 to 1500 gpm, most is recycled within the process. Most of the approximate 40 to 100 gpm of water added to the process is added through the carbon dioxide scrubber. Just as an example, based on U.S. Water&rsquo;s experience, a mechanical-operational-chemical program can improve scrubber performance and save 10 to 40 gpm of fresh water. Other water- and energy-saving techniques include reduction or elimination of direct-injection steam-heating and returning condensate to the boiler along with redirecting boiler blowdown to the process, both of which recover high-quality water and energy; cascading water to lower-quality applications and operating cooling and boiler systems at higher cycles of concentration, both of which help conserve water; and using nontraditional water sources such as municipal graywater and plant stormwater. Two practical complications with water reuse and recycling affect the process side of ethanol production. First, treatment chemicals added to the process remain in the grains, and so must be acceptable and approved for animal feed. Second, anything sent to the beerwell will end up back in the front end and can affect fermentation. The water quality requirements for process water are based on what is bad for the yeast. Limitations on sodium, chloride, sulfate, oxygen, organic acids and even silica are commonly specified.&nbsp;&nbsp; How big is zero-liquid discharge in the ethanol industry, and how does it work? While zero liquid discharge (ZLD) systems have primarily been utilized due to a facility&rsquo;s inability to discharge water, this impetus is changing as water quality and scarcity are becoming significant issues in many parts of the country. ZLD systems are now in use not only to eliminate discharge, but to save water&mdash;potentially reducing freshwater requirements by approximately 30 percent by eliminating wastewater discharges and optimizing water use within the plant. A well-designed system minimizes the volume of liquid waste requiring treatment and produces a clean stream suitable for use elsewhere in the plant. The majority of water in ethanol plants is evaporated, and this must be replaced. The key to reducing overall wastewater flow is to select, and optimize, the equipment and the flow-stream quality generated by the equipment. An estimated 40 to 50 of the 216 conventional fuel ethanol facilities in the U.S. are operating as ZLD facilities, with several more in the process for discharge- or water-related savings. U.S. Water has helped plants achieve ZLD since 2006 with installation of the first-ever cold lime softening ZLD system in a dry-grind ethanol plant in Madera, Calif. We just completed our 16th ZLD installation most recently at Bushmills and are excited to see the resulting success. We&rsquo;ve utilized multiple techniques to help customers meet discharge limits and reduce water use, including high-efficiency reverse osmosis, evaporators and crystallizers, as well as utilizing rainwater by using a skimmer and filter system and an evaporation pond to eliminate water discharges.

2014/07/Allan-Bly_14050969903174_largethumb.gif

2014/07/Allan-Bly_14050969903174_thumb.gif

2014/07/Allan-Bly_14050969903174.gif

Allan Bly, founder and CEO of U.S. Water Services, discusses the major role water—and his company—play in the ethanol industry.

Water Sage

Making ethanol today is not unlike what the Hatfields did in Appalachia a century ago: set up a still, add the magic ingredients and make product. If you sat down and chatted with ethanol producers today, the process obviously is more sophisticated now. Among the many efficiency gains being sought today, they might talk about holding the line or possibly reducing the costs the company pays for natural gas per unit of product, or discuss ongoing efforts to reduce emissions. The U.S. industrial sector accounts for approximately one-third of all energy used in the country, consuming 32 quadrillion Btu annually while emitting 1,680 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the process, according to a May 2005 study of U.S. industrial commercial boilers by the Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. About 40 percent of this energy consumed in the industrial sector is used to fire boilers to generate steam and hot water. Out of that, it is estimated that 20 to 50 percent of the energy used to fire boilers is lost as waste heat. On the high side, that equates to 6.4 quadrillion Btu lost up the stack.&nbsp; Since ethanol plant boilers are a subset, what solutions are available for operators to reduce wasted heat? Charles Stremick, chief operating officer of Plymouth Energy LLC, Merrill, Iowa, began reviewing the various technological approaches to improve fuel consumption and utilization for industrial boilers with varying cost benefit profiles. Efforts toward greater efficiency historically have been to install systems that will either focus on combustion processes or capture exhaust heat for use in preheating boiler feed water or combustion air, thereby reducing input Btu requirements for process heat loads. These technologies include, but are not limited to, oxygen trim systems, burner control packages, linkageless controls, economizers, flue gas recirculators, modulating dampers and variable frequency drive blower motors. In larger power boilers, there exist modulating flue dampener systems designed to limit high-negative or excess draft. Excessive draft will pull heat out of the boiler sooner than necessary and before complete heat transfer can occur. Excessive draft conditions will cause an energy-efficient boiler to operate inefficiently (i.e., combustion and thermal). Optimized modulating draft control systems require a complicated interconnected system of hardware and sensors that cause the flue damper to open or close in response to boiler modulation as well as what is going on in the boiler exhaust stack. History has shown these complex systems are expensive and require a diligent maintenance effort to keep them calibrated. During his research, Stremick came across a new proprietary technology created by Energy Conservation Management Inc. ECM&rsquo;s draft regulator is an engineered solution that reduces flue stack velocities, allowing for improved heat transfer dwell time and reduced fuel consumption, while maintaining current process heat levels. After careful review of the various technologies and the associated paybacks, Plymouth Energy chose the ECM solution. Working with its local partner, Efficium LLC, Sioux City, Iowa, ECM installed its&nbsp; draft regulator (EDR) technology in both boilers at the Plymouth Energy facility in March. Installed in the exhaust stack above the roof line, the design of the EDR provides a means to &ldquo;tune&rdquo; the boiler for optimal combustion and thermal efficiency, while meeting system load demands and reducing fuel rate consumption at low, medium and high fire rates. Highly developed installation protocols are used to reduce natural gas inputs, excess combustion air, exhaust gas stack temperatures, exhaust velocity and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. These reductions are coupled with improvements in combustion efficiency and fuel-to-steam efficiency, without a reduction in the boiler&rsquo;s ability to produce steam. A properly installed and tuned EDR leads to a reduction in boiler fuel consumption as illustrated in the accompanying table showing pre- and post-installation stack readings at Plymouth Energy. Proper installation and tuning of the EDR also increases heat transfer dwell time, resulting in improved heat production level (psi/min)&nbsp; with an increase of 3.9 percent within the boiler system as presented in the accompanying table on Steam Production Rate Testing. The importance of heat transfer dwell time, along with creating an environment for complete combustion, results in a more rapid process heat production capacity with less fuel input. In addition, the reduction of consumed fuel per unit of product reduces the negative emissions into the atmosphere. Once the ECM/Efficium team performs the diagnostics of a specific boiler, we quickly determine if this device is beneficial for the client. The unit is installed according to specific procedures, protocols and measurement parameters that ultimately lead to a &ldquo;hands off&rdquo; device for the next 25 years. When asked how he reached a decision to install the ECM solution over the other technologies utilizing stack gas restrictions, Stremick said, &ldquo;We looked at other systems, but the cost was much higher and the install required downtime for the plant.&rdquo; The time targeted for the proposed ECM install was going to coincide with Plymouth Energy&rsquo;s high margin months, which meant it was imperative that an installation could not affect production.&nbsp; Plymouth Energy had previously added several other features to its 2,200 HP Superior, two-pass, dry-back, fire tube power boiler, including a Webster burner, AutoFlame burner control system, oxygen trim, linkageless parallel positioning, and flue gas recirculation system with a Cain economizer and a fixed-drive combustion air blower. When the results of the installation were complete, ECM presented its findings to the plant management team.&nbsp; &ldquo;The results did surprise me a bit,&rdquo; Stremick said. &ldquo;They guaranteed 4 percent (in fuel savings) and beat their guarantee by a good margin (almost 2 percent). We are very detailed about tuning our boilers with seasonal changes to make sure they are running as efficiently as possible.&rdquo; That 6 percent savings goes right to the win column for the company. The white paper on the installation is available at from ECM. Stremick also pointed out his company was pleasantly surprised by two additional benefits, the first being the elimination of their &ldquo;boiler rumble,&rdquo; which is a thermal acoustic harmonic event that often occurs in large power boilers, and second, the notable reduction in the production of NOx emissions. &ldquo;The NOx was reduced by approximately 38 percent on one boiler and nearly that much on the other boiler as well. This makes a green company even greener and more competitive in certain states and countries,&rdquo; Stremick said. Author: Ed Sanchez Director of Engineering, Energy Conservation Management 480-443-2397 esanchez@ecmgmt.net Contributing Author: Jim Hatfield, freelance writer, Scottsdale, Arizona
&nbsp;
The claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ethanol Producer Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).

