The concept of converting paper industry sludge to ethanol has been intensively studied in the past decade. Recently, research at North Carolina State University has shown that the process is clearly feasible and profitable under current market conditions.
Paper sludge is a residual material in the pulp and paper manufacturing process composed of short fibers, clays, fillers and other contaminants. These sludges are produced at high volume from both virgin and recycled paper production processes. The fate of paper sludge is mainly limited to disposal in landfills, land application or power generation (the later with low efficiency). Dr. Richard Venditti, along with collaborators and students, has been developing novel conversion processes to convert paper sludge into ethanol with a focus on low capital investment, operational costs and environmental impact. The project is a team effort that involves experts in bioconversion, process economics and financial modeling, and is currently sponsored by the Biofuels Center of North Carolina and the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology.
As a raw material candidate for producing bioethanol, paper sludge has certain advantages over other feedstock such as agricultural residues or wood sources, including:
&bull; Paper sludge is produced at a concentrated site and permanent production location, making the sourcing of sludge easy at practically no cost.
&bull; The utilization of sludge for ethanol diverts material going to landfills and avoids truck hauling costs and landfill investments.
&bull; Paper sludge is composed of carbohydrate materials in the form of very fine fibers with high specific surface area and often with little lignin present.
Since industrial paper sludge has already been subjected to an extensive mechanical and chemical processing, polysaccharides in recycled paper sludge should be much more amenable to enzymatic hydrolysis, compared to&nbsp; raw wood or plant material. &ldquo;Our sludge-to-ethanol process avoids costly pretreatments to make paper industry sludge more amenable to enzymes and is less energy intensive compared to other lignocellulosic biomass-to-ethanol pathways,&rdquo; Venditti stated. &ldquo;Based on our business model, we believe that our development work can provide practical information to investors and technology developers for a short-term commercial pathway for cellulosic ethanol production.&rdquo;
The process development of sludge to ethanol via biochemical pathway has been studied over the past few decades. Previous studies show that enzymatic hydrolysis of paper sludge has been inefficient in separate hydrolysis and fermentation due to the interference of large amount of ash in the sludges during enzymatic hydrolysis. According to research conducted in the group by doctoral student, Hui Chen, acid soluble ash like CaCO3 not only buffers the pH level (usually two to three units higher than the optimum pH) making pH adjustment with acid required for enzymatic hydrolysis, but also adsorbs cellulase with a higher affinity than cellulosic fiber. Acid-insoluble ash like clay also presents inactive binding with cellulase thereby decreasing enzyme digestibility of fiber in sludge. Therefore, in order to achieve higher efficiency in enzymatic hydrolysis with lower enzyme dosage, Chen conducted sludge fractionation prior to enzymatic hydrolysis to separate sludge into two streams: ash-rich and fiber-rich streams. This step not only lowers acid demand to adjust the pH in enzymatic hydrolysis but also generates an ash-rich stream for soil amendment.&nbsp;
In an industrial scale, common pulp washing equipment can be utilized for this fractionation step. &ldquo;By conducting process simulation and financial analysis,&rdquo; Chen said. &ldquo;We found out that the fractionation step lowered production cost (including depreciation) to 82 cents per gallon compared to $1.25 per gallon for the process without a fractionation step.&rdquo; The nonfractionated process had seven-fold higher chemical cost (mainly sulfuric acid) compared to the fractionation process, 1.8-fold higher enzyme costs, and 1.5-fold higher energy costs as shown in the accompanying pie charts.&nbsp;
In terms of ethanol production cost share, the fractionated sludge-to-ethanol process had enzyme costs of 46 percent, energy costs of 16 percent and chemical costs of 6 percent of the total production cash cost (production cost minus noncash costs such as depreciation). In contrast, the nonfractionated process had enzyme costs of 48 percent, energy costs of 13 percent and chemical costs of 19 percent of the total production cash cost. The nonfractionated case has a much higher chemical share of the costs, mainly due to higher sulfuric acid use. The sludge-to-ethanol process can produce excess returns, assuming an ethanol wholesale price of $2.30 per gallon (average wholesale price of the past 16 months). The internal rate of return of this process is estimated at 28 percent and the modified internal rate of return at 19 percent with a reinvestment rate of 8 percent.
The profitability of the process relies on its simplicity and its business model. The sludge-to-ethanol plant is expected to be sited within a paper mill, and sourcing and buying utilities from the mill (steam, power and water) thus reduces capital expenditure (CAPEX). This approach achieves a CAPEX of $4.40 per annual gallon of ethanol and payback of 4.4 years.&nbsp;
Although there are substantial studies on second-generation biofuels, the NCSU group is the first research group conducting risk analysis to estimate a close to 100 percent probability of business success even with conservative assumptions (CAPEX -15 percent/+25 percent, ethanol yield -25 percent/+15 percent and enzyme costs -15 percent/+25 percent) based on current market conditions. The probability distribution of net present value for the project is most likely to yield $10 million for a capital project of around $5 million as shown in the accompanying bar chart.&nbsp; &ldquo;Our next step is to perform pilot plant trials to validate our lab-scale results,&rdquo; Venditti adds. &ldquo;Paper sludges from different paper making processes perform differently in the technology; efficiency improvement should be investigated for different types of sludges.&rdquo; Author: Ronalds W. Gonzalez Research Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University Ronalds.gonzalez@gmail.com (919) 802-5219
 Other collaborators in the NCSU research: Richard Venditti, Hasan Jameel, Hui Chen, Richard Phillips
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).

2012/10/13494419529468.jpg

Present value probability distribution of the sludge to ethanol business model with conservative assumptions.

2012/10/13494419515411.jpg

Ethanol production costs per liter of ethanol and cost share percent for fractionated and nonfractionated scenarios in 2015. (b) nonfractionated sludge to ethanol.

2012/10/13494419520071.jpg

Ethanol production costs per liter of ethanol and cost share percent for fractionated and nonfractionated scenarios in 2015. (a) fractionated sludge to ethanol

2012/10/13494419524169.jpg

Researchers develop promising business model

Ethanol Production from Paper Industry Sludge Examined

Persistence breeds good fortune, and so it is that corn fiber&mdash;the low-hanging fruit of cellulosic ethanol&mdash;is on its way to becoming one of America&rsquo;s most getable advanced biofuel feedstocks. As told in this month&rsquo;s page-30 cover story, &ldquo;Going for the Fiber,&rdquo; a fortuitous discovery made by a plant engineer at Quad County Corn Processors is now culminating in an $8.5 million &ldquo;bolt-on&rdquo; cellulosic addition to the existing 30 MMgy ethanol plant in Galva, Iowa.
Holly Jessen reports that Quad County will soon have the ability to produce an additional 1.8 MMgy of ethanol that may ultimately be deemed an advanced biofuel by the U.S. EPA. Additionally, the plant will achieve huge corn oil yield gains and produce a high-protein animal feed that may command a premium.&nbsp;
The story is extraordinary because Quad County, despite being a relatively small plant, developed an in-house technology that is potentially transformative. It is also extraordinary because it illustrates the new heights being reached by producers utilizing next-generation enzymes tailored to make the C6 sugars in corn fiber available for fermentation.
While Quad County is employing a single-stream approach, producing grain and cellulosic ethanol in &ldquo;one pipe,&rdquo; others continue to prove the near-term viability of cellulosic ethanol from fractionated corn bran. As Jessen points out in her page-37 feature, &ldquo;Corn Ethanol 1.5,&rdquo; the recent success of the National-Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC) and its client-partners is further evidence that going after the alcohol in corn bran is a good incremental step toward achieving greater quantities of cellulosic ethanol from larger-volume feedstocks.
Ethanol 2.0 isn&rsquo;t waiting for ethanol 1.5, however. As Sue Retka Schill reports in her page-45 feature, &ldquo;Milestones Reached,&rdquo; stand-alone cellulosic ethanol plants continue to be developed worldwide at demonstration and commercial scale. As Retka-Schill points out, EPM&rsquo;s fall plant map, mailed with this issue, shows more than 6 MMgy of cellulosic ethanol capacity in the U.S. and Canada at nine demonstration plants, and more than 104 MMgy under construction. The story provides updates on a half dozen cellulosic projects moving ahead, and a cursory assessment of high-profile cellulosic ethanol projects and companies that have recently waned.
Finally, be sure to read our superb technical contributions this month, as well as our Q&amp;A with Iowa Sen. Jack Kibbie. Executive Editor Tim Portz talks to Kibbie about farming, public service and his role in bringing Poet&rsquo;s Project Liberty to Emmetsburg, Iowa.
Tom Bryan, PRESIDENT &amp; EDITOR IN CHIEF tbryan@bbiinternational.com

2012/10/1349446910809.jpg

Going after the Getable

I watched a little of the Calgary Stampede this summer and couldn&rsquo;t help but be reminded of the similarities between those tough, determined bronco riders and the champions of our industry.
High corn prices, food versus fuel, land use, shifting energy demands, diminishing rain forests, waving the waiver and a host of other issues that have to be dealt with, many of which are instigated and funded by some of the world&rsquo;s richest industries, employing the world&rsquo;s highest-paid lobbyist. They areall part and parcel to the wild ride of renewable energy.
We have been down this road many times over the past 30 years. We have suffered high corn prices, false allegations, shifting energy demands and come face to face with the best lobbyist money can buy, and won.
Each time those opposed to the ethanol industry think &ldquo;This time we got &lsquo;em&rdquo;, and start popping the cork on the champagne bottles, it seems we somehow come through once again. It&rsquo;s not because we are smarter, or better at lobbying our issue, although that could actually be the case, it&rsquo;s because we are on the right side of the issue at the right time in history.
Just as the bronco rider wraps the leather strap around his fist, digs his heal into the sides of the horse in anticipation of the wild moments ahead, the ethanol industry prepares for what it knows will be a rough ride, digs in its heels, pulls its hat down tight and yells &ldquo;Open the gate! This isn&rsquo;t our first rodeo and it won&rsquo;t be our last.&rdquo;
Like the old weathered-faced cowboy, the bruises, cracked ribs and broken bones eventually begin to take their toll. Fortunately, we have a whole new set of young, tough, determined rodeo champs coming up through the ranks ready to take on the meanest and wildest broncos out there. These young champs haven&rsquo;t yet been worn down by being thrown through the air and hitting the ground with the wind knocked out of them, only to have to get up and do it all over again.
I&rsquo;m proud of the old cowboys, but I&rsquo;m also very proud of the young champs that are ready to take the reins of this industry and yell &ldquo;Open the gate! This IS my first rodeo, but it won&rsquo;t be my last!&rdquo;
That&rsquo;s the way I see I it.
Author: Mike Bryan Chairman, BBI International mbryan@bbiinternational.com

2012/10/13494468320378.jpg

This Isn't Our First Rodeo

This summer&rsquo;s drought in the farm belt raised real fears about food supplies and prices. But some in the livestock, poultry and meat processing industries are using this summer&rsquo;s problems to further their campaign against the renewable fuel standard (RFS). Many of these groups have suggested that major modifications in the RFS are needed to ensure that grain is available for the animal feed market. Some have even proposed repealing the RFS entirely.
In fact, the RFS is one of the most successful energy policies ever enacted in the United States. The standard has encouraged the growth of the American biofuels industry, generating jobs, reviving rural economies, reducing oil imports, lowering gasoline prices and preserving the natural environment. Moreover, the RFS has sufficient flexibility to adjust to extreme circumstances, such as this summer&rsquo;s drought, without waiving or modifying the standard.
On the economic front, the RFS has laid the foundation for further private investment in the domestic biofuels industry. During challenging economic times, and in contrast to national trends in the manufacturing and oil refining sectors, the U.S. biofuels industry has grown to support almost 500,000 Americans and generate $53 billion in economic activity each year. With the continued development of advanced biofuels, the industry could add as many as 800,000 new employment opportunities, and increase annual economic activity by an additional $37 billion.
With the turmoil in the Middle East, it is more important than ever that, because the U.S. produced 13.9 billion gallons of ethanol last year, we used 485 million fewer barrels of imported oil. That is roughly equivalent to 13 percent of total U.S. crude oil imports, saving the American economy $49.7 billion. Without the RFS&mdash;and without ethanol production&mdash;the U.S. would have imported 52 percent of its oil last year. With the RFS&mdash;and with oil imports at 45 percent, their lowest level since 1996&mdash;the U.S. is less dependent on unstable or unfriendly regimes.
In another economic benefit, ethanol saves motorists money at the pumps. Because ethanol makes up 10 percent of the nation&rsquo;s gasoline pool, it significantly reduces demand for oil, putting downward pressure on gasoline prices at the pump. That is why a published, peer-reviewed study prepared by economists Dermot Hayes of Iowa State University and Xiaodong Du of the University of Wisconsin found that American ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of $1.09 per gallon in 2011, 89 cents per gallon in 2010, and an average of 29 cents per gallon since 2000.
On the environmental front, replacing gasoline with clean-burning biofuels reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48 to 59 percent, according to a study published by Yale University&rsquo;s Journal of Industrial Ecology.
While promoting the nation&rsquo;s energy, economic and environmental security, the RFS also provides the flexibility to respond to changing conditions, such as this summer&rsquo;s drought. When Congress passed the RFS in 2007, and when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wrote the regulations implementing the policy in 2009-&rsquo;10, policymakers included built-in stabilizers. Oil refiners and blenders receive a credit (called a RIN, renewable identification number) for each gallon of renewable fuel they blend, submitted to the EPA each year to demonstrate compliance. If they use more gallons of renewable fuel than they were obligated to use by the RFS, they can carry forward surplus credits.
There are an estimated 2.6 billion surplus RINs available to refiners and blenders for 2012. Theoretically, blenders could be 2.6 billion gallons (the equivalent of some 950 million bushels of corn) short of meeting the RFS with wet gallons and still comply. Additionally, there are nearly 800 million gallons of ethanol (the equivalent of nearly 300 million bushels) in storage. These stocks can be drawn down if ethanol production falls short of demand.
The RFS&rsquo; flexibility is confirmed by a recent analysis by Bruce Babcock of Iowa State University. Simulating the corn price impacts of a 100 percent waiver of the RFS during the upcoming 2012-&rsquo;13 corn marketing year, he found that a waiver would result in only a 4.6 percent reduction in corn prices. Moreover, the USDA&rsquo;s September crop production report confirmed that farmers are likely to harvest the eighth-largest corn crop on record this fall, despite the worst drought conditions in more than 50 years.
Clearly, the RFS is working, without waiving or modifying the standard. As the old saying goes, it ain&rsquo;t broke, and we don&rsquo;t need to fix it.
Author: Bob Dinneen President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association (202) 289-3835

2012/10/13494467489295.jpg

The RFS:  It's Not Broke, Don't Fix It

The renewable fuel standard (RFS) has been our nation&rsquo;s only successful energy policy enacted in the past 40 years. Under the RFS, biofuels now account for 10 percent of our gasoline supply. We are poised to do much, much more, reaching the goal of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. The RFS has answered the challenge of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and will continue to serve as a steppingstone to foster investment and innovation in both our grain-based fuels and next-generation biofuels.&nbsp;
Yet, the all-out attack on renewables continues. Whether its grain-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol or advanced, drop-in biofuels, critics continue to smear biofuels and use misinformation to distort the truth. We have the opportunity to make our own energy, right here in America, but we will not succeed if we allow special interests, foreign oil and Big Food to block our progress.
The RFS continues to drive innovation. We&rsquo;ve seen ever-increasing efficiency in production of today&rsquo;s corn- and grain-based biofuels and biodiesel as well as major advancements for the future production of advanced ethanol from grain sorghum and biomass resources. Under the RFS, we will continue to innovate and improve to make better fuels for tomorrow.
Next-generation biofuels hold tremendous promise for our future energy needs. Production of cellulosic biofuel can be a 50-state solution that the entire country can benefit from, not just one particular region. In fact, currently the U.S. is home to more than 1 billion tons per year of available biomass that can be converted to roughly 80 to 100 billion gallons of biofuel! Using feedstocks such as farm waste, wood pellets and other biomass such as switchgrass and algae presents diverse and limitless potential.
Constant attacks have been lobbed at the lack of availability of next-generation fuels and their progress has been slower than anticipated. Unfortunately, no one predicted that in 2008, shortly after the RFS was enacted, a deep recession would cause innovation and investment to take a back seat. As the recession begins to thaw, however, there is renewed interest and motivation to bring advanced biofuels on a commercial scale to the marketplace.
Among the many companies investing in the next generation of biofuels, Poet LLC is one of the producers leading the way, working on cellulosic ethanol since 2001. After successful trials at its pilot plant in Scotland, S.D., Poet moved forward with Project Liberty in Emmetsburg, Iowa, now under construction and scheduled for completion by the end of 2013. The project will create jobs and help revitalize our rural economy, leading the way to greater commercialization, providing a fuel that is better for the environment and reduces our addiction to foreign oil. This is the next step in ensuring that American money stays here at home, instead of going to OPEC. Using corn cobs, leaves, husks and stalks not only provides ample feedstock, but also reduces farm waste and is consistent with good farm management. The Emmetsburg plant is located right next to a corn-ethanol plant, proving ample access to feedstock, while also streamlining the process of production, productivity and efficiency.
Another leader in next-generation biofuel production, Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc., has expanded its facility in Shenandoah, Iowa, to commercialize algae production as part of its ongoing program to produce next-generation biofuels. Not only is this a sustainable process, but this innovation exemplifies the cutting edge nature of those in the renewable fuels industry. Many others are looking to venture into cellulosic and advanced biofuels. Many enzyme companies have invested heavily and are major players in the continuing effort to realize the full potential of next generation biofuels.
For these advancements to enter commercial scale, our industry must continue to fight for the RFS and push back on the relentless attacks and misinformation from Big Oil and Big Food. We have the facts on our side. We are creating jobs right here in America that cannot be outsourced, revitalizing rural economies, improving our environment and reducing our addiction to foreign oil, all while saving consumers money at the pump. This is a defining moment for our industry, and Growth Energy is dedicated to defense of the RFS and the success of America&rsquo;s biofuel producers.
Author: Tom Buis CEO, Growth Energy (202)545-4000 tbuis@growthenergy.org

