Since the beginning of the year, the ethanol industry has been facing an ever-changing market environment of higher input costs and increased competition. During periods of low-cost corn and high revenue, many operations overlook plant efficiency and focus on throughput. Now that the market dynamics have changed and the growth of the ethanol industry has slowed, and in order to have long-term success, producers have shifted their focus to increased ethanol yield and efficiency.
Increasing the ethanol concentration in a fermenter can be pursued by a number of strategies: purchasing high-quality corn that possesses high-starch and low-moisture content, trialing new enzymes with better starch-to-ethanol conversion or by trying a new yeast strain that is more robust than what&rsquo;s currently available in the market. But using any or all of these strategies does not necessarily maximize yield.&nbsp;
Operators must also address controlling the infection level and its organic acid metabolites with the proper antimicrobial, and maintaining healthier and more viable yeast during the course of fermentation with proper nutrition. BetaTec Hop Products has addressed both of these issues with two technologies which, used together, deliver bacterial inhibition, enhanced yeast health, higher ethanol yield and improved fermentation kinetics. Infection Potential Growth of contaminating lactic acid bacteria is a major problem in industrial alcohol fermentations. These bacteria can grow under the conditions of yeast fermentation and reduce alcohol yields by consuming glucose that could have been used by yeast for ethanol production. The end products of metabolism of lactobacilli, lactic acid and acetic acid are detrimental to yeast growth and metabolism and, therefore, occur when propagations and/or fermentations are allowed to continue under less-than-sufficient microbial control. As bacterial numbers increase so do the acids formed. The metabolism of these organisms varies from that of Saccharomyces yeast with substantial production of lactic acid and lesser amounts of acetic acid made. In addition to operating the plant under as sanitary conditions as possible, the most common strategy to control Lactobacillus contamination is by the addition of antibiotics.&nbsp; Concerns are rising, however, about the overuse of antibiotics for industrial applications that may contribute to the emergence of resistant pathogenic bacteria strains harmful to animals and humans.&nbsp; Additionally, the presence of antibiotics in saleable coproducts (distillers grains) can negatively impact their marketability.
The preservative properties of hop acids that have been used in the brewing industry for more than a millennium constitute a legitimate naturally derived alternative. BetaTec&rsquo;s trademarked IsoStab, an aqueous solution of isomerized alpha acids, has been successfully used in dry mill and wet mill ethanol plants since 2004. By adding the minimum inhibitory concentration of IsoStab to the yeast propagation tank and/or to the fermentation vessel, one can inhibit the growth of lactic acid bacteria during the production of ethanol and entirely avoid the need for antibiotics.
The mode of action for hop acids is based on the fact that the undissociated form of the hop acid is toxic to bacteria. Decreasing the mash pH increases the concentration of the undissociated form of hop acid, which is permeable to the cell membrane. The latter form is soluble in the phospholipid of the membrane and diffuses passively into the cell. Because of the higher pH inside the cell, the acid then dissociates and the liberated proton acidifies the cytoplasm, and as a result dissipates the pH gradient across the cytoplasmic membrane.&nbsp; This leads to the inhibition of nutrient uptake and, eventually, the bacteria starves to death. Enhancing Yeast Nutrition The importance of yeast nutrition has been overlooked by the fuel ethanol industry.&nbsp; Its relevance to bacterial spoilage, yeast budding, fermentable ethanol ceiling and the rate of fermentation is poorly understood. Depending upon the feedstock used and yeast cell growth during propagation, the fermentation can be negatively affected by nutrient deficiency, causing yeast stress and consequently lower ethanol yield. Bacteria contamination can also deplete the availability of nutrients and, hence, undermine yeast efficiency by scavenging essential nutrients away from the yeast. In practice, just adding nitrogen to the propagators and to the fermenters is sufficient to promote successful fermentations. However, fermentation difficulties arise from a progressive reduction in yeast viability, which is caused by the combined effect of several factors:
&bull; Loss of permeability in the cytoplasmic membrane of the yeast through insufficient synthesis of sterols. &bull; Adsorption of toxic fatty acids. &bull; An increase in the concentration of ethanol. &bull; Temperature fluctuation.
VitaHop Silver, a newly developed fermentation activator, is a proprietary formulation of dry cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, amino acids, vitamins and other ingredients designed to provide the yeast with the proper balance of nutrients for optimal growth and reproduction.&nbsp; In addition, VitaHop Silver increases yeast viability, particularly late in fermentation, resulting in ethanol yield enhancement. Synergies in Combination Laboratory research discovered that when both products, IsoStab and VitaHop Silver, are added simultaneously to a fermentation system, superior results in bacterial inhibition, ethanol yields, kinetics and yeast biomass and viability are achieved compared to when they are used individually or versus antibiotics.&nbsp; This suggested a complementary effect between the hop acid product and the proprietary yeast nutrient.
Those interesting findings prompted investigation of this combined performance at the commercial level. The key performance metrics examined in the case study were lactic and acetic acids, yeast cell count, yeast viability, ethanol yield and the kinetics ( rate of ethanol production).
A Midwestern ethanol plant was used to trial the IsoStab and VitaHop Silver combination. The plant was experiencing slightly elevated lactic acids and there was interest in comparing their current antibiotic program with other options in order to minimize infection and maximize ethanol production. The 50 MMgy plant utilized the BetaTec program and added both IsoStab and VitaHop Silver to the propagator. The plant continued to run at a steady state during the one-month trial.
Fermentation analysis of the plant data under this program showed positive results. HPLC data showed a reduction of 44 percent in lactic acid concentration and a relative increase of 1.7 percent in ethanol yield, despite the drop in solids during the trial. Correcting it for solid loading, the relative increase in ethanol yield jumped to 2.7 percent (statistically significant as the data was processed at the 95 percent confidence level to ensure that the differences in the data are real). The rate of ethanol production (kinetics) followed a similar trend and the combination was able to increase the production rate by 5 percent at the height of fermentation.
A review of yeast data indicates that the IsoStab and VitaHop Silver combination had an 18 percent higher yeast cell count versus antibiotics. More substantial is the fact that viability in the propagator was increased by 5.5 percent, leading to healthier yeast in the fermenter. Although one might predict that excess yeast biomass will lead to&nbsp; reduced ethanol yield, accelerated trouble-free fermentations with higher ethanol concentration resulted. The nutrients and hop acids combined treatment lead to stronger yeast that diverted glucose destined for cell mass to ethanol production.
The magnitude of the ethanol-yield increase with the IsoStab and VitaHop Silver program is critical to the plant&rsquo;s bottom line. In this particular case, the average daily ethanol production was about 150,000 gallons of 200 proof. An increase of 2.7 percent in yield corresponds to 4,050 gallons of extra daily ethanol production. Assuming a price of $2 per gallon of ethanol, this will add a profit of $8,100 per day or $243,000 per month to the plant&rsquo;s bottom line. The plant managers were so satisfied with the results that they continued on with the BetaTec program.
More than 20 plant trials have been conducted with the IsoStab and VitaHop combination technology&nbsp; with the following results: &bull; An ethanol yield increase, ranging from1.50-3.2 percent (an increase that was statistically significant compared to the control). &bull; More consistent fermentations. &bull; Yeast cell counts increase, ranging from 15-30 percent. &bull; Yeast viability improvement, ranging from 2-5 percent. &bull; Faster fermentation kinetics, ranging from 2-5 percent. Those improvements were observed against any type of antibiotic that these plants employed and affirm the complementary nature of these technologies. The combined technologies will boost the operational flexibility of a plant by allowing the producer to maximize the quantity of ethanol produced. In addition, it constitutes the perfect alternative to antibiotics and would enable the industry to sell certified antibiotic-free DDGS to local and international markets where antibiotics are either banned or being discouraged. Author: Sami Faour&nbsp;&nbsp; Technical Manager, North America, BetaTec Hop Products Sami.Faour@johnihaas.com &nbsp;(816) 509-0200
&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).

2012/08/13442855113732.jpg

2012/08/13442856362515.jpg

2012/08/13442856367835.jpg

A method for controlling infection and maximizing ethanol yields


Bacterial Inhibition Without Antibiotics

In 1862, Congress sent the Homestead Act to President Lincoln for his signature, enabling U.S. citizens to settle on about 270 million acres of land. As a result, pioneers were given the ability to unleash their entrepreneurial spirit to succeed, or fail, by unlocking the rich resources in America&rsquo;s breadbasket.
Whether individual pioneers did well or fell short hinged on a number of factors, but in the totality of the 150 years since this historic legislation was enacted, it is clear the U.S. scored an unprecedented victory. Today America&rsquo;s farmers and ranchers are by far the best and most efficient producers on the planet of sustainable, affordable and nutritious crops that become food. One of many ingredients that led to this achievement was innovation.
Government policy can help individuals and businesses innovate, improve and succeed. One such policy is the renewable fuel standard (RFS). While history will judge how the RFS compares to things like homesteading, it is safe to say the RFS is the most important policy enacted by the U.S. to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Reliance on oil imports peaked around 62 percent in 2005. The original RFS, first championed by the American Coalition for Ethanol, was enacted that same year. Today, U.S. oil imports stand at just 45 percent.
The RFS also spurs innovation by rewarding fuels that reduce greenhouse gases. Innovation really does define how the ethanol industry has grown from less than 1 billion gallons of comparatively inefficient production 25 years ago to more than 200 biorefineries in 29 states today, sustainably producing around 14 billion gallons of fuel and nearly 40 million metric tons of feed.
We mark ACE&rsquo;s 25th anniversary this year, and if you attend our conference in Omaha you will take part in discussions about how ethanol producers are thinking and acting in resourceful ways to succeed well into the future. Steve McNinch, CEO of ACE-member Western Plains Energy, will discuss how his plant is taking advantage of their proximity to cattle feedlots and grain sorghum supplies to produce advanced biofuel for the RFS. Steve will be joined by ICM to discuss progress in cellulosic ethanol and benefits of co-locating cellulose and grain-based ethanol. Other producers will join us to discuss opportunities with biobutanol and other products.
Because ethanol is innovating, it is here to stay. In the context of our nation&rsquo;s current fascination with hydraulic fracking in North Dakota&rsquo;s Bakken Shale formation and the Keystone XL pipeline, it&rsquo;s important to remember that ethanol is advancing while oil is regressing. While fracking and the Bakken are making a difference, the ultimate price we pay outweighs the short-term benefits. Meanwhile, ethanol producers are continually taking advantage of the product and process technical advancements that have been developed to debottleneck, reduce energy and water use, or create new products and coproducts.
We&rsquo;ve got to be innovative on the policy front as well, doing the smart diplomacy necessary to reconstruct a winning coalition of allies to help us defend the RFS and win future policy battles. That&rsquo;s why ACE is working with automakers on flex-fuel vehicles, fuel standards and the better use of ethanol&rsquo;s octane in the engines of tomorrow. That&rsquo;s also why ACE has been meeting with scientists, environmental groups and advanced biofuel stakeholders about how we can more constructively work together on common policy goals. One result of these discussions was a group letter to Congress making it clear that the RFS should remain intact. The positive headlines about how environmental groups and ACE came together in support of the RFS grabbed the attention of members of Congress because we were able to unite with forces that had been fighting against ethanol in the recent past.&nbsp;
Innovation defines how ethanol producers operate and how ACE pursues our member-driven mission to make U.S. ethanol the consumer fuel of choice. Author: Brian Jennings Executive Vice President, American Coalition for Ethanol (605) 334-3381 bjennings@ethanol.org

2012/07/13420147248129.jpg

Innovation Drives Success

The energy market in the U.S. is changing for the better, but it could spell trouble for ethanol. Here are some statistics that may be of interest:
&bull; U.S. energy consumption will only increase at a rate of 0.3 percent per year between now and 2035
&bull; Gasoline consumption will fall by 0.6 percent per year between now and 2035
&bull; The adoption of new fuel efficiency standards would require cars to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025
&bull; As a result of new oil finds, crude oil production in the U.S. is expected to increase by a million barrels per day by 2020
&bull; Crude oil imports are projected to fall by 2 million barrels per day in the next decade
Using these projections, the competition from the oil industry to garner a larger share of a shrinking market will likely put more pressure on their lobbyists to redouble efforts to minimize ethanol use&mdash;more challenges to 15 percent blending, downward pressure on oil prices to squeeze the ethanol industry against high corn prices, and certainly, there will be strengthened efforts to eliminate the renewable fuels standard (RFS).
The ethanol industry, despite decades of push-back, has continued to grow and replace greater and greater amounts of imported oil and gasoline. It has saved America billions of dollars on imports and saved the consumer untold amounts at the pump. To say this industry has been a success would be a significant understatement.
Now, however, we may be faced with the problems that come with too much success. When you have replaced 10 percent of the gasoline sold in America and look to expand that to 15 percent and greater, that raises the ire of the oil industry. And as we all know, when pushed, they can be formidable adversaries.
So, what I&rsquo;m saying is that we should not expect things to become easier, or for future successes to go unchallenged. In fact, I would suggest that the sledding is likely to get a whole lot tougher in the years ahead. But, having spent nearly 30 years in this industry, I know we are up to the challenge.
That&rsquo;s the way I see it.
Author: Mike Bryan Chairman, BBI International mbryan@bbiinternational.com

2012/07/1342014976957.jpg

The Problem of Too Much Success

&ldquo;Be not the first by whom the new are tried nor&nbsp; yet the last to lay the old aside.&rdquo;
Big River Resources CEO Ray Defenbaugh shared that old adage with me just before this year&rsquo;s International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo. Three weeks later, Defenbaugh&rsquo;s company announced that it had joined Butamax Advanced Biofuels&rsquo;s Early Adopters Group to investigate the possibility of converting its facilities to isobutanol.
No, Defenbaugh didn&rsquo;t ignore his own advice. The board members of Big River aren&rsquo;t committed to isobutanol. They&rsquo;re exploring it. And they aren&rsquo;t the first to give it a look. Butamax, a subsidiary of DuPont, now has 11 U.S. ethanol plants representing nearly 900 MMgy signed on to vet isobutanol. In addition to the multiple facilities signed on with marketplace competitor, Gevo, U.S. ethanol plants actively converting, planning to convert, or considering converting to isobutanol represent well over 1 billion gallons of production capacity.
Isobutanol is this industry&rsquo;s undisputed story of the year. It&rsquo;s a story that has largely overshadowed efforts to integrate and co-locate cellulosic ethanol production at existing corn ethanol plants. That is both ironic and predictable. Ironic because cellulosic ethanol is being overshadowed at a time when it&rsquo;s finally in reach. Predictable because producers remain skeptical about the cost and risk of being &ldquo;the first by whom the new are tried.&rdquo; As EPM&rsquo;s Kris Bevill explains in her page 32 feature, &ldquo;How Cellulosic Is Rising From Corn,&rdquo; purveyors of integrated cellulosic platforms like Edeniq understand producer hesitance. Bevill conveys that most producers &ldquo;want to be the fourth or fifth plant to add cellulosic technology to their process stream, after someone else has taken the leap to be the first to try it.&rdquo;
So how do you get facility No. 1 on board with a major retrofit or cellulosic integration? You do it by courting producers and building critical mass with programs like Butamax&rsquo;s Early Adopters Group. You do it with sheer brand strength (i.e., DuPont). You do it with strategic EPC partners (i.e., Fagen), and you do it by signing on big name producers (i.e., Big River Resources) and joint development partners like Flint Hills Resources, the ethanol plant owner and Koch Industries subsidiary that is backing&mdash;and adopting&mdash;Edeniq&rsquo;s technology.
Stand-alone cellulosic ethanol plants are coming. Most of the action on the ground, however, indicates that retrofits, co-location plays, and incremental integrations are defining the next big stage of the ethanol industry&rsquo;s evolution. While the world waits for the fuels of tomorrow, advanced biofuels production is being staged at existing corn ethanol plant sites today, right before our eyes.
Tom Bryan, PRESIDENT &amp; EDITOR IN CHIEF tbryan@bbiinternational.com
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
CORRECTION In the &ldquo;Dropping Water Use&rdquo; feature article in the July issue the global average water footprint of corn ethanol was incorrectly stated. The Water Footprint Network number is 2,854 liters of water per liter of ethanol produced, a number that includes rainfall.