SEEKING EFFICIENCY:  The Plymouth Energy LLC ethanol plant in Merrill, Iowa.

2014/07/Plymouth_Energy-_14050967454389_largethumb.gif

2014/07/Plymouth_Energy-_14050967454389_thumb.gif

2014/07/Plymouth_Energy-_14050967454389.gif

2014/07/Energy-Chart1_14056249215443.jpg

2014/07/Energy-Chart2_14056248386842.jpg

Installing draft regulator in exhaust stack improves boiler operations, 
thermal efficiency.

New Technology Reduces Natural Gas Consumption

When the world&rsquo;s largest biomass-fueled power plant, the E.On station in Lockerbie, Scotland, receives its chopped willow coppice fuel on site, it has been efficiently harvested and prepared by a New Holland FR9080. With productivity maximization in mind, the team at New Holland designed its FB130 willow header to double harvesting acreage achieved by existing market models, enabling yields of up to 10.2 metric tons of dry matter per hectare.
 In Northern Italy&rsquo;s Turin, at the La Bellotta farm, a second generation NH2 hydrogen-powered tractor is utilized in the field. While fueled with hydrogen, a 1-MW onsite biogas plant produced the methane that was converted into fuel to power the machine.
 In Guragon, near Delhi, India, A2Z Maintenance &amp; Engineering is currently operating a fleet of 105 New Holland tractors, 45 conventional balers, 15 rakes and two mowers. At this operation,&nbsp; waste left in paddy, cotton, corn and oilseed rape fields is harvested&mdash;rather than burned in the field&mdash;for production of 45 MW of electricity at three separate biomass power projects in the Punjab region.
 And in Brazil, New Holland has partnered with Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, or the Sugar Cane Technology Center, to utilize a whole range of New Holland equipment&mdash;tractors, windrowers, large square balers and bale accumulators&mdash;to bale sugar cane straw at two test farms. Not just for conversion to ethanol, but also for transformation into energy at power plants.
 While New Holland began to quietly examine and seize opportunities to assist the biomass industry several years ago, it was just recently that the company began a push to showcase its global involvement in woody biomass and agriculture projects, according to Scott Wangsgard, biomass marketing specialist.&nbsp; Along with its massive fleet of equipment, the company touts its Clean Energy Leader strategy, a way of thinking that Wangsgard says drives many things, from lowering its machines&rsquo; carbon footprints to maximizing plant and fuel efficiency. For example, New Holland&rsquo;s large square boiler requires 16 percent less fuel than similar machines on the market. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s all about smart design,&rdquo; Wangsgard says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s just better for everybody.&rdquo;
 While most farmers are experts when it comes to selecting the kind of equipment they need, Wangsgard emphasizes that acquiring appropriate machinery can make or break an operation. &ldquo;[The biomass industry] isn&rsquo;t operating on huge margins right now, so anything that increases efficiency helps. If you can cut down on the cost of your machinery going in, that&rsquo;s huge, as well as getting the right machinery for the right job.
 &nbsp;For that purpose, evaluating similar past or ongoing projects may be of great value. Wangsgard gives the example of corn stover. &ldquo;What&rsquo;s the best way to harvest it? There are good opportunities to look around and see what other people have done and are doing, and then determine ways to improve it.&rdquo;
 New Holland dealers are well-trained and continually brought up-to-speed on machinery for biomass operations to assist farmers becoming familiar with equipment or features. &ldquo;We have service training for technicians and sales associates&mdash;just a few months ago, we had a sales training on forage harvesters out in California,&rdquo; Wangsgard says. &ldquo;Dealers send their staff out there to see the machines run and perform certain tasks.&rdquo;
 Many companies are increasingly targeting the biomass industry for business, but Wangsgard says that there are a few things that set New Holland apart. &ldquo;One thing that&rsquo;s unique about us, as far as different options or ways to go, is that we offer everything from a forage harvester to corn rower attachment, a complete line of everything that people are using right now in biomass.&rdquo;
 &nbsp;Wangsgard says New Holland&rsquo;s large square balers are very popular, especially for cellulosic projects. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re very efficient, don&rsquo;t take much horsepower compared to competitor units, save on fuel, and their knotter reliability has been incredible. We spent a lot of time and effort on that&mdash;if those piles are set up correctly, knots can be tied without misses. That&rsquo;s a very good thing for biomass.&rdquo; Author: Anna Simet Managing Editor: Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-738-4961

2014/08/AdBio-Biomass-NewHolland-0814_14071710907668_largethumb.jpg

2014/08/AdBio-Biomass-NewHolland-0814_14071710907668_thumb.jpg

2014/08/AdBio-Biomass-NewHolland-0814_14071710907668.jpg

New Holland was at the forefront of the introduction of Tier 4A emissions technology, and has reduced emissions 100 times over the past decade.

2014/08/AdBio-Biomass-NewHollandInfo-0814_14071710931273.jpg

A New Holland forage cruiser works the field.


2014/08/FR_Forage-CruiserBMM_14071710963514.jpg

Armed with a history of innovation in agricultural equipment, New Holland is poised to play a significant role in the expanding biomass industry.

Imagination for Mechanization

The U.S. EPA's proposed rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, manufacturing facilities, and other stationary sources mark a pivotal moment for biomass technologies. If done right, these rules have the potential to drive major investments in biomass for power, transportation fuel and other products.&nbsp;
 One key question is how the EPA will account for emissions of CO2 from direct combustion or fermentation of biomass. To fully realize the potential for CO2 reductions from biomass, the EPA must recognize and fully account for the carbon uptake and fossil emissions avoided through biomass substitution.
 The recent release of the EPA&rsquo;s proposed rules for CO2 emissions from new and existing power plants finds the agency again at risk of undervaluing the role of biomass, substantially hindering development of the technologies most capable of mitigating climate change.&nbsp;
&nbsp; Without clarification from the EPA, these rules could leave many biomass technology providers on the curb, just as the single biggest environmental policy of this generation comes into focus. The agency's proposal to limit the emissions of new fossil fueled power plants will require the use of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. As written, this will affect primarily coal-fired plants, but in the future any carbon-emitting facility could be subject to this requirement.
 The EPA's other proposed rule, which will regulate power generation from existing facilities, directs each state to come up with a custom approach to reduce emissions. By requiring states to lower the carbon intensity of their energy sectors, this rule opens new opportunities for biomass generation.&nbsp; If implemented correctly, it could also create new opportunities for products derived from biomass grown, in part, from waste CO2 emissions.
 Regrettably, the EPA overlooks the role of this particular process, known as carbon capture and utilization (CCU), that could reduce emissions, incentivize new technologies and boost economic growth.&nbsp; This stems from the current view of waste CO2, as just that&mdash;waste.
 The implications are enormous. If CO2 is not recognized as a possible feedstock, and if power plants are not encouraged to use their CO2 as such, the EPA's regulations will severely inhibit the development of a range of promising new biomass technologies.
 The interpretation could also impact innovative CO2 reuse technologies like BioProcess Algae, whose greenhouses produce algae from the carbon dioxide that is a byproduct of ethanol production in Iowa. Forcing the burial of waste CO2 makes about as much sense as requiring that all used cars or appliances be permanently discarded in junkyards, rather than recycled into new and valuable products.
 In fact, the U.S.&rsquo;s own guidelines (waste management hierarchy and Pollution Prevention Act of 1990) direct that waste be treated in a hierarchy of approaches that first emphasizes reduction, reuse and recycling. Disposal is seen as a last resort.
 Reusing CO2 will also reduce the amount of the gas in the atmosphere&mdash;even if it is used to make fuels. Biomass-based products can displace their fossil-derived counterparts, in most cases with no performance trade off. What better way to sequester carbon than by keeping existing fossil carbon underground in the first place?
 The products from these new technologies will empower consumers to live comfortable lifestyles without the harmful carbon impacts of past industrial technologies.&nbsp; This new generation of products will give consumers a tool to fight climate change that they will gladly embrace, because it provides triple bottom line benefits&mdash;economic growth, social benefits and environmental impact.
 We all have a stake in ensuring that the EPA or any other regulatory body is encouraging development of new technologies and approaches and not shutting the door on any new idea. The Algae Biomass Organization will continue to focus on educating policymakers on the importance of accepting CCU as a legitimate and preferred emissions reductions strategy. Author: Matt Carr Executive Director, Algae Biomass Organization <a href="mailto:www.algaebiomass.org">www.algaebiomass.org</a> 877-531-5512