2012/10/13494466302697.jpg

The Renewable Fuel Standard—For This Generation and the Next

November 2012 may turn out to be the most consequential month in the history of the ethanol industry. We could have a decision from the U.S. EPA on several requests it has received to waive the renewable fuels standard (RFS). We will have a better handle on the actual size of this year&rsquo;s drought-ravaged corn harvest. And, as we sort through the results of the 2012 election, we will have a better idea what the political future may hold for the RFS. With all of those important decisions approaching, naturally, like every other fall before this one, my thoughts turn ... to football.
I&rsquo;m a Packer fan and a football referee, ironically, with the same level of experience as the official who gave the Seahawks a victory over my Packers with what is probably the worst call in the history of the NFL. As a Packer fan, that call was hard to take, but as an official, I saw an upside.
Just about every year, usually after a critical call goes against one of the teams in a very close game, a rabid coach, player or fan informs the nearest official (at the top of his lungs) that he/she has just made &ldquo;the worst call ever.&rdquo; In some cases, the penalized party decides the incompetence is not limited to only one official, and brands the entire crew &ldquo;the worst crew ever.&rdquo;&nbsp;
With the Green Bay/ Seattle &ldquo;Inaccurate Reception&rdquo; game fresh in their minds, maybe we officials can relax a bit, knowing that coaches, players and fans will now refrain from such outbursts, pausing to think to themselves, &ldquo;Well, I didn&rsquo;t like the call, but it wasn&rsquo;t nearly as bad as that call in Seattle,&rdquo; right?
Sure they will. Just like everyone simply accepted the EPA&rsquo;s decision on E15. Just like everyone will dial back the hyperbole about the drought and corn ethanol as soon as the EPA makes its final ruling on waiver requests. Yeah. Right.
Perhaps you also see the contradiction here. Unlike the blown Green Bay/Seattle call&mdash;which was truly an awful call&mdash;the irony is that those who want to scream about a &ldquo;bad call&rdquo; seem to care little whether the call is accurate, instead focusing solely on what it means to them. The decision can be 100 percent correct, and those who don&rsquo;t want it to be true will simply say it was a bad call.
In the handful of times I have been told I made the &ldquo;worst call ever,&rdquo; I was pretty sure I made the right call. EPA took more than two years to test E15 in engines, and they are gathering as much information as they can to &ldquo;make the right call&rdquo; on an RFS waiver and yet, regardless of how much data they review and provide as proof for their decision, (and how little scientific proof Big Oil and Big Food provide), if that decision doesn&rsquo;t get Big Oil and Big Food closer to reducing competition for gas and providing cheap corn for livestock, respectively, they will continue to hammer away at the decisions.
Big Oil and Big Food will assemble a team of PR firms and advertising agencies for a &ldquo;worst call, ever&rdquo; campaign, and they will go to the courts and ask for review after review. As we continue to be attacked, we have to remind ourselves that we&rsquo;re playing by the rules, and that the RFS does a lot of important things. And at some point, after further review, the RFS will stand, and then we can get to the business of dealing with those pesky elected officials. Author: Ron Lamberty Senior Vice President, American Coalition for Ethanol (605) 334-3381 rlamberty@ethanol.org

2012/10/13494465480604.jpg

You Make the Call

After having promoted the use of biofuels for a number of years, some forces within the European Commission no longer seem convinced that biofuels from food/feed crops are a good thing and are now calling for limiting and eventually avoiding the use of biofuels. The political challenges, as expressed in 2007 by the member states, seem to have evaporated. Biofuels were seen then as crucial instruments in combatting climate change, increasing security and diversity of energy sources, a new outlet for farmers and, finally, new technological opportunities.
The first law from 2003 and the second from 2009 have spurred more than &euro;8 billion (more than $10 billion) in investments in the EU for ethanol production only. On top of that, very strict rules were put in place to avoid the use of carbon-rich land and high sustainability standards were written. Finally, biofuels have to eventually achieve emissions that are at least 50 percent of fossil fuel emissions.
The combined effect of the measures now under discussion will be lethal for the EU biofuel industry. They include capping the market for food/feed, grain-based biofuels to 5 percent, achieving higher greenhouse gas (GHG) savings and an additional indirect land use change (ILUC) penalty. It is like being shot, not once, but three times. The authors of the text must have had thought: let&rsquo;s make it so tough for biofuels that we get rid of these damn fuels once and for all. I cannot think of any other reason why on earth such extreme measures have been proposed.
If indeed grain-based biofuels are causing ILUC, even though the underlying science is shaky at best, why wouldn&rsquo;t an ILUC factor suffice, as has happened in the U.S.? Why on top of that measure is there a need for a 5 percent cap? If you produce sustainably, there shouldn&rsquo;t be any worry.
The 5 percent cap is a bit higher than the current 4.8 percent share for biofuels. The general understanding is that this volume of biofuels is not causing ILUC. When asked, the lead researcher at the International Food Policy Research Institute was unable to say how much ILUC is caused to date. So may we assume there is none?
The two measures together, capping and ILUC factor, do not make sense. The 5 percent cap proposal has been triggered by the concerns over higher prices for crops. The ILUC theory says biofuels cause the use of more land and thus addressing ILUC addresses the growing demand for food crops. If the theory is correct, how then can biofuels also cause a food shortage?
By the way, it is also quite a challenge to cause ILUC in Europe. According to Food and Agriculture Organization data, Europe is taking 500,000 hectares (1.23 million acres) of arable land out of production each year. The European Commission itself predicts the EU will use 5.5 million arable hectares less by 2020 than in 2010. If we assume that the average yield is 6 metric tons of grains per hectare and that direct land use change were avoided, 33 million metric tons of additional grains could be produced without any land/food impact (today EU producers use 9 million metric tons of grains). At least one-third of the grain volume would replace soy meal imports for animal feed. That, too, saves land indirectly.
Based on these simple facts alone, it is incomprehensible what has driven the EC to propose this U-turn, which will result in lost jobs and investments in times of deep financial crisis. Is it possible that Big Food and some nongovernmental organizations hold sway over the commission? Food/fuel and ILUC have become so political and emotional that it is apparently no longer possible to distinguish fact from fiction.
Who in his right mind would want to invest in any regulated sector not knowing what the regulators&rsquo; promise is worth? Regulators need to provide stability, not uncertainty. For the biofuels industry, having invested and worked in good faith and providing society with a certified highly sustainable product, these proposals feel like being stabbed in the back. Author: Robert Vierhout Secretary-general, ePURE Vierhout@epure.org

2012/10/13494464634601.jpg

Are We Being  Stabbed in the Back?

1. Kelly Davis has joined the Renewable Fuels Association as its director of regulatory affairs. She previously chaired the RFA Technical Committee while working for Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. in Benson, Minn. In her new position, Davis will help members of the RFA navigate the myriad of regulatory issues handed down by the federal government. She has experience in ethanol exports, the E.U.&rsquo;s Renewable Energy Directive, and carbon accounting in the U.S. and abroad. Her recent work experience with an ethanol marketing firm will also allow Davis to serve as an asset to the RFA&rsquo;s E15 regulatory team. 2. Lincoln, Neb.-based BinMaster Level Controls has announced the introduction of the BinMaster Guided Wave Radar (GWR-100) level sensor for measuring powders, bulk solids, and liquids in vessels up to 78 feet tall. The GWR-100 provides highly accurate measuring utilizing time domain reflectometry (TDR) to continuously measure the distance, level and volume of material contained in bins, tanks and silos. It performs reliability and is immune to dust, humidity, temperature, pressure and bulk density changes as well as noise that might be present when filling or emptying the vessel. The sensor features advanced two-wire TDR measurement technology with a low dead band and accuracy of plus or minus 0.2 inches. 3. Alfa Laval has acquired Gamajet Cleaning Systems. A new company, named Alfa Laval Tank Equipment Inc., has been created. The new company will operate as Gamajet Cleaning Systems and will remain in Exton, Pa. Robert Delaney, long-time president of Gamajet Cleaning Systems, will continue to serve as president of the new company. Alfa Laval&rsquo;s existing line of tank cleaning equipment, Toftejorg, has been absorbed by the new company for North America. Sales, support and service of the Toftejorg equipment will be handled at Gamajet&rsquo;s Exton, Pa., office. 4. Woodland Biofuels Inc. has added William White to its senior management team in the position of chief operating officer. White formerly served as president of DuPont Canada, and worked more than 30 years for DuPont in its operations, marketing, engineering and global business units. He has also recently served as a member of the board of MaRS Discovery District and the advisory board of the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance. In his new position, White will leverage his background and experience in managing the construction and operation of chemical plants. 5. Tenaska Biofuels LLC has promoted Dave Neubauer to the position of president. Neubauer has served as vice president and general manager of the company since its inception in 2006, and was responsible for the creation and implementation of its business plan. As president, Neubauer will continue to direct Tenaska Biofuels efforts to provide marketing, risk management, transportation and other asset management services to the ethanol, biodiesel and vegetable oil industries. He has more than 20 years of experience working in the energy industry. Prior to joining Tenaska Biofuels, Neubauer founded and served as president of Chalkstone Consulting, which provided energy risk management and development services to the ethanol, natural gas and crude oil industries. 6. Lallemand Inc. has acquired Atlanta based North American Bioproducts Corp. and its ancillary businesses, Piedmont Contract Packaging, NABC do Brasil and NABC International. NABC is a provider of yeast and fermentation adjuncts as well as support and education services to the fuel ethanol industry. The acquired companies will be combined with Lallemand&rsquo;s existing business, Lallemand Ethanol Technology, to form a new, larger business unit of the Specialties Division of Lallemand, which is based in Toulouse, France and led by Bill Nankervis. The new business unit will be headquartered in Atlanta and led by NABC founder Kevin Dailey. 7. ExperTune Inc. software now includes non-steady-state (NSS) modeling features for integrating control loops. These tools provide fast, simple modeling and tuning of level controls and work with all other integrating processes, such as gas tank pressure controls. New techniques developed by ExperTune allow the user to develop level control models and tuning, even when the process has not achieved steady-state, meaning that users can develop excellent turning for level controls even when little data is available. NSS tuning integrates seamlessly with ExperTune&rsquo;s PlantTriage and PID Loop Optimizer software. 8. EnviroFlight LLC has achieved commercial-scale production of sustainable, insect-based feeds using biofuel coproducts. The technology involves the industrial cultivation of hermetia illucens&mdash;black soldier flies&mdash;and converts coproducts from ethanol plants and breweries into a high-value source of animal and vegetable protein aquaculture and specialty feeds. EnviroFlight has a number of aquaculture feed formulations undergoing testing at this time, and expects to commercially release its aquaculture feeds in the spring of 2013 through direct sales and selected distributors. 9. Dynatek Articulated Loading Systems has added three new companies, including MC Schroeder Equipment Co., to its network of independent sales representatives. Operating out of offices in Denver, N.C., and Moseley, Va., MC Schroeder sales staff will promote, sell and support Dynatek Articulated Loading Systems in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and the eastern portion of Tennessee.&nbsp; Mercer, Pa.-based Hankinson Marketing has also been selected to promote and sell Dynatek Articulated Loading Systems products and systems in the grain and feed industries. In addition, PennQuip Inc. will sell and promote the company&rsquo;s loading systems in eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Dynatek Articulated Loading Systems is a division of D&amp;D Products and designs and builds articulated truck, railcar and barge loading systems based on auger, belt, drag and air slide conveyor technologies. 10. Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman declared September as Renewable Fuels Awareness month in Nebraska during a visit to Husker Harvest Days in Grand Island. The proclamation was coordinated through the Nebraska Corn Board and Nebraska Soybean Board, which hosted the event at Husker Harvest Days to recognize the contributions of Nebraska farmers and agribusinesses to the nation&rsquo;s renewable fuel supply. 11. Lignol Energy Corp. has successfully completed a major body of work in producing cellulsoic ethanol at its pilot-scale biorefinery, in partnership with Novozymes Inc. The work involved optimization of process conditions for the use of Novozymes&rsquo; cellulase enzyme preparation, Cellic CTec 3, with Lignol&rsquo;s substrate. Performance improvements of up to 35 percent were observed when compared to previously best achieved results. 12. Superior Industries has appointed two new national sales managers to its conveying equipment and conveyor components divisions. Scott Gulan has assumed sales management of the company&rsquo;s conveying equipment division. His duties will include supervision of territory managers throughout the U.S. and Canada, and customer care from point of sale to the company&rsquo;s internal customer service estimating team. Mike McFerren has accepted the same role in the company&rsquo;s conveyor components division, where he will be responsible for overseeing the company&rsquo;s idler, pulley and conveyor accessory territory sales managers in the U.S. and Canada. 13. Joule Unlimited has added Caroline Dorsa to its board of directors. She currently serves as the executive vice president and chief financial officer of Public Service Enterprise Group, a publically traded diversified energy company. Dorsa previously served as senior vice president of global human health, strategy and integration at Merck &amp; Co., and held the role of senior vice president and chief financial officer at Avaya Inc., where she supported the company through its acquisition by private equity. She also currently serves on the board of Biogen Idec. 14. Flare Industries LLC has acquired Jordan Technologies, a leading supplier of vapor recovery units (VRUs) and the largest service provider for VRUs in the world market. Flare Industries designs, manufactures and installs combustion and pollution control technology and equipment. Jordan Technologies designs, manufactures and actively services VRUs for a broad range of customers in the ethanol, natural gas, petroleum and petrochemical industries. Each company will continue to maintain its own brand. 15. Codexis Inc. has appointed David O&rsquo;Toole as senior vice president and chief financial officer. O&rsquo;Toole formerly served as vice president and chief financial officer at Response Genetics Inc., where he managed the finance and accounting department and was responsible for investor relations and information technologies. During his time at Response Genetics, he implemented policies and procedures that resulted in significant cost savings and operational efficiencies. He has also successfully completed a number of equity financings. 16. Terranol and Novozymes announced an agreement that will ensure the final optimization of Terranol&rsquo;s C5 yeast strain and give Novozymes the rights to register and market the company&rsquo;s C5 yeast technology. The partnership will allow Novozymes to speed up global rollout of Terranol&rsquo;s yeast to customers in the cellulosic ethanol industry. The yeast strain has been optimized to convert C5 sugars and works under standard ethanol fermentation temperatures. The yeast fermentation process takes approximately 48 hours to convert both xylose and glucose sugars in the biomass broth. 17. The former Minnesota Energy ethanol plant located near Buffalo Lake, Minn., is back online. The 25 MMgy plant, which has been renamed Purified Renewable Energy LLC, was idled in late 2009. Backed by a private equity group in New York, Steve Walker, the plant&rsquo;s new president, and Patrick Riggs, vice president and chief financial officer, purchased the plant and unofficially took possession on April 10. The permit transfer process was complete in July, and the title was officially transferred in September. The facility was built in 1997 and currently employs 29 people.
&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 evoegele@bbiinternational.com. Please include your name and telephone number in all correspondence.

2012/10/13494461364901.jpg

2012/10/1349446137105.jpg

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman is a long-time supporter of the biofuel industry.  