2012/07/13420150826247.jpg

Be Not the First,  Nor the Last

Calling themselves &ldquo;The Biofuels Investment and RFS Market Congressional Study Group,&rdquo; staff members for at least eight U.S. Senators are conducting &ldquo;a seed-to-wheels examination&rdquo; of the renewable fuels standard (RFS), setting the stage for legislation in the next session of Congress.
Observers are saying a coalition of odd bedfellows&mdash;food groups, environmentalists and the oil industry&mdash;are teaming up against the ethanol industry for what is expected to be a multiyear campaign to weaken or repeal the RFS, starting with the 113th Congress which ends January 2015.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, &ldquo;There they go again!&rdquo;
Back in 2008, with the Grocery Manufacturers Association leading the way, a similar cast of characters conducted a campaign to scrap the RFS. They even persuaded Gov. Rick Perry of Texas&mdash;the nation&rsquo;s leading oil-producing state&mdash;to request a waiver from the RFS. They failed then, and they&rsquo;ll fail again, but not before they confuse the conversation about energy policy with an oil slick of myths, misstatements and misleading analyses.
While the ethanol critics, together with some well-intentioned Senators and staffers, are focusing on incentives for American biofuels, it&rsquo;s time to take a look at the big picture. The fact is: American ethanol willingly gave up its major tax incentive&mdash;the blenders tax credit&mdash;at the end of last year. We believe that incentives should help emerging industries to develop and grow, not enjoy eternal subsidies by the nation&rsquo;s taxpayers.
But that lesson has been lost on Big Oil, which has benefited from federal subsidies for the past century. Instead of exclusively examining renewable fuels, the Senate staffers should also scrutinize the $3.6 billion to $4.5 billion each year in federal tax breaks and other advantages for the oil industry.
Yes, federal incentives have helped the U.S. renewable fuels industry to stand on its own two feet. When the Senate staffers take a look at American biofuels, they should like what they see. With nearly 14 billion gallons of production, ethanol now provides 10 percent of America&rsquo;s motor-fuel supply. Last year alone, American ethanol eliminated the need for 485 million barrels of imported oil, more than all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia.&nbsp; Moreover, in the midst of a lagging economy, American ethanol supports more than 400,000 jobs, pays more than $8 billion in taxes to the federal, state and local governments, and has lowered the price of gasoline by an average of more than 25 cents per gallon over the past decade.
Even without a seed-to-wheels examination, the Senate staffers should be proud that the renewable fuels standard, which was enacted by both houses of Congress in 2007, has made this progress possible. Without spending a penny of the taxpayers&rsquo; money, the RFS has promoted the growth of the American biofuels industry by providing assurance to investors, farmers and the fuel market that renewable fuels will be part of the mix of motor fuels in this country.
Five years after the RFS became national policy, the standard is doing what incentives should do: encouraging innovations such as the development of new technologies that will turn waste products&mdash;garbage, woodchips, agricultural residue, corn stover and more&mdash;into clean-burning, American-made renewable fuels.
That&rsquo;s the good news about the RFS. What about the attacks upon American biofuels on environmental and food issues?
On the environmental front, according to the U.S. EPA and a study by the University of Nebraska, ethanol reduces greenhouse emissions by up to 50 percent, compared to gasoline. As for the idea that ethanol production increases food prices&mdash;a claim that the Grocery Manufacturers Association keeps making&mdash;I&rsquo;m tempted to quote Ronald Reagan again: &ldquo;Facts are stubborn things.&rdquo;
After all, the fact is that farm products such as corn account for only 11.6 cents out of every dollar that Americans spend on food. Even with other farm products, corn prices historically have had little impact upon prices for livestock, poultry, eggs and milk. In fact, food prices track less closely with ethanol production than with energy costs, especially oil prices. Maybe the Senate staffers, and the same coalition that bashed biofuels four years ago, should be examining Big Oil, not renewable fuels.
But, more likely than not, here they go again.
Author: Bob Dinneen President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association (202) 289-3835

2012/07/13420148958911.jpg

There They Go Again: Attacking the  Renewable Fuels Standard

Growth Energy remains at the forefront as a leader in protecting and advancing the industry with its continued efforts to bring E15 into the marketplace. In 2009, Growth Energy filed the initial waiver to approve E15 for the general marketplace. We knew if consumers were given a choice at the pump, they would choose the fuel that is the most cost competitive and reliable. E15 is that fuel. For more than three years, Growth Energy has fought the legal and regulatory battles to finally break through the E10 blendwall to make meaningful strides to protect and improve our nation&rsquo;s energy security and prosperity.
Since the initial filing, there have been a number of challenges and at each and every step Growth Energy has led the industry, working diligently to overcome them. In mid-June, the U.S. EPA gave the final approvals that make the commercial use and sale of E15 possible for vehicles 2001 and newer. This is a remarkable achievement for our industry. There is still a tremendous amount of work that needs to be accomplished, however, before you will routinely see E15 at your local gas station.
Growth Energy is leading the efforts in market development, working directly with retailers so they can sell E15. This process is difficult and complex. In anticipation of the next steps, Growth Energy launched a website just for retailers, www.EthanolRetailer.com, to provide a one-stop resource center. By adding E15 to their fuel sales, retailers will have the opportunity to offer a fuel that has increased octane and is less expensive than other low-blend or pure gasoline choices. Plus, as we like to remind folks, with E15, consumers can put a little more America in their tank.
One of the most important elements to introducing E15 into the marketplace is educating consumers and creating the market demand for the fuel. Again, Growth Energy took the lead, utilizing our NASCAR sponsorship platform. In partnership with American Ethanol, we launched a multimillion dollar national ad campaign in June, which includes a sweepstakes giving away three Chevrolet Silverado trucks as well as other exciting prizes.
Whether you follow NASCAR, or are a casual fan, you have likely seen our commercial several times this summer. Reaching more than 5 million viewers a weekend, our E15 campaign has been a tremendous success. While entertaining and funny, the message of the commercial is clear&mdash;E15 is the fuel for your car. One comical spot features American Ethanol NASCAR driver Austin Dillon and guest star Kevin Harvick. The commercial shows Dillon being passed on the track by the &ldquo;Ferguson&rdquo; family in a beige minivan running on E15. The narrator explains that NASCAR is powered by E15 and that your car can use it too, but reminds viewers not to let it go to their head! By announcing the sweepstakes in the commercial, it was extremely successful in driving people to American Ethanol&rsquo;s Facebook page, reaching well beyond NASCAR fans and thus increasing our efforts to educate more consumers of the benefits of American Ethanol and E15. As August draws to a close, the sweepstakes will end, but Growth Energy&rsquo;s work will not. We will continue educating consumers about the benefits of E15.&nbsp; Additionally, our team will continue to work with retailers on how to get E15 in their pumps, highlighting the proven economic advantages other retailers have experienced when increased ethanol blends are offered for sale.
Growth Energy&rsquo;s core mission is to continue to promote the use of ethanol, as a way to reduce harmful emissions and spur economic growth in America, creating jobs and opportunities, while simultaneously reducing our addiction to foreign oil. E15 will not come to the market without a fight. Entrenched interests in foreign oil and the petroleum industry will continue to distort the truth in their misinformation campaigns.
We must persist, define and win over the public&rsquo;s perception. We are on the side of American exceptionalism, investing in America and providing reliable, renewable fuel for American energy security and creating American jobs. Growth Energy will continue to build the market demand for E15 and work directly with retailers to help bring it to a station near you. Author: Tom Buis CEO, Growth Energy (202)545-4000 tbuis@growthenergy.org

2012/07/1342014803041.jpg

Bringing E15 to the Consumer

Secured financing can sometimes seem simple: Get a security agreement, file a financing statement, make a loan. In the grain industry, even the multiple parties with interests in grain&mdash;banks, seed sellers, fertilizer providers, harvesters, and so on&mdash;can all get paid when grain prices are high enough to satisfy all of their claims.
Unfortunately, this simple view has been challenged as grain prices have fluctuated and input costs continue to rise. Several types of interests may compete for grain proceeds. Most farmers rely on secured credit provided by banks. Lawyers, bankers and many farmers know that the granting and enforcement of such consensual security interests is governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code and the process is fairly well understood. Things get more complicated when grain buyers have to deal with statutory liens and the Food Security Act.
States have created statutory liens for nearly every person in the grain production value chain, but the liens created by each state are different in scope and enforcement. Statutory lienholders could include seed sellers, fertilizer providers, harvesters, warehousers and carriers, among others. Unfortunately for all parties, statutory liens vary widely. Each state&rsquo;s law must be consulted to determine permitted liens, how they are perfected (such as by filing a financing statement), and what the priority of those liens will be.
The final complication discussed here arises from the rights of grain buyers. Before 1985, a buyer of grain or other farm products was always subject to security interests created by the seller. To mitigate the risk that grain buyers might have to pay twice, buyers routinely conducted searches against their sellers and cut checks payable to both their sellers and their sellers&rsquo; secured creditors.
The Federal Food Security Act of 1985 shifted the burden somewhat in favor of buyers. The act provides that buyers of farm products take free-of-security interests created by sellers, unless the holders of those security interests comply with certain requirements. Under the act, states may be certified as &ldquo;central filing states&rdquo; or &ldquo;clear title states&rdquo; and those without a central filing system are commonly known as &ldquo;notice states.&rdquo; Unless a state&rsquo;s central filing system has been certified by the USDA, the state is a notice state. To date, 19 states have been certified as clear title states for some or all farm products. The list published on the USDA&rsquo;s website at www.gipsa.usda.gov/Lawsandregs/cleartitle.html reveals, for example, that Minnesota and Nebraska are clear title states, but Iowa and Kansas are not.
In clear title states with an approved central filing system, secured parties must file an &ldquo;effective financing statement&rdquo; covering their security interest in the state where the grain is produced. Grain buyers must search the central filing before paying for grain. If any secured parties have filed against the grain being purchased, the buyer should obtain a release from the secured parties, or at least cut any checks payable to both the farmer and the secured parties.
The contents of the filing required in clear title states is different from that required under the Uniform Commercial Code, but a secured party must file both to be protected in those states. Matters become particularly difficult when multiple states are involved. Under the Food Security Act, the correct state in which to file is the state where the product is produced. Under the UCC, the correct state in which to file is the state where the debtor&mdash;not the product&mdash;resides (or was formed, if an entity).
In notice states, a buyer of farm products, including grain, in the ordinary course of business takes free-of-security interests created by the seller, unless the secured parties have given the buyer notice of their security interests. For this reason, lenders in notice states often require farm debtors to provide a list of their grain buyers.
The ways that statutory liens, the Uniform Commercial Code and the Food Security Act interact to determine priority vary from state to state.&nbsp; Grain buyers would be well-served to fully understand lien priority in the states in which they operate so that they can make payments in a way that minimizes the risk of double payment. Author: Adam Hertzke Faegre Baker Daniels LLP (515) 447-4719 adam.hertzke@FaegreBD.com

2012/07/1342014509934.jpg

Who's on First? Lien Priority in a Volatile World

In July, we get a clearer view in the European Union of the previous year&rsquo;s production and consumption. Obtaining data is always a cumbersome, time-consuming operation. Once the data is there, the challenge is to explain the differences and eventually come up with the most accurate numbers. Every year when I try to pull together the supply and demand data on ethanol, I am reminded of what former U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill supposedly thought of statistics: &ldquo;I only believe the statistics I make myself.&rdquo; I will not go that far, but a lot of checking and double-checking is needed before a level of accuracy is achieved that is presentable.
For ethanol trade numbers, the European statistical office is still the best source. EU member states have the legal obligation to hand over national statistics to the Eurostat office. Getting in the national data is a time-consuming affair.
The collection of ethanol supply and demand data is done at two levels. One division in the European Commission needs to present the so-called ethanol balance every year. The analysis of the data obtained from the 27 member-states provides detailed information on feedstock and end-use. Another division produces data on fuel-use only, also based on national reporting. The data never matches and thus the search starts, comparing different sources to get a full, accurate picture.
The preliminary 2011 data now surfacing already allows some interesting initial observations.
Total domestic supply in 2011 was about 6.3 billion liters (1.6 billion gallons), 15 percent more than 2010. Total demand was about the same, almost 12 percent over the prior year. That would suggest that the market was in balance last year, with imports not accounted for. If we add the imports, however, there was a substantial oversupply of almost 1.5 billion liters.
Getting the import data right is always the biggest challenge. Undenatured or denatured ethanol needs an import license, which makes counting easy. It gets rather difficult as soon as ethanol enters in blended form with gasoline and/or another chemical product and the EU import statistics are not entirely reliable for those imports. The better way is to count the volumes from exporting countries, assuming that all exports to the EU were indeed consumed there. Last year, close to 1.2 billion liters entered though this not-so-transparent way, of which the U.S. accounted for 85 percent.
There were no real shifts in 2011 as far as production and consumption by country is concerned. France is still, by far, the number one ethanol producer in Europe, producing 1.8 billion liters (467 MMgy) followed by Germany at 223 million gallons. Next is the U.K., then Spain and number five is Belgium.
The biggest consumer of ethanol is Germany&mdash;good for close to 2 billion liters, of which two thirds goes into fuel. Number two is France with 1.5 billion liters and 70 percent going into fuel. The third biggest consumer of ethanol is the U.K. where 90 percent is used in fuel.
In terms of feedstocks, we see an increase of the cereal share in 2011 to the detriment of sugar juice. Almost 70 percent of ethanol production is now cereal based. Even though the statistics I am quoting from don&rsquo;t tell us what type of cereals, we know from other sources that almost 50 percent is wheat and 35 percent maize. The second most preferred crop is sugar beet, which accounts for almost 23 percent of EU ethanol production. And finally, there is still some lower quality wine used as feedstock. The higher share of wheat can be explained by two factors: first, new production capacity coming online uses either wheat or corn and, second, higher global sugar prices made it more attractive to divert more sugar juice to the production of sugar than ethanol.
All in all, it can be concluded that 2011 is continuing the growth trend of previous years, though at a more modest pace than before. The growth pattern should continue this year. The true challenge is to obtain a growth rate in market prices that reflects the growth rate in supply and demand.
Author: Robert Vierhout Secretary-general, ePURE Vierhout@epure.org

2012/07/134201462024.jpg

Supply, Demand Still Going Up

1. Biofuels marketer Eco-Energy Inc. has entered into a supply agreement with Propel Fuels to meet the retailer&rsquo;s E85 demands for the next three years. Propel currently operates a network of self-serve biofuels filling stations and Clean Mobility Centers, which introduce renewable fuels blends alongside conventional fuels, in California and Washington. According to Propel, integrating the producer-to-pump supply chain will reduce the cost of procuring, storing and delivering renewable fuels. &ldquo;Eco-Energy&rsquo;s extensive supply and distribution capabilities and access to low-cost feedstocks strengthens our ability to provide great value to our customers,&rdquo; Propel CEO Matt Horton said. &ldquo;They are the perfect fit for us as we plan and execute the expansion of our fueling network.&rdquo; As part of the agreement, Propel and Eco-Energy will collaborate to expand Propel&rsquo;s renewable fuels retail network substantially. Propel expects to grow its retail network to more than 200 stations over the next five years. 2. Codexis Inc. has appointed John Nicols to serve as president and CEO. Prior to joining Codexis, Nicols was employed for more than 20 years at Albermarle Corp., a specialty chemicals company, where he managed multiple divisions throughout his career and most recently served as senior vice president of strategic development and catalysts. From 2007 to February 2012, he served as Albermarle&rsquo;s vice president of the catalysts division and was responsible for growing that division&rsquo;s segment income by $200 million from 2006 to 2011. In his new role at Codexis, Nicols said his first priority will be to complete the development of the company&rsquo;s trademarked CodeXyme cellulase enzymes and CodeXol detergent alcohol. &ldquo;I envision that Codexis&rsquo; CodeEvolver directed evolution technology platform will continue to generate differentiated commercial products in the pharmaceuticals, chemicals and fuels markets,&rdquo; he said. 3. Visalia, Calif.-based biomaterials and biofuels company Edeniq Inc. recently promoted Tom Griffin to chief technology officer. Griffin joined the company in 2010 and served previously as vice president of technology. Griffin&rsquo;s promotion follows continued market growth of the company&rsquo;s products and services to existing ethanol plants as well as commercial development and scale-up of its cellulosic processes. In his new role, Griffin will lead Edeniq&rsquo;s technology developments and future growth strategy. &ldquo;In the short two years Tom has been at Edeniq, he has played a key role in our success,&rdquo; Brian Thome, president and CEO, said. &ldquo;His new role as CTO ensures that Edeniq will benefit from his continued leadership and hands-on approach to invention and implementation.&rdquo; Griffin is a chemical engineer and has spent the past 20 years actively involved in technology development and deployment in the alternative energy and environmental technology sectors. His accomplishments include co-founding Pennsylvania Sustainable Technologies, integrating bioprocess and thermochemical reaction engineering elements toward advanced biofuels process configurations. 4. Lallemand Ethanol Technology and Mascoma Corp. will market the Mascoma Grain Technology yeast product under the trademarked name TransFerm. The product is a bio-engineered substitute for conventional fermenting yeast and is expected to lower the cost of corn ethanol production by reducing the amount of enzymes currently required for ethanol production. It is the first commercial application of Mascoma&rsquo;s proprietary consolidated bioprocessing technology platform. Lallemand serves as the manufacturer and distributor of the product. Mascoma and Lallemand will share marketing and sales roles under an exclusive partnership. TransFerm has been used to produce more than 50 million gallons of ethanol by nine corn ethanol producers, according to the companies. 5. The American Coalition for Ethanol will honor Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., with the Merle Anderson Award during the group&rsquo;s annual ethanol conference Aug. 10 in Omaha, Neb. Nelson was selected to receive the award in recognition of his leadership in supporting the renewable fuels industry while serving as governor and senator of Nebraska. Nelson established the Governors&rsquo; Ethanol Coalition in 1991, assisted in creating the first energy title in a Farm Bill, and played a key role in passing the 2005 and 2007 renewable fuels standards. &ldquo;Senator Nelson has been a great champion on behalf of the ethanol industry,&rdquo; ACE Executive Director Brian Jennings said. &ldquo;His work and leadership during his time in office really gave a boost to rural economies in Nebraska as well as across America.&rdquo; The Merle Anderson Award is named in honor of ACE&rsquo;s founder and first president, Merle Anderson, who serves as chairman emeritus of the group&rsquo;s board of directors.
6. ICM Inc. has been issued a U.S. patent for its Advanced Oil Separation System, which employs both mechanical and chemical separation to increase the volume of non-food-grade oil recovered from an ethanol plant&rsquo;s process. Ethanol is used as a solvent to break the emulsion and free oil that would not otherwise be recovered, thus eliminating the need for other additives. Kurt Dieker, director of product development, said the AOS System processes a smaller product stream post-centrifuge, providing a competitive advantage on processing costs. The systems have been installed at nine ethanol plants, with seven more installations scheduled to be complete by the end of the year. Customers who have installed the system so far are experiencing a return on investment rate of six months or less, according to the company.
Pacific Ethanol Inc. announced June 21 that it will install ICM&rsquo;s AOS system at its 60 MMgy Magic Valley facility in Burley, Idaho. Installation will be complete by the end of the year. The company expects to begin generating revenue from corn oil separation early next year and intends to implement the technology at its three other plants by the end of the first quarter of 2013. 7. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service recently awarded a nearly $400,000 grant to a group of university researchers to conduct ongoing research on biofuel crops that could be used as an alternative to corn. The group&rsquo;s research began last summer and will be funded through the grant for two more years. Joshua Campbell, an assistant biology professor at High Point University in North Carolina co-authored the grant and will be examining pollinating insects and how their populations and diversity are affected by various types of biofuel crops. &ldquo;Currently the effects of biofuel crops on pollinators and other beneficial insects are largely unknown,&rdquo; he said. Other researchers in the project are professors at Mississippi State University.
8. Wayne, GE Energy&rsquo;s fuel dispenser and technology company, has launched a new line of fuel dispensers that will serve as the global platform on which all future Wayne dispenser models will be based. The Wayne Helix fuel dispenser line represents an inside-and-out redesign, incorporating high-quality materials and advanced fuel-dispensing technology which will accommodate gasoline/ethanol blends and higher-ethanol content fuels, according to Russ Haecker, Helix product manager. &ldquo;For dispensing ethanol grades higher than E15 per UL [Underwriters Laboratories] requirements, the Helix fuel dispenser is equipped with coated meters and stainless steel tubing, the same as our current dispenser product offerings,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;In addition, the Helix dispenser will be able to provide variable blending of both ethanol and gasoline, outputting up to five blended fuel products.&rdquo; Ethanol blending configurations for the dispensers will be available early next year. 9. Gevo Inc. has signed a collaborative agreement with Malaysia&rsquo;s East Coast Economic Region Development Council, Malaysian Biotechnology Corp., and Malaysian state government officials to develop a cellulosic biomass isobutanol facility in the State of Terengganu. Gevo has been conducting development work in Malaysia for the past year to develop strategic partnerships along the supply chain and is in the final stages of evaluating additional partners to complete that value chain. &ldquo;The technology for sustainable cellulosic feedstock is expected to be commercially viable this year, so now is the appropriate time to begin our cellulosic platform,&rdquo; said Chris Ryan, Gevo president and chief operating officer. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re excited to follow the demand, especially since Southeast Asia is one of the fastest growing chemical markets, and Malaysia provides an excellent growth opportunity for Gevo.&rdquo; 10. Beta Renewables, a joint venture between Italy&rsquo;s Gruppo Mossi &amp; Ghisolfi and TPG, received the Innovation Award for its Proesa technology during the 2012 ACHEMA conference held June 18-22 in Frankfurt, Germany. More than 100 companies applied for awards in 10 categories at the chemical engineering, environmental protection and biotechnology industries conference. Winners were selected based on innovation, usability, quality, efficiency and economy. Beta Renewables&rsquo; Proesa technology converts a variety of inedible feedstocks into fermentable sugars which can be used to produce biofuels and chemicals. The technology will be used at Beta Renewables&rsquo; commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant in Crescentino, Italy, which is scheduled to begin production by the end of this year. The technology will also be installed at facilities to be constructed by GraalBio in Brazil.
&nbsp;
Share your industry briefs To be included in Business Briefs, send information (including photos and logos if available) to: Business Briefs, Ethanol Producer Magazine, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks ND 58203. You may also fax information to (701) 746-8385, or email it to kbevill@bbiinternational.com. Please include your name and telephone number in all correspondence.