2014/08/BB-Biomass-Carr-0814_1407171212592_largethumb.jpg

2014/08/BB-Biomass-Carr-0814_1407171212592_thumb.jpg

2014/08/BB-Biomass-Carr-0814_1407171212592.jpg

The U.S. EPA's proposed rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, manufacturing facilities, and other stationary sources mark a pivotal moment for biomass technologies. 

High Stakes for Biomass in EPA Climate Regulations

Renewable synthesized iso-paraffinic fuel has now been included in ASTM International standard D7566, Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons. According to ASTM, a recently approved revision that adds synthesized iso-paraffinic fuel to the ASTM D7566 annex will facilitate use of the fuels in all airlines internationally. The revised standard ensures biobased fuel quality equal or superior to petroleum-derived aviation turbine fuels.
 First approved in 2009, ASTM D7566 covers an end-to-end evaluation program to verify and ensure that products covered by the standard are fully compatible with all engine parts and all material and equipment used in the supply chain.
 &ldquo;The introduction of renewable fuel into the aviation industry enables a meaningful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions without compromising fuel performance,&rdquo; says ASTM member Fernando Garcia, senior director of scientific and regulatory affairs at Amyris Inc.

ASTM announces revised aviation fuel standard 

Enerkem Inc. held a grand opening for its commercial-scale trash-to-biofuels plant in Edmonton, Alberta, on June 4. Construction on the project began August 2010. Once the plant is fully operational, it will have a production capacity of up to 38 MMly (10 MMgy). Using presorted municipal solid waste, it will help the city of Edmonton divert 90 percent of its residential waste stream from the landfill.
 &ldquo;We are proud of the inauguration of our first full-scale biorefinery facility as it is the culmination of more than 10 years of disciplined efforts to scale up our technology from pilot and demonstration, to commercial scale,&rdquo; said Vincent Chornet, president and CEO of Enerkem.
 The Edmonton facility is the first of what the company hopes will be a string of commercial developments.&nbsp; As part of its Waste Management investor agreement, Enerkem may be developing up to 20 facilities in North America, Chornet said. With the first plant about to become operational, others have expressed interest. &ldquo;Nobody wants to be first, but many are willing to be second,&rdquo; he continued.

Celebrating a New Milestone: Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development for the Government of Alberta Robin Campbell (left), Enerkem CEO Vincent Chornet, and Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson cut the ribbon at Enerkemâ€™s municipal waste-to