2012/10/13494461374605.jpg

2012/10/13494461378971.jpg

Business Briefs

Rita Frahm, president of Ida County Economic Development, feels Ida County, Iowa, is blessed to have two ethanol plants&mdash;Quad County Corn Processors at Galva and Platinum Ethanol LLC, a 110 MMgy facility located about 15 miles away in Arthur. The fact that Quad County will be bringing cutting-edge technology for cellulosic ethanol to the county is especially exciting. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a lot great things that are happing there and we feel very fortunate to have that going on in a rural part of the world,&rdquo; she says.
Even without the cellulosic ethanol add-on, the farmer-owned plant already provides area residents with highly skilled, technical job opportunities. R&amp;D lab assistant Allison Kinney, who works with Travis Brotherson in Quad County&rsquo;s R&amp;D facility, is a great example, Frahm says. She graduated from high school in Ida County and was living out of state when the job opened up at Quad County. Brotherson, who grew up about 40 miles away from the plant and has lived his whole life in Iowa, started out working at the ethanol plant as a night operator. He came back to work as plant engineer after going back to school at Iowa State University. Either way, whether it brings people back home or allows them to stay in the area without moving away&mdash;that&rsquo;s a success story, Frahm says.
Of course, it&rsquo;s not just direct jobs that have a positive effect. An industrial park is developing around the ethanol plant, including a co-located C02 plant that employs about a dozen workers, she says. And, an American Natural Soy food-grade processing plant is expected to reach full production levels in early 2013. Across the street from the ethanol plant is Iowa&rsquo;s first blender pump, which is owned by a local cooperative. The area has also experienced a growth in the livestock industry, thanks to the distillers grains produced at area ethanol plants. A past tour of beef facilities in Ida County attracted more than 400 people from a tri-state area, she says. Together, the industries have spurred increased intergenerational opportunities, allowing younger farmers to get into the grain or livestock business.
All in all, agricultural innovation&mdash;including ethanol production&mdash;has had a very positive impact on Ida County and Galva in particular. In fact, from the 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census, Galva was the only city in that county to experience growth while the county as a whole declined in population. The town, which now has a population of 434, grew 17 percent in 10 years. As a result, Galva has a new bank, housing subdivision and a wellness center. And, for the first time in nearly 20 years, the community just might attract a grocery store. &ldquo;These things are all just huge for us in a very small community,&rdquo; she said. 
See the main story, <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/9178/going-for-the-fiber" target="_blank">Going for the Fiber</a>, for more information about this plant.&nbsp;
&mdash;Holly Jessen

Economic Development Boon

A manager dealing with uncertain times might need a few pieces of advice to help boost employee morale. In the ethanol industry, high corn prices and low fuel demands have caused plants to struggle, some to even shut down, which means people still working in the industry could feel their future is uncertain.
Communication is number one on the priority list. If there is talk of a plant shut-down, set aside time to talk with employees to keep them current. This helps them feel a connection to the business. Communicate as much and as frequently as possible to avoid leaving employees to make assumptions or create their own story. Helping the staff feel that they are being considered in decisions about the future is much better than making them feel like a casualty of events.
More often than not, employees are aware of adversity in the industry, which means they are also talking about it. To avoid the negatives of a topic being discussed &ldquo;on the grapevine,&rdquo; outline a plan to communicate to the group and carry it out right away. Be straightforward and address the issue, stating where the industry is going and how it will directly impact the plant. When information is withheld, employees could think something else is happening behind the scenes. If some of the information is confidential, tell the staff it must be withheld, making sure they hear it from plant executives rather than the gossip mill.
Maintaining a positive employee morale overall is really important. In today&rsquo;s world of iPhones and social media, negative information travels fast.&nbsp; At Kennedy and Coe, we begin meetings by asking the people in the room to share a positive experience they&rsquo;ve had, either personal or professional.&nbsp; This allows our folks to enjoy a few fun and candid moments before continuing into the business agenda.
As a company, a team and an industry, ethanol producers must celebrate when there are positives. Also, consider who are the best people within the plant to deliver information. A team player who is willing to step in and share key points in a positive fashion is extremely valuable.
If you know a plant is closing for extended period of time, address the issue with employees. Think of creative ways to reward them for past performance so they are motivated to return when the plant reopens. Consider evaluating the cost of paying full or partial wages for some period during the shut down and explore options on benefit plans to keep them in place, including health insurance.
Check into work share programs in your state that help pay employee wages during reduced work schedules. Communication can help employees understand why some of the staff (management team) is being retained at 100 percent of their salary while others are being laid off. After all, you don&rsquo;t want&nbsp; anyone to feel like a second-class employee.
Don&rsquo;t be afraid to draw upon outside resources to handle management, communications and human resource issues. Dealing with times of uncertainty is challenging and there are trained professionals available to help leverage the process and direct discussion. Remind employees numerous times of who they are and what they do for the industry. Stabilizing the positives can help with economic issues that are beyond our control.
Remember that people love to hear straightforward information and will continue to work hard if they feel they matter to the business. Everyday, you can find big and little ways to emphasize the team. Do this consistently and you will create momentum that is positive and effective for your employees and your bottom line. Author: Donna Funk Kennedy and Coe LLC funk@kcoe.com (800) 303-3241

2012/10/13494463795383.jpg

Keep Morale High Even When a Plant is Down

Travis Brotherson, plant engineer at the 30 MMgy ethanol plant in Galva, Iowa, wasn&rsquo;t even thinking about cellulosic ethanol when he stumbled upon a path to fermenting corn fiber. It started with an investigation into measuring residual starch in distillers grains that led him to experiment with breaking down additional starch in the coproduct. That&rsquo;s when he realized the treatment was yielding more sugar than expected by also breaking down fiber. &ldquo;At first, it was almost confusion, because we weren&rsquo;t expecting these results,&rdquo; he tells Ethanol Producer Magazine.
Three years later, Quad County Corn Processors is poised to begin construction on the bolt-on cellulosic ethanol technology invented by Brotherson. The project will cost an estimated $8.5 million, $5.7 million of which will come from two separate grants awarded by the U.S. DOE and the Iowa Power Fund. The goal is to begin construction in the spring and reach operational status in the third or fourth quarter of next year. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s multiple hurdles that have to be crossed and any one of those hurdles could slow it down, but that&rsquo;s our goal today,&rdquo; says Delayne Johnson, plant general manager.
Once it&rsquo;s operational, Quad County expects to produce an additional 1.8 MMgy of cellulosic ethanol from the same amount of incoming corn. That&rsquo;s a 6 percent increase in yield resulting from making the glucose in the fiber available for fermentation. &ldquo;We have actually shown the ability in our lab tests and our pilot tests that we can produce more, but we are kind of taking our bottom number from a statistical standpoint,&rdquo; Brotherson says.
But that&rsquo;s not all. The process will also result in 1.6 pounds of corn oil per bushel of corn, up 1.1 pounds from the 0.5 pounds the ethanol plant is extracting currently. The process will alter the plant&rsquo;s main coproduct enough that it won&rsquo;t really be considered distillers grains anymore, Johnson says. Minus the fermented fiber, output will decrease to about 85 percent of what is produced today. The new coproduct, which will have similarities to corn gluten meal, will be sold under a yet-to-be determined name as a high-protein, low-fiber animal feed that is expected to be especially attractive to monogastric feed markets.
The company is first focusing on proving out the patent-pending technology on a full scale. Also on the to-do list is making it available to other corn-ethanol producers for licensing. &ldquo;We really see this as being able to be applied to any ethanol plant out there, no matter where you&rsquo;re located and no matter what feedstock you are using,&rdquo; Brotherson says, adding that the company has begun the testing of other grain-based feedstocks containing fiber. Right now, they call it adding cellulosic ethanol&mdash;or ACE&mdash;but that could change. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve spent more time on the process than we have the name,&rdquo; he says.
Quad County&rsquo;s process doesn&rsquo;t involve fractionation. Corn fiber is fermented together with corn starch, resulting in a single stream of ethanol. The new equipment comes into play midstream, with the existing process occurring unaltered at the front and back end of things. &ldquo;There is literally one pipe going out and one pipe in, if you will,&rdquo; Johnson says. In addition, the bolt-on cellulosic portion of the plant is all components of existing technology. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s not a new widget,&rdquo; he adds. Fortunate Chain of Events Something that makes Quad County stand out in the crowd is its R&amp;D facility, which is located in a separate building on site. In 2008, when Brotherson was hired as plant engineer, the building was in use by another company that eventually suspended its operations and sold off its equipment to the ethanol plant. Having access to both laboratory equipment and a pilot-scale fermentation system is an unbeatable combination, Brotherson says. The lab component helps with churning out a lot of data, analogous to using a shotgun. &ldquo;You try a lot of things and you kind of get an idea of what direction you need to shoot next,&rdquo; he says. At the pilot scale, on the other hand, random experimentation would get expensive. &ldquo;You kind of need to have an idea of what you are aiming for when you get there,&rdquo; he says.
To date, the company has conducted about 1,000 lab-scale fermentations and 40 in the pilot plant&rsquo;s two 200-gallon fermentors. Taking what had been learned so far, Brotherson then designed equipment that allowed Quad County to conduct about a dozen 5,000-gallon fermentations in the main plant. That all culminated in a one-time test at full scale&mdash;about 250,000 gallons. All that testing makes Brotherson confident ACE will be successful commercially. He&rsquo;s excited for construction to begin so the concept can be proved out. &ldquo;This is kind of one of those things where it&rsquo;s looking like a home run hit and you just don&rsquo;t really expect that you are going to end up finding something like that,&rdquo; he says.
The R&amp;D facility has been helpful in developing ACE, of course, but Johnson says that isn&rsquo;t the only benefit. The company has also used it to test out potential changes for traditional corn-ethanol production, such as new enzymes, different dosages or temperature changes. &ldquo;We can check out a lot of different things on a small-scale basis without having to experiment on the full-scale basis,&rdquo; he says. And, Quad County isn&rsquo;t the only company that has taken advantage of the facility. Although he can&rsquo;t say which ones due to confidentially agreements, some of the major enzyme companies have contracted with the ethanol plant for R&amp;D work conducted there. &ldquo;It would be fair to say that we have done work for three out of the five enzyme companies,&rdquo; he added.
Cellulosic enzymes are another key factor in the development of the technology, Brotherson says. His initial work on it resulted in a process that wasn&rsquo;t quite financially feasible. &ldquo;The thing that we needed was a cellulosic enzyme with a certain amount of activity that would come in at a certain price point,&rdquo; he says. Two weeks later a new enzyme was introduced. &ldquo;Since then there&rsquo;s been another generation or two of enzymes that have come out,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Each one just kind of makes the process a little bit better and more profitable along the way.&rdquo;
The way Quad County looks at it, fermenting corn fiber is a good idea for that facility as well as the industry as a whole. First off, it will add to plant profitability. While it&rsquo;s true there&rsquo;s a cost to adding additional equipment, processing ingredients and energy expenditures, additional net income will also be generated from the additional cellulosic ethanol and corn oil produced. And, if a ready market is found for the new corn feed coproduct, it could command a premium. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re certainly selling more high-value product from the same kernel of corn,&rdquo; Johnson says. Another point in corn fiber&rsquo;s favor is the fact that the system of harvesting, transporting and storing corn is well established. &ldquo;It is already here, it&rsquo;s in the plant, so there&rsquo;s no procurement needed,&rdquo; he says.
Brotherson and Johnson both say they are supportive of efforts to produce gallons from noncorn feedstocks. Corn fiber, however, is a pathway to producing gallons in the near future, in order to start fulfilling the requirements of the renewable fuel standard. And, ultimately, that&rsquo;s going to help move the cellulosic ethanol industry forward, hopefully drawing the cost of enzymes down as those companies start to see returns on R&amp;D investments, Brotherson says. Author: Holly Jessen Features Editor of Ethanol Producer Magazine (701) 738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com
Read about how<a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/9179/economic-development-boon" target="_blank"> Quad County has had a positive impact on economic development</a> in Ida County, Iowa.

Quad County in Galva, Iowa, receives corn in September. 

2012/10/13494445459242.jpg

Quad Countyâ€™s cellulosic ethanol technology has been thoroughly tested in its R&D facility. 

2012/10/13494445463696.jpg

Quad County is a farmer-owned ethanol plant.

2012/10/13494445467422.jpg

Brotherson stands at the control system for fermentation at Quad County.

2012/10/13494445471892.jpg

Travis Brotherson, left, plant engineer, and Delayne Johnson, general manager, stand inside the 30 MMgy ethanol plant.

2012/10/13494445476989.jpg

Allison Kinney, R&D lab assistant at Quad County, works on ACE fermentation.

2012/10/13494445481874.jpg

Quad County Corn Processors is working toward production of both grain-based and cellulosic ethanol from the same feedstock.  

Going for the Fiber

John Caupert, director of the National Corn-to-Ethanol-Research Center, is passionate about the subject of corn bran to cellulosic ethanol. He believes it&rsquo;s not too strong to say that if first-generation ethanol producers want to stay competitive within their own balance sheets, they must be considering commercially available bolt-on cellulosic ethanol technologies today. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re very, very excited about this work, and we think the entire industry will be very soon,&rdquo; he tells Ethanol Producer Magazine, hitting the table for extra emphasis.
NCERC announced it had successfully produced cellulosic ethanol from fractionated corn bran in May. In September, researchers embarked on a project to ferment corn flour, while paying special attention to the corn fiber to improve ethanol yield, says Sabrina Trupia, assistant director of biological research for NCERC. As of the week of Sept. 17, researchers had scaled up to 150 liter fermentations. Another sign of progress is Quad County Corn Processors&rsquo; plans to add bolt-on cellulosic ethanol technology to its corn-ethanol facility. (See the story on page 30 for more details.)
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory completed several cooperative projects in this arena in the 1990s and early 2000s, says Andy Aden, a former senior research engineer at NREL. One study published in 2004 concluded that fermenting additional alcohol from distillers grains was readily accomplished, showed promising results in an animal feed trial and came with a two-year payback period. Another one laid out the results of fermenting &ldquo;quick fiber,&rdquo; produced in a modified milling process developed by the University of Illinois. Despite these and multiple other projects targeting wet mill and dry mill ethanol plants, the concept didn&rsquo;t get a lot of traction, Aden says. Recent signs show that trend may be changing, however. &ldquo;It will be interesting to see if it continues to gain momentum,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;I&rsquo;m excited that there are still people looking at this and there are companies working to make it happen.&rdquo;
In the months following NCERC&rsquo;s announcement on corn bran-to-cellulosic ethanol, Caulpert has met repeatedly with officials from the White House, the USDA and various trade and commodity groups, he says. But he&rsquo;s also heard from people who have a been-there-done-that attitude about corn bran cellulosic ethanol. The difference is that in times of cheap corn ethanol producers didn&rsquo;t have the drive or the necessity to become as proficient and efficient as possible. &ldquo;$8 corn turned that on its ear,&rdquo; he says, adding that the push to waive the renewable fuel standard is also playing a part. That&rsquo;s why he feels strongly that the existing grain-based ethanol industry will have an important place in the advancement to cellulosic ethanol. &ldquo;The quickest way to get there is through the adoption of commercially available bolt-on types of technologies,&rdquo; he says.
The beauty of corn bran is that it doesn&rsquo;t require any special collection methods, transportation or storage, he adds. Other cellulosic feedstocks, including agricultural waste, require all of those, plus a lot of money. That&rsquo;s why corn bran is the logical starting place. &ldquo;I believe it will be a niche,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;a niche that will launch us into a wide variety of different cellulosic feedstocks.&rdquo; Trupia agrees. She sees corn bran as ethanol&rsquo;s 1.5 generation, a transition point from the more than 200 grain-based ethanol plants in the U.S. to greenfield plants converting crop waste, forest residue and other nonstarch feedstocks.
That&rsquo;s why the work on corn bran cellulosic ethanol at NCERC is so important, Caulpert says. For one thing, the information will be publically available. &ldquo;What excites us about that is the fact that anybody and everybody in the industry from coast to coast and border to border can utilize that information,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;If it sounds like I am overemphasizing that point, it&rsquo;s because I feel we can&rsquo;t overemphasize that point.&rdquo; Time and funding support for the idea are both of the essence, &ldquo;so 36 months from now we&rsquo;re not sitting here having the exact same conversation that we are having today,&rdquo; he says.
Corn bran is a good incremental step to cellulosic ethanol from nonfood feedstocks, Aden agrees. &ldquo;Instead of building a grassroots cellulosic ethanol plant that&rsquo;s going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars at commercial scale, this would give you a chance to bolt on some of the technology to an existing plant,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Therefore some of the capital investment would be less and give a chance to prove out the feasibility of cellulosic technology.&rdquo;
James McMillan, principal engineer and group manager at NREL&rsquo;s National Bioenergy Center, calls corn bran a low-hanging fruit for the corn ethanol industry. In particular, it&rsquo;s appealing for ethanol producers who can use it to maximize the throughput of their plant without capital expenditures for additional fermentation capacity. The limiting factor is that processing corn bran will only produce so much ethanol, he points out. Quad County expects its technology, which does not involve fractionation or bringing in additional corn bran, to produce an additional 6 percent ethanol.
The next question is whether corn bran will officially qualify as cellulosic. Ashley Player, a chemical engineer at Frazier, Barnes &amp; Associates LLC, tells EPM that sources at the U.S. EPA are considering its addition to the approved cellulosic feedstock list. &ldquo;They were already looking at DDGS, and I brought up corn bran as an additional item to consider,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Direct final rules from the EPA come with no warning, so we do not have an estimated date for this approval.&rdquo;
If it happens that would be a breakthrough for the first-generation industry. As the rules are currently written and interpreted, corn-based ethanol cannot qualify as an advanced biofuel&mdash;no matter how many technological improvements producers implement, says Kenneth &ldquo;Pete&rdquo; Moss, Cereal Process Technologies LLC vice president of marketing. CPT&rsquo;s patented corn dry fractionation technology is installed at NCERC, and it processed the corn bran that NCERC used to produce cellulosic ethanol in the spring. Although the company has seen interest from the ethanol industry, the capital required to put it in place has, so far, stymied actual implementation. &ldquo;This is beginning to change as more plants realize that long-term competitiveness will require investment in technology that diversifies product revenue streams and decreases energy and operating costs,&rdquo; he says.
Another option is that producers could go with another grain-based feedstock, such as sorghum, McMillan points out. The U.S. EPA is currently reviewing an analysis that says that ethanol produced from sorghum at a plant powered by a biogas digester with combined heat and power has an estimated life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction of 53 percent, qualifying the fuel as an advanced biofuel under the RFS. No date has been established for a final decision. Payments are already made to ethanol producers who produce biofuels from noncorn renewable biomass, including sorghum, through the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels. The Coproduct Question Clearly, fermenting corn bran&mdash;whether it&rsquo;s fractionated or fermented midstream&mdash;will alter the composition of a grain-based ethanol plant&rsquo;s main coproduct, distillers grains. Quad County says output will decrease to about 85 percent and the new product will have more similarities to corn gluten meal than traditional distillers grains. NCERC plans to investigate this further, by funneling the high-protein, low-fiber coproduct produced in its September research project to a swine digestibility study that will be conducted at the University of Illinois. In concept, the coproduct will be more attractive to monogastric markets and perhaps even ruminants as well. Another possible benefit comes on the transportation side. &ldquo;In terms of bulk density, you will be shipping more units of protein in the same physical volume of product,&rdquo; says Caulpert, adding that this could have a big impact, especially for export markets.&nbsp;
As long there&rsquo;s a ready marketplace, it&rsquo;s looking like the animal feed coproduct produced at corn-ethanol plants that ferment corn bran or fiber may be a high-value product. That&rsquo;s important, considering that the annual ethanol benchmarking report released in September by Christianson &amp; Associates PLLP revealed a trend of increasing importance to a plant&rsquo;s bottom line. In the past, coproducts made up about 15 or 16 percent of total revenue, a number that grew to 23 percent in the first half of 2012.
One way to unlock larger volumes of cellulosic ethanol from corn bran is to go after the C5 sugars, McMillan says. However, conventional yeast used by ethanol producers only reaches the C6 sugars. Getting to the next level would require genetically modified yeast, which would mean some extra steps selling the resulting coproduct as an acceptable animal feed. Most companies seem reluctant to tackle the needed regulatory approval. &ldquo;I would think that in most cases it wouldn&rsquo;t be a big deal, but it is a big deal to prove it,&rdquo; he says, adding that use of GMO would take exporting the product out of the picture due to regulations overseas.
The coproduct factor actually gives cellulosic ethanol from corn bran an advantage over cellulosic ethanol. Although there are many potential cellulosic ethanol coproducts, there are some big stumbling blocks, Aden says. Cellulosic plants can burn lignin to create steam and electrical power, but there&rsquo;s not a big payback. &ldquo;There is an old phrase that you can make anything from lignin but money,&rdquo; he says with a laugh. On the other hand, purifying high-value coproducts, such as biobased chemicals, is costly. In addition, the markets for such products are much smaller than potential production volumes. Author: Holly Jessen Features Editor of Ethanol Producer Magazine (701) 738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

Sabrina Trupia works with another NCERC employee on fermenting corn bran to cellulosic ethanol. 