Tom Griffin has expertise in chemical reaction engineering, biofuels, photovoltaics, coal gasification and advanced hazardous waste conversion applications. He holds a doctorate in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

2012/07/13419561817129.jpg

Wayneâ€™s new fuel dispenser is designed to address the all usersâ€™ needs, including a variety of ethanol blends.

2012/07/13419561830233.jpg

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has been a strong supporter of the ethanol industry for more than 20 years and will be honored for his leadership and contributions to advancing the industry during the American Coalition for Ethanol conference in August.

2012/07/13419561840863.jpg

2012/07/13419563655986.jpg

2012/07/13419563669466.jpg

Business Briefs

Bacterial infections are a fact of life in the ethanol production process. The reality is, complete sterilization is simply not practical, according to Kevin Kauers, senior research scientist for North American Bioproducts Corp. Kauers was one of several people who gave presentations on bacterial control at the 2012 International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo, held June 4-7 in Minneapolis.
Because bacteria competes for yeast and sugars, reducing yield, even a small infection can hit the bottom line hard. At $2 per gallon of ethanol, a 50 MMgy plant would lose about $500,000 a year with only a 0.5 percent loss in yield. That goes up to $1 million for a 1 percent loss and $4 million for a four percent loss, illustrating why it&rsquo;s so important that producers remain proactive in fighting contamination, Kauers said.
There are three options for ethanol producers looking to control bacterial infections, according to Brian King, lab manager for Ferm Solutions Inc. The first is an application of 0.5 to 2 parts per million (ppm) of conventional antibiotics. Nonantibiotic options include new natural products, hops, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, bleach, para-acetic acids and more.
BetaTec Hop Products has seen significant growth in the use of alternatives to antibiotic products in the U.S., said Lloyd Schantz, executive vice president of the company. Out of about 200 ethanol plants in the U.S., more than 60 are using products marketed by BetaTec or its competitors, some in combination with antibiotics and others in place of antibiotics. As the use of antibiotics in the ethanol production process increasingly comes under scrutiny, U.S. FDA regulations may become stricter, prompting even more growth. However, Schantz predicted future changes will be driven by the customers of distillers grains, who he expects react faster than the regulatory agencies.
For example, Poet LLC announced a year ago that it was selling certified antibiotic-free distillers grains. The move was significant, considering Poet is the largest dry-grind ethanol producer in the world. The company spent a few years developing and testing a new process that eliminated the need for antibiotics. Although the process has been installed at all Poet plants, only customers specifically requesting it will receive certified antibiotic-free distillers grains, the company said.
DuPont markets its trademarked FermaSure, patent-pending, stabilized chlorine dioxide products, to ethanol plants around the world, according to Eric Sumner, business leader for the company&rsquo;s FermaSure antimicrobials business. Since it was launched at the 2007 FEW, DuPont&rsquo;s FermaSure is now used in about 50 U.S. ethanol plants, including Poet&rsquo;s facilities. &ldquo;DuPont has certainly seen very strong growth in our FermaSure products sales, and away from antibiotics,&rdquo; Sumner told EPM. &ldquo;Most of our customers do not use any antibiotics. Some customers choose to use both FermaSure stabilized chlorine dioxide and antibiotics.&rdquo; The company believes this is due to the practice of rotation to prevent development of resistant bacteria strains, something that it says is not necessary with DuPont&rsquo;s FermaSure.
Ferm Solutions is looking to nature to develop antimicrobial products for the fuel ethanol industry. The company has, so far, selected 23 natural exudates for commercial application, including one called Naturyl, currently undergoing trials at both batch and continuous ethanol plants, Kauers said. The data shows that, under high bacterial pressure, applications of 2 ppm Naturyl can result in yield increases. The result of one trial showed that using the 100 percent natural product in a bacteria-infected fermentation resulted in 12.893 percent yield, compared to 12.784 percent yield in the control with no bacteria added. The treatment with bacteria, but no Naturyl, yielded only 8.833 percent. &ldquo;Naturyl appears to be a viable alternative to antibiotics for controlling bacteria in fuel ethanol applications,&rdquo; he said, adding that the company is now working to gain regulatory approval for use in the fuel ethanol industry.
Illustrating that bacterial infections aren&rsquo;t a corn-ethanol problem alone, Jadyr Oliveira, managing director for Prozen Biosolutions, spoke at FEW about the Brazilian company&rsquo;s efforts to develop Biozyn, a bio-based antimicrobial. The industry has been working on the problem for four or five years because dried yeast, a coproduct of the sugarcane-ethanol production process, is marketed to the animal industry, he said. Moving away from antibiotics is a challenge because those products are extremely efficient and a high sugar load makes sugarcane ethanol very susceptible to bacteria, he said.&nbsp; Prozen&rsquo;s Biozyn works well in sugarcane ethanol production, however, and has also shown excellent results in industrial trials at corn-ethanol plants which, in Brazil, produce high-quality ethanol for the pharmaceutical industry. Author: Holly Jessen Features Editor of Ethanol Producer Magazine (701) 738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

Gram positive bacteria, shown in blue here, are the most common source of infection in the ethanol production process. Gram negative bacteria are pictured in pink. 

2012/07/13419550298839.jpg

2012/07/13419550317504.jpg

2012/07/13419550342276.jpg

2012/07/13419550351352.jpg

Antibiotics are the most common tool against bacteria, but alternatives exist 

Bacterial Battle

Are the antibiotic residues found in distillers grains biologically active? And, if they are, could antibiotic use in distillers grains production contribute to antibiotic resistance in animals?&nbsp; While the answer may vary depending on the source, one thing researchers agree on is that more study is needed.
The University of Minnesota spent one year investigating whether antibiotic residues survive the ethanol production process&mdash;concluding that those residues are not biologically active, says Gerald Shurson, a swine nutrition and management professor at the U of M. Shurson is one of six researchers from the Department of Animal Sciences, the U of M Extension Service and the Department of Food Science and Nutrition, who worked on the study. Final data collection wrapped up this spring and the researchers plan to publish the results in the Journal of Animal Science, possibly by the end of the year, he says. Funding came from the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council.
Later, at the International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo, held June 4-7 in Minneapolis, the outcome of two additional studies were presented. Kenneth Bischoff, a research microbiologist with the USDA&rsquo;s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), revealed something different&mdash;that the antibiotic virginianmycin did remain biologically active through the ethanol production process. A second research project examined the same distillers grains produced in the first USDA study and determined that feeding cattle distillers grains that contained antibiotic residues had minimal or no influence on antimicrobial susceptibility of fecal bacteria or dissemination of resistance genes. The results of that study were presented by Tom Edrington, a research animal scientist with the food science research unit of USDA ARS. In Minnesota The U of M study follows up on unpublished U.S. Food and Drug Administration studies, which found antibiotic residues do remain in distillers grains through the ethanol production process. Using the same procedures FDA used, the Minnesota researchers came to the same conclusion. There were tiny amounts of antibiotic residues in the distillers grains, but not enough to exceed what the FDA has set as limits in animal feed. &ldquo;Relative to approval levels of our FDA, they are minuscule amounts,&rdquo; Shurson says.
What they did differently, he explains, is take it a step further to investigate whether distillers grains samples showed any bacterial inhibition when two bacteria&mdash;E. coli and listeria monocytogenes&mdash;were introduced. Samples of both wet distillers grains and DDGS were collected and analyzed quarterly for one year. Every sample of distillers grains analyzed contained residues of antibiotics. The concentrations were very low, however, when compared to the FDA-approved feed levels. In addition, out of 159 samples, only one showed inhibition of E. coli bacteria and none with listeria monocytogenes. In searching for biologically active residues, the researchers put distillers grains extracts in bacteria-seeded petri dishes. Because the majority of the extracts didn&rsquo;t show any signs of bacterial inhibition, researchers concluded that the antibiotic residues were not biologically active. Only one distillers grains extract killed the bacteria in the petri dish. That sample resisted the growth of E. coli and contained 0.015 ppm virginiamycin and 0.014 ppm erythromycin. &ldquo;Even though we find small amounts of antibiotics in these distillers, there isn&rsquo;t any biological activity,&rdquo; Shurson says.
Based on the literature from other research studies, the environmental conditions in an ethanol plant inactivate antibiotics in the production process. Penicillin is very sensitive to pH and is inactivated fairly quickly as the pH drops to the 3.5 to 4 range, he says. Virginiamycin, on the other hand, is very heat sensitive, and is destroyed in temperatures above 93 degrees. Distillers grains dryers operate at temperatures from 93 to 232 degrees. Tylosin is inactivated with increased temperature levels and is the most stable at pH 3.5 and 9. Although the inactivation of erythromycin is less well-documented, Shurson said there is likely some inactivation of that antibiotic as well.
The most commonly used antibiotic is virginiamycin. Virginiamycin and penicillin, also used by the industry, are listed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS.) The U of M study identified residues of both virginiamycin and penicillin, as well as erythromycin. The puzzlers were tetracycline and tylosin, particularly the latter. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re not clear at all where this would be coming from,&rdquo; Shurson says. &ldquo;We know the least about this particular antibiotic.&rdquo;
The results of the U of M study is positive news for the ethanol industry, the majority of which still uses antibiotics to control bacterial infection in the production process, Shurson says. &ldquo;The fate of using these antibiotics in animal production has not yet been decided by FDA, which in my opinion has a much more significant bearing on the issue than the level of antibiotics used in ethanol production,&rdquo; he said. Not everyone agrees, however. &ldquo;The use of antibiotics in animal feeds has received increased scrutiny and attention from many groups, and thus, continues to be one of the most controversial issues facing agriculture today,&rdquo; Shurson says.
In May, before U of M researchers had finished compiling the results of the fourth and final survey of distillers grains samples, an 11-page report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy referenced its preliminary findings.&nbsp; Julia Olmstead, author of &ldquo;Bugs in the System: How the FDA fails to Regulate Antibiotics in Ethanol Production,&rdquo; focused in on the one sample of distillers grains that exhibited inhibition of E. coli and called for immediate action. For one thing, Olmstead wants the FDA to ban sales of unapproved antibiotics to the ethanol industry and recommended that the ethanol industry voluntarily stop using antibiotics. The USDA, U.S. DOE and other agencies should provide technical assistance and potential financial support to the industry to help with a quick transition away from antibiotics, she said in the report. As a result, quite a few conflicting articles are floating around the Internet, some referencing the conclusions of the U of M study, some using Olmstead&rsquo;s report as the only source. Complementary Studies In contrast, the USDA study that concluded there were biologically active antibiotics in distillers grains focused on virginiamycin. In cooperation with the National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center, the USDA ran three fermentors: a control with no antibiotics; one with 2 ppm virginiamycin, the recommended dosage for ethanol production, and one fermentor containing 20 ppm virginiamycin. &ldquo;This is not to suggest that an ethanol plant would use this type of dosage,&rdquo; Bischoff said during his FEW presentation.
Samples were taken during all stages of ethanol production. The goal, he said, was to understand what affect the various processes, such as distillation, evaporation and drying have on the antibiotic residue level.The conclusion was that conditions during the ethanol production process were not sufficient to deactivate virginiamycin in distillers grains. In the samples taken from the fermentors that were dosed with only 2 ppm antibiotics, only the dried distillers grains with solubles contained antibacterial (or biological) activity. Presumably, Bischoff said, the activity was below detection at the other stages. For the fermentors dosed with 20 ppm, however, there was antibacterial activity in all the samples, starting with fermentation and moving through all the stages, including whole stillage, thin stillage, wetcake, syrup and dried distillers grains with soluables. Looking at the data on a dry-weight basis, a steady decrease in antibacterial activity was observed from the beginning to the end of the process. Virginiamycin content also varied in samples taken from the same stage of the process, but at different times, Bischoff noted.
More study is needed on the topic. First, more antibiotics need to be evaluated and there&rsquo;s a need to increase the sensitivity of analytical method and bioassay, he said. Subsequent studies should look at the effect of varying operating parameters, such as process temperature, to increase the rate of antibiotic deactivation.
The results were concerning, Bischoff said. Viewing the data side-by-side with the results of a follow-up investigation, however, illustrates how important it is not to stop with just one study. Taking it to the next step, a second group of researchers fed cattle the distillers grains containing antibacterial residues and examined whether antibiotic residues in distillers grains would have any influence on antimicrobial susceptibility of fecal microflora or the dissemination of resistance genes. In the end, none of the findings were of concern. &ldquo;Overall, I think it&rsquo;s good news,&rdquo; Edrington said during his presentation at FEW, which was on the same panel as Bischoff&rsquo;s presentation.
In fact, the data showed that antibacterial resistance is already out there as the cattle were already showing antibacterial resistance on day zero of the study. &ldquo;We can take cattle at any stage in the process and we can find resistance to bacteria,&rdquo; he said. In some cases, the control group of cattle fed distillers grains produced with no antibiotics actually showed more antibacterial resistance, and antibiotic resistance tended to decrease over time in the animals fed distillers grains containing antibiotic residues.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The distillers grains used in the second study were produced at NCERC during experimentation with different levels of antibiotic use for Bischoff&rsquo;s research. Cattle were separated into groups that were fed distillers grains produced using no virginiamycin, 2 ppm virginiamycin or 20 ppm virginiamycin. Another control group was fed distillers grains containing 22.5 grams per ton of a virginiamycin drug intended to be mixed into animal feed. The experiment started before the results of the first USDA study were compiled, Edrington clarified, and the researchers wanted to be certain at least one group of cattle was indeed fed virginiamycin. As it turned out, there was antimicrobial activity in the distillers grains produced with the antibiotic virginiamycin but the researchers wanted to make sure so as not to replicate other studies on this topic that used distillers grains that it was unknown if they actually contained antibiotic residues. &ldquo;You have to be careful with a study,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;Is it really a cause and effect relationship?&rdquo;
Like the other researchers, Edrington also talked about the need for more study. This particular experiment was for 49 days and he&rsquo;d like to see another study do a feeding trial for the more typical 150-day period. In this case, the study was cut shorter due to labor costs and the fact that the cattle were on concrete and typically get tender feet at about that time.
Author: Holly Jessen Features Editor of Ethanol Producer Magazine (701) 738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