2014/08/News-Biomass-Enerkem-0814_14071713163259.jpg

Enerkem inaugurates Edmonton 38 MMly trash-to-biofuels facility  

Biogas upgrading and the production of biomethane is a state-of-the-art-process of gas separation, and a number of proven technologies currently exist to fulfill the task of producing a biomethane stream of sufficient quality. These commercially available technologies have proven to be both technically and economically feasible.
 Lars-Evert Karlsson, global product line manager for Bremen, Germany-based Purac Puregas, which designs and delivers biogas upgrading plants, says biogas production is growing around the world and there is an increasing demand for upgraded biogas to be used as vehicle fuel or injected to the natural gas grid. &ldquo;To enable the efficient use of biogas in these applications, the gas must be upgraded&mdash;for example, the carbon dioxide, which constitutes a large part of the raw biogas from the digester, must be separated from the methane,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Methods commercially available today include amine scrubbers, water scrubbers, pressure swing adsorption (PSA) units, organic scrubbers and membrane units.&rdquo;
 Ricardo Hamdan, management consultant for Greenlane Biogas Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia, says amine and cryogenic methods are also used, but are less common than water scrubbing, pressure swing absorption and membranes due to their higher cost. A recent Swedish Gas Technology Centre (SGC) report written by Fredric Bauer, Christian Hulteberg, Tobias Persson and Daniel Tamm shows that for midscale applications, the most common options are all viable. &ldquo;The scrubbing technologies all perform well and have similar costs of investment and operation,&rdquo; says Karlsson, who contributed to the SGC report. &ldquo;The simplicity and reliability of the water scrubber has made this the preferred choice in many applications, but the high purity and very low methane slip from amine scrubbers are important characteristics.&rdquo;
 The SGC report finds that the investment costs for PSA and membrane units are about the same as they are for scrubbers, yet recent developments of the membrane units have made it possible to reach low methane slips.
 Understanding the Choices
 Hamdan and Greenline contributed to the recent American Biogas Council&rsquo;s interactive report, &ldquo;Biogas to Biomethane/Renewable Natural Gas,&rdquo; which explains how each of the methods work. &ldquo;It is an OPEX vs. CAPEX game,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Most are comparable, but while membranes are the least expensive on capex, the operating cost is way higher than the water scrubber or PSA, for example.&rdquo;
 Stephanie Thorson, business development leader with the Biogas Association, explains that the biogas will include substances that will need to be removed in order to inject it into the pipeline, including carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, nitrogen, ammonia, siloxanes and particles. &ldquo;Concentrations depend on the compositions of the substrates used to create the biogas,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;To prevent corrosion and mechanical wear of the equipment, it can be advantageous to clean the gas before upgrading.&rdquo;
 The most widely used technologies for biogas upgrading are the following, as described by the International Gas Union.
 Pressure swing adsorption: This technology purifies the gas by way of adsorption of impurities on active coal or zeolites.
 Physical absorption: Water or another liquid such as alcohol can be used to bind carbon dioxide. This is called water scrubbing or pressurized water wash.
 Chemical absorption: Chemical absorption is comparable to water absorption. A liquid such as amine is chemically bonded to the carbon dioxide. In order to recycle the solution, a heat treatment is applied.
 Membrane separation: Methane can be separated from carbon dioxide using semipermeable membranes. The force can be a pressure difference, a concentration gradient, or an electrical potential difference.
 Cryogenic separation: Trace gases and carbon dioxide are removed by cooling down the gas in various temperature steps.
 &ldquo;Because of the high cost of upgrading, it is important to choose a system that has low energy consumption and high efficiency, giving high methane content in the upgraded gas,&rdquo; according to Thorson, who authored &ldquo;Farm to Fuel: Developers&rsquo; Guide to Biomethane,&rdquo; to help farmers determine if biomethane production is a good fit for their farm and operations. &ldquo;The best technology choice is based on the parameters of your plant, such as the prices of electricity and heat. It is possible to lower the methane loss, but at the expense of higher energy consumption.&rdquo;
 For biomethane projects, the size, level of automation and the complexity of the system determines the amount of hours per week required to operate the system. This can range from one part-time operator for several hours each day to full-time operators. Arthur Wellinger, managing director of Triple E&amp;M, an internationally operating consulting company located in Aadorf, Switzerland, and general manager of the Swiss Biomass Association, says in Europe, water washing is the most commonly used method.
 &ldquo;It is&mdash;next to PSA&mdash;the oldest technology and still reasonably good,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Other technologies are increasing fast like chemical absorption and membranes. Chemical absorption has the lowest methane emission without any further treatment with the lowest electricity consumption, however, a high heat consumption that has to be produced in most cases by renewable energy.&rdquo;
 Equipment Needed
 Just as the methods are different, according to Hamdan, the equipment needed for each technology is drastically different. &ldquo;Most will have a booster blower, a compressor to work under pressure, vessels with an absorber (either water or a chemical), dryers and a booster compressor to send to either pipeline or vehicles,&rdquo; he says.
 Looking at amine scrubbing, Karlsson says the use of reactive systems for removing CO2 from biogas is not a brand new notion, but it is less common compared to other technologies such as PSA and water scrubbing. &ldquo;The synopsis of features of the technology is to use a reagent that chemically binds to the CO2 molecule, removing it from the gas,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;This is most commonly performed using a water solution of amines (molecules with carbon and nitrogen), with the reaction product being either in the molecular or ion form.&rdquo;
 The technology consists of an absorber, in which the CO2 is removed from the biogas, and a stripper, in which the CO2 is removed from the amine solution.
 While not yet commercially available, Karlsson notes that new process designs have been suggested, in which double absorption columns will be used, one of which is pressurized to increase the solubility of carbon dioxide in the solvent and thus increase the separation of the gases.
 As described in the SGC report, pressure swing adsorption is a dry method used to separate gases via physical properties. Explaining PSA on a macro level, the raw biogas is compressed to an elevated pressure, and then fed into an adsorption column, which retains the carbon dioxide but not the methane. When the column material is saturated with carbon dioxide, the pressure is released, and the carbon dioxide can be desorbed and led into an offgas stream. For a continuous production, several columns are needed as they will be closed and opened consecutively. PSA unit characteristics include feeding pressure, purging pressure, adsorbent, cycle time and column interconnectedness among other things.
 Karlsson says that a common design for PSA units includes four columns with one of the columns always engaged in adsorption, while the other three are in different phases of regeneration.
 Membrane separation has been around since 1990, and the ability to combine high methane recovery with high methane concentration requires selective membranes and suitable design, as the membranes used for biogas upgrading retain most of the methane, while most of the carbon dioxide permeates through the membrane.
 According to &ldquo;Membrane Technology and Applications,&rdquo; written by R.W. Baker, the permeation rate through a typical membrane (made of a glassy polymer) used in biogas applications is mainly depending on the size of the molecules, but also on the hydrophilicity.
 There are several membranes on the market today used for biogas upgrading, including two types of polymeric (glassy polymers), hollow fiber membranes (Air Liquide MedalTM and Evonik Sepuran) and one carbon membrane (manufactured by MemfoACT AS). The membranes are continuously improved to get higher selectivity, higher permeability and cheaper manufacturing.
 Hamdan describes a water scrubber as a physical scrubber that uses the fact that carbon dioxide has much higher solubility than methane in water. In a water scrubber, carbon dioxide is separated from the raw biogas and dissolved into the water in the absorption column by using high pressure, normally 6 to 10 bar. Carbon dioxide is then released from the water again in the desorption column by addition of air at atmospheric pressure. Some water scrubbers are also equipped with a heat recovery system that can be used to heat the digester.
 Pros and Cons
 Hamdan emphasizes that regardless of the technology chosen, it could fit in a wastewater treatment plant, a large landfill, or a simple farm. &ldquo;The versatility of the product is important. Also the market potential, how big it is and how the switch to natural gas in transportation fuel and the deployment of this natural gas infrastructure will help biogas projects flourish as customers find value on renewable natural gas&mdash;the purified biogas, which is equivalent in composition with regular natural gas,&rdquo; he says.&ldquo;In the U.S., transportation fuel and the RIN market is driving the deployment of RNG.&rdquo;
 He explains the pros and cons of each method as follows:
 Physical Solvent (other than water): &ldquo;The pros are a high absorption rate, high-CH4 yields are possible, and it can deliver biomethane at low pressure. The cons include the solvent is dangerous to handle, it&rsquo;s complex with a difficult control system, there&rsquo;s a prohibitive capital cost for new equipment and the biogas/landfill gas contaminants cause foaming.&rdquo;
 Physical Membrane (high-pressure process): &ldquo;The benefits include its low capital cost, simple plant and experience upgrading LFG. Meanwhile, the disadvantages are a low biomethane purity, high energy consumption and membranes foul and require replacement.&rdquo;
 PSA/VSA (pressure swing absorption, vacuum swing adsorption): &ldquo;The good things about this method are it can remove some inert gasses, often with an additional process module and a low-efficiency version is cost-effective for the small-scale operator. Cons include the media could become fouled and require replacement, problems maintaining a high CH4 recovery, bed fluidization causes &ldquo;dusting&rdquo; of media, and upstream H2S removal is required.&rdquo;
 Water Scrubbing: &ldquo;The pros are that it offers excellent safety and proven performance, it&rsquo;s reliable, simple and easy to maintain, it has low capital and operating costs, siloxanes are effectively removed and it can take high levels of H2S. The bad is that it cannot remove inerts such as oxygen and nitrogen.&rdquo;
 Hybrid Water Scrubbing plus VPSA: &ldquo;Benefits for this method are it can remove inert gasses, is reliable and easy to maintain, can meet stringent regulation&mdash;such as California&rsquo;s Rule 30&mdash;and has excellent safety and proven performance. The biggest disadvantage is that it requires a larger footprint.&rdquo;
 In the report, &ldquo;Biogas to Biomethane,&rdquo; prepared by the Vienna University of Technology,&nbsp; it is determined that providing a universally valid comparison of the different biogas upgrading technologies is difficult, because the multitude of essential parameters strongly depend on local circumstances. Furthermore, the technical possibilities of a certain technology (for example, regarding the achievable biomethane quality) often do not correspond with the most economic operation.
 &ldquo;The technical development of most biogas upgrading methods nowadays is typically sufficient to meet any needs of a potential plant operator,&rdquo; the report states. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s only a question of finding a plant design providing the most economic operation of biomethane production. As a result, it is strongly recommended to perform a detailed analysis of the specific biomethane costs to be expected and to account for all possible upgrading technologies.&rdquo; Author: Keith Loria Freelance Writer, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:freelancekeith@gmail.com">freelancekeith@gmail.com</a>

FARM FRESH BIOGAS: The anaerobic digester and biogas upgrading facility at Fair Oaks Farms in Indiana processes the manure from about 8,000 dairy cows and produces transportation fuel from the biogas.

2014/08/FairOaks-Biogas-BMM_14071714676338_largethumb.jpg

2014/08/FairOaks-Biogas-BMM_14071714676338_thumb.jpg

2014/08/FairOaks-Biogas-BMM_14071714676338.jpg

2014/08/BiogasUpgrading-BiogasBMM_14071714903315.jpg

Numerous biogas upgrading technologies are being used in today's expanding market.