2012/10/13494442304685.jpg

One pathway to cellulosic ethanol is through corn bran fractionated at the front end of the process.

2012/10/13494442309976.jpg

John Caupert and Sabrina Trupia of the National Corn-to-Ethanol-Research Center see first-generation corn-ethanol plants as a natural platform for cellulosic ethanol from corn bran. 

2012/10/13494442314918.jpg

The idea of cellulosic ethanol from corn bran or fiber has been around for more than a decade with little progress. Is that about to change? 

Corn Ethanol 1.5

Whether preparing to break ground, actively constructing a new facility or already producing cellulosic ethanol, these companies are making progress toward the same ultimate goal&mdash;commercialization.
Poet LLC has focused much attention on feedstock handling and logistics research and has begun stockpiling bales of corn stover in the feedstock yard at Emmetsburg, Iowa. Construction has started at the 20 MMgy Poet-DSM Advanced Biofuels LLC, with the foundation and ring walls being installed in the fermentation area and work on the biomass building about to begin in September.
ZeaChem Inc. has used a phased approach to the construction of its planned 25 MMgy plant at Boardman, Ore. Its demonstration plant came online in January, with the core facility fermenting sugars into acetic acid and ethyl acetate. Jim Imbler, president and CEO, reports construction of the ethanol conversion unit is nearly complete. &ldquo;ZeaChem is on schedule to begin cellulosic ethanol production at the demonstration plant by the end of the year.&rdquo; A further expansion will enable conversion to biobased jet and diesel fuels. GreenWood Resources received a Biomass Crop Assistance Program award to establish 7,000 acres of intercropped poplars on their existing plantation to supply ZeaChem&rsquo;s commercial biorefinery.
Enerkem Inc. began ethanol production from municipal solid waste (MSW) at its 1.3 MMgy demonstration facility in Westbury, Quebec, in June. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re very happy with the results we&rsquo;re getting from our different test campaigns to confirm our process design before we actually deploy the full design in our full scale plants,&rdquo; says Marie-Helene Labrie, vice president government affairs and communications. Construction continues on its first commercial-scale 10 MMgy plant in Edmonton, Alberta. The feedstock receiving buildings are completed and conveyers installed. Cement has been poured and key process equipment was being delivered in September.&nbsp; The company&rsquo;s pilot plant has been operating since 2003, producing syngas and converting to methanol and ethanol. &ldquo;The key in our process is to achieve the quality and stability of syngas&mdash;chemical grade syngas&mdash;from mixed materials,&rdquo; she adds.
Another project planning to use MSW is Fiberight LLC, which received a key approval from the U.S. EPA this summer for its MSW handling process, and is now completing a $20 million expansion of its demonstration facility in Lawrenceville, Va., to 1 MMgy. Fiberight began exploring the feasibility of biochemical conversion of MSW to fermentable sugar with Novozymes in 2009, and developed a formal partnership in 2010. &ldquo;Since work began, Novozymes enzyme technology has enabled Fiberight to reduce enzyme dosing by 80 percent and increase glucose conversion by 50 percent,&rdquo; CEO Craig Stuart-Paul says. In the post-Solyndra era, the USDA is requiring more proof of process, he explains. Once its process has been successfully demonstrated, the company expects to receive a USDA loan guarantee and begin work on retrofitting its corn ethanol plant in Blairstown, Iowa, to produce 6 MMgy.&nbsp;
Fulcrum BioEnergy Inc. received a $105 million conditional loan guarantee from the USDA, putting its planned 10 MMgy Sierra BioFuels Plant closer to groundbreaking near Reno, Nev. &ldquo;It will be early next year before we break ground, and 18 months after that before we&rsquo;re ready to commercially produce ethanol,&rdquo; says Rick Barraza, vice president of administration. The property has been acquired, the necessary permits are in place, and Fluor Corp., the EPC contractor, has completed the engineering plan. Fulcrum advanced to the final application stage for the USDA loan guarantee in November, 2010, about a year after it announced the successful demonstration of the conversion of post-sorted MSW to syngas and the catalytic conversion to ethanol. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Mascoma Corp. is still in a quiet period as they seek new investors but provided a statement regarding the status of its planned 20 MMgy Frontier Renewable Resources Inc. hardwood-to-ethanol plant. The company&rsquo;s consolidated bioprocessing process utilizes engineered microorganisms that produce enzymes and convert biomass sugars to ethanol in a single reactor. &ldquo;Contractor bids for the Kinross, Mich., facility have been received and Mascoma is currently reviewing these bids and conducting final engineering design work,&rdquo; the company said.&nbsp;&ldquo;Mascoma plans to initiate construction activities by year-end 2012, shortly after the engineering design work is completed, the bids are awarded and the financing finalized.&rdquo;
American Process Inc. brought Alpena Biorefinery online this summer, co-located with the Decorative Panels International Inc.&rsquo;s hardboard manufacturing facility in Alpena, Mich. The company is utilizing a waste stream of wood hydrolyzate, a woody biomass extract from the mixed northern hardwood used by DPI. The Alpena plant produces 800,000 gallons of cellulosic ethanol, using fermentation and distillation, and a similar amount of potassium acetate, handled in a second process flow from the evaporator into a reactor followed by reverse osmosis, according to descriptions of the process on the company website. American Process is an engineering company serving the pulp and paper industry. The Alpena Biorefinery demonstrates its business model of adding cellulosic ethanol production to wood processing facilities, biopower plants and pulp mills.
The main story, <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/9175/milestones-reached" target="_blank">Milestones Reached</a>, includes more information about cellulosic ethanol projects.&nbsp;
&mdash;Sue Retka Schill

Enerkem Inc. began ethanol production in June at its 1.3 MMgy demonstration facility at Westbury, Quebec. 

2012/10/13494435773182.jpg

Foundation work was under way in September at Emmetsburg, Iowa, the site of Poet-DSM Advanced Biofuelsâ€™ 20 MMgy plant using corn cobs and stover as feedstock.

2012/10/13494437338022.JPG

Hybrid poplar is the planned feedstock for ZeaChemâ€™s 25 MMgy plant planned for Boardman, Ore. A demonstration facility at the same site is expected to begin producing cellulosic ethanol yet this year.

2012/10/13494438601957.JPG

Making Cellulosic Ethanol a Reality 

The next five years&mdash;the often scoffed mantra of cellulosic ethanol developers&mdash;is getting whittled down to the next year or two. A milestone was reached this year when Blue Sugars Corp. got the first cellulosic renewable identification number (RIN) issued by the U.S. EPA. Another notable event happened in June, when Ineos Bio began commissioning its plant in Florida. Construction continues on several plants, while other projects are closing in on financing and new ones continue to be announced. For example, Chemtex International Inc. announced a new 20 MMgy project in North Carolina, even as it is commissioning its first, similarly sized plant in Crescentino, Italy.
The Ethanol Producer Magazine fall plant map, mailed with this issue, shows 6.25 MMgy of cellulosic capacity in the U.S. and Canada at nine demonstration plants and more than 104 MMgy under construction, coming online next year and in 2014. The industry knows only too well, though, that commissioning plants that are first-of-their-kind is fraught with uncertainty. Range Fuels was fast out of the gate, building a plant at Soperton, Ga., which it completed in late 2010. Based on well-known Fischer-Tropsch technology, an industry insider said the company thought it could skip from lab-scale to commercial-scale. They couldn&rsquo;t. The company did succeed in producing methanol, but failed to successfully produce ethanol and ultimately defaulted on its loan. The plant was picked up at the foreclosure sale by New Zealand-based LanzaTech, which continues to evaluate the facility for use with its gas-to-fuels and chemicals process.
Cellulosic ethanol developments are still fluid. Coskata Inc. announced this summer it is refocusing its efforts and turning to natural gas as a feedstock to use with its technology, thus taking it off the list of cellulosic ethanol developers, at least for now. Royal Dutch Shell ended its support of cellulosic project development with its two big partners, Iogen Inc. and Codexis Inc., both of which announced big layoffs. One of the early technology developers, Terrabon Inc., filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in August, ending work on its MixAlco technology. Qteros made no announcements and company officials did not respond to repeated attempts for comment, but its website is down, local media reported the research facility was closed and in late September, its equipment was put up for auction. The changing fortunes of early developers and shifting business models is not unexpected, but progress is being made, nonetheless. International Effort It is a fitting irony that the first gallons of cellulosic ethanol assigned RINs in the U.S. were shipped to Brazil, as it underscores the internationalization of development efforts. The 20,000-some gallons of cellulosic ethanol was produced at the Upton, Wyo., demonstration plant operated by Blue Sugars Corp. (formerly KL Energy Corp.) The company announced its new name this summer, along with an extension of its development partnership and the first commercial licensing agreement with Brazil&rsquo;s big oil company, Petrobras SA. Since 2010, the two have been collaborating on Blue Sugar&rsquo;s technology, using bagasse as the feedstock. Petrobras used the shipment both for testing and to fuel a fleet at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Brazil this summer. At that time, the company announced engineering had begun for the first commercial unit to be co-located at one of its sugarcane mills, with start-up slated for 2015.
&ldquo;Petrobras has been an outstanding partner,&rdquo; says CEO Peter Gross. &ldquo;Petrobras supported us in many ways, not only financially, but also in the areas of R&amp;D, engineering, industrial operations. One interesting example has been Petrobras&rsquo; experience from operating nine sugarcane mills in Brazil. This has helped us in developing a technology designed to the industrial reality and requirements of sugarcane mills.&rdquo; A large reduction in the use of enzymes was achieved in the most recent iteration of the hydrolysis process, he reports. &ldquo;A change to multiple sugar streams and the breakdown of the process into several stages allows for great process and operating flexibility.&rdquo;&nbsp; Blue Sugars is returning to pine wood&mdash;its first feedstock of choice&mdash;in a new joint development program with Finland energy company ST1 Group Oy.
Internationalization is apparent in Florida as well, where the 8 MMgy Ineos New Planet BioEnergy LLC plant is being commissioned. The Vero Beach project is a joint venture between a Florida-based developer and Ineos Bio, one of the 15 business units of a company headquartered in Lyndhurst, Hampshire, U.K. Privately held Ineos Group Ltd. is the third largest chemical company globally, comprised of facilities acquired from BP chemicals when the oil company exited the commodity chemicals sector in 2005, along with other acquisitions. Ineos operates 60 chemical production facilities in 13 countries and licenses a large portfolio of chemical intellectual property. It purchased its cellulosic ethanol technology from Bioengineering Resources Inc. in 2008, along with BRI&rsquo;s research facility in Fayetteville, Ark. More than 40,000 hours of run time have been chalked up in the pilot facility, and, with the company&rsquo;s expertise in managing chemical facilities, Ineos Bio spokesman Dan Cummings speaks confidently about its ability to succeed. Commissioning, a complex process for a new, integrated process that includes gasification, heat recovery and power generation, began in June, he says. The technology is based on the microbial conversion of syngas into ethanol with separation through distillation, which Cummings adds is a continuous process taking just 10 minutes from when the feedstock enters the gasifier until it exits as ethanol. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Commissioning of Chemtex&rsquo;s commercial-scale plant in Italy has also been under way for some time. In early September, the boiler was being started up, says Dennis Leong, executive vice president, marketing and business development for Chemtex Global SA.&nbsp; &ldquo;We fully expect to have it producing in the November/December time frame.&rdquo; Chemtex is the global engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) subsidiary of Mossi &amp; Ghisolfi Group, an Italy-based, privately held chemical firm. In August, Chemtex announced it had received a conditional USDA loan guarantee for a 20 MMgy project in Sampson County, N.C., with a 2014 start-up targeted. Earlier, the project received a grant through the USDA Biomass Crop Assistance program to establish 4,000 acres of switchgrass and miscanthus.
Further south, a developer announced a 20 MMgy plant in Lenox, Ga., is under construction. A native of Australia, Scot Corbett, CEO of the World Ethanol Institute LLC, moved to the U.S. in 1993 to continue developing the paulownia tree as part of the World Paulownia Institute. While the company originally targeted its development of the fast-growing tree for forestry, he says it is now focusing on energy, both cellulosic ethanol and fuel pellets. The tree can be harvested on demand, and will regenerate from the stump annually, getting yields of 20 to 30 tons per acre per year.&nbsp; The company has a patent-pending process called CHIPS, or combined heat, ice, power and steam. The pretreatment is a continuous process using steam explosion and acid hydrolysis, followed by standard fermentation using another technology provider&rsquo;s modified yeast.&nbsp; &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve done testing with the University of Georgia and reconfirmed with the labs at Golden, Colo.,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;We&rsquo;re pretty confident.&rdquo; As a privately funded venture, the project has maintained a low profile, he adds. &ldquo;We haven&rsquo;t needed the exposure to get financing.&rdquo; Other advantages are that the plant is co-located with a sawmill and plywood plant to share infrastructure as well as the fact that Corbett owns related companies to handle engineering, procurement and construction duties. &ldquo;The building is up,&rdquo; Corbett says. &ldquo;The equipment is being ordered and we expect to be completed in late 2013.&rdquo;
Abengoa BioEnergy is a familiar player in the U.S. ethanol industry, operating six first-generation plants with a total capacity of 374 MMgy. It is a subsidiary of Spain-based Abengoa, a big player in the renewable energy sector with major projects in wind and solar energy around the globe, as well as more conventional large power facilities. Its first cellulosic ethanol facility has been under construction in Hugoton, Kans., for a year. &ldquo;The ferm tanks are up, the beer well is up, the distillation tower is up, the water treatment facility is done,&rdquo; says Chris Standlee, executive vice president. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s looking like a plant now.&rdquo; Abengoa has had staff on the ground at Hugoton for three years, he adds, getting feedstock contracts in place. The 25 MMgy plant will tap corn stover and switchgrass as feedstock. Even in a drought year like this one, Standlee says there will be plenty of biomass available. The company expects to require less than 15 percent of the available biomass from a 50-mile radius.&nbsp;
Ground has been broken at BlueFire Renewables Inc.&rsquo;s 19 MMgy plant in Fulton, Miss., and some site work is ongoing, reports company spokesman Richard Klann.&nbsp; The bulk of construction activity is on hold, however, awaiting financing.&nbsp; &ldquo;Our lender of record for a USDA loan guarantee was not approved,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re trying a more traditional financing model.&rdquo; BlueFire is in negotiations with China Huadian Engineering Co., a unit of China Huadian Corp., which is China&rsquo;s fourth largest utility, to invest in the Fulton facility. Huadian would gain, in return, BlueFire technology. &ldquo;We can help them with making their power plants more profitable and they&rsquo;re interested in getting into the U.S.,&rdquo; Klann says.
The company has also formed a new subsidiary, SucreSource LLC, to market its front-end process for sugar production, a concentrated acid hydrolysis with chromographic separation of acid from the sugars, recycling acid in the process. GS Caltex, a Korean oil and petrochemical company has a professional services agreement with SucreSource for pilot testing of its process for chemical production. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re doing the front-end technology to get the sugars and they&rsquo;ll work on the back end,&rdquo; Klann says. That plant will be operational by December.
Publically traded companies like BlueFire keep their investors well-informed, with U.S. Securities and Exchange filings available for the public to read. Some companies have been quite aggressive in telling their stories as they seek to attract investors, while others, illustrated by World Ethanol Institute, lie low until concrete progress can be reported. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re all in the same place we are,&rdquo; says Klann, &ldquo;with a process that hasn&rsquo;t been proven beyond the pilot or demo.&nbsp; All work technically, but will they work economically at scale?&rdquo; We&rsquo;ll soon know the answer for that.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Author: Susanne Retka Schill Contributions Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine (701) 738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com
<a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/9176/making-cellulosic-ethanol-a-reality" target="_blank">Project updates on Poet LLC, Enerkem Inc., Fiberight Inc., Mascoma Corp., Fulcrum BioEnergy Inc., ZeaChem Inc. and American Process Inc. are also available.&nbsp;</a>

 Abengoa Bioenergyâ€™s 25 MMgy cellulosic ethanol plant at Hugoton, Kan., is beginning to take shape.

2012/10/13494433031178.jpg

With Brazil and U.S. flags flying atop the Upton, Wyo., demonstration facility, the joint team from Blue Sugars Corp. and Petrobras pose with the first shipment of cellulosic ethanol to be issued RINs. The bagasse-based ethanol was bound for Brazil. 

2012/10/13494433036993.jpg

Cellulosic ethanol is arriving, with commissioning under way and more than 100 MMgy under construction.