2012/08/13450538845959.jpg

2012/07/13419553210381.jpg

Studies examine antibiotics in DDGS, whether it contributes to antibiotic resistance in animals 

Testing for Traces

The once futuristic vision of integrating traditional and second-generation ethanol facilities appears more attainable as various companies emerge with technology improvements that will allow corn ethanol producers to add cellulosic ethanol streams without taking on insurmountable piles of debt.
Edeniq Inc. was one of the first companies to promote the concept of integrated production. The Visalia, Calif.-based company has been developing technology for that purpose since its inception seven years ago. &ldquo;That was the purpose of Edeniq&mdash;how do you take a process for cellulosic and convert it in a lowest-cost manner and integrate with a corn ethanol plant?&rdquo; says Brian Thome, Edeniq president and CEO. With help from a $25 million U.S. DOE cost-sharing program, Edeniq has constructed a pilot-scale Corn-to-Cellulose Migration plant in Visalia in order to further perfect the concept. Completion of the plant was celebrated with an official ribbon cutting at the plant to celebrate its completion on June 26, but the facility actually began producing cellulosic ethanol at the end of March. &ldquo;We like to talk about what we have done rather than what we believe we&rsquo;ll be able to do in the future,&rdquo; Thome says. That philosophy could serve Edeniq well as it approaches skeptical corn ethanol producers to discuss migrating toward cellulosic production.
According to Thome, many ethanol producers are quite interested in adding cellulosic to their revenues, but they are cautious about adding risk to a $200 million corn-ethanol plant. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re looking for proven technologies,&rdquo; Thome says. &ldquo;There are a lot of companies coming into this industry that have not been involved previously that make a lot of promises. As our industry has found out over previous years, those promises don&rsquo;t always hold water.&rdquo; Looking for Leapers Thome&rsquo;s company has spoken to many plant leaders who say they want to be the fourth or fifth plant to add cellulosic technology to their process stream, after someone else has taken the leap to be the first to try it. That&rsquo;s one reason Edeniq recently formed a joint development agreement with Flint Hills Resources Renewables LLC. The Koch Industries subsidiary operates four corn-ethanol plants in Iowa, representing approximately 425 MMgy of production capacity, and has agreed to work with Edeniq to scale up its cellulosic technology.
Flint Hills became an Edeniq investor in May, stating at the time that the investment was part of its strategy to enhance a competitive edge over fellow producers. This could come to fruition quickly, as the first of Edeniq&rsquo;s three-step migration plan is put into place at one of Flint Hills&rsquo; plants. The Cellunator, Edeniq&rsquo;s particle miller, is used to produce uniformly sized pieces of biomass for conversion to sugars. According to Edeniq, adding the Cellunator to a corn-ethanol plant can increase the facility&rsquo;s income by $3 million to $6 million annually. Flint Hills also plans to install Edeniq&rsquo;s corn-oil-extraction technology in at least three of its plants, further boosting their profitability through corn-oil recovery. The ultimate goal will be to test Edeniq&rsquo;s Pathway enzyme platform, which is designed to allow facilities to produce cellulosic ethanol from corn fiber in the plants&rsquo; existing distillers grains. The Pathway enzymes, which will be used in conjunction with reduced amounts of commercially available enzymes, are expected to be ready for use by year&rsquo;s end. The overall migration process is meant to be gradual, according to Thome, but the technologies allow plants to experience profit improvements along the way. &ldquo;Our belief is that these plants have the opportunity to incrementally improve their revenues through the addition of technologies such as the Cellunator,&rdquo; he says.
Thome says Edeniq is certain that corn ethanol producers will be the key to introducing cellulosic ethanol to the market by way of adding cellulosic streams to their existing facilities. &ldquo;We believe firmly, as do a number of other companies, that we need to utilize the assets that are in the ground and the billions of dollars that have been deployed in our industry, as well as the expertise and operations and knowledge base of the corn ethanol industry, to add cellulosic to existing ethanol plants,&rdquo; he says. There are challenges, of course, such as feedstock logistics and the formation of inhibitors in the cellulosic process, but Thome says Edeniq is addressing those issues and he believes they can be overcome. &ldquo;We know, based on everything we&rsquo;ve done, that you can integrate a portion of cellulosic materials, whether it&rsquo;s sugar or otherwise, directly into the process and make some changes to fermentation [and] the effluent byproduct usage that are extremely beneficial to the plants and help them increase revenue and drive margins, which they need right now,&rdquo; he says. Cutting Costs and Validating Canada&rsquo;s largest ethanol producer, GreenField Ethanol Inc., has been developing cellulosic ethanol process technology for half a decade with an eye toward eventually integrating the technology into its four existing corn-ethanol plants. About a year ago, those involved with the technology development project thought they had achieved their goal. The process worked but the problem was it cost too much. &ldquo;We ended up with an estimated cap ex [capital expenditure] at commercial scale for just the pretreatment package that we knew was not going to work,&rdquo; says Barry Wortzman, vice president of business development. &ldquo;Our process was fine and the equipment was executing the process, but the cost to do it was making it noncommercial, so we had to figure out a way to make it less expensive.&rdquo;
After another year or so of additional development, the company now believes it has solved this problem by developing its own process equipment&mdash;a highly modified twin screw extruder that will be used at two places in the biomass pretreatment cycle. Replacing five or six pieces of equipment that would otherwise be required to do the job lowers the capital costs significantly, he says.
The modified extruder is first used at the very beginning of pretreatment. After the feedstock is chopped and sized, it is fed into the extruder, where it is detoxified in preparation for fermentation. At this stage, Wortzman says the extruder replaces two or three other pieces of equipment, and does so without lessening the efficiency of the process. In fact, he believes the extruder is more efficient. Additionally, for feedstocks that require acid treatments, standard equipment would need to be made of expensive, high-grade steel to prevent corrosion. GreenField&rsquo;s extruder is designed instead with a liner, which again means less capital cost for producers.
The second point the extruder is employed is further downstream in preprocessing, where is it used to wash the material and separate the C5 and C6 sugars for processing.&nbsp; The washing is completed under high pressure using heat, which also contributes to the cooking process, providing a head start on the fermentation. Wortzman says up to three pieces of standard equipment were previously required to complete the washing/separation process that is now handled by a single extruder. &ldquo;By combining all of this into one piece of equipment, as opposed to three, you have increased the cap ex gains significantly,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s why we believe that what we have got is going to be a real contributor for commercial viability.&rdquo;
Wortzman declined to elaborate on the financial investment made by Greenfield to develop this technology, but says the company believes it will be worth the expense. &ldquo;The name of the game is to increase your ethanol throughput in order to meet the demand,&rdquo; he says, adding that while corn yields may continue to increase, the amount of corn that can be used at ethanol facilities will still be limited. Therefore, it is necessary for producers to incorporate technologies into their facilities that will broaden their range of usable feedstocks. In the case of Greenfield&rsquo;s technology, that will likely include corn stover and cobs, but the equipment has also been tested on a variety of energy crops and other sources of biomass, including poplar trees.
Greenfield will validate its process on a continuous scale at its Chatham, Ontario, pilot plant later this year. From there, the company plans to roll out the technology at just one of its plants initially and expects to begin constructing its first bolt-on facility in 2014. The company currently operates three facilities in Ontario&mdash;an approximately 50 MMgy facility in Chatham, a 60 MMgy plant in Johnstown and a 7 MMgy facility in Tiverton&mdash;as well as a 40 MMgy plant in Varennes, Quebec. It&rsquo;s not yet known which will serve as the inaugural commercial-scale cellulosic site. If all goes well, the cellulosic technology will likely be bolted on to all of Greenfield&rsquo;s corn ethanol plants, but that decision is not final. &ldquo;We walk before we run,&rdquo; Wortzman says. &ldquo;We have a plan, but we execute it in an incremental way.&rdquo; Greenfield also plans to market its technology to other producers. Together but Separate Other corn ethanol producers and technology developers agree that existing ethanol plants can play a critical role in advancing cellulosic ethanol technology, but they envision co-located, free-standing facilities as the production method of choice. Poet-DSM Advanced Biofuels LLC is expected to be one of the first companies to display this concept. Its 20 MMgy corn cob-to-ethanol facility in Emmetsberg, Iowa, is currently being constructed adjacent to Poet&rsquo;s 55 MMgy corn ethanol facility and is on pace to be operational in 2013. As the largest ethanol producer in the U.S., Poet has a wealth of corn ethanol production knowledge, and it&rsquo;s that knowledge base that attracted DSM to the project as it sought a partner to demonstrate its sugar conversion technology. &ldquo;DSM is the only company that can simultaneously ferment all C5 and C6 sugars in cellulosic biomass,&rdquo; says Joost Dubois, branding director for bio-based products and services at DSM. &ldquo;Furthermore, we have a proven track record in scaling up and running industrial biotech and large chemical operations that we will combine with Poet&rsquo;s strength in process technology and infrastructure.&rdquo; Dubois says that DSM wasn&rsquo;t looking specifically for a co-location project to mark its entry into the U.S. cellulosic ethanol industry, but the strategy does offer clear advantages to the production process. &ldquo;The Emmetsberg facility has a full infrastructure of [feedstock] suppliers and Poet has invested several years in building up experience in the collection of biomass on-site,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;It is clear that co-location brings multiple advantages from a cost, staffing, biomass and logistics point of view, so the economics are clearly more favorable for a co-located plant than a stand-alone.&rdquo;
Meanwhile, Denmark&rsquo;s Inbicon has also based its cellulosic ethanol technology strategy on co-locating second-generation facilities with existing ethanol plants. Paul Kamp, director of sales and project development for Inbicon, says corn ethanol producers can reap a multitude of benefits through co-location, including increased profits and reduced energy costs. It&rsquo;s possible that by utilizing energy produced through the cellulosic plant&rsquo;s process, a traditional ethanol plant could also lower its carbon intensity to the point of qualifying the traditional fuel as an advanced biofuel, thus increasing demand for that product as obligated parties seek out advanced fuels to meet renewable fuel standard requirements. The build-out has been slow to start, but if the biofuels industry is going to meet the renewable fuel standard&rsquo;s 36 billion gallon volume requirement in 2022, Kamp believes the industry needs to get back on track and begin rapidly expanding capacity. The corn ethanol industry has done it once before, and Kamp and others believe they can, and must, do it again.
Author: Kris Bevill News Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine (701) 540-6846 kbevill@bbiinternational.com

2012/07/13419557307401.jpg

Greenfield Ethanol Inc.â€™s Center of Excellence in Chatham, Ontario, contains a pilot unit of continuous hydrolysis and fermentation, as well as lab space. 

2012/07/13419556245819.jpg

Edeniq Inc.â€™s 2 ton-per-day pilot plant in Visalia, Calif., began producing cellulosic ethanol earlier this year. The facility will serve to perfect Edeniqâ€™s Corn-to-Cellulose Migration strategy. 

2012/07/13419557557018.jpg

Investing in cellulosic production could improve profit margins at corn ethanol plants

How Cellulosic is Rising from Corn

In 2006, there were four dry mill ethanol plants that extracted corn oil from distillers grain. Today, approximately 90 of 200 corn dry mills have oil extraction capabilities, and that number is expected to rise to 105 by this summer. Low-oil distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) is approaching 60 percent of the market. Initially, corn oil flowed into the animal feed market. Today, most demand comes from biodiesel due to corn oil prices being typically lower than soy. For ethanol producers, the biodiesel market generally returns a higher price than the feed market.
There are two basic options for corn oil extraction: in the front-end before fermentation or as a back-end process where the oil is removed after distillation. The front-end process extracts 50 percent more product and a cleaner corn oil, however, the cost is triple that of the back-end process. Hence, recent investments favor back-end processes. Corn oil extraction equipment is relatively low-cost. Most plants anticipate a payback of less than two years. Depending on the technology employed, extraction rates can vary from approximately 0.5 to 2 pounds of corn oil per bushel of corn.
The variability of oil content in distillers grains adds an additional level of complexity to an unresolved issue. Jay O&rsquo;Neil, senior agricultural economist with the International Grains Program at Kansas State University explains that &ldquo;high-fat DDGS have been part of the feed ration for the past seven to 10 years. Nutritionists have had the opportunity to conduct a number of feed trials and subsequently have developed a good understanding of how adding DDGS to an animal&rsquo;s diet impacts performance. However, there is only anecdotal information related to how low-fat DDGS in a ration impacts performance. We&rsquo;re going through a learning curve where nutritionists don&rsquo;t know for certain and are having to make calculated guesses.&rdquo;&nbsp;
As we enter this new era of distillers grains production, end users of DDGS will have to redefine their buying specifications to fit each species and company needs. Product variability will increase and make ration formulations more challenging. Relative value, defined as a product&rsquo;s nutrient composition as it compares to another product for conversion of energy in animals, will need to be continually assessed.&nbsp;
Previously, the most widely accepted standard protein/fat composition for DDGS was 28/8 for a combined 36 percent. This year, the domestic market has defined this composition as 27 percent protein, 7 percent fat. The combined 34 percent benchmark represents a majority of the DDGS volume today and is likely to rise as more oil is &ldquo;spinned.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Bart Vance, Atlas physical grains managing director confirms that. &ldquo;It appears 34 percent will be where the standard will settle for the coming crop year,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;The market can adapt for these variances, but it is imperative that defined specifications be outlined within contracts. Understanding the &lsquo;flavor&rsquo; of a particular production of DDG will be critical in determining its value for various livestock sectors. It is highly probable we will see a range evolve as the market changes.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;
If 34 percent pro/fat becomes the benchmark, it&rsquo;s widely thought that DDGS&rsquo; relative value to corn will drop. That logic may be flawed, particularly when one considers that the market has been saturated in recent years. In hindsight, DDGS may have been a bargain for many end users, which is one reason there was an initial backlash as specifications dropped and prices for the most part did not. The developing export market, competition for corn and limited flaking capacity may assist in holding DDGS to a higher, although slightly discounted, value relative to corn. Demand Curve Factors When defining the demand curve for low-fat DDGS, geographic location and animal species play a significant role. In 2011, U.S. ethanol producers exported 7.65 million metric tons (mmt) of DDGS, about 23 percent of total production. Of that number, 3.39 mmt went to Asia, or 44 percent of total exports. In economically less-evolved southeast Asia countries, there is limited access to alternative sources of fat and, therefore, a high dependence on high-fat DDGS. A reduced-fat DDG product may prove to be less desirable. In China, which accounted for 21 percent of total exports, the enormity of their overall feedstock needs may take priority over a desire for high-fat DDGS. In Mexico, the largest importer of DDGS at 1.78 mmt, the market has access to alternative sources of fat, and low-fat DDGS may not be an issue. From a domestic perspective, livestock feeders have numerous alternative sources. The question only remains as to the fair discount for low-fat DDGS relative to the high-fat product.
The second looming issue in defining the demand curve for low-fat DDGS revolves around the species of animal. Although animal nutritionists have yet to conduct conclusive empirical tests to determine the performance impact of low-fat DDGS, they are not without opinion. For example, many nutritionists suspect that, in general, ruminants will handle a low-fat ration better than nonruminants. In the case of dairy producers, O&rsquo;Neil says, &ldquo;They&rsquo;ll like the new DDGS because they already feed almost too much fat, and a higher protein, lower fat DDGS ration will work well. As for fat cattle, questions exist whether they&rsquo;ll like the change as much, and for poultry, it is doubtful low-fat DDGS will work well for broilers. On the other hand, layers may find it to their liking.&rdquo;
Unfavorable economic conditions, particularly in the dairy sector, may challenge DDGS inclusion rates, if values trend too high relative to corn and other products. Vance believes that &ldquo;as low-fat DDG production expands, the dairy industry will be a prime target market. We have seen as wide as $20 per ton, and as narrow as $5 per ton, spread on DDGS within the same market, depending on the type of consuming animal unit. This will elevate the 36 percent pro/fat product to premium status where it once was the standard.&rdquo;
As the world market share of DDGS increases, suppliers of competing products may revisit old customers. Bank lenders&rsquo; growing involvement in feed and cash management decisions will challenge nutritionists to evaluate all feed options in their quest for least-cost formulation.&nbsp; As other byproducts need homes, they will target the dairies once again and be formidable competitors.&nbsp;
There may also be a mixed reception for low-fat DDGS within the hog industry. The lower fat content may not work well in the diets of growing pigs. Recent research, however, conducted by Purdue University&rsquo;s Department of Animal Sciences indicates that the abundance of linoleic acid in high-fat DDGS is substantial and a contributor to &ldquo;soft belly.&rdquo;
As production of low-fat DDGS expands and the feed industry acquires empirical evidence of its performance impact on specific animal species, the economics of production may look distinctly different than today. It will be imperative to find new sources of demand and to confirm attractive nutritional values to insure its long term success. Author: John Harangody, Chief Operating Officer, Atlas Commodity Markets (713) 574-5005 John.Harangody@atlasmarkets.com
&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).