No Separation Anxiety

In early July, the U.S. EPA published a final rule for the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program that expands pathways for biogas-based fuel to help meet numeric goals for cellulosic and advanced fuel. The final renewable fuel pathway and modification rule is anticipated to provide a significant boost for biogas projects designed to supply a source of renewable and low-carbon transportation fuel.
 Under the final rule, biogas captured from anaerobic digestion using organic material at landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural operations or from separated municipal solid waste (MSW) is eligible to sell renewable fuel credits to obligated parties. Biogas must be cleaned and used as a renewable replacement for compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquid natural gas (LNG). Commercial equipment and technology is available in the marketplace to process raw biogas for use as a transportation fuel.
 In addition to the CNG and LNG pathways, if biogas is used to produce electricity and the generated electricity is used to power an electric vehicle, the volume of biogas utilized by the electric vehicle is also an eligible renewable fuel pathway under the rule. These specifications are critical in order to tap the enormous potential of the U.S. biogas resource.
 When the RFS was expanded in 2007, there were only a handful of biogas projects in the U.S. that utilized biogas as a transportation fuel. The majority of operational biogas projects were producing electricity from collected biogas. Even though biogas as transportation fuel was more common outside of the U.S., it was visionary to include biogas as a qualifying renewable fuel pathway in the expanded RFS.
 It has taken several years to spell out specific program rules that will take advantage of our biogas resources, but this latest rule is significant because biogas pathways can be used to help meet volumetric targets for advanced or cellulosic renewable fuels. Utilizing biogas to generate cellulosic fuel opens up a much larger&mdash;and more valuable&mdash;pool within the RFS.
 Each year since the RFS was expanded in 2007, EPA has had to revise downward the annual volumetric requirement for cellulosic fuels as specified in the statute. Biogas-based fuels have always been an eligible advanced fuel, but the volumetric targets for cellulosic fuels are much higher, which provides more room to bring biogas-based fuels to market. Additionally, since the cellulosic volumes have been harder to reach, the credits used to track program compliance have had a higher value, thereby improving the economic rate of return for biogas fuel projects.
 In recent years we have also witnessed a shift toward transportation fuel utilization from collected biogas, especially for new projects coming on line. Although there might be a higher capital cost for biogas-based transportation fuel projects, the value from selling compliance credits for the renewable fuel program has helped to improve project economics. A combination of financial incentives or additional revenue streams is needed to make a project cash flow.
 There is little doubt that allowing biogas-based transportation fuel projects to sell either advanced biofuel or cellulosic compliance credits will give a big boost to U.S. projects, and I hope we will see even more projects brought on line as a result of the final pathway rule. Author: Amanda Bilek Government Affairs Manager, Great Plains Institute 612-278-7118 <a href="mailto:abilek@gpisd.net">abilek@gpisd.net</a>

2014/08/Biogas-Biomass-Bilek-0614_14071716052775_largethumb.jpg

2014/08/Biogas-Biomass-Bilek-0614_14071716052775_thumb.jpg

2014/08/Biogas-Biomass-Bilek-0614_14071716052775.jpg

There is little doubt that allowing biogas-based transportation fuel projects to sell either advanced biofuel or cellulosic compliance credits will give a big boost to U.S. projects.

Renewable Fuel Standard Rules Give Boost to Biogas

International waste-to-energy company Bluesphere Corp. is expanding its presence in the Northeast with the development of anaerobic digestion projects in North Carolina, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The company recently received an air permit for its biogas project in Charlotte, North Carolina, began developing a 3.2 MW project in Johnston, Rhode Island, and has signed a memorandum of understanding with a local developer to develop a waste-to-energy project in the Boston metropolitan area.
 All three facilities are being constructed by Austep, an Italian engineering company that manages the development of biogas plants from concept to production. Austep has 253 facilities in Europe. The Charlotte facility will be the company&rsquo;s first U.S. project.&nbsp; Bluesphere signed an engineering procurement and construction agreement for a turnkey commissioning of the project earlier this year. The designing and engineering of the Charlotte facility is now underway.

Bluesphere plans several AD projects 

This fall, BioStar Systems LLC will begin construction of a biogas production facility in Pettis County, Missouri. The project is designed to use anaerobic digestion (AD) and an integrated series of conventional wastewater treatment technologies to convert 73,000 tons of poultry manure per year from Rose Acre Farms&rsquo; Johnson County Egg Farm into renewable energy and premium pathogen-free, organic fertilizer.
 The proposed facility plans to utilize the farm&rsquo;s existing manure collection infrastructure to deliver feedstock to a continuously stirred tank reactor AD system. The biogas produced from the digestion process is conditioned and used to fuel a 1.6 MW combined-heat-and-power set.
 BioStar Systems is an outgrowth of an integrated waste management system developed by Dennis Crabtree, BioStar Systems co-founder and chief technology officer. The facility will be owned and operated by a special purpose entity, JCEF BioStar LLC.