Milestones Reached

Q&amp;A
Jack Kibbie, president of the Iowa Senate, has represented the citizens of north central Iowa in various capacities over the past six decades. First elected to public office in 1960, the Emmetsburg area farmer and legislator took a hiatus from public service only to raise his two sons. He shares his observations of the growth and future of the ethanol industry, his time in uniform and the beginnings of his political career. The next generation of ethanol production coming to your town as Project Liberty is currently under construction in Emmetsburg. Why do you think Poet LLC chose Emmetsburg as the home for its first cellulosic ethanol facility? Well, that&rsquo;s hard to say. Some would say I had something to do with that. Poet has six plants in Iowa. At the time they were choosing the site for their plant, Gov. (Chester &ldquo;Chet&rdquo;) Culver had the Iowa Power Fund, which was $100 million over four years, for grants and low-interest loans for energy research. Poet got the largest award, which was close to $15 million. And of course, in our part of the state, I don&rsquo;t think there has ever been a crop failure here. It&rsquo;s a good area. They expect to get stover from within 30 miles of the Emmetsburg plant and to collect about 85,000 tons this fall, at about a ton to the acre. That&rsquo;s only about 20 to 25 percent of the stover that is there. You drive by a field that has already been baled and picked up and you hardly know that they&rsquo;ve taken off any stover. As thick as we plant corn nowadays, we&rsquo;ve got to get rid of some of this stover anyway. So it&rsquo;s time to look at other ways to produce ethanol and in Iowa, if you are going to look at biomass, corn stover is what is available. How important is ethanol to the agricultural economy in your district? To me, ethanol and the related businesses have really made Iowa and Iowa&rsquo;s economy what they are today. We built 41 ethanol plants in Iowa, refineries, I call them, and we&rsquo;re a net fuel exporter. We used to ship all of our corn down the Mississippi River and now most of it is processed locally. The jobs that has created, whether that is in the trucking industry or rail, it&rsquo;s been a tremendous asset for the state of Iowa. It&rsquo;s an important part of our economy and I think most people realize that. Coproducts like distillers grains are being shipped all over the world. Your sons now operate your farm. How did the crops turn out? There&rsquo;s more crop there than we anticipated with this drought. They are combining beans now and they are running between 40 and 50 bushels per acre. On our corn, we&rsquo;re hoping to average between 160 and 170 bushels per acre. Do you and your sons plan to deliver corn stover to the facility once the plant is operational? They are baling stover right now, this morning. They&rsquo;ve got a contract with Poet to deliver those bales. So the community is buzzing with balers, because there is a lot of demand for stover bales. How important has acting as a representative for your constituents been to you? I feel very good about being able to work with my colleagues in both parties and what I&rsquo;ve done in the renewable fuel area, both biodiesel and ethanol. But also important is work since 2006 on legislation to help veterans and their families. Iowa has probably passed more bills for veterans than any other state and we&rsquo;ve been recognized for that nationally. It&rsquo;s been very rewarding to me and the results are noticeable. What has been the most rewarding about serving as president of the Iowa Senate? After the 2004 election we had a 25-25 tie in the Iowa Senate so we had two presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, both picked by their peers. I was picked by the Democrats and we changed off. One week I would be president and one week the Republican would be president. My job was working with members of both parties, especially when presiding over the Senate. I tried to make rulings in which the minority party got a fair shake and most people gave me credit for that. People talk quite a bit about how partisan politics has become. You&rsquo;ve been in and around politics in six different decades. Is there truth in that statement or have politics always been partisan? I think it&rsquo;s true, it&rsquo;s getting worse, and it&rsquo;s too bad. Some of these elections get pretty negative. You can hardly expect people to do what they do in November and come to work in January and hold hands. We ought to work together more. Legislation, whether it&rsquo;s state or federal, it&rsquo;s a compromise. That&rsquo;s getting tougher to do. Both parties say we are going to do more of that, but it&rsquo;s not happening. Senator, when this issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine goes to press, Veteran&rsquo;s Day will be just around the corner. Thank you for your service to our country. Thank you. I was drafted in October of 1951 and served in Korea from June of &rsquo;52 to June of &rsquo;53 and when I got there the 38th parallel was already established. I was on the front line most of the time that I was there. I was on Heartbreak Ridge from October of &rsquo;52 until I came home in June of &rsquo;53 in a tank for the 45th division. Our main goal up there was to protect infantry that went out on patrol every night. Can you talk a little bit about how your life as an elected official started? I understand the first ballot you appeared on also featured John F. Kennedy for president. When I came home from the military in July of 1953, for the &rsquo;54 election my mother was somewhat active in the Iowa Democratic Party as a precinct person in Palo Alto County. She asked me to get some names filled out on nomination papers. A few months later she came home from a meeting and said we had a new county chairman. I said, &ldquo;Who&rsquo;s that?&rdquo; and she said, &ldquo;You.&rdquo; So, that&rsquo;s how I got started. In 1960, when John F. Kennedy was running for president, it was my job to get people to run for office and we couldn&rsquo;t find anybody to run for state representative so I put my name on the ballot. When I found someone I [thought I] would take my name off. Well, that didn&rsquo;t happen and I got elected. It wasn&rsquo;t a good year for Democrats that year in most places, especially in the Midwest. Iowa has 99 counties and Kennedy only carried five. One of those was our county.

2012/10/13494430593955.jpg

Sen. John â€œJackâ€� Kibbie, D-Iowa, always manages to find himself in the middle of everything, whether it's working to bring cellulosic ethanol to his home county, commanding tanks in Korea or sharing a ballot with John F. Kennedy.

Up Front, Near the Action … Again

Lignocellulosic slurries have long been used for paper production as well as for feedstock for water-soluble polymer production, such as carboxy methyl cellulose. More recently, they have been used as the feedstock for cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels.
Such slurries usually behave as Herschel-Bulkley fluids, with pseudoplastic behavior above the fluid yield stress. Achieving complete fluid motion requires overcoming the yield stress everywhere in the vessel. Proper design with multiple impellers can avoid wasting energy caused by over-agitating some regions of the tank, and can be used to minimize total agitator power.
Several authors have reported the relationship between yield stress and cavern size in mechanically agitated complex fluids, and the minimum torque required to drive cavern size to the wall. Little has been published, however, on lignocellulosic slurries. Most studies were done with a single impeller, as opposed to the more common case of multiple impellers.
In practice, more torque is required of the bottom impeller than the upper impellers, due to the need to overcome yield stress on the tank bottom as well as the side wall. The result is that the lower impeller needs 2 to 10 times as much torque to create full motion out to the wall as each upper impeller, depending on the slurry. Without accounting for this result, too much torque overall will be applied, overagitating the top portions of the vessel needlessly and wasting power. The optimum aspect ratio of the tank for minimum power or torque is also affected by this phenomenon. Cavern Formation When such a fluid is agitated, a moving zone forms around the impeller. If torque is insufficient to overcome the yield stress throughout the vessel, a stationary area forms outside this zone. The moving area is often called a cavern. Its boundary is defined by the surface at which the fluid experiences its yield stress. P.E. Aratia and others illustrated this phenomenon in their paper, &ldquo;Mixing of Shear-Thinning Fluids with Yield Stress in Stirred Tanks,&rdquo;&nbsp; using fluorescent dye as shown in Figure 1.
Several researchers have found that when the cavern just reaches the wall, the aspect ratio (height/diameter) of the cavern is about 0.4 for Rushton impellers and other radial impellers, and up to 0.6 for high-solidity axial turbines. This author has found that the aspect ratio can be as high as 0.7 for low-solidity axial impellers. The flow patterns, however, do not stack up perfectly when multiple impellers are used. To get a seamless meshing of flow patterns without staging or intermittent dead zones between impellers, multiple axial flow impellers should be applied so as to control an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 0.6 maximum, each. The recommendations in this article are based on an aspect ratio of 0.5 per impeller for two or more impellers.
The shear thinning nature of these fluids above yield stress can result in highly localized movement if the tank diameter is too small. Also, dead areas often form around any in-tank flow obstruction, such as baffles. Thus, baffles are not recommended for cellulose slurries. This poses another problem. If the D/T ratio is too large (impeller diameter is D, tank diameter is T), the tank contents will tend to bodily rotate with the impellers, resulting in poor mixing. With solids content of 8 percent or higher prior to significant hydrolysis, the lower impeller should normally have a D/T ratio between 0.5 and 0.7. The upper impellers will be smaller, generally in the range of 0.4 to 0.6. Bottom vs. Sidewall Agitation Figure 1 illustrates the case where the cavern formed is well above the tank bottom. But what if we need to agitate the tank bottom? Due to the need to overcome the yield stress on the tank bottom as well as the side wall up to an aspect ratio of 0.5, the torque input needed from the bottom impeller to create complete motion is substantially more than that required of upper impellers, which need only overcome the yield stress at the sidewall. Though a theoretical model can be derived showing a 4/3 torque ratio should be required, actual experimental data show a larger torque share needed by the lower impeller. Experimental Results Wet experiments were done on a variety of different cellulosic feedstocks, shown in Table 1. Most were not hydrolyzed, though some had undergone partial hydrolysis. Actual torque splits ranges of 68/32 are not unreasonably far off from the theoretical derivation of 57/43. Others, surprisingly, have power splits as high as 90/10 in favor of the bottom impeller. This means the ratio of upper impeller diameter to lower impeller diameter will generally be in the range of 0.64 to 0.86. Full-Scale Consequences If test work done in the laboratory is scaled up to production equipment based on either a single impeller in a squat batch or dual, equal diameter impellers in a square batch, the resultant full-scale design will have much more vigorous agitation in the top of the tank than at the bottom. Such an agitator design will be more expensive than necessary, and consume far more power than needed. The problem gets worse rapidly as the aspect ratio of the production equipment gets higher. Table 2 illustrates this. Tank Geometry Consequences A proper torque split scale-up is needed. Normally, for flow-controlled processes, the required torque is about the same at a given volume, independent of aspect ratio (Z/T) of the vessel. The required power, however, increases as Z/T (liquid level is Z, tank diameter is T) increases at a constant tank volume. When the required torque is different for upper and lower impellers, the situation changes. Table 3 illustrates the effect for three cases: equal split, 70/30 and 90/10 ratios. All are based on equal tank volume. As expected, the torque remains the same and the power increases as a function of Z/T for the 50/50 case. For the 70/30 case, the power does not change much, but the torque diminishes as the aspect ratio increases. For the 90/10 case, both torque and power decrease as the vessel gets taller.
In lignocellulosic slurries, it is more difficult to agitate the bottom of the tank than the upper regions. More torque is therefore required from the bottom impeller than from the upper impellers. Failure to take this into account increases the capital and operating costs of the agitator used in the production equipment. Optimum tank geometry and production power required are also affected by the required torque split.&nbsp; Because the required torque split does not generally follow a theoretical derivation, it is necessary to do wet tests to determine the required torque split for any particular slurry. Author: Gregory T. Benz President, Benz Technology International Inc. (937) 289-4504 benztech@mindspring.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).

2012/10/13494421905846.jpg

2012/10/13494421911948.jpg

2012/10/13494421918184.jpg

In the left figure, the cavern has not reached the vessel wall. This would not normally be an acceptable agitation result. In the right figure, the cavern has reached the wall. This would be acceptable if the vessel geometry matched the cavern geomet

2012/10/1349442192526.jpg

A lab-scale vessel and agitator such as this can be used to determine torque split. 

2012/10/13494421941717.jpg

An illustration of an experimental setup to determine torque splits.

2012/10/13494421957317.jpg

Reactor geometry, impeller design important to power optimization


Mixing Lignocellulosic Slurries Presents Challenges

How does a small country, only half the size of Maine, make a technological and economic noise so big and so loud that it awakens the world from its fossil-fuel-induced fog?
If you&rsquo;re Denmark, and practically surrounded by the North Sea, global warming and the anticipated rise in the ocean level tend to focus the national mind. To thrive economically, as well as survive geographically, it makes sense to concentrate the country&rsquo;s scientific and engineering talents on creating green energy technology for commercial export. And, to demonstrate it on an unprecedented scale.
Located on a 247-acre site in northwestern Jutland, Denmark&rsquo;s Maabjerg Energy Concept is, to use the technical term, huge. The project&rsquo;s centerpiece is a biomass refinery using Inbicon technology that will produce 12 times more renewable energy&mdash;including 12 times more cellulosic ethanol&mdash;than Inbicon&rsquo;s first refinery at Kalundborg.
The new proposed refinery is one of three large waste-to-energy plants, integrated with one another and with three smaller-scale processing technologies. They&rsquo;re designed to convert an estimated 400,000 tons of wheat straw and 770,000 tons of livestock waste into a variety of clean energies and renewable products. Outputs will include about 19.3 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol, 1.7 billion cubic feet of fossil-free natural gas, green electric power for 25,000 households and heating for 20,000.
What&rsquo;s more, the complex will produce 565,000 tons of renewable fertilizer for farmers and sell 56,000 tons of excess solid biofuel. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; From FEED to Flow &ldquo;Because of the project&rsquo;s size and scope,&rdquo; says J&oslash;rgen Udby, board chair of the consortium launching the Maabjerg Energy Concept, &ldquo;the first question we asked ourselves was, &lsquo;Is it technically feasible and economically sustainable?&rsquo; And the short answer was&hellip;yes.&rdquo;
Last April, following a nine-month in-depth analysis, &ldquo;we presented our findings to the Climate Ministry, received approval to proceed, and entered the mobilization phase, which is more structured.&rdquo;
DONG Energy, Denmark&rsquo;s largest energy company, and Novozymes, the world&rsquo;s largest producer of industrial enzymes, share 50 percent interest in the consortium. The participants sharing the other 50 percent are Vestforsyning and&nbsp; Struer Forsyning, regional public utilities from the cities of Holstebro and Struer, and the waste company Nomi. Consortium Chairman Udby also serves as Vestforsyning&rsquo;s CEO.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
According to Flemming Ravnholt Kanstrup, a program manager for DONG Energy, the consortium has recently hired a project director to &ldquo;manage the technical side, coordinate the three main players, assess risk, make the feedstock economics work, and next spring, convince the board that the project should go ahead.&rdquo;
COWI consulting engineers, an international firm with Danish roots, has been hired to complete the front-end engineering design (FEED) for the complete biomass refinery, based on engineering provided by Inbicon. Kanstrup says the FEED is incorporating robust upgrades based on what Inbicon learned from operating its Kalundborg demonstration plant.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
By early spring of 2013, the Maabjerg Energy Concept will get the go (or no-go) decision to proceed to the next stage. If all goes well, vendor selection and detail engineering will begin then. The final investment decision will be made in early 2014, with construction to follow throughout 2015, and ethanol to flow in early 2016.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Symbiosis and Synergies As Udby describes how the six technologies work, he also details why they perform better working together than operating alone. Often the waste stream (or byproduct) of one is recycled to become the energy or feedstock for another. These symbiotic exchanges heighten both operational efficiency and environmental performance. And they enable important synergies, such as adding a new feedstock that multiplies a particular output. Some examples include:
1. The new biomass refinery, using Inbicon technology, will produce about 30 percent of Denmark&rsquo;s ethanol requirement for E10 by 2020. Two other coproducts, lignin and molasses, become feedstocks for adjacent facilities. Steam from the combined heat and power (CHP) unit cooks the straw (or most any soft lignocellulose, such as corn stalks). The heat generated could be sent to the district heating network, which becomes its cooling medium.
2. The relatively new Maabjerg BioEnergy plant, now the world&rsquo;s largest biodigester, turns liquid livestock manure and butchery waste into nonfossil biogas. It will be further expanded to handle a greater quantity and variety of feedstocks, including molasses from the refinery. Adding molasses multiples the output by five times.
3. The existing biomass-fired CHP plant at Maabjerg, owned by Inbicon&rsquo;s parent DONG Energy, is being modernized to continue providing the communities it serves with heat and power. After its revamp, it can burn the clean lignin produced by the biomass refinery, the residual fiber and some biogas from the biodigester, and a dry fraction from the waste treatment plant.
4. The Maabjerg municipal solid waste plant will be built to treat 50,000 metric tons of local household waste, using the REnescience enzymatic technology developed by DONG Energy&rsquo;s New Bio Solutions group. It separates waste into fractions: a bioliquid used in biogas production and a dry fraction for heat and power generation.&nbsp;
5. The existing hydrogen generation technology could be scaled up and the hydrogen used to aid in cleaning the biogas produced by the Maabjerg BioEnergy digesters. It&rsquo;s what you learned in high school chem lab&mdash;separation of water through electrolysis&mdash;but it would be powered by Denmark&rsquo;s excess wind energy not needed in the electric grid.&nbsp;
6. A small processing unit will use the hydrogen to supplement the high-pressure water washing it does to clean the biogas. The fossil-free methane, now designated CNG, will be added to the local natural gas network for generating renewable heat and electricity.
All in all, the integration of the technologies is expected to not only multiply energy production but environmental protection. For example, the total CO2 reduction by the Maabjerg Energy Concept will be about 434,000 metric tons a year. According to U.S. EPA greenhouse gas calculations, that&rsquo;s equivalent to taking 85,000 passenger cars off the road.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4,000 Good, Green Jobs The location of the Maabjerg project is part serendipity. Udby, who came up with the basic idea three years ago, grew up in eastern Denmark. To take a new position, he moved west to Holstebro, later forming the company he now runs. He likes the area&rsquo;s &ldquo;mix of nature and culture.&rdquo;
Geography also played a role. Maabjerg is on the outskirts of the city, on the way north to Struer, a smaller town on the southern lip of Denmark&rsquo;s largest fjord. The land is relatively flat, the temperature moderate, the population sparse and the wheat abundant. And both the CHP station and the biogas plant were already operating.
Thomas Maxe, who manages communications for the project, stresses&nbsp; the employment gains. &ldquo;In a slow economy, it&rsquo;s all about the jobs, isn&rsquo;t it?&rdquo;&nbsp; The consortium has done a detailed study showing 4,000 new jobs will be created, many in construction, and 2,200 will be permanent. Udby has high confidence in his job numbers, plus the boost in national GDP and tax revenue expected from the $500 million investment and ongoing operation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 800,000 U.S. Jobs? Novozymes estimates that the U.S. has the potential to create 800,000 jobs in its own cellulosic ethanol industry. That corresponds to Inbicon&rsquo;s estimates as well. They, like other biomass converters, see both tough challenges and unlimited opportunities in North America.
Christian Morgen, who oversees transferring Inbicon technology to North American projects, is &ldquo;very enthusiastic about the progress we&rsquo;re making on similar projects in North America. We are going to the front-end-loading-2 stage, with the engineering being performed by an American firm. Although the projects are not as complex as Maabjerg, the model is very similar. And the actual biomass refineries will be about the same size. So the learning from each project is helping the other.
&ldquo;And frankly, I&rsquo;d like nothing better than to take advantage of our progress here in Denmark to get commercial cellulosic ethanol flowing soon from projects in North America.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; What Sets Denmark Apart To understand how a project as ambitious as the Maabjerg Energy Complex gets the blessings of government and the cooperation of business, it&rsquo;s important to recognize that Denmark is resolutely committed to making environmental protection pay off.
By 2011, as Flemming Kanstrup points out, 23 percent of Denmark&rsquo;s electricity was already coming from wind, and 42 percent from the total of all renewables&mdash;wind, solar and biomass. By 2050, the Danish government is committed to producing all its energy from renewable sources.
Will Maabjerg prove to be the big bang that awakens the world to a fossil-free future? Stay tuned. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Author: Roger Moore Communications Director, Brand Manager Leifmark LLC (717) 653-5700 rmoore@leifmark.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).