2012/07/1341954702985.jpg

Specifications shift as market adjusts, many questions arise about specific applications

Growing Supply of Low-fat  DDGS Impacts Market Dynamics

The slow progress towards an advanced cellulosic ethanol industry has long been blamed on high costs associated with securing feedstocks and developing effective technologies suitable for large volumes. Technical challenges are compounded by large capital expense and process complexity in comparison to the relatively low value of the fuel produced. History shows that once an industry is established, significant technological improvements quickly evolve. But in the meantime, how does one go cap-in-hand to investors when the returns on ethanol are often so meager? Without government assistance or an attractive price on carbon, one way for biofuels to become a sustainable alternative is through higher-value coproducts. Researchers are now trying to offset the substantial costs of fractionating and hydrolyzing lignocellulosic materials by coproducing complex plastics, polymers and chemicals. The majority of these coproducts, however, are aimed at markets significantly smaller in scale than fuel ethanol.
For over a decade, scientists at Australia-based Microbiogen Pty Ltd have used a population genetics approach to selectively breed strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae able to metabolize lignocellulose-derived compounds into ethanol and yeast biomass. Yeast biomass has long been used as a high-protein nutritional supplement in animal feeds&mdash;these are the same yeasts that provide a large component of the digestible protein and other nutrients within dried distillers grains (DDG). Yeast as a supplement to animal feed has traditionally been harvested from starch- or sugar-dependent food manufacturing waste streams. For purpose-grown yeast, substrate accounts for up to 60 percent of production expense, and the cost of the main substrate, molasses, is at historic highs. The ability of Microbiogen&rsquo;s unique, nongenetically engineered yeast strains to utilize the wood sugar xylose along with conventional six-carbon sugars, opens up global markets. It can potentially compete in the established feed-yeast market worth more than $120 million in the U.S. alone, which is a subset of a $16 billion world feed additives market, and also as a partial substitute to soymeal and fishmeal worth more than $80 billion combined annually.
Based upon the yeast&rsquo;s demonstrated capabilities, Microbiogen&rsquo;s Feed and Fuel Biorefinery concept was assessed by the U.S. DOE&rsquo;s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. As part of the assessment, corn stover was sourced and processed by NREL through a one-ton-per-day dilute acid pretreatment system in its Integrated Biorefinery Facility in Golden, Colo. It was then shipped to Microbiogen&rsquo;s Sydney laboratories for pilot-scale trials, where over 200 kilograms (kg) of slurry was neutralized using ammonia and digested using an enzyme cocktail provided by Novozymes Australia Pty Ltd. The six-carbon sugars were fermented into ethanol, and yeast biomass was aerobically produced from the xylose-rich stillage. The residual lignin fraction was dried and assessed as a renewable solid fuel or &ldquo;green coal.&rdquo; Experimentally derived yields and productivities were then relayed back to NREL allowing it to build a comprehensive model using engineering software Aspen Plus, and a similar throughput base case as used in the NREL May 2011 Humbird et al design report.
Based upon the technical and economic inputs listed in the table, a stand-alone facility processing 2,200 dry tons of corn stover per day would produce over 35 MMgy of ethanol (131 million liters or 114,000 tons), 129,000 tons of dried feed yeast, along with 168,000 tons of lignin-rich green coal. The installed equipment costs for a facility were estimated at $210 million, which equates to $550 of installed equipment costs per annual dry ton of saleable products per year. The total capital investment was calculated at $394 million, or $1,029 total capital invested per dry ton of saleable products annually.&nbsp;
The breakdown of the installed equipment costs are summarized in the pie chart. The major production cost after feedstock, is the cost of enzymes, with 22 million liters required yearly. The next major component is the cost of aeration during propagation. We currently estimate aeration requirements will be similar to baker&rsquo;s yeast propagation where 24 kg of air is needed for each kilogram of yeast produced. At this rate, the energy requirement for aeration is equivalent to the cost of purchasing cellulase enzymes.
The minimum ethanol selling price (MESP) is the value per gallon at which ethanol from the facility is sold at a 10 percent return on investment, obtained over the 30-year life of the project. This includes all U.S. taxes and excludes subsidies. Based on observed yields and productivities the MESP for the feed and fuel base case is $2.57 per gallon (67 cents per liter). When optimization of yeast yields and the aeration requirements are taken into account, cellulosic ethanol produced via Microbiogen&rsquo;s process has the potential to be made today for an MESP of between $1.93 and $2.57 per gallon (51 to 67 cents per liter).
The MESP for the Microbiogen Feed and Fuel Biorefinery model is reliant on selling the lignin-rich green coal and feed yeast. These coproducts make up 7 and 42 percent of the revenue, respectively, with the remaining income attributed to the sale of the ethanol. Assuming this biorefinery had been in operation since January 2010, and its ethanol sold at market value, this venture would have been profitable if the feed yeast had been sold at 70 cents to $1.20 per kg. This value sits comfortably between two large, established feed additive markets&mdash;soymeal and fishmeal.
Given feedstock accounts for a quarter of the operating cost, it is susceptible to price fluctuation. A corn stover cost of $65 per dry metric ton ($58.50 per short ton) was assumed for the base case, including collection, washing, drying and size reduction&mdash;processing costs prior to pretreatment. If feedstock costs were to double, due to supply and demand, it would add $1.30 per gallon (34 cents per liter) to the MESP, thus crippling a facility that produces ethanol alone.
This is where the ability to sell the feed yeast as a valuable coproduct becomes vital to the overall project economics. Should feedstock cost double, the base case MESP of $2.55 per gallon can be matched by increasing the yeast selling price from 70 cents to $1.25 per kg, which is still competitive with feeds such as fishmeal. Feed Yeast Demand Is there sufficient demand for feed yeast? In November 2011, Alltech Inc. announced it had completed the expansion of its Sao Pedro facility in Brazil to 50,000 metric tons per year of spray-dried product, with plans to expand to 100,000&mdash;comparable to the yeast production in the Microbiogen model. The main difference being the latter will be producing feed and fuels from lignocellulosic-derived agriculture wastes, and not from food sources such as molasses, sugar or starches. It is important to add, that as a supplement fed to the poultry, swine, cattle, dairy, sheep, goat, aquaculture, equine and petfood industries, yeast biomass currently sells at prices between 80 cents and $3 per dry kilogram, depending on the strain and its intended market. The value of the highly digestible amino acids and nucleotides found within Saccharomyces are critical in the development of healthy bones and muscles, as well as assisting in the maintenance of the immune system. Along with its elevated bioavailable phosphorus and vitamin B content, it provides a more nutritional feed additive in comparison to DDG or soymeal.
In terms of the lignin-rich green coal, a single feed and fuel biorefinery would produce enough solid fuel to displace only 0.05 percent of current Australian coal exports. (Australia is the largest exporter of black coal in the world, accounting for one-third of the world&rsquo;s exports with sales of $36 billion in 2010.) In order to displace 5 percent, we would need more than 100 feed and fuel biorefineries in operation, which in turn would produce 3.5 billion gallons of ethanol and 13 million tons of feed yeast.
For ethanol to compete in the liquid fuel market, it needs to be a low-value commodity produced at large scale. The DDG coproduct is essential to the economics of corn-ethanol production. Similarly, in the case of cellulosic ethanol, coproducts will be essential to the fledgling industry&rsquo;s economic success. These coproducts must be able to breach established markets and have a higher value than the ethanol itself. Sustainable fuels along with animal feeds are markets that will not reach their limits anytime soon, especially with the United Nations projecting an extra two billion people on the planet within the next 40 years. Authors:&nbsp; Arthur Kollaras Manager, Bioprocess Engineer &amp; Technical BD &nbsp;Microbiogen Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia +61 2 9418 3036 arthur.kollaras@microbiogen.com Paul Koutouridis Chemical Engineer Microbiogen Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia Mary Biddy Senior Research Engineer, NREL: National Bioenergy Center mary.biddy@nrel.gov James D. McMillan Principal Engineer and Group Manager, NREL: National Bioenergy Center jim.mcmillan@nrel.gov Reference Humbird et al. Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol. Report No. NREL/TP-5100-47764. Golden, CO: NREL May 2011.
&nbsp;
&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).

New coproducts are proposed for cellulosic producers: feed yeast and green coal. 

2012/07/13419543804798.jpg

2012/07/13419543837883.jpg

2012/07/13419543860136.jpg

Feed yeast, green coal contribute to bottom line 

Multiple Coproducts Needed to Establish Cellulosic Ethanol Industry

At the U.S. Department of Energy&rsquo;s annual biomass conference earlier this summer in Washington, D.C., agency personnel opined about the various obstacles facing the biomass industry and limiting or slowing its growth trajectory. Acting Biomass Program Director Valerie Reed suggested that the cost of conversion technologies was the largest obstacle while Secretary of Energy Steven Chu suggested that ultimately a lack of market stability was the industry&rsquo;s most significant bottleneck. While a cynic might draw attention to this divergence in thought from within the same department, I think it is more likely due to the wide interpretation of what biomass-derived energy actually is.
 Clearly, Reed held emerging advanced biofuels technologies in her mind when she made that remark. Anaerobic digesters, landfill gas capture and combustion operations, pellet stoves, district energy systems and biomass boilers for electric power production are all relatively mature and proven technologies that have been and are currently being deployed and operated worldwide. At the same event, retired Vice Adm. of the Navy Dennis V. McGinn noted that the means to this country&rsquo;s clean, secure and domestic energy goals lie not in one elusive silver bullet, but instead in a collection of solutions he referred to as &ldquo;silver buckshot&rdquo;.
 While I have heard the buckshot metaphor before, it had never resonated to the degree that it did after I read this month&rsquo;s issue of Biomass Magazine. Within just 10 pages, our coverage examines biomass utilization in one of the world&rsquo;s most densely populated cities (Erin Voegele&rsquo;s piece on a landfill gas project outside of Rio de Janeiro) and the potential for biomass-derived heat in some of the most remote reaches of the United States (Anna Simet&rsquo;s exploration of the challenge to provide thermal energy in rural Alaska).&nbsp; These projects are being explored and commissioned not in spite of conversion technologies that bear price tags that hamstring their development, but because of technologies that offer cost-effective energy capture and production solutions.
 Of course Reed and Chu were both right with their assertion that our industry can and will benefit from lower-cost conversion technologies and greater market stability. However, I identify most readily with Vice Adm. McGinn&rsquo;s comments and know he would see the projects outlined in this issue of Biomass Magazine as testimony that some of the pellets in our industry&rsquo;s own brand of &ldquo;silver buckshot&rdquo; are finding their mark.

2012/08/Tim3_2010_13456643447186.jpg

Biomass' Own Silver Buckshot

Washington, D.C., is busy with debate over the proposed extension of the Section 45 production tax credit (PTC), a benefit currently available almost exclusively to wind power, but it could easily benefit baseload renewable sources like biomass.&nbsp;
 Industry leaders claim that failure to extend the &ldquo;placed-in-service date,&rdquo; a deadline by which a facility must begin providing power if they are to receive the credit, would be harmful to U.S. turbine manufacturing facilities and stall the growth of the U.S. renewable energy fleet. Opponents claim that the credit is nothing more than a handout to a mature technology that should be able to stand on its own two feet after decades of support.&nbsp;
 Although wind-powered electricity generation facilities were made eligible for the PTC back in 1992, the entire renewable energy market&mdash;including wind&mdash;is still largely unstable. The fact of the matter is that until the country develops a national renewable energy standard (RES), government support such as the PTC is necessary for virtually all forms of renewable energy. That being said, it is important that we understand Section 45, and ask &lsquo;is Section 45 working and for whom?&rsquo;
 First, we must look at one of the most prominent recipients of PTC: wind power. We know that in recent years, federal tax incentives have spurred tremendous growth of wind power. Since 2007, the U.S. wind capacity has more than tripled in size, and the PTC is the driving force behind the rapid growth of the industry. These credits allow wind investors to build and expand the considerable infrastructure needed to capture large-scale power from wind. However, wind powered facilities are incapable of providing predictable baseload power, especially during critical high demand times. Predictable baseload power is necessary for U.S. communities, especially as they endure these hot summer days.
 It is important that we consider baseload energy sources such as geothermal, biomass or waste energy. These sources can provide predictable power to the energy grid regardless of severe weather or other uncontrollable circumstances. However, in comparison with the wind industry boom, there has been meager growth in these sectors since 2007.&nbsp; Overall, these sources have grown by about 10 percent. While they technically qualify for Section 45 credits, it is very difficult for baseload energy developers to take advantage of them. Due to the longer lead-time required to complete facility construction for these energy sources, combined with the very short congressional extensions of the placed-in-service deadline, the incentive power of Section 45 PTCs remains just out of their grasp.
 For as long as the U.S. works to decrease its fossil fuel dependency without a federal RES, federal energy tax policy decisions will continue to have a major influence on renewable energy development.&nbsp; For example, if tax policy continues to disfavor baseload renewable energy resources, periods of high energy demand could cause areas that rely heavily on intermittent energy sources to resort to fossil fuels peaking facilities, or worse, to lose power altogether.
 There is an easy solution that would allow for continued support of wind and solar power while ensuring that baseload sources are able to grow.&nbsp; By adjusting the section 45 placed-in-service date to allow more baseload power facilities to qualify, Congress could enhance the incentive value of the renewable incentives to baseload power developers, stimulating additional build-out and significantly broadening the portfolio of generation available to the grid.
 In the coming months, Congress is expected to look at extending Section 45 credits. While considering this legislation, Congress should enact the changes necessary to make Section 45 accessible to baseload developers. The government has the potential to better support biomass, geothermal and waste energy. Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association <a href="http://www.USABiomass.org">www.USABiomass.org</a> <a href="mailto:bob@biomasspowerassociation.com">bob@biomasspowerassociation.com</a>

2012/08/Bob-Cleaves_Standing_13456644996949.jpg

Tax Incentives for Renewable Baseload Power

High Park. Waldo Canyon. Shingle. Those are three of the reported 29,151 U.S. forest fires that have burned nearly 2.4 million acres from January 2012 through Independence Day, according to the National Interagency Forest Center. The increasing number and size of our nation&rsquo;s wildfires indicates that our forests need further, more effective management, and there is agreement that fuels reduction, fire hazard mitigation within the Wildland Urban Interface, and restoration should occur in larger volumes and more rapidly. When forests are better managed, the surrounding communities and biomass markets mutually benefit.
 Eastern Arizona&rsquo;s 2011 Wallow Fire demonstrated the undeniable value of fuels reduction measures. Witnesses on the scene and a report from the U.S. Forest Service attest to how these treatments saved communities from destruction, and enabled firefighters to gain control of wildfires. In one picture, the fuels treatment line clearly separates charred destruction from intact trees and homes.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 However, not any treatment will do. A plan must be carefully agreed upon by scientists, foresters, and other stakeholders. When such a fuels reduction and treatment plan is instituted, there are multiple benefits to the affected forestland, community and regional economy. These include reduced fire hazards, safer communities, more resilient forests, improved watersheds and wildlife habitat, improved recreation opportunities, additional and sustainable source of biomass, as well as access to local resources for wood product manufacturing and energy production.
 If fuel treatments are so valuable, why aren&rsquo;t they more widely employed? The reason is a combination of the high cost of fuels reduction and the low value of the residuals removal. While conventional wood products industries can access the higher-value wood, the majority of the removed materials consist of small trees unsuitable for those products. This challenge provides biomass market opportunities. In rural locations with high fossil fuel costs, these residues can be and are used to produce energy fuels such as chips, pellets or cordwood for thermal and electrical energy, as well as biofuels for transportation.
 &nbsp;Forest restoration efforts like those in the White Mountain Stewardship Project area can be funded in part by markets for low-value residual materials. And, when residues go toward high-efficiency end uses such as thermal energy, the resource becomes more valuable and can receive a higher price. The obvious&mdash;but overlooked&mdash;benefits from heating with local biomass include affordable heat for homes, schools, hospitals and communities, new and permanent local jobs from forest utilization, and reduced export of local wealth while importing energy and forest products.&nbsp; Simply stated, biomass thermal applications mean more money for forest restoration efforts and more self-sustaining rural communities.&nbsp;
 BTEC encourages the ongoing management of our nation&rsquo;s forests through appropriate forest prescriptions and utilization of residues. Together, these efforts benefit the forest, forest communities and our nation&rsquo;s energy portfolio. Thermal energy is an efficient solution for achieving this forest work and provides solutions that our rural communities so desperately need: economic and physical security. Authors: Joseph Seymour Executive Director, Biomass Thermal Energy Council <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/posts/http:www.biomassthermal.org">www.biomassthermal.org </a> Rob Davis President, Forest Energy Corp.