2014/08/Aug2014-BMM-34_14071717219204.jpg

AD project under development in Missouri 

Humans have been burning wood as a primary source of heat for many centuries, and its use has evolved greatly over time. Along with demand for new applications and means of increasing the use of inexpensive and renewable wood heat, environmental concerns have also grown. The wood heat sector has responded by producing cleaner and more efficiently designed units for a multitude of applications, from residential-sized outdoor wood boilers for heating swimming pools to commercial-sized hot air pellet furnaces for heating poultry farms.
 Current trends in the small-scale wood heat sector lean toward indoor wood chip and pellet boilers and stoves, but traditional outdoor wood boilers, or hydronic heaters, are still widely used today, despite the units being amongst the most heavily scrutinized appliances in the wood heating sector. This likely spurred the outdoor wood industry to approach the U.S. EPA requesting more regulation, to move away from the wood heat pollution poster child it had become.
 The EPA&rsquo;s New Source Performance Standard for residential wood heaters has been around for years, but proposed changes place pressure on all manufacturers to redesign wood heaters to become cleaner and lower emitting. Many manufacturers are trying to meet the proposed emission standards to keep their businesses open by producing models qualified by EPA&rsquo;s phase-two voluntary program, which requires no more than 0.32 pounds of fine particles per million Btu of heat with a maximum individual test run of 18.0 grams per hour. These furnaces hope to positively impact preconceived notions about emissions and efficiencies of wood heating, but based on EPA documented efficiencies of the boilers, many still have progress to be made. Non-EPA qualified, traditional outdoor wood furnaces that are purchased before the final rule will be grandfathered in.
 The final rule is expected to be announced in 2015, and although the heat is on, some manufacturers seem optimistic about adapting to the changing standards. Northwest Manufacturing Inc. WoodMaster and Central Boiler Inc. are two of the manufacturers working with the EPA to set new testing standards, and have EPA qualified models available for purchasing. Lee Energy Solutions LLC is another manufacturer in the sector creating carbon neutral, commercial pellet furnaces in the U.S. South, for use predominantly at poultry farms and greenhouses.
 The environment and customers are meant to benefit from the standards; they may even be warming up the public to the idea of the units as an option for clean, safe and efficient energy. John Ackerly, president of the Alliance for Green Heat and board member of the Biomass Thermal Energy Council, believes the way to move forward is to have restrictions. &ldquo;These regulations help the industry maintain standard, public support for the technology, and it makes us have a higher priority on clean air,&rdquo; he says.
 Clean air is something outdoor wood and pellet heating systems are turning their focus to. According to studies posted by Central Boiler Inc., there are more than 16 million fireplaces used in homes in the U.S. with reportedly only 200,000 outdoor wood furnaces. Many wood boilers can actually heat a home with less wood burned and far fewer particulate matter (PM) emissions than heating the same home with fireplaces. This is because the number of fireplaces or wood stoves required to heat the home would have comparable emissions to those from a single outdoor wood furnace heating that same home.
 When choosing between these indoor and outdoor options, manufacturers say outdoor models work better to uniformly heat the entire home without a mess. &ldquo;Outdoor is typically designed for home heating to keep the mess and fire hazard outside, and have the option to heat multiple buildings,&rdquo; says Chuck Gagner, president of Northwest Manufacturing Inc. WoodMaster.
 Minidistrict heating is what Gagner is referring to, or the ability to heat multiple buildings. The wood heat sector sees this as one of the best applications of the technology, in which two or more buildings are heated from the same boiler in the yard.
 If an outdoor boiler is a desired option, there are a few considerations to take into account; the type of application should be the first. After determining the application, time must be dedicated to understanding details of how to operate the machinery, as well as weighing the pros and cons of each unit. And because of policy changes surrounding the units, what manufacturers are doing to improve the image and efficiency of their products may be something to consider.
 Potential Applications
 The type of application and surrounding conditions will help determine whether the desired benefits are attainable. Ultimately, outdoor furnaces should be considered as a replacement when wanting heat for an entire building. &ldquo;An outdoor wood furnace is a good choice for replacing fossil fuel energy when the goal is to replace the entire heat load with wood-fired energy that can be thermostatically controlled heat for entire homes and other applications,&rdquo; says Rodney Tollefson, vice president of Central Boiler Inc.
 Outdoor wood heating has primarily been applied in rural, colder climates where end users can source their own wood. Central Boiler&rsquo;s main applications are for home and domestic water heating. &ldquo;Other applications are resorts, lodges, swimming pools, greenhouses, brooder barns, dairy farm water heating, warehouses, small businesses, aquaculture and snow melt,&rdquo; Tollefson says.
 Often, use of these units derives from identifying the need for it personally. Suppliers to the industry are no exception. &ldquo;I had a need, personally, for an outdoor furnace, and living and working on the farm with access to equipment, I just built my own furnace,&rdquo; Gagner says. &ldquo;I built the first furnace and then started the company and partnered with my brothers.&rdquo;
 Warmer climates have also been brought into the sector looking for an alternative. &ldquo;We were agricultural guys looking for an option held hostage by propane,&rdquo; says Wes Cumbie, Lee Energy Solutions vice president of sales and marketing.
 Operation Details
 The use of biomass such as wood chips and pellets is one way to loosen dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oils. &ldquo;Wood pellets are much more stable on a cost per million Btu basis, probably the most stable fuel, whereas propane and fuel oil are the most volatile fuel sources,&rdquo; Gagner explains.
 Although a stable fuel source, people in the wood heat sector stress that the treatment of the fuel will determine the success and amount of smoke of the wood heating system. According to Cumbie, Lee Energy&rsquo;s dry heat furnace, &ldquo;when running at 100 percent burn rate, a cigarette puts off more smoke.&rdquo; One reason for the disparity in smoke is how the unit functions. In a nut shell, the company&rsquo;s furnaces heat air, and then a blower motor moves the warmed air through a duct system. A boiler heats water, which then flows through a network of pipes in a building or home. When it comes to boilers, successful fueling of the system boils down to the end user. One of the keys is to use dry, seasoned wood. &ldquo;Seasoned wood is by far cleaner, more efficient, uses less fuel and is less corrosive,&rdquo; says Jeremy Hanson, Northwest Manufacturing Inc. WoodMaster commercial sales representative.
 &nbsp;&ldquo;If you want to get the most out of your wood, you should be cutting and seasoning it a year before you burn it,&rdquo; Tollefson adds. &ldquo;It will reduce your wood consumption by 20 to 30 percent; when you have unseasoned wood about 50 percent of the weight is water.&rdquo;
 Users also &ldquo;need to be absolutely confident that whatever boiler they choose it&rsquo;s properly sized,&rdquo; says Charlie Niebling, chair of BTEC and consultant with Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC. Properly sizing the unit will ensure even heat throughout the home, as well as achieving the highest efficiencies possible. When properly sized, many wood heating systems burn for 12 hours before they need to be reloaded.
 Efficiencies range based on the model of the furnace. Manufacturers will agree that some of the older models lack in efficiency, but the EPA phase-two qualified models are demonstrating efficiencies with higher heating value's (HHV) in the upper 70's. Central Boiler's E-Classic 1450 EPA qualified boiler is 78 percent HHV. WoodMaster has similar ranges with their EPA qualified gasification models. The big focus for these manufacturers is to continue to develop lower emitting and higher efficiency models.
 Lee Energy also demonstrated comparable efficiency at 80 to 82 percent with the unit capability of 66 pounds of pellets an hour, at 540,000 to 550,000 Btu. The combustion of WoodMaster and Central Boiler furnaces were more difficult to estimate with the wide range of units. &ldquo;Normally, the heaters we sell are for heat loads of 50,000 to 350,000 Btu per hour for residential applications,&rdquo; Tollefson says.
 Beyond the sizing of the furnace, the installation of the unit is important to ensure efficiency. &ldquo;The furnace is usually installed 30 feet or more from the building or buildings being heated,&rdquo; Tollefson says.
 Lee Energy&rsquo;s commercial pellet furnaces are typically set on concrete pads outside the structure to be heated. &ldquo;We will set our heater on that pad and then right next to the heater will be a 15 to 20 ton storage bin that pellets go into in bulk, and they are automatically loaded through an auger feed system,&rdquo; Cumbie explains. A customized collapsible duct system is also installed.
 The outdoor hydronic heater is designed to work with any existing heating system. Water-to-air or water-to-water heat exchangers or direct circulation conveys the heat into the structure's forced-air furnace, radiant baseboard or radiant floor heating system. This allows for normal thermostatic temperature control.
 While it is important for customers to know the basic set up of their desired wood heating system, what many direct their attention to are the major benefits and drawbacks.
 Pros and Cons
 The main drawbacks to wood-burning systems result from maintenance and user error.&nbsp; Ash buildup needs removal every week or so, depending on how much wood is being burned. Lee Energy&rsquo;s BIO pellet furnace needs cleaning just about every day if burning hard. Beyond general ash removal, some are deterred from the labor of manually loading many of the outdoor furnaces once or twice a day.
 The biggest drawback comes with the customer&rsquo;s capacity of misusing the technology. &ldquo;It is very difficult to control how people choose to use the equipment, namely what they choose to burn,&rdquo; Hanson says. &ldquo;If they are burning wet wood or nonbiomass materials, emissions are a concern.&rdquo;
 Although there are setbacks to the technology, there are benefits as well. &ldquo;The No. 1 is fuel savings, significant fuel savings,&rdquo; Hanson says.
 The prices of Central Boiler and WoodMaster units are comparable. &ldquo;The units themselves run from about $5,500 for residential on up to about $12,000,&rdquo; Tollefson says. &ldquo;You are going to have anywhere between $1,000 to $4,000 in labor and parts involved in installing them.&rdquo;
 New models are on the higher end of the price range because of the lower emissions and higher efficiencies they can demonstrate compared to older models. Commercial sizes run higher. &ldquo;The typical layout of what a customer buys for turnkey ducting, manufacturing, installation, brings the unit to around $17,000 to $21,000 depending on where you are,&rdquo; Cumbie says.
 Many units last for 20-plus years, with fuel savings offsetting the purchase price and installation of the units usually within the first three years. &ldquo;After that, it is in effect generating money compared to fossil fuels,&rdquo; Tollefson says. &ldquo;We find more than 50 percent of the people that own our furnaces cut their own wood, which results in eliminating their heating costs. If purchasing wood, normally, they save 80 percent of the heating cost.&rdquo;
 In addition, some insurance companies prefer outdoor wood burning furnaces over indoor wood stoves because all combustion is removed from the home or building. This removes the fire hazard and carbon monoxide risk.
 Beyond keeping a thicker wallet, the environment can be both a draw and push back for potential users. Wood is a renewable resource, conserving fossil fuels for the future and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, even the new models can smoke and do emit, although lower, some PM.
 Rectifying an Image 
 Innovation and collaboration with the EPA is at the forefront of the change in image. Some manufacturers have worked closely with the EPA in helping to set performance standards. WoodMaster&rsquo;s gasification models and Central Boiler&rsquo;s E-Classic models both are qualified under EPA&rsquo;s voluntary phase-two program standards, and are working to meet the drafted NSPS. &ldquo;There has also been an effort to educate consumers of proper installation and operating practices when using outdoor wood furnaces for the best performance,&rdquo; Tollefson says.
 This education comes from many groups in the wood heat sector. &ldquo;BTEC, Pellet Fuels Institute, Heating the Northeast, and Heating the Midwest do a great job of educating the general public and raising awareness of the benefits of heating with biomass,&rdquo; Hanson says. Best burn practices have been developed in conjunction with EPA, Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association and manufacturers, he added.
 Although the heat is on for manufacturers to produce cleaner, more efficient units, it seems that the resulting innovation will ultimately warm customers and the general public to the prospect of outdoor wood heat, and spur advancement throughout the entire sector. &ldquo;I give a lot of credit to manufacturers, they&rsquo;ve come a long way and have worked very hard to improve the efficiency, combustion and performance.&rdquo; Niebling says.
 Author: Katie Fletcher Staff Writer, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:kfletcher@bbiinternational.com">kfletcher@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-738-4920