Maabjerg BioEnergy, completed in 2011, turns livestock waste into biogas, but will be expanded to digest molasses from the cellulosic ethanol plant.  

2012/10/13494424661611.jpg

The flow chart shows six technologies with inputs, outputs and symbiotic material exchanges.    

2012/10/13494424666595.jpg

Joergen Udby (left), board chair of the Maabjerg Energy Concept, stands with other consortium members and a model of the expanded biogas production plant.  

2012/10/13494424671254.jpg

Six Danish technologies combine to shape proposed integrated cellulosic ethanol project

Denmark Sets High Goals for Renewables

1. Three new members joined the board of the American Coalition for Ethanol at its annual meeting in August: Bob Sather, director of public affairs, who will represent Ace Ethanol LLC, a 43 MMgy ethanol producer in Stanley, Wis.; Ron Wetherell, chairman, Little Sioux Corn Processors, a 108 MMgy locally-owned ethanol plant in Marcus, Iowa; and, Kevin Dailey, president and CEO of North American Bioproducts Corp. 2. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &amp; Feld LLP expanded its project finance and renewable energy capabilities with the addition of partners Thomas Trimble and Jeremy Schwer, who have re-joined the firm's Washington office. Trimble was co-head of the renewable energy practice group at his former firm, Hunton &amp; Williams LLP. Firm chairman R. Bruce McLean remarked, "We are very excited to welcome back Tom and Jeremy to the Washington office. Their arrival continues the momentum of our project finance team expansion, which had a big boost last quarter on the West Coast with the arrival of Ed Zaelke and Adam Umanoff and their team from Chadbourne and Parke."&nbsp; 3. Pacific Ethanol Inc. announced its subsidiary, Kinergy Marketing LLC, has entered into a two-year extension of its exclusive ethanol marketing arrangement with AE Advanced Fuels Keyes Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AE Biofuels Inc. The companies extended a Nov. 11, 2010, agreement to sell all the ethanol produced by AE Keyes&rsquo; 55 MMgy facility located in Keyes, Calif. The AE Keyes facility became operational in the second quarter of 2011. 4. Petro Serve USA received the Paul Dana Marketing Vision Award from the American Coalition for Ethanol for its support of E85 and its efforts in urging its oil company suppliers to allow blender pumps. Petro Serve General Manager Kent Satrang also played a crucial role in getting state funds allocated to improve blender pump infrastructure in North Dakota which has the largest number of blender pumps of any state in the nation. 5. ICM Inc. has coupled its feedstock-flexible gasification system with Eisenmann Corp.&rsquo;s dual-field WESP (wet electrostatic precipitation). ICM chose this emission abatement technology based on work at ICM&rsquo;s commercial-scale demonstration gasifier adjacent to the Harvey County municipal solid waste transfer and recycling facility in Newton, Kan. The gasifier can test multiple feedstocks, include refuse-derived fuel (RDF), tire-derived fuel mixed with RDF, wood chips, wheat straw, switchgrass and corn stover.
6. Missouri-based LLL Transport Inc. has been sold to a private ownership group led by Gary Waller and Joshua Wheeler, who will assume the roles of CEO and chief financial officer, respectively. &ldquo;I have come to know and respect Gary Waller and Josh Wheeler over the past few years. They know the transportation and biofuels industries, and I am confident they will continue the legacy of LLL Transport,&rdquo; said Jeff Littrell, who founded the company 25 years ago. He and his sons, Jason and Daniel, will remain in leadership roles, as will Greg Davis, operations manager. The company has no plans for workforce reductions among its 130 employees. 7. ExperTune Inc. is offering a no-cost upgrade for existing users of Rockwell RSTune and RS Loop Optimizer, both developed by the company for Rockwell systems. ExperTune&rsquo;s PID Loop Optimizer software provides a direct replacement for the Rockwell products, with many feature upgrades included.&nbsp;
8. Eco-Energy Holdings Inc. is partnering with J.T. Russell and Sons Inc. for the development, construction and day-to-day operations of a unit train facility at its ethanol distribution facility in Denton, N.C. It will be equipped to receive up to 96-car unit trains via both the CSX and NS railroads and will have tank storage for more than 95,000 barrels of ethanol. The partnership will offer throughput agreements to ethanol suppliers and end-users desiring to lower their supply chain costs. Focusing on the marketing and distribution of biofuels, Eco-Energy is one of the largest full-service marketing companies in North America with over $2.5 billion in sales and handling nearly 10 percent of the biofuels market.
9. Founders Jeff and Larry DeGraaf celebrated the 25th year of business for their company, Industrial Construction &amp; Engineering Co. Missouri-based IC&amp;E began as a regional contractor providing insulation services and has since expanded to become a national contractor serving industries such as renewable energies, power and process, refrigeration and food and beverage. &ldquo;The renewable energies market has been a big growth area for us,&rdquo; Jeff DeGraff, president, said. IC&amp;E&rsquo;s dedicated renewable energy crews have completed more than 30 ethanol projects and 13 biodiesel plants. 10. Gavilon LLC became Heron Lake BioEnergy LLC&rsquo;s exclusive corn supplier and marketer of ethanol and distillers grains Sept. 1. "We are extremely pleased to be selected as Heron Lake's exclusive provider and marketer of the ethanol plant's inputs and outputs," commented Randy Ives, director of ethanol services at Gavilon. "This agreement leverages our core capabilities and will enable Heron Lake to reduce its working capital requirements and more effectively manage its processing margins in both the spot and forward markets." Heron Lake procures approximately 18 million bushels of corn per year and produces approximately 50 million gallons of ethanol and 160,000 tons of DDGS. 11. Trillium FiberFuels Inc. received a $150,000 Small Business Innovation Research grant from the National Science Foundation to support enzyme development for cellulosic ethanol. Trillium can now compete for a larger Phase II award in 2012. Trillium will use the funds for the development of a novel, naturally occurring enzyme that was isolated by Stephen Giovannoni at Oregon State University that converts xylose into a sugar fermentable by brewing yeast. 12. CPM announced a new industrial market manufacturers&rsquo; sales representative agreement with Synertek Process Equipment Inc.&nbsp; Scott Engle and Scott Holland of Synertek will be industrial market sales representatives for CPM Roskamp Champion in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee and the Florida Panhandle. Synertek has been a leader in dry process equipment applications since 1990, representing equipment manufacturers who weigh, batch, blend, mill, screen and classify, measure, monitor and convey dry solids or powder material. CPM business units include Crown Iron Works, Roskamp Champion, California Pellet Mill, Beta Raven, Century Extrusion, Wolverine Proctor and Greenbank Technology. 13. GreenShift Corp. announced the successful commissioning of its patented corn oil extraction technology at Advanced BioEnergy LLC&rsquo;s 110 MMgy ethanol plant in Fairmont, Neb.&nbsp; &ldquo;We are consistently extracting our desired yield without use of chemical additives,&rdquo; said Richard Peterson, Advanced BioEnergy CEO. &ldquo;The turn-key system designed by GreenShift has a payback of substantially less than one year. We look forward to the additional income this system will generate for our business.&rdquo; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 14. A multi-year agreement between Pacific Convenience and Fuels LLC and Redwood City, Calif.-based Propel Fuels Inc. allows Propel to co-locate its Clean Fuel Point alternative fuel dispensers at more than 80 of PC&amp;F&rsquo;s 300 gas stations and convenience stores located in California, Washington Oregon and Colorado. PC&amp;F will provide Propel with access to its retail sites while Propel will own and operate the alternative fuel equipment, provide E85 and biodiesel for the system and handle customer outreach and education. 15. Clean Burn Fuels LLC&rsquo;s primary lender, Cape Fear Farm Credit, has taken possession of the plant in Raeford, N.C., following an unsuccessful foreclosure auction. Necessary maintenance is now being done on the plant, which has been idled since it filed for bankruptcy early this year. Cape Fear will also invest in completing the necessary repairs to restart the facility while continuing to seek a buyer for the plant, according to CEO Michael Jackson. 16. Enerkem Inc. has signed an offtake agreement with Methanex Corp. for methanol that will be produced at Enerkem&rsquo;s 36 MMly (10 MMgy) facility in Edmonton, Alberta. The facility is currently under construction and is expected to begin producing methanol from municipal solid waste (MSW) in the second half of 2012. The offtake agreement allows Enerkem to generate revenues from an intermediate product while construction of the ethanol island is finalized. Enerkem is also developing a 10 MMgy MSW-to-ethanol facility in northeast Mississippi near Pontotoc.
&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 e-mail it to <a href="mailto:sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com">sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com</a>. Please include your name and telephone number in all correspondence.

2011/10/13189678998354.jpg

2011/10/13189679511239.jpg

2011/10/13189679759218.jpg

2011/10/13189680650203.jpg

Loria will develop, acquire and manage clean power projects for Greenwood Energy.

2012/10/BB-Biomass-Loria-1112_13516041162464.jpg

Koukoulas is a scientific advisor and bioenergy export and the U.S. DOE and USDA, and serves as a technical advisor and board member at many organizations.

2012/10/BB-Biomass-Koukoulas-1112_13516041198845.jpg

Oil and natural gas are hot. In fact, they are far hotter than renewables, as much as we would like to have otherwise. Instead of complaining about this situation, however, wise biomass companies should be looking at ways to make lemonade. Working with an oil or natural gas company to deploy your technology could provide a number of benefits, including more rapid commercialization and access to capital and expertise. Heresy? Perhaps, but some might also call it a wise strategy to survive and thrive.
 Examples of the aforementioned include LanzaTech&rsquo;s agreements with BaoSteel and Petronas; Gevo&rsquo;s offtake with Total; Flint Hills and SG Biofuels; Benefuel and Edeniq and Synthetic Genomics and Exxon Mobil. Other examples include companies using biobased processes to clean up fracking waste water, and utilizing flared natural gas to produce fertilizer for agricultural uses. Before booking that plane ticket to Houston or Williston, N.D., however, plan your joint venture with Big Oil carefully.&nbsp;
 In any joint venture, who controls it is one of the first issues discussed. Usually, but not always, it is dictated by which party brings the most cash or other assets to the JV.&nbsp; Control encompasses who is on the board, staffs key officer positions, has the power to fire and hire management, and decides what happens if there is a major disagreement as well as how to add a new party to the JV.&nbsp;
 Closely connected to control are partnership contributions to the JV. Cash, intellectual property, hard assets such as equipment, plant assets, management time and the always popular, &ldquo;assets to be named later,&rdquo; are normal contributions to a JV. Parties that contribute hard assets&mdash;ones that can be readily valued by an accountant&mdash;will usually try to value those assets more than soft assets such as patents, unpatented intellectual property, licenses, and management time. Usually, this puts the small partner&mdash; such as your biomass company&mdash;at a disadvantage. Be sure to have a good rationale for why your soft assets are just as, if not more, valuable to the future success of the JV, than their old, already-paid-for hard assets. What if the JV needs more money? Are the partners required to contribute additional cash? If so, what amounts? What happens if one party cannot or does not contribute?
 Next up is division of the spoils, usually a direct reflection of the contributions of each partner. However, sometimes one party has interests beyond their share of any revenue, such as tax credits, depreciation allowances or even non-financial benefits. Valuing ongoing contributions to the JV, such as a management agreement, can also make this more complicated.
 What happens after the JV is signed and your big oil partner wants to find another young biomass company to support? What if you find another, more suitable partner? Can either party be part of a competitive business? What if the partners have already discussed similar opportunities with others before the JV is formed? How will past opportunities be handled&mdash; through each company, or through the JV?&nbsp;
 What about intellectual property, especially jointly developed IP? Usually the largest contribution by a biomass company to a Big Oil/small biomass JV, IP needs to be handled appropriately to preserve the value of the IP brought to the JV, but also to enable to JV to commercialize the jointly-developed IP.&nbsp;
For a biomass company, teaming up with a Big Oil or natural gas company can create many opportunities. When deciding to sleep with the enemy, however, it is critically important to honestly address the above issues up front, because while teaming with a powerful company can be exciting, it can be dangerous.
 Author: Todd Taylor Attorney, Fredrikson &amp; Byron 612 492 7355 <a href="mailto:ttaylor@fredlaw.com">ttaylor@fredlaw.com</a>

2012/10/LP-Biomass-Taylor-1112_13515423408259.jpg

Opportunities and Perils in Green-Black Alliances

It&rsquo;s been a long year for advanced biofuels. Authoring a column that will be released right before the election is not an easy task, so I asked myself, &ldquo;What could I possibly write that would hold any interest for the readers of this publication when we are all really just awaiting the outcome of the big election?&rdquo; I decided that a look back, as well as a look forward for some context, would be of value.&nbsp;
 I&rsquo;ll begin by looking back over the past four years.&nbsp; In 2010, the Republicans took control of the House. This followed two years of Democrat control of both houses of Congress and the White House, which produced a blizzard of legislation. What did we pass in those two years&mdash;2009 and 2010&mdash;that affected biofuels? The record reflects the passage of the American Recovery Act with $800 million in funding for the development of biofuels, and the expansion of the tax code for a number of renewable energy technologies, as well as the extension of six separate tax provisions specifically for biofuels. Those were the biggies.&nbsp;
 In 2011, what did we get out of the House? We began with HR 1 which attempted to limit the use of E-15 along with specific floor votes to eliminate the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. This was followed by a long string of hearings on wasting money for all types of renewable energy including biofuels, votes against funding the U.S. Department of Defense effort to build biofuels capacity under the Defense Production Act, as well as allowing five of the six biofuel tax provisions to expire.&nbsp; Let me state the obvious: over the past two years, the Republicans in Congress haven&rsquo;t been helpful to this industry.
 So looking forward, we have a current president who has consistently supported the biofuel industry and spoke directly about it in his public remarks&mdash; including his convention speech about advanced biofuels&mdash;while only recently, Republican nominee Mitt Romney has suggested he will continue to support the renewable fuels standard (RFS). We have the secretary of the U.S. Navy supporting the use of funds to build biofuel plants and purchase biofuels while the Republican chairman of the House, Armed Services Committee and Appropriations Committee oppose the use of funds for these purposes. We have the RFS under threat, no Farm Bill, no agreement on extending the current tax credits, as well as no future funding for the DOD DPA program given that there is no appropriations legislation. Overall, there are a serious number of issues outstanding.
 There is an old phrase, &ldquo;elections have consequences.&rdquo; It&rsquo;s a good one, and the choice is yours.&nbsp; I have been around long enough to know that after the election we may have &ldquo;more flexibility&rdquo; from the winners on either side of the aisle, but the past two years have laid down a set of data points that suggest no matter what your party affiliation is, we need to do a better job speaking to rural Republicans about the jobs that have already been created and those that are forthcoming from the advanced biofuels sector.&nbsp; This should not be an election where the biofuels industry is in a winner-take-all position. Advanced biofuels should not be a partisan issue; it should be a fundamental component of America's energy policy options set in the future.&nbsp; The phrase &ldquo;all of the above&rdquo; should be the operative path for America&rsquo;s energy policy.&nbsp; So let&rsquo;s stick together, work harder on both sides of the aisle, make more noise about what our industry is already delivering for America, and above all, get out there and vote.&nbsp; See you after the election!
 Author: Michael McAdams President, Advanced Biofuels Association (202) 469-5140 <a href="mailto:Michael.McAdams@hklaw.com">Michael.McAdams@hklaw.com</a>

2012/10/AA-Biomass-McAdams-1112_13516030780156.jpg

A Look Back and a Look Ahead

In September, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report, titled simply &ldquo;The Promise of Biomass,&rdquo; in which it establishes that some 680 million tons of various forms of biomass could be made available for conversion into energy products by 2030. The report offered by the UCS differs in its final numbers from the U.S. DOE&rsquo;s most recent iteration of its &ldquo;Billion Ton Study,&rdquo; but the assertion is the same: the U.S. has the biomass feedstocks to satisfy a significant portion of its energy needs.The UCS report suggests 54 billion gallons of biofuels capacity could be supported by the available biomass in this country, a near quadrupling of the currently installed capacity. The list of questions that have to be answered to realize this incredible potential is long and varied, but ultimately not one gallon of the potential outlined in this latest, hopeful report will be realized unless capital can continue to be squeezed from an increasingly reluctant, cautious and skeptical investment community.&nbsp; Even at modest &ldquo;per-gallon&rdquo; or &ldquo;per-kilowatt&rdquo; construction estimates, to fully realize the potential for biomass-based energy, hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and equity will be have to be secured.
 Fortunately enough, the biomass industry is serviced by an experienced cadre of financial professionals with decades of experience, working to build financial packages and business models that help overcome any reservations they may have about investing in new projects, new startups and new technologies.
 Luke Geiver&rsquo;s cover story &ldquo;Meet the Biobanker&rdquo; examines the success that John May and Stern Brothers &amp; Co. have had leveraging bond financing to bring investors with varied risk profiles to the same project as investors. The solution is complex, yet effective, and Geiver&rsquo;s article takes a stepwise look at the credit enhancement strategies and risk allocation that May&rsquo;s team has used to help an impressive number of projects get the financing they need to get under construction and operating. Anna Simet&rsquo;s feature &ldquo;Adding Dollars to Dairy&rdquo; highlights the growing interest in owner/operator business models being deployed in the biogas space to drive operational risk out of projects to entice greater investment.
 Continued private investment is the lifeblood of this industry and this month&rsquo;s issue of Biomass Magazine convincingly argues that the most exciting innovations in this sector are not just next generation conversion technologies, but also the financing strategies being developed to ensure they can be capitalized and built.