2012/08/Therm-Biomass-Davis-0812_13456647096224.jpg

2012/08/SEYMOUR,-JOSEPH_13456647104208.jpg

Thermal Energy can Reduce the Next Big Fire

Recent air permitting actions highlight the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s struggle&mdash;and continued uncertainty&mdash;in determining the most appropriate Best Available Control Technology emission limits for bioenergy facilities. The agency actions described further below suggest that EPA will not consider the use of biogenic fuel, in and of itself, as sufficient to meet a source&rsquo;s BACT obligations for the control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rather, bioenergy facilities are expected to consider the use of additional GHG control equipment or more energy-efficient technologies, such as combined-cycle turbines or combined heat and power (CHP) to limit GHG emissions. This development could unintentionally hinder the development of bioenergy facilities by adding more costs and regulatory uncertainty.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 By way of background, EPA requires larger sources of GHG emissions to obtain preconstruction prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits.These PSD permits must contain emission limits that are developed on a case-by-case basis to reflect the emission rates that can be achieved by employing the best available control technology. In November 2010, EPA released its PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases, in an effort to assist states in developing BACT limits for GHG emissions. This guidance acknowledged that various federal and state policies are specifically designed to facilitate and expand the use of biogenic fuels&mdash;biomass and biogas&mdash;as a way to reduce ambient GHG emission concentrations and thereby address climate change. To that end, the EPA guidance suggested that state permitting authorities consider the use of &ldquo;certain types of biomass by themselves&rdquo; as satisfying BACT obligations for controlling GHG emissions.&nbsp;
 In March 2012, EPA released a second policy document entitled Guidance for Determining Best Available Control Technology for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Bio-Energy Production. This second guidance provided illustrations of how a state might support a conclusion that the combustion of biogenic fuels, without any other emission control techniques, was sufficient to satisfy BACT emission control requirements for GHG emissions. With these two guidance documents in place, EPA appeared to be signaling that the use of biomass as a fuel would in and of itself meet BACT obligations.
 However, on March 15, 2012, EPA Region V provided comments on a draft PSD permit that had been issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for five new combustion turbines that were proposed to burn biogas. In the draft permit determination, WDNR concluded that the proposed facility&rsquo;s GHG BACT requirements were satisfied by the turbines burning biogas and using good combustion practices. Yet, in its March 2012 letter, EPA asked WDNR to explain why it did not require the permittee to evaluate the feasibility of reconfiguring the project to utilize combined-cycle turbines or CHP to meet GHG BACT requirements, both of which utilize thermal energy in a more efficient manner and thereby lower overall GHG emissions.&nbsp; Implicit in EPA&rsquo;s comment is that the permittee&rsquo;s proposed use of biogas, in and of itself, was not sufficient to satisfy the source&rsquo;s GHG BACT obligations.
 In a letter dated May 25, 2012, WDNR rejected EPA&rsquo;s comment, reasoning that combined-cycle and CHP technology cannot be implemented at the proposed facility due to the lack of available space. WDNR&rsquo;s response avoids the broader policy issue of whether regulators have the authority to force a permit applicant to utilize ancillary GHG emission reduction techniques on bioenergy facilities, or whether they can force a project developer to switch its chosen power generation technology from simple-cycle to combined-cycle or CHP. It remains to be seen whether EPA or others challenge the WDNR&rsquo;s decision.
 The renewable energy industry&mdash;particularly biomass and biogas project developers&mdash;should closely scrutinize PSD permits currently being issued to bioenergy facilities, as they can provide insight into costs associated with biogenic fuel uses. Permits requiring the utilization of combined-cycle or CHP technology will add additional regulatory burden and expense which could make bioenergy facilities less competitive. Authors: Anna Wildeman Attorney, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich LLP (608) 283-0109 <a href="mailto:ajwildeman@michaelbest.com">ajwildeman@michaelbest.com </a> Todd Palmer Attorney, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich LLP (608) 283-4432 <a href="mailto: tepalmer@michaelbest.com">&nbsp;tepalmer@michaelbest.com</a>

2012/08/LP-Biomass-Wildemann-0812_1345664949023.jpg

2012/08/LP-Biomass-Palmer-0812_13456649524701.jpg

EPA Uncertain of Biogenic Fuels' Role

There are no short-term solutions to fuel prices. That&rsquo;s why five years ago the leadership of the 110th Congress began long-term investments by enacting the Renewable Fuels Standard II, which requires 36 billion gallons of biofuels in our national pool by 2022.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 With 140 billion gallons of gasoline used each year, biofuels give Americans more choices at the pump, injecting competition into a petroleum marketplace known for squeezing household wallets and corporate spreadsheets. Already there are more than 14 billion gallons of corn starch ethanol with more on the way.&nbsp;
 But ethanol had a 30-year head start. Half of today&rsquo;s volumes were reached by 2007, and ethanol is made with distillation principles used since the dawn of time, from a crop cultivated by mankind for 10,000 years.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Because the RFS caps ethanol at 15 billion gallons, we&rsquo;ve got 10 years to make another 20 billion gallons, but we can&rsquo;t use corn starch. Therein lies the challenge.
 Despite billions of dollars invested in research and development, whitepapers and conferences, capital grants and construction loans for next-generation biofuels, little by comparison has been invested in actually growing the crops in the field, in the quantities we need, in time for when we&rsquo;ll need it.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; America has the capacity to grow these crops&mdash;the U.S. DOE&rsquo;s Billion Ton Study says so. It&rsquo;s also why the 110th Congress created the Biomass Crop Assistance Program in the 2008 Farm Bill. To date, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has set aside $65 million for producers to grow crops like sterile miscanthus, poplar, camelina, switchgrass and willow on more than 60,000 acres&mdash;and that&rsquo;s only the beginning of what we need to grow so that plenty of nonfood feedstocks will exist for new biorefineries to use.&nbsp;
 It won&rsquo;t be flawless at first. For farmers willing to take the risk, we must have their back. Growing successful yields of unconventional cultivars is a complex equation of economics, behavior, weather, markets and timing. Many energy crops are perennial and take several seasons to mature for harvest, plus trial and error to get it right. There&rsquo;s no millennium of experience. There are no major trade associations, no widespread best practices, nor plentiful data to create crop insurance, prepare faultless business plans, or calculate farm loans.
 Pull the plug on BCAP, and there never will be. We&rsquo;ll begin again, in the 2017 Farm Bill, in time for the 2019 crop year, from precisely the same point as today. We&rsquo;ll never cross the canyon on gas prices this decade because the crops won&rsquo;t be grown and the bridge won&rsquo;t be built.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 BCAP could create 700,000 jobs by 2022. These aren&rsquo;t shovel-ready jobs; they&rsquo;re plow-ready. So let&rsquo;s keep growing the crops, because when it comes to biofuels, the feedstocks are the sine qua nonâ€•without them, there is nothing. Author: Todd Atkinson Senior Energy Advisor, USDA Undersecretary of Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. 202-720-2797 <a href="mailto:todd.atkinson@osec.usda.gov">todd.atkinson@osec.usda.gov</a>

2012/08/USDA-Biomass-ATKINSON-0812_13456650569621.jpg

Forget Not the Feedstock

Kompetch expands distribution network Komptech USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Komptech Group, has added Foreman Equipment Ltd. as an authorized Komptech equipment distributor for the Canadian markets of British Columbia and Yukon. Foreman Equipment will offer local sales, parts and service support for the complete Komptech product line at its locations throughout British Columbia. Komptech is an international supplier of machinery and systems for the mechanical and mechanical-biological treatment of solid waste and the treatment of biomass as a renewable energy source. Komptech&rsquo;s product line features a wide range of shredding, composing and separation equipment. Mitsubishi subsidiary supplies biomass boiler to pulp maker CBC Industrias Pesadas S.A., a Brazilian subsidiary of Japan-based Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. is supplying a high-capacity, high-performance, biomass-fired boiler to Suzano Papel e Celulose, Brazil&rsquo;s largest pulp maker. The boiler will be installed at Suzano&rsquo;s plant in Mucuri, Behia, where it will provide heat and power for pulp production. The boiler supplied to Suzano has an evaporation capacity of 120 tons of steam per hour and will feature CBC&rsquo;s propriety bubbling fluidized bed technology. The boiler is scheduled for delivery in early 2014.
 Sapphire Energy adds members to advisory board Sapphire Energy Inc. has named new members to its Scientific Advisory Board. The new board members will play an active role in advising the company as it refines its developmental process and technologies for making algae-based crude oil. New members include Leroy Hood, president and co-founder of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle; Roger Y. Tsien, investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Center and professor of pharmacology and chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego; Matthew Croughan, George B. and Joy Rathmann professor and director and founder of the Amgen Bioprocessing Center at Keck Graduate Institute; and H. Scott Fogler, Ame and Catherine Vennema professor of chemical engeineering and Arthur F. Thurnau professor at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Clean World Partners wins grant for biogas project The California Energy Commission has selected Clean World Energy Partners LLC to receive a $6 million grant to support the expansion of a biogas and bioenergy project. The initial scope of the project called for Clean World Partners&rsquo; Organic Waste Recycling Center at the Sacramento-based South Area Transfer Station to convert 25 tons of food waste per day into biogas in a high solids anaerobic digestion system. The grant will allow the facility to expand to take in 100 tons per day. The project broke ground on June 7. The first phase is scheduled to be complete this summer, with the expansion complete by early next year. Elevance wins EPA award Elevance Renewable Sciences Inc., a producer of high-performance, renewable specialty chemicals, has been named a recipient of the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s 2012 Presidential Green Chemistry Award for its work using metathesis catalysis to convert renewable oils into biobased chemicals. The award recognizes and promotes innovative chemical technologies that prevent pollution and have broad applicability in industry. Elevance&rsquo;s technology uses Nobel Prize-winning innovations in metathesis catalysis, which consumes significantly less energy than petrochemical technologies while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent. Elevance is building an 180,000 metric ton biorefinery in Indonesia with Wilmar International and is repurposing a 280,000 metric ton biodiesel plant in Natchez, Miss.

2012/08/Biz-Biomass-Komptech-0812_1345665143455.jpg

2012/08/Biz-Biomass-Elevance-0812_13456651450154.jpg

An economic analysis of Purdue University&rsquo;s H2Bioil technology demonstrates that it could produce biofuels that are economically competitive with petroleum-based fuels when oil prices are as low as $103 per barrel. The thermo-chemical technology involves the rapid heating of biomass in the presence of pressurized hydrogen followed by catalytic conversion into gasoline-like molecules. The addition of hydrogen into the gas stream enables more of the carbon contained within the biomass feedstock to be converted into fuel, increasing yields when compared to a standard fast pyrolysis process. The economic analysis has shown that when hydrogen used in the process is sourced from natural gas or coal, or generated from water using nuclear power, the resulting biofuel is cost-competitive with petroleum-based fuels. The price of the resulting fuel increases when wind or solar energy is used to generate hydrogen from water.

2012/08/News-Biomass-14_13456655974572.jpg

H2Bioil technology is cost-competitive with oil

The USDA, U.S. DOE and U.S. Navy are engaging in a multifaceted plan to expedite development of the advanced drop-in biofuel industry that includes more than $130 million in new funding opportunities. As part of the effort, the DOE announced a $20 million in funding for earlier-stage research and development projects to support pilot- and demonstration-scale biorefineries that will convert a variety of nonfood biomass feedstocks, waste-based materials and algae into biofuels that meet military fuel specifications. An addition $12 million in DOE funding will support up to eight projects that focus on synthetic biological processing. The strategy parallels a two-phase program spearheaded by the Navy. The first phase makes $30 million available in matching funds, with the second offering $70 million from the Defense Production Act to move into actual production. The USDA will use Commodity Credit Corp. resources to ensure fuel purchased from the biorefineries will be cost-competitive.

Federal entities collaborate on biofuels

New Hampshire is the first state to grant full credit to renewable thermal projects under a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The state&rsquo;s RPS requires electricity providers to deliver 23.8 percent renewable electricity to customers by 2025, and grants renewable energy credits (RECs) on a four-category classification system. Under a new state law, thermal renewable is granted RECs up to $29 per megawatt-hour of usable thermal energy produced by qualifying projects. Some examples of qualifying projects include wood or wood pellet boilers heating commercial or institutional buildings. Washington, D.C., and 28 states have developed RPS programs, but only eight currently have limited thermal provisions, which are generally narrowly restricted. More states, such as Vermont, Maryland and Massachusetts, are considering expanding their RPS programs to include thermal.

2012/08/News-Biomass-15_1345665669136.jpg

New Hampshire grants RPS credit to biomass thermal

Myriant Corp. closed a $25 million private bond placement in June for the construction of its flagship commercial biobased succinic acid plant in Lake Providence, La. The placement utilized the USDA&rsquo;s Business and Industry Rural Development Loan Guarantee program. Myriant is the first biochemical company to receive funding through the program, which is designed to improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities by supporting the development of high-quality local industry. According to Myriant, $15 million of the $25 million in bonds sold are guaranteed by the USDA under the B&amp;I program. Once complete, Myriant&rsquo;s facility will produce 30 million pounds of biobased succinic acid per year, and will create 40 to 50 direct highly-skilled jobs along with approximately 250 construction jobs. Succinic acid is used to manufacture a variety of products, including polymers, fibers, surfactants, detergents and flavors The Lake Providence facility is scheduled to begin operations during the first quarter of 2013. Myriant is also planning a 140 million pound capacity expansion in the U.S.

Myriant wins $25 million  USDA loan guarantee 

A report issued by FutureMetrics LLC finds that the price of natural gas is expected to be higher than that of wood pellet fuel within the next three to eight years. The report, titled &ldquo;An Analysis of the Future of Natural Gas Prices and Wood Pellet Prices: Natural gas will become more costly than wood pellets,&rdquo; projects that cheap natural gas prices will end before 2020 due to rapidly increasing global demand in the transportation and power sectors and other market factors. Domestic natural gas producers are interested in exporting natural gas, in much the same way crude oil is shipped today, the report says, which could increase prices. The analysis also notes that exporting influences also have the potential to impact pellet prices, but that current economics show that wood pellets generate more profit when used domestically, which is likely to mitigate interest in exporting the fuel.

2012/08/News-Biomass-16_13456657339668.jpg

Natural gas prices could exceed  wood pellet prices soon

Gasification technology designed by Mechanicsburg, Pa.-based Enginuity Energy could be destined for France after two French agriculture officials toured the company&rsquo;s headquarters and witnessed Enginuity Energy&rsquo;s Ecoremedy technology convert poultry litter and other waste products into renewable power. The process features advanced conveyor systems, an automated touchscreen control interface and a four-stage gasification process. An Ecoremedy pilot plant has been in operation since 2008 at a Tyson Foods Georgia facility, where the gasification technology converts more than 500 tons of poultry litter into 110 pounds per square inch of process steam. Enginuity Energy has partnered with Cyclone Power Technologies to build a small-scale modular unit and is in talks to form partnerships in Australia, Northern Ireland, Maryland, West Virginia and regions in the U.S.

French officials visit  Enginuity Energy

The USDA has announced two new Biomass Crop Assistance Program areas, and the expansion of one existing project area through a&nbsp; $9.6 million round of funding. In New York, ReEnergy Holding LLC will enroll 3,500 acres in a fast-growing shrub willow that will help the biomass power developer generate 100 MW of power. Chemtex International, a division of Gruppo Mossi &amp; Ghisolfi, has been awarded approximately $4 million to develop 4,000 acres of miscanthus and switchgrass in North Carolina. The energy crop project areas will be spread throughout 11 counties, with the resulting crops used, in part, to feed a 20 MMgy cellulosic ethanol plant that will produce onsite biogas for power. Finally, an existing project area in northeast Arkansas will expand giant miscanthus grown throughout three counties to nearly 8,000 acres.

2012/08/News-Biomass-17_1345665807351.jpg

BCAP funding awarded to 3 project areas

A community outreach program spearheaded by Weston Solutions, an environmental consulting company, has brought a proposed biomass combined-heat-and-power (CHP) project one step closer to reality in Springfield, Vermont. Dan Ingold, Weston Solutions&rsquo; senior technical director, has spent nearly three months stationed at the site of the proposed North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project site, answering questions from local citizens and city officials for several hours twice a week. Over the course of 10 weeks, more than 100 people have visited the site. As a result of the outreach effort, local support for the project has improved greatly. Public concerns focused primarily on the impact the project would have on water availability. Those concerns have been addressed by altering the project plans to use a dry cooling system. The facility is expected to begin operations in mid-2014.