EPA Approved Models: Central Boiler has developed outdoor wood gasification furnaces that disprove preconceived notions about emissions and efficiencies of wood heating.With its three-stage combustion process, the E-Classic burns wood more completely

2014/08/CentralBoiler-ThermalAugBMM14_14071719319124_largethumb.jpg

2014/08/CentralBoiler-ThermalAugBMM14_14071719319124_thumb.jpg

2014/08/CentralBoiler-ThermalAugBMM14_14071719319124.jpg

HEATING YOUR HOME: TheÂ Central Boiler outdoorÂ furnace worksÂ with any existing heatingÂ system. AÂ water jacket surrounds the furnace firebox and heat exchanger, and heated water is circulated to your home or building through insulated undergroundÂ

2014/08/E_Class_System-ThermalBMM_14071719345139.jpg

PELLETS FOR POULTRY: This Lee Energy Solutions BIO wood pellet furnace brings dry heat to a poultry farm in Blountsville, Ala. The benefit of the zero moisture content results in drier litter, improved bird health and reduced ammonia and odors.

2014/08/LeeEnergySolutions-Thermal-BMM_14071719388977.jpg

MASTER OF PELLETS: The WoodMaster Ultra Series Pellet Furnaceâ€™s fully automatic Progammable Logic Control allows ease of operation and the burn back protection keeps it operating safely.

2014/08/UltraFurnace-Thermal-BMM_14071719424931.jpg

Outdoor wood appliance manufacturers are feeling the heat of new regulations, but many were already focused on providing cleaner and more efficient systems.

Warming Up To Outdoor Wood Heaters

Itasca Community College in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, is upgrading its boiler system to use locally sourced wood fuel. The college hopes the project will serve as a case study for other heating districts of its size.
 Over the past several years, the college and its partners, which include the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Swedish Bioenergy Association, have been investigating using wood fuel.&nbsp; &ldquo;There are a few reasons why we think that&rsquo;s important, but one of the main ones is that we live in a region of the U.S. where the forest products industry has a history of being prevalent, but it is in a declining state,&rdquo; said Bart Johnson, project manager.
 With a $112,000 grant from the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources and nearly $1 million in state bonds, the college launched a request for proposals design and bid documents in June. The goal is to have the new biomass system installed next year, but the project could take until 2016 to complete.

Minnesota college to install biomass boiler 

Massachusetts has granted $3.5 to nine renewable thermal projects through the new Massachusetts Renewable Thermal Business Investment Financing Program, with five of those grants supporting wood pellet and wood chips projects.
 Funds for the grants are drawn from the state&rsquo;s Alternative Compliance Payment fund, which are payments made by electricity suppliers when they do not meet state renewable energy portfolio obligations. Each year these ACP funds are allocated by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. A variety of technologies are eligible for funding under the new program, including woody biomass, grass pellets, advanced biofuels, biogas, solar thermal, and inverter driven air and ground source heat pumps.