2012/10/Tim3_2010_1351541750112.jpg

Financial Innovation Yields Industry Dividends

This has been the worst year for wildfires on record. A Washington Post article recently chronicled the government&rsquo;s losing battle to control fires amidst tightening purse strings and firefighting costs that can now top $1 billion per year. The story quoted a Nature Conservancy expert, who, questioning the strategy of saving money on prevention methods so that funds would be available for fighting fire, said, &ldquo;They were telling people in May, &lsquo;Be careful, don&rsquo;t spend too much [on prevention].&rsquo; &rdquo;
 Biomass is an obvious forest fire prevention resource that is not being fully utilized, with tighter budgets often cited as the reason. This is a shortsighted approach; channeling funds to clear forest debris for use as biomass fuel has a dramatically lower price tag, and is much better for the environment than putting out five-alarm fires once they&rsquo;ve started.
 In the past, I&rsquo;ve used this column several times to make this point, and I know that many, if not most, Biomass Magazine readers are aware of the facts and agree with me on this. This time around, I&rsquo;m going to tell you about a biomass facility that pitched in during a local wildfire emergency. Over the summer, the Chips wildfire struck the Plumas National Forest in northern California. Over its six-week life, the fire&mdash;one of the largest ever experienced in California&mdash;consumed 75,000 acres of land and cost the state $60 million in control and cleanup efforts.
 On Aug. 17, about halfway through its lifespan, the fire took down the PG&amp;E Caribou Transmission Line, a critical power line servicing Susanville, Calif., and its 15,000 residents. This was a dangerous development for a number of reasons. Aside from the danger posed to residents by losing electricity during one of the hottest summers on record, Susanville served as an important outpost for crews fighting the Chips fire. Without hotel accommodations and staging grounds available in Susanville, firefighters would have to rethink their strategy, potentially losing valuable time and risking further spread of the fire and its resulting damage.
 Luckily, the local biomass facility run by HL Power came to the rescue. For more than two weeks, the facility worked closely with the local Lassen Municipal Utility District to take on a large part of the electricity load to power the town. The plant&rsquo;s 30 MW of electric generation capacity was ample support for the LMUD system, which requires approximately 25 MW. A coordinated effort was planned and executed to transfer the entire electric load onto the power lines coming directly from the plant, and this required careful coordination and work throughout the night by HL Power, LMUD and PG&amp;E&mdash;a task made even more complicated by fire damage to a communications center. A lot of dedicated and experienced people had to work together to complete this process successfully.&nbsp;
 Throughout the wildfire, HL Power worked closely with local utility officials to ensure that the community could continue to operate as normally as possible. Reasonable conservation measures were requested of the customers, which helped to stabilize load and voltage fluctuations. HL Power provided about 22-23 MW during the peak of the day and about 11-12 MW at night while demand is lowest.
 In the end, the efforts and preparedness of HL Power allowed the community and local businesses to continue to function normally during a very serious fire emergency. The power it provided helped sustain several thousand firefighters who converged on Susanville and surrounding communities to control several fires, in addition to the Chips fire. By Sept. 11, the fire was finally under control.&nbsp;
 It&rsquo;s likely that appropriate forest fire prevention measures would have helped control the spread of the fire in the first place, and possibly would have benefited plants like HL Power by assisting with fuel collection. This story, however, shows how indispensable biomass has become in an area like Susanville. In the face of a potential disaster, HL Power stepped in and kept the lights on.
 If any Biomass Magazine readers have similar stories about biomass contributing to a community, I&rsquo;d love to hear them. 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>

2012/10/Bob-Cleaves_Standing_13515419002682.jpg

Biomass to the Rescue

The Japan-based Hydrogen Innovation Town Business Research Group has begun verification tests on a technology that produces hydrogen from biobased material, specifically sewage sludge. A plant based on the same technology that takes in various biomass feedstocks celebrated its grand opening last year.
 The HIT Business Research Group consists of Japan Blue Energy Co. Ltd., Daiwa Lease Co. Ltd., Toyota Tsucho Corp. and Mitsui Chemical Inc. Daiwa House Industry Co. Ltd. and Toyota Motor Corp. are also participating in the group as observer members.
 According to information released by the group, the process features JBEC&rsquo;s proprietary gas Blue Tower technology. The process takes in biomass feedstock and converts it into a high hydrogen content gas via a steam reaction process.

2012/10/News-Biomass-HITchart-1112_13516048831923.jpg

Japanese group to develop biohydrogen production 

Envirotherm GmbH, an Allied Technologies company, and ZeroPoint Clean Tech Inc., a biomass gasification technology developer, are joining forces to build turn-key, biomass-fueled, combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants.
 The plants built under the partnership can range in size from 2 MW to 20 MW. According to the companies, the combined effort to create full EPC delivery of a standardization solution for biomass gasification plants includes relationships with original equipment manufacturer vendors, project financiers, feedstock and recovered wood suppliers as well as with vendors of after-market services.
 Europe is already home to two plants build by Envirotherm and ZeroPoint. According to ZeroPoint, construction on the first of eight additional projects is expected to begin before the end of the year.

Turnkey CHP plants now available 

A report published by Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) demonstrates that the biofuel industry is well-positioned to meet increased demand for advanced biofuels, which will be driven by the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) and California&rsquo;s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).
 The report, titled &ldquo;Advanced Biofuel Market Report 2012,&rdquo; projects that at least 27 new or retrofitted advanced biorefineries will come online by 2015 to meet demand created by the RFS and LCFS.
 E2 includes two methods for measuring production growth in its report. The first generates a low-end estimate and is based on facilities that have substantive evidence of construction through associated financing, site selection, feedstock procurement, and other factors. The second method generates a high-end estimate that takes projections made by companies themselves and uses funding status, technology demonstration, partnerships and other factors to establish feasible numbers.

2012/10/News-Biomass-Pg19-1112_13516059075886.jpg

E2 report projects increased advanced biofuel production

Commercialization and scale-up were two primary topics of discussion at the 2012 Algae Biomass Summit, which kicked off Sept. 25 in Denver. The message of the event&rsquo;s opening session was that algae production is very close to commercial deployment. However, shoring up government support mechanisms for algae-derived products and removing barriers to algae cultivation are issues that must be addressed.
 The role of military was also discussed. During his keynote address, Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., stressed that the U.S. Department of Defense is the largest user of fossil fuels in the world. &ldquo;Developing renewable fuels is a strategic and tactical necessity,&rdquo; Udall said. &ldquo;No one understands the true cost of fuel more than our combat personnel on the ground in the darkest corners of the world.&rdquo;

Algae industry closes in on commercial deployment 

Kedco plc has announced its biomass power plant in Newry, Northern Ireland is supplying power to the grid. The event marks the company&rsquo;s transition from a development company to an operator of renewable energy assets. The electricity generated by the Newry Biomass Plant is being sold to Bord Gais Eireann under a power purchase agreement.
 The facility will eventually feature 4 MW of capacity, 2 MW of which are already online. Kedco is completing development of the second phase of the project, which is expected to come online during the fourth quarter of 2013. The civil and on-site work for the additional 2 MW of capacity has already been completed, and a deposit has been paid to secure the expansion of the grid infrastructure for the project. Once fully operational, the plant will generate electricity to power more than 7,000 homes. Kedco also has a 12 MW biomass power plant under development in Enfield, London.

2012/10/News-Biomass-Pg20-1112_13516071722832.jpg

Northern Ireland clean power plant moves from developer to producer

Vancouver, British Columbia-based Solegear Bioplastics Inc. has formed a new partnership with the National Research Council of Canada. The partnership aims to combine Solegear&rsquo;s proprietary formulations with the NRC&rsquo;s to create new products not otherwise possible.
 Solegear has been working with the NRC since 2007. According to Nathalie Legros, group leader for Polymer Bioproducts at NRC, Solegear has done an excellent job identifying market opportunities in the rapidly growing field of biopolymers. Legros added that the new partnership will allow both parties to bring Canadian innovation to the biobased plastics industry.
 In August, Solegear secured a round of Series A financing that will be used to purchase raw materials, support sales, fund intellectual property and grow the company&rsquo;s management team. According to Toby Reid, Solegear&rsquo;s founder and CEO, the main goals of his company are to use a greater portion of biobased content in its biopolymers and to remain committed to the compostability of its products.

Solgear, NRC partner on bioplastics

Houston-based Terrabon Inc. has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Under Chapter 7 proceedings, the company&rsquo;s operations will cease and a trustee will be tasked with liquidating the company&rsquo;s assets for the benefit of creditors. According to the company, it was unable to obtain sufficient corporate funding to finish development and engineering activities for its proposed 5 MMgy commercial-scale facility.
 &ldquo;It is with great disappointment we announce Terrabon has been unable to obtain additional financing and must suspend operations,&rdquo; said Gary Luce, Terrabon&rsquo;s CEO. &ldquo;This is a sad day for Terrabon&rsquo;s employees, partners, suppliers and vendors who never wavered from their robust support of our company and the technology we deeply believe in. We want to thank them and convey how deeply we appreciate their steadfast loyalty during our journey to become an additional source of alternative energy for the United States."

2012/10/News-Biomass-Pg21-1112_13516075393313.jpg

Terrabon files for bankruptcy 

The Water Environment Research Foundation has released a report identifying the barriers to biogas use for energy at wastewater treatment facilities. According to the report, inadequate payback and the lack of available capital are the dominant hindrances.
 While 43 percent of wastewater treatment facilities employ anaerobic digestion systems, only 8 percent of that 43 percent use the resulting biogas to generate electric or thermal energy. The U.S. EPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership estimates that the amount of wasted biogas could supply an additional 3 million MWh of power per year.
 The report found that the largest barriers to developing power generation at these sites are related to higher priority demands on capital and perceptions that the economics don&rsquo;t justify investment. Other barriers include regulatory policy factors and human decision-making factors. According to the WERF, better cost- and benefit-estimation methods, legislation to assist in CHP financing, and state renewable portfolio standards could help provide incentive for CHP installation at these facilities.

WERF report analyzes barriers to biogas

Chris Groobey, partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &amp; Rosati, has always been intrigued by big things being built and projects coming to completion. For the past 15 years, he has represented development teams, navigated loan guarantees and pre-commercial funding difficulties, engineered joint ventures, and, connected lenders and investors with the people building the biobased industry&rsquo;s &ldquo;big things.&rdquo; How did you get involved in clean energy finance? A few years after I graduated law school, I represented the U.S. Export-Import Bank in the financing of some power plants in Pakistan. That brought me into contact with another law firm that had a very strong energy-focused project finance practice. I knew that I liked the industry and that it was a complicated and challenging area to work in. So, I moved to that other law firm back in 1995 and that&rsquo;s when I moved to energy projects full-time. What was the project that really drove home the potential this industry holds? The project that affected me most personally was working on the financing of an ethanol plant in Iowa Falls, Iowa, in 2002 and 2003. It was one of the first projects to be backed by private equity and project finance banks. I spent a lot of time in Iowa learning about the project and industry and meeting all of the people involved. The project truly mattered to the community and I was a believer in the product and industry.&nbsp; When the plant started operating, 5,000 people came to the celebration. I was really proud to have had a role in a project that had such a positive impact on the surrounding community. I&rsquo;m very fortunate to still be friends with many of the people involved in that project, and it set me on the path of being very heavily involved in biofuels for more than 10 years now. You&rsquo;ve ushered several projects through the precommercial stage known as the valley of death. What does it take to navigate through this funding stage successfully? I think it&rsquo;s a combination of moxie and humility.&nbsp; Successful entrepreneurs are a special breed. They dream big dreams, they push other people, they seek new answers. But the financial community can be very demanding as well, and especially for the first project, it has to be done right and conservatively. Especially these days, there are more people needing money than people who have it, so it&rsquo;s a real fight to obtain financing for projects of any sort. The successful ones are those who both push to do something new and different while still understanding the ground rules and who follow them as much as possible. What makes project finance and the idea of pulling together financial resources for a particular project, maximizing the chances of repayment and protecting the original investors from liability, different than other forms of financing methods? The question for project finance is whether the developer can make the other parties involved&mdash;whether they are lenders or equity investors in the project&mdash;comfortable that you have done such a good job structuring the project that, if something were to go wrong and all you gave the lenders was the project itself, they would still get their money back. Can failed projects be successfully run by equity and debt partners to recoup investment? Yes, that has definitely happened, although sometimes not in the originally-anticipated time frame. I think a good example is first-generation ethanol plants.&nbsp; Essentially, all of these plants that were backed by private equity and project finance lenders went bankrupt or went into a restructuring process that people refer to as &ldquo;handing over the keys.&rdquo; Some lenders and investors in these projects got their money back after waiting out the corn price fluctuations or selling the projects to other ethanol producers.&nbsp; The people who took this approach were usually the lenders and investors who were more committed to biofuels and the agricultural sector generally. Conversely, other types of investors would just shut down the plants or sell the plants and the associated debt to vulture investors or hedge funds. While this was not ideal for the ethanol industry, it did provide opportunities for other, stronger investors to consolidate their position in the industry and also enabled new companies with new business plans. Not to pick on first-generation ethanol at all, there was a phase in the power industry in the early 2000s where a lot of people got very excited about merchant (non-contracted) power plants, and the vast majority of those projects didn&rsquo;t work out either. In a presentation to the National Governors Association in late 2011, you talked about the opportunity for states to invest in clean tech and that federal investment will trend downward. Is this still the case?&nbsp; This is really a continuum. There has been a real transition of financing. The Department of Defense is driving a lot of the overall growth of renewable energy in the United States, but they are doing it by promising revenues to projects in lieu of investing in or lending to projects, which is what (the U.S.) DOE and USDA have done. The question now has become, with the demise of DOE loan guarantee programs, and with USDA&rsquo;s energy programs in flux on Capitol Hill, what other financing mechanisms are available to support projects and how can a developer take advantage of them? We&rsquo;re still in an economic environment where you have a very competitive job market, not just for people, but also for states. States will frequently do for energy companies what they do for auto companies or other big job creation engines that everybody wants to land for their state. The financial support comes in the form of favorable loans, sometimes equity investments or forgiveness of obligations that other people may have to pay. States were already leading thinkers in how to drive renewable energy with regulatory mandates, and now they are thinking about how to enable the companies to meet those mandates, preferably inside their own borders. It&rsquo;s economic development 101, and it has been very successful for the companies that have taken advantage of it. You watched clean energy development decrease after the economic crisis of 2008. Has the activity level in the clean energy sector completely recovered from the downturn? No, it has not recovered. This is partly due to the expiration of the tax grant programs, partly to the demise of the European banks that were active in project finance and partly to the overall impact of the new natural gas discoveries and resulting expectations of low gas prices for years to come. But in general, the companies that remain are stronger from their experience, and the sector is full of quality and promise and back on the upswing. What is the best argument for the continued investment by federal and state governments in clean energy? Short-term, it&rsquo;s jobs, jobs, jobs.&nbsp; As someone once said, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s the economy, stupid.&rdquo;&nbsp; Long-term, it&rsquo;s energy security, including price certainty.&nbsp; Renewables are at, or near grid parity, and the more we can insulate our energy prices from the fluctuations of the commodities markets, the better it will be for all of us.

2012/10/QA-Biomass-Groobey-1112_13516080590079.jpg

Project finance veteran Chris Groobey reflects on 15 years in clean energy, the government's role in its growth and the industry's slow climb out of recession. 