Biomass plant benefits from community outreach

One of the world&rsquo;s largest solid-waste landfills is located on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro. The Jardim Gramacho landfill, a 140-acre site, received approximately 7,000 tons of garbage per day before the Brazilian government took action to close it in June, just weeks before the country hosted the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. The downtime of the site will be short-lived, however. After nearly 35 years of operation as a solid-waste landfill, the site has attracted a new international collaboration of Brazilian developers and U.S.-based equipment suppliers. The new leadership team, with some help from the Export-Import Bank of the United States, has a new vision: biogas production.
 Brazilian developer G&aacute;s Verde S.A. will own and operate the plant, now referred to as the Novo Gramacho biogas project. The project will feature technology and equipment supplied by California-based FirmGreen Inc. The Export-Import Bank of the United States has supplied G&aacute;s Verde with a 12-year, $48.6 million loan to help finance the project.
 The revamped facility will convert raw methane produced in the landfill into clean, usable biogas. Once complete, FirmGreen says the project will capture and treat 20,000 normal cubic meters per hour (nM3/hr) of landfill gas, resulting in 9,000 nM3/hr of fuel-grade, biobased methane. The resulting gas will be transferred via pipeline to a refinery owned by Brazil&rsquo;s national oil and gas company, Petrobras S.A.
 In addition to reducing passive landfill emissions, the biogas project will allow the Petrobras refinery to replace approximately 10 percent of the fossil-based natural gas it consumes with the fuel-grade biogas produced at the Novo Gramacho site. The project is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1.4 million metric tons per year.
 According to FirmGreen CEO Steve Wilburn, his company has been working with G&aacute;s Verde for three years to develop the project. The biogas plant is scheduled to be operational during the second half of this year, most likely in late fall, he adds.
 FirmGreen&rsquo;s Contributions
 FirmGreen has been working in the biogas space since 2004, when the company acquired patents and proprietary technology related to biogas production. The company has also developed several of its own patents over time, Wilburn says.
 FirmGreen has developed several biogas demonstration projects, one of which received a U.S. EPA Project of the Year award in 2009, as well as awards from the U.S. DOE and the Solid Waste Association of North America. The company has since scaled up to commercial-scale applications. The contract for the Novo Gramacho project was announced in May 2010. According to Wilburn, G&aacute;s Verde completed extensive vetting of FirmGreen&rsquo;s technology prior to finalizing the agreement. &ldquo;They followed us very closely and we shared our data results from [our demonstration] projects in the U.S.,&rdquo; Wilburn says. Despite steep competition from other biogas developers, FirmGreen&rsquo;s technology won out. Wilburn attributes his company&rsquo;s selection to the fact that FirmGreen&rsquo;s technology is reliable, robust and capable of producing a biobased drop-in replacement for fossil-based natural gas.
 FirmGreen&rsquo;s proprietary biogas cleaning equipment is one of the company&rsquo;s technologies being installed as part of the Novo Gramacho project. According to Wilburn, the project will include a cleaning technique that uses CO2 to purify raw biogas. &ldquo;In our process, we use a CO2 wash, where we take the carbon dioxide and partially liquefy it in a column,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The CO2 washes down the column by gravity flow and, meets the uprising [raw biogas], and washes contaminants out, leaving a very pure stream of methane, the balance of CO2, nitrogen and oxygen&mdash;all with the volatile organic compounds removed.&rdquo;
 When compared to pressure swing adsorption (PSA) techniques for gas purification, Wilburn says a primary benefit of FirmGreen&rsquo;s process is that it doesn&rsquo;t produce waste absorbent material that needs to be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t have to do that,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We are a closed loop system. Within the United States [we generally don&rsquo;t] require EPA permits from an air quality standpoint, because we meet or exceed all of the EPA standards.&rdquo;
 Wilburn also notes the carbon dioxide wash technique is most appropriate for projects that aim to produce high-quality biogas fuels, such as those used in transportation or refining applications. &ldquo;We also use PSA if a high-quality fuel is not required,&rdquo; he continues. For example, PSA technology would sufficiently purify biogas to a quality appropriate for use in some electrical generation and fuel cell applications.
 The Nova Gramacho project will also feature FirmGreen&rsquo;s patented VerdeControls operating software. The package was designed to control large manufacturing facilities, such as automotive assembly line operations, Wilburn says. With the software, FirmGreen is able to control every motor, device, valve or other piece of equipment found at a project site. The software can also generate management reports and maintenance logs, implement inventory control activities, and perform a wide range of other tasks. When installed at electrical generation sites, it is also designed to work with utility software for the smart grid. While the VerdeControls system might not be appropriate for smaller biogas applications, the software will be an important component of the Nova Gramacho project. The package will allow G&aacute;s Verde to remote monitor the plant and produce sophisticated management reports that will help manage costs to keep the operation economical. It will also integrate and control plant operations, including onsite power production.
 Once fully operational, the equipment will capture 90 percent of the raw methane that normally goes to the landfill flare. &ldquo;In the case of CO2, only 12 percent would go to the existing flare, so we are sequestering the balance of that in the form of liquid CO2,&rdquo; Wilburn says. That component of the project is expected to be operational next spring.
 G&aacute;s Verde intends to generate carbon credits with the sequestered carbon dioxide. &ldquo;It is also possible that carbon dioxide could be used to create energy value in the future,&rdquo; Wilburn says. FirmGreen is developing a patented process to use liquid carbon dioxide as a media to cool data centers, which are extremely energy intensive operations, he continues.
 The Nova Gramacho biogas site will also feature other renewable energy production methods, including 2 MW of solar power generation. In addition, power generation equipment will take a portion of the tail gas that would normally be flared, for use to produce electricity. Together, the two electrical generation techniques are expected to produce 7 MW of energy, which will be used to offset the load of the biogas plant.
 Multi-nation Economic Development
 To complete the project, FirmGreen is working with nearly 70 U.S. subcontractors. Overall, the company estimates the project has generated 165 direct jobs and supported the continuance of numerous other positions. The Novo Gramacho biogas project was a good fit for Ex-Im Bank's financing because the strong job creation is in accord with the bank's mission to support employment in the United States.&nbsp;
 The bank is an agency of the U.S. government that was established in 1934 to finance export sales of U.S. goods and services, says Craig O&rsquo;Connor, director of Ex-Im Bank&rsquo;s office of renewable energy and environmental exports. O&rsquo;Connor&rsquo;s office was established in 2008 to increase support for environmentally beneficial exports. Obviously, that includes renewable energy, he says. Ex-Im Bank's financing is provided in accord with the arrangement on official export credit of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which includes biogas as a renewable-energy source.
 The Ex-Im Bank provides direct loans and loan guarantees to creditworthy foreign buyers for the purchase of U.S. goods, technology, equipment or services. The Bank also provides export credit insurance that enables U.S. exporters to offer financing to their international customers, and provides working capital guarantees to support the working capital needs of U.S. exporters.&nbsp; According to O&rsquo;Connor, the bank is able to offer loan guarantees in either U.S. dollars or foreign currencies. &ldquo;In terms of our environmental exports enhancement, we are able to offer the maximum allowable OECD terms of up to 18 years for renewable energy,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We are able to support local costs&mdash;in-country costs&mdash;of up to 30 percent of the U.S. export contract. We are also able to capitalize the interest during construction.&rdquo;
 &ldquo;Our mission isn&rsquo;t to make a profit,&rdquo; O&rsquo;Connor says. &ldquo;But, we do look for a reasonable assurance of repayment.&rdquo; In the case of the Nova Gramacho project, the Ex-Im Bank awarded G&aacute;s Verde with fixed rate U.S. dollar financing. &ldquo;They decided to go with a direct loan,&rdquo; O&rsquo;Connor continues, that features a fixed interest rate of 2.21 percent and a 12-year repayment period. &ldquo;We also charge a one time, flat, country-exposure fee that can be financed as part of the loan package,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The all-in cost was very attractive, and that enabled this project to really reach commercial viability.&rdquo;
 O&rsquo;Connor notes that renewable energy projects are capital intensive and generally require longer repayment term loans at attractive interest rates to be economically viable. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re not here to compete with the private sector, but really to supplement the private sector and provide long-term lending where private sector lending might not be available,&rdquo; O&rsquo;Connor stresses. The hope is that private sector lenders might be more willing to take on these types of projects once they see success with Ex-Im Bank financing, he adds.
 The bank also brings private sector lending into a project. According to O&rsquo;Connor, loan guarantees are an effective way to do this. &ldquo;The Ex-Im Bank can provide loan guarantees that represent the full faith and credit of the U.S. government for loans that commercial banks would make to finance these projects,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That means that [commercial banks] can basically preserve their capital. It enables them to offer longer terms at lower rates than they otherwise would.&rdquo;
 O&rsquo;Connor describes the Ex-Im Bank as one of the best-kept secrets in international renewable energy project financing. &ldquo;I think there is no question that with the Ex-Im Bank, foreign customers will get the most cost-effective source of financing for U.S. business services in the world, period,&rdquo; he says. As a result of the banks direct loan and loan guarantee products, more foreign project developers should find it feasible to employ U.S. technology and equipment providers.
 O&rsquo;Connor adds that the Ex-Im Bank&rsquo;s programs essentially support the creation and continuance of high-wage, high-skilled jobs in the U.S. &ldquo;[The loans and loan guarantees] have a direct and tangible benefit to U.S. employment and U.S. competitiveness,&rdquo; he says. The Novo Gramacho biogas project is a clear example of the sentiment O&rsquo;Connor holds for the Ex-Im Bank&rsquo;s ability, and for equipment providers and project developers based in the U.S. hoping to find their own version of the Jardim Gramacho landfill biogas project. Author: Erin Voegele News Editor, Biomass Magazine (701) 751-2756 <a href="mailto:evoegel@bbiinternational.com">evoegel@bbiinternational.com</a>

EQUIPMENT EXPORTS: FirmGreen shipped the final load of equipment for the Novo Gramacho project to Brazil in May.

2012/08/Bio-Biomass-FGequip-0812_13456660608758.jpg

PREPARING FOR TRANSPORT: FirmGreen prepares equipment for shipment from its operations in Dublin, Ohio to Brazil. 


2012/08/Bio-Biomass-equipment-0812_13456660447719.jpg

BRAZILIAN BIOGAS: Once complete, the Novo Gramacho project will produce 9,000 normal cubic meters per hour of fuel-grade biogas. 


2012/08/Bio-Biomass-plant-0812_13456660630473.jpg

A biogas opportunity at a shuttered Brazilian landfill reveals U.S. Ex-Im Bank's potential, and how U.S. equipment providers can expand into the global marketplace. 

Enabling Exports  to Benefit Business 

Living in the Arctic&mdash;or close to it&mdash; isn&rsquo;t for the weak-willed. Temperatures during the seven-month-plus winters can occasionally drop to 40 below zero, the sun&rsquo;s appearance is sporadic for months at a time, road access can be severely limited, and for most towns, the closest neighboring community could be hundreds of miles away.
 These are challenges that natives of northern communities have learned to deal with, but rising fuel costs are prompting them to find alternatives to their traditionally-used fossil fuels and methods of accessing them. In rural Alaska, which Thomas Deerfield, CEO of Dalson Energy Inc., describes as a completely different state than southeast Alaska, communities are at a point where paying $400 per ton of pellets is now competitive with heating oil, the most commonly used heating fuel. &ldquo;Outside of the Anchorage bowl, natural gas isn&rsquo;t available,&rdquo; Deerfield says. &ldquo;All of the rest of Alaska uses heating oil for thermal purposes, backed up by wood.&rdquo;
 A very limited road system throughout the Alaskan interior means most communities are located along rivers, and heating oil comes in once a year on barges. &ldquo;There are big tank farms in most of these places, and there&rsquo;s been an enormous amount of money put into these farms to upgrade them, because the old ones that were 20-30 years old were pretty decrepit,&rdquo; Deerfield says.
 Fuel shipments are made in the middle of the summer after spring run-off, and there&rsquo;s a narrow window of time for delivery. &ldquo;During spring run-off there&rsquo;s too much ice and debris in the river, but it also has to be done before the river&rsquo;s dropped too low in the summer, because then the barges can&rsquo;t get through,&rdquo; Deerfield explains.
 &nbsp;If the delivery window is missed, emergency shipments must be sent in at a high price. &ldquo;Last January, it [a heating oil shortage] happened, and they had to send in a shipment in by Russian tanker, accompanied by a U.S. Coast Guard ice breaker.&rdquo; That occurred in the town of Nome, Alaska, where 1.3 million gallons of diesel and gasoline were delivered after the last scheduled barge shipment of fuel supplies was cancelled due to bad weather. It took the delivery&nbsp; team an entire month to get there in the winter.
 In the worst cases, the fuel has to be flown in via cargo plane, which adds 50 cents to a dollar per gallon of fuel, according to Deerfield.
 The prospect of shipping pellets upriver faces some of the aforementioned challenges, but is cost competitive&mdash;potentially cheaper&mdash;if certain parameters are right. It hasn&rsquo;t yet, however, been done to any great degree. &ldquo;A few communities closer to the coast by rivers have gotten some pellet deliveries, and it&rsquo;s an emerging market because of its cost-competitiveness, especially with Canadian pellet production [expanding],&rdquo; Deerfield says, adding that it&rsquo;s initially only a couple hundred dollars a ton, but roughly doubles that by the time it reaches the interior.
 There is a commercial pellet mill in the interior near Fairbanks, but it&rsquo;s only producing at one-third of its 30,000-ton annual capacity, according to Deerfield. &ldquo;The market wasn&rsquo;t developed very well before the mill was built,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;There are some residential markets for pellet stoves, but very little for institutional or commercial thermal systems or community-scale pellet mills.&rdquo;
 While shipping residential pellet stove equipment may be cost prohibitive in far northern areas, other attractive options include building minisize pellet mills or community-scale biomass energy systems in these towns, all of which could lower the cost in part by avoiding transportation challenges.
 Surveying Potential
 There are people who are interested in those concepts, but almost everything in Alaska is state or federally funded, according to Deerfield, and very few renewable energy projects are privately funded. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a lot of interest in developing small pellet mills, but it&rsquo;s been nothing more than talk for three or four years. That&rsquo;s primarily because the state hasn&rsquo;t stepped up to fund it, and no entrepreneurs are willing to do a cost share, which the state would likely be inclined to do.&rdquo;
 Along with a University of Alaska Southeast researcher and a colleague from Dalson Energy, Deerfield recently embarked on a 100-mile boat trip to visit communities up and down the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers. The team is working on feasibility studies for biomass thermal energy systems in the communities of Galena, Koyukuk, Nulato and Kalthe, and on the trip were assessing&nbsp; the accuracy of satellite and aerial maps of forestry resources in and near these communities. Certain factors are carefully evaluated in these towns when the potential of a biomass thermal project exists, the main two being availability of resources and whether there is an existing forest industry. &ldquo;Generally, the answer is not really,&rdquo; Deerfield says. &ldquo;There are a lot of these small, module mills that have been around for 30-40 years and people make house logs out of them, but that&rsquo;s usually the extent of the timber or milling industry.&rdquo;
 The vast majority of potential projects in the north are thermal only, because electricity loads aren&rsquo;t big enough in smaller communities. Most aren&rsquo;t even 1 MW, often ranging from 300-500 kilowatts. &ldquo;One place where we&rsquo;re working on a feasibility study is the town of Tok, Alaska, for a combined-heat-and-power facility that is 2 to 4 MW scale,&rdquo; Deerfield says. &ldquo;The reason it might very well work there is because even though Tok is on the road system it&rsquo;s not connected to any grid so all of its power comes from diesel and depending on a premium for that, they&rsquo;re paying over $4 per gallon.&rdquo;
 That equates to about 50 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), the highest price amongst towns along the Alaska road system. In some rural villages, it is nearly double that, up to 90 cents. &ldquo;You turn on a light bulb and you can practically count the dimes being spent,&rdquo; Deerfield jokes. And that&rsquo;s largely because of the piping, refining and shipping rigmarole Alaskan oil goes through to get to these communities&mdash;which includes being shipped to California or Washington, back up to Anchorage and then to its destination from one of three main ports on the south side of Alaska.
 In an effort to further develop the use of biomass-based power and thermal, Deerfield and a committee are working with the state to develop a biomass energy policy that would follow the model of what New Hampshire has done: add a thermal element to a renewable portfolio standard. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t have any biomass energy policy at all,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Alaska has been focused on oil, coal and gas forever; it&rsquo;s what drives the economy here and the political horsepower in the state.&rdquo;
 Though the state has had a renewable energy fund for the past several years, only about 10 percent has gone toward biomass projects, according to Deerfield. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a surprising amount of solar, and that&rsquo;s because in the winter there may be less sun but there is enough reflection off the snow and ice to where you achieve greater returns than anyone expected.&rdquo;
 Though solar and wind are great addition&rsquo;s to Alaska&rsquo;s energy portfolio, Deerfield points out that they aren&rsquo;t energy sources for on-demand power. &ldquo;Certainly not demand heat, and biomass is the only thing that will meet that need,&rdquo; he says, predicting that within the next two years, the state will see many more small and community or regional-scale pellet and briquette mills, as well as the development of transportation corridors up and down the rivers to carry densified wood products.
 &nbsp;To the east of Alaska in Canada's Northwest Territories, the use of wood pellets has, however, been growing steadily in both residential and industrial applications. Green Arctic Energy, a company that serves Yellowknife and other communities in the Northwest Territories, got into the business early and has not only made a name for itself in the region, the company has provided a glimpse of how and why wood pellets make sense in Alaska.
 Leading the Way
 Arctic Green Energy had been operating as a fiberglass company for 20 years when owner Bruce Elliot realized the cost of energy was getting too high. &ldquo;We were paying about $44,000 a year for heat, and for a small company, that&rsquo;s just too much,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp; After trying a number of different solutions that didn&rsquo;t work out, Elliot contacted a nearby saw mill that was using a coal boiler for heat to see if he could initiate something similar at his company. &ldquo;When I called, they asked me why I didn&rsquo;t want to use wood pellets,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I bought a Canadian-made boiler and ran it for a year, but it wasn&rsquo;t quite good enough because the efficiencies weren&rsquo;t there and it was cheaply made,&rdquo; he says.
 Knowing he was on the right track, however, Elliot purchased a better-quality, Austrian-made boiler, and things turned around for the company. Soon after, it partnered up with the local jail to install a biomass heating system, which it has been operating and selling heat from for the past seven years. &ldquo;We were basically one of the first companies in North America to do this; the whole [pellet boiler] industry in the north has expanded from that original idea,&rdquo; he says.
 Now installing boilers, doing energy contracting and delivering pellets, Arctic Green Energy has put in a proposal to the government to convert some Northwest Territory communities to local biomass. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s very isolated up here,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;For a lot of these communities, just shipping oil to generate power can cost $1.47 per kWh. We could take the money saved and create a new industry from it.&rdquo; To further validate the economic sensibility of utilizing wood pellets for heat and power, Bruce adds that he isn&rsquo;t on an environmental mission. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not a tree hugger; pellets just make financial sense.&rdquo; Author: Anna Simet Contributions Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a> (701) 751-2756

DESPERATE COMMUNITIES: Places such as Canadaâ€™s eastern territory of Nunavut are in need of cheaper, more accessible heat sources. 