2014/08/Aug2014-BMM-26_14071722133685.jpg

Massachusetts funds 5 thermal biomass projects

Machine design and manufacturing history books are littered with stories of machines that were initially designed for a particular task in a particular industry, but were modified to perform a similar task in an altogether different industry. The story of wood pelleting presses is one of them. The idea of compressing materials into a pellet originated in the feed industry as a way to conglomerate a variety of feed ingredients. Livestock farmers were discovering that their animals were picking out and eating only certain ingredients from feed bunkers and leaving behind other ingredients, including important nutrients. Pelletizing presses emerged as a means of solving this problem, as these varied components were pelletized forcing livestock to consume every component of the ration.
 &ldquo;In the late &lsquo;80s, those presses underwent some modification so that they could handle the stress of pelletizing wood. Pellets made from feed products pelletize much easier than wood,&rdquo; says Mike Curci, capital sales manager of biomass for Andritz. Scott Anderson, general sales manager for CPM, echoes that sentiment. &ldquo;Pelleting wood is not a single thing. It is one of the most difficult things that you can attempt to pelletize,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The customers have very tight quality specifications. It is a real challenge taking a natural product with the variations that you are going to get in nature and spitting out a consistent, tightly controlled final product.&rdquo;
 The fundamentals of making a wood pellet are common throughout the industry. Essentially, making a pellet is an exercise in extrusion. Woody material is driven through a die under extreme pressure and cut to length. Material is forced completely through the die by new material entering the other end of the die.
 It is here that the commonalities end and the differences between pellet presses begin to become evident. While subtle variations abound from manufacturer to manufacturer, generally pellet presses can be distinguished from one another in two ways. The first is the means by which power from the motors is delivered to the pellet press. The second is the shape of the die itself.
 Gear Driven vs Belt Driven
 All pellet presses rely on horsepower generated by large electric motors. The manner in which this power is delivered to the press itself is where the differences can be found. The power from these motors is transferred either by gears or a belt. Both gear-and belt-driven pellet presses can be found throughout the industry, and the manufacturers of each stand ready to articulate the value of their approach.
 &ldquo;We are a gear-driven pellet mill,&rdquo; says Anderson. &ldquo;Some customers, many users, have a feeling that a gear drive is a less desirable design than a belt drive design. That&rsquo;s a situation that we frequently have to overcome. We talk about the robustness, the lower overall maintenance cost of a single reduction gear drive, versus the cost of replacing belts, even if it&rsquo;s just the preventative maintenance aspect and the energy efficiency of a gear drive versus a belt drive, which can be substantial.&rdquo;
 &nbsp;Manufacturers of belt-driven pellet presses are quick to remind their prospects and customers of the risk of&nbsp; using gear-driven presses: the shock that results when wet material or tramp metals show up in the pelleting chamber and that sudden energy is transferred directly back to a gear box. &ldquo;The v-belt drive protects the pellet mill from severe shock loads and pelleting surges, thus reducing potential damage to the motor and machine,&rdquo; says Curci about Andritz&rsquo;s belt-driven approach.
 Gear-driven manufacturers note that belts cannot completely transfer the energy from the motor without some loss, while belt-driven manufacturers assert that the power loss with belts is modest. Jase Locke, the biofuels application manager at Ponca City, Okla.-based Bliss Industries says of Bliss&rsquo;s belt-driven presses, &ldquo;We feel that with our machine the way it is set up and driven, our belt is 95 percent efficient transferring that horsepower from the motor down to the front end.&rdquo;
 Ring Die vs Flat Die
 A difference that is easier to visually discern is the shape and position of the pellet die itself. The names of the dies aptly describe their differences in shape, but there are also differences between the two approaches that are not immediately evident. In ring die pellet presses, the die itself moves around a series of rollers, whereas in flat die pellet presses, the die is stationary and the rollers move around a vertically oriented shaft and deliver power downward onto the die.
 Patrick Clark, Amandus Kahl vice president of sales and marketing, points to the advantages of this die orientation, saying, &ldquo;feedstock that is light and fluffy and has difficulty flowing can create problems for pellet producers. With a flat die press the material comes straight into the pelleting chamber via gravity. We also have an excellent transfer of energy for hard materials; the woods, and the hulls off of cereal grains.&rdquo;
 Normal Wear and Tear
 For pellet producers, the name of the pellet-press game, regardless of style, is to keep them up, on line and making pellets. Any downtime a producer experiences, whether planned or unplanned, means lost revenue. Pellet press original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) know and keep this top of mind as they design and build their machines. &ldquo;I think the biggest key to a pellet producer&rsquo;s success is efficiency and reliability,&rdquo; says Curci. &ldquo;We all know that margins are very slim and if we can help protect those margins for the producer, that is key.&rdquo;
 Pellet press OEMs deploy a number of design strategies to extend the lifetime of the wearable parts while also trying to synch up component life cycles so that items are ready to be serviced or replaced at or around the same time.
 Amandus Kahl extended the life of bearings by slowing down the main shaft. &ldquo;Our main shaft speed is approximately four times slower than others, so we&rsquo;ve got increased bearing life,&rdquo; says Clark.
 For Bliss Industries, distributing roller wear evenly in its three-roller presses synchronizes roller wear for the 33 plants that operate their presses. &ldquo;If you look at a two-roll press, the leading roll gets about 70 percent of the material, and the back roll gets 30 percent,&rdquo; says Locke, &ldquo;so that leading roll wears out faster than the back roll. With the Bliss three-roll press and the way we feed it, each roll gets about 33 percent of the material. In pellet facilities, down time means lost money, so we want everything to wear out those rolls evenly.&rdquo;
 In an increasingly competitive environment, press OEMs are acutely aware of the ongoing costs of operating their and their competitor&rsquo;s presses. &ldquo;If our capital expense is higher,&rdquo; says Anderson, &ldquo;we&rsquo;ve got to demonstrate our value through a lower overall operating expense.&rdquo;
 Robust Demand Across Entire Industry
 Articulating their competitive advantages is top of mind for OEMs as the pellet market continues to experience a robust period of growth. For CPM, the robust activity in planning and building of export-scale facilities drove a decision late last summer to put together a sales and marketing team with an exclusive focus on this market. &ldquo;That demand is certainly one of the things that showed us that we need to carve out a group dedicated solely to the wood pellet industry,&rdquo; says Anderson. &ldquo;That was a decision that was made due to two main factors. One is the predominance of European companies that are either partially or wholly owners of new industrial wood pellet plants that are being built in the Americas, as well as that group&rsquo;s broader experience with modern pellet plants.&rdquo;
 Curci, too, sees increased activity with producers and developers eyeing the growing export market. &ldquo;What we&rsquo;re seeing is a trend where we&rsquo;re moving away from the infancy of the industry and we are starting to mature,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;With that maturity we&rsquo;re seeing a lot of activity with large-scale producers.&rdquo;
 While all OEMs are aggressively calling on and targeting the up-and-coming fleet of export-scale facilities, no one is overlooking the continued opportunities amongst existing, operating pellet mills that service the residential market, particularly after last winter&rsquo;s heating season. &ldquo;Some of these smaller facilities, especially with last year&rsquo;s heating season being as strong as it was, now have the opportunity and the ability, both financially and marketwise, to add a little extra capacity,&rdquo; Curci says. Clark agrees. &ldquo;That 50,000 to 100,000 ton a year market is still there with last winter&rsquo;s extreme cold and extreme fuel prices, the wood pellet market is still there to offset that,&rdquo; he adds.
 Locke notes that existing Bliss customers are thinking similarly. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve seen our existing customers adding capacity going into this year&rsquo;s heating season and we&rsquo;re very hopeful that they do so.&rdquo;
 Still, the market inertia delivered by the rapidly growing demand for wood pellets overseas is moving press OEMs to react, with both organizational changes and design changes. Dieffenbacher has introduced a pellet press that is capable of producing up to 20 tons of pellets per hour from a single unit. CPM continues to support four manufacturing centers globally and has just opened a parts and service facility in Jackson, Miss., to support customers in the Southeast U.S. Bliss Industries, while admittedly a much smaller organization, is feeling the market pull created by this export market after having won the business for pellet presses at the recently built and commissioned, Go Green International pellet facility, a 200,000-ton facility near Paige, Texas.
 Growing industries generate profits and drive reinvestment within their supplier base. As the pellet industry grows, innovation will undoubtedly continue to emerge from the industry&rsquo;s enviable stable of pellet press OEMs.
 Author: Tim Portz Executive Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:tportz@bbiinternational.com">tportz@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-738-4969

AN EYE ON ROLL WEAR: Bliss Industries Inc. has continued to refine its deflector design inside the pelleting chamber to ensure that each roll processes the same amount of incoming material. This not only prolongs roll life, but it synchronizes  wear 

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-chamber-0814_14071723377272_largethumb.jpg

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-chamber-0814_14071723377272_thumb.jpg

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-chamber-0814_14071723377272.jpg

A COMMON SIGHT: While the wood pellet business represents only around 5 percent of global manufacturer Andritzâ€™s business, it manages to capture a fair share of the market. There are currently over 500 of this particular machine installed throughou

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-Andritz-0814_14071723329246.jpg

INDUSTRY WORKHORSE: Originally developed to serve the animal feed sector, pellet press manufacturers beefed up their designs to lend utility to the forest products industry. Their efforts have been handsomely rewarded as most major manufacturers of p

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-lead-0814_1407172344723.jpg

Producer Survey
Biomass Magazine conducted a survey of North American pellet producers asking questions about the pellet presses installed at their facilities, the maintenance of those presses and their wearable parts and the throughput they are expe

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-Q4-0814-01_14071723469163.jpg

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-Q5-0814-01_14071723488962.jpg

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-Q6-0814-01_1407172351157.jpg

GRAVITY IS GOOD: This schematic of an Amandus Kahl flat die pellet press illustrates how this particular configuration utilizes gravity to bring new material into the pellet chamber. Unlike with a ring die, the rollers on a flat die move around the d

2014/08/Pel-Biomass-Rendering-0814_14071723530377.jpg

Focused on innovation, reliability and efficiency, pellet press manufacturers are keeping pace with demands of rapidly expanding pellet markets.

August 2014

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

More From Less

Ethanol, A Global Commodity

Leading the Way in Motorcycle Education

Higher Blends Best For America's Energy Future

What's 1.67 Trillion Divided By 53?

Champion Time

High Stakes for Biomass in EPA Climate Regulations

Renewable Fuel Standard Rules Give Boost to Biogas

The Many Benefits of Replacing Coal With Wood Pellet Fuel

Railroad Ties: An Essential Biomass Power Fuel

The CAPEX/OPEX Dance

Featured

Toolkit For Ethanol's Next Stage

Making Connections at FEW

E15 Retailers Get Creative

Water Sage

No Separation Anxiety

Warming Up To Outdoor Wood Heaters

Pressing For Success

One Size Doesn't Fit All

Contributions

New Technology Reduces Natural Gas Consumption

Departments

Imagination for Mechanization

August 2014.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

More From Less

Ethanol, A Global Commodity

Leading the Way in Motorcycle Education

Higher Blends Best For America's Energy Future

What's 1.67 Trillion Divided By 53?

Champion Time

High Stakes for Biomass in EPA Climate Regulations

Renewable Fuel Standard Rules Give Boost to Biogas

The Many Benefits of Replacing Coal With Wood Pellet Fuel

Railroad Ties: An Essential Biomass Power Fuel

The CAPEX/OPEX Dance

Featured

Toolkit For Ethanol's Next Stage

Making Connections at FEW

E15 Retailers Get Creative

Water Sage

No Separation Anxiety

Warming Up To Outdoor Wood Heaters

Pressing For Success

One Size Doesn't Fit All

Contributions

New Technology Reduces Natural Gas Consumption

Departments

Imagination for Mechanization

August 2014