2012/08/Pel-Biomass-Town-0812_13456662316644.jpg

FISHING FOR FUEL: One of the principal biomass harvest methods in the north is "river logging," or catching river-drift trees in the spring and summer. River loggers hook floating trees and drag them into shore, and as water levels drop, the logs dry

2012/08/Pel-Biomass-Yukon-0812_1345666227799.jpg

HAULING HEAT: Arctic Green Energy delivers a load of pellets to the North Slave Correctional Facility, where it installed a biomass heating system.

2012/08/Pel-Biomass-Truck-0812_13456662368778.jpg

Many remote northern communities face energy challenges due to their location, weather and high fuel costs, but wood pellets offer an affordable source of reliable, on-demand heat.  

Northern        Exposure 

For most people, the word cool as it relates to devices conjures up images of a new cardboard-thin computer, or the latest smartphone. For Mike Lilga, a research chemist on the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory&rsquo;s Chemical and Biological Process Development Group, cool correlates more to the equipment his team custom designs and fabricates when the goods they need to convert biomass can't be, or haven't been, made by vendors in the advanced biofuels, biobased chemicals or other biomass-based industries.
 The ability of researchers working in major facilities like Lilga at PNNL, or others in places such as Oak Ridge National Laboratory or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, to produce that cool equipment and one-off technology might benefit individual projects and research. For the private sector, though, trying to understand what the best researchers know about bioenergy equipment and technology, unique hardware that never hits the market doesn&rsquo;t mean much or allow suppliers and vendors to tweak or upgrade their existing offerings to match the best. Fortunately, Lilga and others are willing to share their perspectives on the technology and equipment in the biomass industry, giving their take on what works, where improvements can be made, and of course, what&rsquo;s cool.
 Lab Coat Conjectures
 Lilga&rsquo;s work focuses on biomass conversion. The team uses multiple reactor systems from the micro- and lab-scale to near-pilot scale for biomass conversion and upgrading hydrocarbon fuel blend stock. In general, his work involves the use of continuous flow systems that are similar to those destined for commercial scale. With the reactors they typically use, he says, efficient biomass conversion is achieved by having reactors capable of both high pressure and high temperatures, features the majority of off-the-shelf equipment don&rsquo;t have.
 For equipment suppliers, Lilga has a few thoughts, or areas he wishes were addressed. First, he would like to see electrical certification of all equipment prior to arrival at the lab. &ldquo;Electrical certification is important for any equipment going into our research facilities,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;and third-party certification on site can be costly and cause significant schedule delays.&rdquo; Next, he&rsquo;d like to see equipment that comes with more baseline research. Equipment providers would help &ldquo;if they could provide a set of calibration gas/liquid curves to help the researcher anticipate the order and response factor for most expected hydrocarbons and oxygenates,&rdquo; he says.
 And last, Lilga wants more equipment. &ldquo;It would be nice if there was a laboratory scale compressor for compressing CO (or even other gases) to greater than psig and safely storing a reasonable amount of the gas at pressure inside a hood or walk-in enclosure,&rdquo; he adds.
 Robert Hettich, a staff researcher for the Chemical Sciences Division at ORNL, leads the lab&rsquo;s efforts on proteome research, which focuses on characterizing the range of protein &ldquo;machinery&rdquo; that microbes, in particular bacteria or yeast, use to solubilize cellulosic material. The main piece of equipment he uses is anything in the mass spectrometry class (tools to measure the mass of a particle). For proteomics research, he says, mass spectrometry is the lynchpin technology. High-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) interfaced with tandem-mass spectrometers &ldquo;has become the workhorse for bioenergy proteomics,&rdquo; he says.
 For that work-horse equipment to provide the answers the team is looking for, Hettich says key features of the technology need to be present. The system needs to provide a clear spatial separation of the protein mixtures the team is analyzing. The equipment needs to be able to do so by particle size, charge or hydrophobicity (tendency to avoid water) he says, &ldquo;so that they are presented&hellip;in a more simplistic fashion.&rdquo; For that, the team uses an LTQ-Orbitrap-Velos MS (mass spectrometer instrumentation system) for high-mass accuracy and high-resolution mass measurements, all he adds, to help the team see those super bugs used for bioenergy in &ldquo;unambiguous identifications.&rdquo;
 In the mass spectrometry equipment world, Rettich sees vendors focused on improving speed of analysis and the performance of instrumentation by creating better methods of protein separations prior to mass spectrometry measurements. Reduced cost is another improvement his proteome team would like to see. &ldquo;At present, high performance mass spectrometry instrumentation is quite expensive.&rdquo;
 As for the &ldquo;coolest&rdquo; equipment his team has worked with, Rettich points to an experimental mass spectrometer set-up that lets his team view entire microbial communities, allowing them to measure how microbes relate and even, compete with each other in natural environmental systems.
 Completed Project Perspective
 Specialized researchers aren&rsquo;t the only ones willing or able to comment on equipment and technology trends in a semi-nonbiased fashion. Francois Guay, project manager for Bio-Methatec, a Canadian-based biogas systems provider is now an equipment provider pitching his company&rsquo;s LIPP biogas technology, but that wasn&rsquo;t always the case. Before Guay and his team formed their Montreal-based firm, they were sifting through all of the available biogas technology around the world in an effort to bring the best, via licensing, to North America. Eventually, his team decided on a German design that has more than 700 installations globally.
 Although he would pitch his own brand of biogas technology over others, he does have a few thoughts on why over 700 biogas projects include his system. For Guay, his technology, like others, features automation controls that allow users to run the equipment more efficiently. The bottom of the large digestion tanks also have a drain that allows for the disposal of larger particles that pass through the digester. &ldquo;We never have to go into the digesters to remove the large particles,&rdquo; he says. In addition to the drain feature, many have chosen his system because it offers a gas storage tank at the top of the digester tank all in one unit.
 Overall, in the biogas industry, he adds, most digestion systems are in little need of improvement, it is the accompanying pieces that need to be better-integrated with the digesters.
 The idea of integration is something Marcus Kauffman, biomass resource specialist for the Oregon Department of Forestry, can certainly speak to. In collaboration with the Oregon DOE, Kauffman helped perform five biomass-based installations throughout the state, detailing through case studies what each installation revealed, including information about equipment and technology and how to fit and integrate everything from boilers to silos to wood chip facilities into places like Sisters High School, Blue Mountain Hospital and others.
 In the biomass boiler industry, Kauffman points out that although U.S.-based boiler providers are more than capable of distributing a reliable, efficient boiler, the European offerings are still superior in quality and technology. From his perspective gained from the installation projects, however, biomass power applications aren&rsquo;t just about finding the right boiler technology, they are also about catering the ability of the equipment to, in essence, fit inside the box.
 The majority of the installations utilized what Kauffman calls the most popular equipment package in the industry today, the boiler-in-the box. Viessman offers such a product, one that allows a user to contain the boiler and other equipment in a standard shipping container-esque box. The strategy is currently popular because public project developers might not always have the space or the money to construct a separate biomass storage facility. With the box setup, Kauffman says, many of the projects simply had to &ldquo;pour a slab and lay it down.&rdquo; If one compares the total cost of the box system versus a chip system, he adds, the chips building can account for nearly half of the total project costs.
 In addition to equipment offerings that use a smaller footprint, Kauffman believes remote access to biomass-thermal systems is a must. Using remote access, a provider can have a fleet of boilers spread throughout a region, and still maintain and service the units without training individuals for each site. Doing so, he said, will not only make installations more appealing, but it will create a more efficient system.
 The actual boilers may also benefit from a precombustion chamber that essentially superheats biomass before it enters the main chamber, a practice he says, that will create a more efficient burn rate.
 In the end, although each researcher or industry expert has their own thoughts about specific equipment, technology or systematic approachs that work or can be improved, all note the need for one thing: flexibility. Whether it&rsquo;s a commercial-scale reactor, farm-based biogas cleanup process, or a district heating pellet storage facility, each expert notes that vendors and providers need to provide equipment that is adaptable, can be easily tweaked to match certain conditions or equipment packages. And, the hardware of tomorrow needs to offer higher pressure ratings while withstanding the higher temperatures needed for many of the bioenergy processes almost ready for roll-out. Author: Luke Geiver Features Editor, Biomass Magazine (701) 738-4944 <a href="mailto:lgeiver@bbiinternational.com">lgeiver@bbiinternational.com</a>

TALKING SHOP: NRELâ€™s Integrated Biorefinery Research Facility hosts some of the nations's best bioenergy researchers to discuss new technology trends happening today. 

2012/08/AdBio-Biomass-Discussion-0812_13456664072109.jpg

THE TRUE TEST: Hardware like this is tested again and again at national labs, giving researchers a better grasp of not only what works, but what needs to change. 

2012/08/AdBio-Biomass-Fermenter-0812_13456663895214.jpg

SHINEY AND NEW: Bioreactors that arrive with third party electrical certification could speed up the bioenergy research process.

2012/08/AdBio-Biomass-Bioreactor-0812_1345666398857.jpg

Top lab researchers and proven project developers speak about trends and needed tweaks to bioenergy hardware. 

Bioenergy Equipment  Essentials

With increasing pressure from the U.S. EPA to reduce emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, and states requiring an increasing amount of renewable capacity, biomass power generation has evolved into a more viable power option. According to U.S. Energy Information Administration&rsquo;s Annual Report released in November 2011, a total of 147 new biomass sources are expected to be built between 2011 and 2013.&nbsp; Planned generating capacity additions for wood and other biomass sources are predicted to reach 377 MW by 2013, compared to 290 MW from coal and 224 MW from hydroelectric.
 With these increases in biomass capacity, proper selection of combustion technology is critical for plant performance and economics.
 Stoker Boilers
 One of the oldest forms of combustion technology available, stoker firing has proven to be reliable and rugged under a wide range of fuels and operating conditions. In a stoker boiler, fuel is introduced onto a grate where the combustion process occurs. This grate and the fuel feed system are the defining factors of a stoker boiler, with many variations being designed over the years. From fixed hearths to traveling grates and now vibrating grates and mass feed to spreader stokers, each type has been developed to accommodate a multitude of fuels. Stoker-fired boilers typically benefit from low auxiliary power requirements and compared to other combustion technologies, generally exhibit reduced capital expenditure costs. A major drawback to the stoker boiler, however, is an unfavorable emission profile. Due to the design of a stoker, they have an inherent problem of generating high amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
 Fluid Bed Combustors
 Another popular combustion technology for biomass power generation is a fluid bed combustor. In a fluid bed combustor, an inert medium such as sand, commonly referred to as the bed, is heated to a temperature greater than the combustion temperature of the biomass fuel. Underneath the bed, high pressure combustion air is introduced at a rate that reduces the contact forces between particles created by gravity. As more combustion air is introduced and higher velocities are achieved, drag forces on the particles will counteract gravity. At this point, the particles are suspended in an upward stream, the bed increases in height, and due to the non-uniform formations, the bed exhibits liquid-like properties, or fluidization.
 There are two popular types of fluid bed combustors used for biomass combustion. The first is referred to as a Bubbling Fluidized Bed boiler. In a BFB boiler, the velocity and volume of air in the bed increases to the point of bubble formation below the bed. With the bed of the boiler fluidized and the bubble formations approaching the surface, the appearance of a liquid boiling is observed. Air velocities are controlled such that suspended particles retain fluid-like properties without leaving the bed.
 The second style of fluid bed combustors is referred to as a circulating fluidized bed boiler. In a CFB boiler, the air velocities and volume are increased to even greater velocities than that of a BFB boiler to promote solid elutriation from the bed. To recover solids lost from elutriation, the gas stream passes through a solids separation device after leaving the furnace. The collected solids are returned to the bed for reuse in the combustion process.&nbsp; This elutriation and return process gives the appearance of a constant stream of particles circulating in the boiler.
 A major benefit to a fluid bed combustor is the ability to precisely control the bed temperature to inhibit the formation of thermal NOX.&nbsp; High turbulence also reduces the formation of carbon monoxide.&nbsp; A fluid bed combustor may also utilize a bed medium such as limestone in order to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. The bed is typically drained on a continuous basis to remove bed ash and foreign material in order to optimize performance. Fluid bed combustors are also able to burn a wide range of fuels for the combustion process, however, all of these benefits are at the expense of higher auxiliary loads and capital cost.
 Suspension Boilers
 More than 40 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. comes from the combustion of coal.&nbsp; By far, the most common coal combustion technique used by utilities is suspension firing. As states mandate more renewable energy sources, existing coal boiler operators are modifying their equipment to handle mixtures of biomass and coal. In suspension firing, fuel is ground to the consistency of flour. This finely-sized material is conveyed pneumatically to a set of burners located in the furnace walls of the boiler, and once the fuel is introduced into the furnace, the combustion process takes place where solid particles are passing through the high temperature region, or flame basket. Cofiring biomass in an existing coal unit can be attractive as the modification and capital costs associated may be relatively modest.&nbsp; In most coal boilers, emission control systems are typically already in place to clean up pollutants generated in the combustion process. Some drawbacks to utilizing suspension firing of biomass are the limited range of fuels suitable for this application, and potential for unit de-rating.&nbsp; Additionally, fuel constituents&mdash;particularly chlorine&mdash;can accelerate boiler tube corrosion and promote slag formation.
 Gasification
 Gasification has been used for producing synthetic natural gas, or syngas, since the 1800s. In biomass gasification, an organic solid feedstock is heated in a sub-stoichiometric environment to convert the solid feedstock into a combustible gas. This combustible gas is then burned either in a boiler to generate steam or in a reciprocating engine or combustion turbine. The primary advantage of gasification is the ability to achieve higher temperatures and thus greater thermal efficiency than direct combustion of the biomass feedstock.
 Digester
 In an anaerobic digester, biomass is converted from a solid waste to a usable gas that is then used to produce power. Typically this process occurs in three steps. The first is the hydrolysis of biomass into usable molecules such as sugar. Next, the decomposed matter converts into various organic acids, which are then converted into a methane gas. This methane gas is captured and combusted in a boiler to generate steam and produce power. A drawback to this process is its sensitivity to lower temperatures, and a key benefit to a digester is that almost any biological material may be used to produce the methane gas. The feedstock&rsquo;s digestibility, however, will determine the amount of gas yielded.
 Combustion technology selection depends on biomass fuel type, availability and selection, desired facility performance envelope, and underlying project economics. For upcoming biomass power projects, selection will be critical for maximizing return while maintaining a low emission profile. As environmental regulations evolve for fossil fuel power generation and utilities are mandated to increase their renewables portfolio, biomass power generation will use existing combustion technologies while continuing to develop new methods to convert biomass into electricity. Author: Brandon Bell Principle Mechanical Engineer, KBR Power &amp; Industrial <a href="mailto:Brandon.bell@kbr.com">Brandon.bell@kbr.com</a> 312-846-7492

2012/08/Pow-Biomass-Exterior-0812_1345666630304.jpg

Proper selection of combustion technology is critical to biomass power. 
An expert reviews current options, along with pros and cons.

August 2012

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Innovation Drives Success

The Problem of Too Much Success

Be Not the First, Nor the Last

There They Go Again: Attacking the Renewable Fuels Standard

Bringing E15 to the Consumer

Who's on First? Lien Priority in a Volatile World

Supply, Demand Still Going Up

Biomass' Own Silver Buckshot

Tax Incentives for Renewable Baseload Power

Thermal Energy can Reduce the Next Big Fire

EPA Uncertain of Biogenic Fuels' Role

Forget Not the Feedstock

Featured

Bacterial Battle

Testing for Traces

How Cellulosic is Rising from Corn

Enabling Exports to Benefit Business

Northern Exposure

Bioenergy Equipment Essentials

Contributions

Bacterial Inhibition Without Antibiotics

Growing Supply of Low-fat DDGS Impacts Market Dynamics

Multiple Coproducts Needed to Establish Cellulosic Ethanol Industry

The Cruciality of Combustion Technology

August 2012.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

Innovation Drives Success

The Problem of Too Much Success

Be Not the First, Nor the Last

There They Go Again: Attacking the Renewable Fuels Standard

Bringing E15 to the Consumer

Who's on First? Lien Priority in a Volatile World

Supply, Demand Still Going Up

Biomass' Own Silver Buckshot

Tax Incentives for Renewable Baseload Power

Thermal Energy can Reduce the Next Big Fire

EPA Uncertain of Biogenic Fuels' Role

Forget Not the Feedstock

Featured

Bacterial Battle

Testing for Traces

How Cellulosic is Rising from Corn

Enabling Exports to Benefit Business

Northern Exposure

Bioenergy Equipment Essentials

Contributions

Bacterial Inhibition Without Antibiotics

Growing Supply of Low-fat DDGS Impacts Market Dynamics

Multiple Coproducts Needed to Establish Cellulosic Ethanol Industry

The Cruciality of Combustion Technology

August 2012