Navigating the Valley of Death

Once a year, Biomass Magazine publishes an updated U.S. Biomass Power Map, offering a visual representation of electricity production throughout the U.S. from the combustion of solid biomass. Our team uses phone interviews, countless emails and hours of research including input from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the U.S. EPA, to verify the status of each plant. Information provided on the map must also meet certain predetermined criteria. To be included on the map, the power plants must have a minimum nameplate capacity of 1 MW, and utilize no less than 40 percent solid biomass in their annual fuel mix. The power plants on the map must also be equipped with the necessary connection hardware to supply electricity to the grid.
 The newest version of the Biomass Power Map, mailed with the November issue of the magazine, shows the majority of biomass power plants are primarily located on the East and West Coasts.&nbsp; Among state-based capacity, Florida tops all other states at 878 MW, followed closely in second place by California with 831 MW. After the top two producing states, the generating capacity of biomass power among all other states drops considerably to 407 MW in Maine.&nbsp; At a regional level, the northeastern U.S. has the greatest concentration of biomass power plants with a total of 69 installations.
 As the map indicates, an influential factor in the location of biomass power plants is the price of electricity in the area where the biomass power is sold. The cost of electricity in the top five biomass power producing states is relatively high for retail electricity costs compared to other states. Hawaii and Alaska rank first and third highest, respectively, for development potential, based on their state rates. The potential for the sector&rsquo;s growth is not, however, limited to states that have high electricity prices. Oregon and Washington each feature relatively low retail prices for electricity compared to other states, ranking 37 and 48 for the cost of electricity, but each state also has a considerable presence of biomass power production, with a combined capacity of 544 MW.
 Smaller plants dominate the biomass power industry, as the plant map shows. Nearly half of the 187 biomass power plants in the U.S. are under 25 MW in production capacity (Graph 1). As the size of the plants increase, the number of them decreases, leaving only 11 power plants with a production capacity of 75 MW or more. Yet, while smaller plants may predominate, the medium-sized facilities produce the majority of the electricity, as shown in Graph 2.
 The average U.S. biomass power installation is 32 MW. And while the 100 MW capacities of the recently opened Nacogdoches Generating Facility in Sacul, Texas, and the Gainesville Renewable Energy Center in Florida might imply a trend of new facilities moving towards larger nameplates, the average for biomass power plants under construction is 40 MW.
 Covanta Energy Corp. dominates production by a single company with 1.3 GW of capacity (Graph 3), primarily converting solid waste to electricity. The company not only owns numerous waste-to-energy facilities but also operates plants for other organizations. Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. has roughly half of Covanta&rsquo;s capacity and is the second largest producer of biomass power. Like Covanta, Wheelabrator's primary feedstock is solid waste. The average plant converting solid-waste feedstock to energy produces 34 MW, while the average agriculture residue and wood fuel facilities produce at 43 and 29 MW, respectively.&nbsp;
 The 2013 map exhibits both growth and the maturation of the sector by bringing larger plants online and pushing total existing production capacity to 5.9 GW. The map should be used as a tool in charting the sector&rsquo;s path forward, or, as a roadmap showing vast tracts of the U.S. where biomass power does not exist. Many of these states and regions have significant quantities of fuel feedstocks, but do not currently have the appropriate pricing, regulation, or circumstances to warrant the development of biomass power facilities.
 Author: Kolby Hoagland Data and Content Manager, Biomass Magazine (314) 308-7054 <a href="mailto:khoagland@bbiinternational.com">khoagland@bbiinternational.com</a>

2012/10/News-Biomass-Lead-1112_13516082145861.jpg

Graph 1. Number of Installations by Capacity. Power-generation capacity ranges from less than 25 MW to 75 MW or more in the 187 biomass power plants represented.


2012/10/Map-Biomass-Chart1-1112_13516082183229.jpg

Graph 2. Total Production Capacity of Each Generation Range. A total combined capacity of 5,918 MW is represented on the map. The majority of facilities fall into the 25 to 74 MW capacity range. 


2012/10/Map-Biomass-Chart2-1112_13516082224389.jpg

Graph 3. Top Biomass Power Producing Companies.
 The graph lists the top seven companies that produce electricity from biomass.

2012/10/Map-Biomass-Chart3-1112_13516082253676.jpg

The 2013 Biomass Power Map shows new growth and current trends.

Mapping Out Power Capacity

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., opened the Algae Biomass Summit by reminding the nearly 800 attendees that developing domestically produced renewable fuels was a &ldquo;strategic and tactical necessity.&rdquo; Udall&rsquo;s opening remarks were only part of the highlights from the sixth annual event. In addition to an industry update from Mary Rosenthal, Algae Biomass Organization executive director, the event included discussion on the commercialization efforts of the industry&rsquo;s largest players, sustainability measures, the role of the federal government in the industry&rsquo;s growth and international efforts to bring algae to commercial relevance.
 Conference attendees filled breakout rooms during the four-day summit to hear expert perspective on the year&rsquo;s developments and advancements in engineering and analysis, biology, scale-up and factors influencing finance and policy. In all, more than 135 oral presentations were available to conference attendees in addition to nearly 120 research-based poster presentations. In addition to the robust offering of oral and poster content, the Algae Biomass Summit&rsquo;s continued to establish itself as the premier venue to conduct business as 60 vendors staffed booths on a busy trade show floor.
 Todd Taylor, energy and corporate attorney with Fredrickson &amp; Byron, and program co-chair, says the event&rsquo;s opening panel discussion on companies moving towards commercialization, &ldquo;are on the vanguard, but they are not the exception.&rdquo; ABO-affiliated companies, Taylor also said, &ldquo;are aggressively seeking commercialization opportunities in many areas,&rdquo; and that companies recognize that seeking commercial opportunities means R&amp;D isn't finished, but is instead &ldquo;an essential and ongoing part of creating a viable and long-lasting industry,&rdquo; he says.
 New to the summit was the addition of the Young Researcher Award Poster Competition. The number of entries for the poster session was up from last year, but this year a jury selected a group of winners. First place recipients included Estaban Hincapie&nbsp;from Colorado State University in the engineering category and Beth Rasala from the University of California San Diego in biology. The 2013 Algae Biomass Summit will be hosted in Orlando, Fla., Sept. 30-Oct. 3.

Conference attendees perused the summit trade show booths.

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO10-1112_1351608395539.jpg

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., welcomed conference attendees to the summit and emphasized the importance of continued research in algae based biofuels.

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO1-1112_13516083968978.jpg

Left to right: Martin Sabarsky, CEO of Cellana LLC, Dan Simon, CEO of Heliae Inc., and Paul Woods, CEO of Algenol Biofuels Inc., bring attendees up to speed on the commercialization efforts of their companies.

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO2-1112_13516083987883.jpg

Algae Biomass Organization Executive Director Mary Rosenthal opens the 6th Annual Algae Biomass Summit.

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO3-1112_13516084026621.jpg

L. Hunter Lovins, president of Natural Capitalism Solutions, opened the second morning with a keynote address urging the algae industry to keep sustainability top of mind as the industry grows.

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO4-1112_13516084074675.jpg

Examining federal agency support for bioenergy were, left to right, 
Tim Portz, executive editor of Biomass Magazine, Sarah Bittleman, senior adviser to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, Valerie Reed, Acting Biomass Program Manager, DOE and Nancy Bryson, s

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO5-1112_13516084088618.jpg

Attendees packed the general sessions throughout the event.

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO7-1112_1351608409793.jpg

Attendees sharing research advancements in the poster sessions.

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO8-1112_13516084108849.jpg

The winners of the Algae Biomass Summitâ€™s â€œYoung Researcher Poster Competitionâ€� from left to right: Estaban Hicape, Colorado State University; David B. Levin, University of Manitoba; Chair of the Young Researcher Poster Competition; ABO Executi

2012/10/Al-Biomass-ABO9-1112_13516084120475.jpg

Commercialization and research advancements highlighted at the 6th annual Algae Biomass Summit 

Algae's Mile-High Potential on Parade 

The unemployment rate in the rural region surrounding Lake Providence, La., hovers around 18 percent. Thanks to Massachusetts-based Myriant Corp., the term biobased succinic acid will soon be synonymous in the struggling region, however, with the term employed. By the time Myriant begins operations at its 30 MMgy biobased chemical plant, 250 people in the area will have been employed to build the plant, and for everyday operations, another 50 will call the Lake Providence facility their full-time employer.
 Although the creation of 50 jobs may not impress someone outside the region, for the biobased chemical industry, the story of Myriant&rsquo;s Lake Providence facility is significant. The story reveals what the future of biobased project finance looks like, why a town with a population under 4,000 is the new capital (unofficially) of the biobased chemical industry, and, why every new or future hire at Myriant&rsquo;s facility, or any other biobased facility that may soon begin operations, should thank a particular investment banker from St. Louis.
 The Right Idea, the Right Time
 John May calls St. Louis home, but his job requires a grueling travel schedule that takes him to places in South America, southern Florida and in the case of Myriant, Lake Providence. As the managing director at investment banking firm Stern Brothers &amp; Co., May knows well what it takes for a company to secure funding to build a bioenergy plant. His client list includes nearly all of the advanced biofuel production companies who&rsquo;ve applied for and secured commitments for guaranteed loans from USDA for commercial plant build-out in the last two years, including: ZeaChem Inc., Chemtex International, Fulcrum Bioenergy, Enerkem Inc., Fiberight LLC and others. According to May, his success at Stern Brothers wouldn&rsquo;t have happened if his team hadn&rsquo;t decided to test a new financing strategy in 2002.
 &ldquo;Stern Brothers took a risk of its own in trying to create a demand in the bond market for bioenergy project finance among different types of funds,&rdquo; he says, including mutual, insurance and hedge funds. The result of May&rsquo;s attempts to create a demand for project debt in the bond market has proven, he says, that Stern Brothers was at the right place at the right time with the right idea.
 May&rsquo;s idea on bond-based financing created in 2002 is also the same financial model used today by nearly all of his clients in bioenergy, including Myriant, and as May explains, there&rsquo;s one huge reason why: risk. The five major banks in the U.S. currently hold nearly 60 percent of all total bank assets in the country, meaning that if large-scale projects over $25 million, receive traditional debt financing, one of the big five will be the source, May says. But, banks haven&rsquo;t been willing or able to lend signficant sums of debt for the past 10 years, especially for projects that come with inherit risks like commercially unproven technology, feedstock input uncertainty or a lack of end-user contracted agreements. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 &ldquo;The bank market of the U.S., and really around the world,&rdquo; May says, &ldquo;is such that commercial banks aren&rsquo;t capable of handling a large, sophisticated transaction (like the Myriant project), because they simply do not have the risk appetite.&rdquo;
 In the past, if U.S. banks were unwilling to provide project debt to bioenergy companies, developers could turn to European banks such as WestLB of New York. But, that office has closed and sold its renewable energy practice due to the exposure it faced in the European financial crisis. And, when May says U.S. banks don&rsquo;t have the risk appetite, it&rsquo;s because those banks simply can&rsquo;t take on projects with the risk profiles that many bioenergy project finance transactions represent. Upcoming Basel III new capital and liquidity standards, from the globally recognized banking standards committee that most globally recognized banks adhere too, could soon force large banks to adopt a strategy that some are already using: holding more cash or liquidity on hand, while avoiding (due to regulations that limit the ability of banks to invest in risk intensive deals) loans that are too risky and could result in a significant loss to a bank if a loan recipient defaulted.
 And unless a company is willing to give up a significant portion of its collateral to strategic partners, venture capitalists or private equity providers through financing rounds, equity financing in exchange for company control is not an option.
 Because May and his team knew that the bond market was not, and would not be under the same regulations of major banks or require a company to option off portions of its company, he went to the bond market.
 Bioenergy firms however, haven&rsquo;t succeeded solely on bonds issued to mutual or hedge funds, in part, because May and his team realized something else: that investors looking at projects with higher risk profiles would need some element of certainty that their investment would pay off. To appease investors, May developed a project finance strategy that involves credit-enhancing tools similar to a USDA loan guarantee which pushes a poorly rated bond up by assuring through the guarantee that a bond will be paid out if the loan recipient defaults, with a complex bond-placement structure that brings bond investors looking for small returns in the 4.5 to 6 percent range together with investors that are actually looking for riskier investments that could potentially return 14 to 17 percent.
 Myriant, like nearly all of May&rsquo;s previous clients, is a prime example of what the bond-based, credit-enhanced, structurally complex project finance model of today, and tomorrow, looks like. The Lake Providence facility is the first-ever biobased chemical plant to receive a USDA Business and Industry Rural Development loan guarantee, a program that has been around since the 1970s, and more importantly, offers a loan-backing provision that will guarantee up to 60 percent of the loan amount issued.
 In Myriant&rsquo;s case, that meant $15 million of the bonds the company placed in the market were guaranteed by the USDA. Here is where the structure gets complex. In order to appease the investor who also wants higher yields (willing to underwrite the riskier investment), while also offering a bond package to the investor looking for a less-risky investment, May used the $15 million in guaranteed bonds, in combination with another $10 million worth of unguaranteed bonds to achieve a placement for $25 million with a very competitive blended rate. In short, May achieved a sweet spot rate that can attract risk-averse investors, who like the guaranteed portion, and risk-seeking investors, who are all about the unguaranteed, 16 percent yielding portion.
 Typical projects of this type have installed bond tenures in the 15- to 20-year range, allowing the bioenergy companies enough time to build the equity and produce fuels or chemicals and also comfortably manage amortization of outstanding principal and accrued interest. In the end, May has found a way to offer hope to project developers strapped with technology, feedstock or any other risk, by pairing an investment market (bonds) that has and will always have an appetite for the potential earnings created by a unguaranteed investment, with those in need of investments that hold a perceived risk. Although several of the transactions that May is working on in the bioproduct space will use USDA loan guarantees, he believes the bond market is viable even without credit enhancement.
 Myriant&rsquo;s success at using the bond-based financing approach wasn&rsquo;t just about the ability of May to explain the story of Myriant or the circumstances surrounding the bioenergy industry to investors, a message he says most bond investors understand. Feedstock requirements, off-take agreements, terms of debt and technology risk, he says, are all issues in other markets, but May says the bond market understands those factors may not all be answered in the world of bioenergy and be neatly wrapped and accounted for.
 The Project Finance Regimen
 Stephen Gatto, chairman and CEO of Myriant, is no stranger to bioenergy or project finance. He&rsquo;s already built and sold a biofuel production company and for the last 25 years, he&rsquo;s been working on project finance for office buildings, labs or fuel production plants. &ldquo;My experience over the last 25 years is that project finance regimens, if utilized by themselves,&rdquo; Gatto says, &ldquo;lower the cost of debt because they effectively lower the risk profile.&rdquo; That is exactly why Gatto says, in addition to performing independent engineering and technology analysis on Myriant&rsquo;s biochemical production process prior to seeking out funding, he decided to follow the bond-based financing approach for his Lake Providence project.
 May and Gatto share the same understanding of the bioenergy market, as evidenced through their history together. Gatto was the first person to let May deploy his bond-based financing method in the early 2000s. &ldquo;Going into a project today, where you can mitigate the risk through contractual elements&hellip; is probably the only way you get these deals done,&rdquo; he says.
 Gatto believes that if Myriant had attempted to use a traditional debt-style financing, the weighted cost of capital received for the project, if any capital were received at all, would have been around 18 percent (almost 10 percent higher than that achieved by Stern Brothers for the Lake Providence project). &ldquo;That is a very high cost of capital, certainly for a first of its kind plant,&rdquo; he says. If the success of Myriant&rsquo;s Lake Providence facility, or others who&rsquo;ve worked under the guidance of May on bioenergy installations isn&rsquo;t enough to prove why bond-based financing is the new normal for project finance, then Gatto&rsquo;s future expansion plans should. &ldquo;We will not change our financial structure regimen,&rdquo; Gatto says, on plans for new plants. The company&rsquo;s future regimen will include a third-party process evaluation that allows investors to see that the company can deliver what it says it will, and the regimen will also go to the $1 trillion bond market for financing, a place where typical regulations don&rsquo;t exist and risk is welcomed.
 Although the complex nature of issuing a renewable-energy-linked bond placement might sound as if an aspiring company would need a previous relationship to work with May and his team, it&rsquo;s not the case. May says he takes all calls from project developers, and is willing to pursue any type of bond-based project. The team is currently working on roughly 30 projects for 30 separate clients, the lion&rsquo;s share of which, he says, are in the biomass industry. Over the next 18 months, he believes at least six deals will go through, ranging in size from $25 million to $250 million. Typically, at any given time, his team has at least two bond placements on the market.
 The life of a bond placement for a biobased company can be broken down into two parts. The first part involves a financial advisory relationship between a company such as Stern Brothers and the bioenergy firm. The first stage can last two to three months. The second part is the execution, when May sets up an online data room offering investors a chance to view a company&rsquo;s profile, technology and overall risk. That step can take roughly one year.
 May and his team earn their compensation through monthly retainer fees and a placement fee that is paid when the bonds are sold to investors. The compensation can vary he says, but typically is based on 3 to 4 percent of the total amount of the bonds sold.
 For companies interested in pursuing a bond-based financing package but are worried about expiring loan guarantee programs, May says his firm is already developing, or has developed other credit enhancing tools like insurance guarantees for certain technology. May believes that over the next few years his travel schedule will not decrease, and his bond-backed strategy will continue to offer the best alternative to traditional debt-financing and in most cases, a better alternative. Comments from Gatto also show just how important the first-ever biobased project in the U.S., and its ability to deploy a bond-based financing regimen, truly is for the entire industry. &ldquo;The good news,&rdquo; Gatto says of his Louisiana plant, &ldquo;is that the construction will be completed shortly. Not only do you prove to investors that the plant and the operations are viable, but you have effectively de-risked your second plant.&rdquo;
 &nbsp; Author: Luke Geiver Features Editor, Biomass Magazine (701) 738-4944 <a href="mailto:lgeiver@bbiinternational.com">lgeiver@bbiinternational.com</a>

THE CAPITAL: Myriant's Lake Providence facility is a job creator that exemplifies how commercial construction projects can be paid for. 


2012/10/Pro-Biomass-South-1112_13516086544559.jpg

GOT A REGIMEN: Stephen Gatto, CEO of Myriant, will deploy the same financial regimen on future projects.

2012/10/Pro-Biomass-GATTO-1112_1351608659484.jpg

NOTHING TO FEAR: Through credit enhanced bond financing, John May has given risky projects access to capital. 

2012/10/Pro-Biomass-JohnMay-1112_13516086623404.jpg

ALL LINED UP: Over 250 construction jobs will be created during buildout. The plant will come online in early 2013.


2012/10/Pro-Biomass-North-1112_13516086636295.jpg

How John May and bond-based financing are commercializing bioenergy.

Meet the Biobanker

When Robert Joblin and his colleague Ted Sniegocki started up Cenergy USA in 2006, the company&rsquo;s first project was to obtain financing for a dairy digester. Though successful in finding a lender, the project didn&rsquo;t go forward for a number of reasons. The experience was still worthwhile, however, as Joblin says he came to two realizations, one was that very little was known about the anaerobic digester industry. &ldquo;A lot more data needed to be collected,&rdquo; he says. The second realization was that if a different business model were used and a different financing method were implemented to fund biodigester projects, the industry could reach greater success.
 That approach was based on third-party ownership, a concept that the company has since built its business on. &ldquo;We changed the entire economic structure [of digester business models],&rdquo; Joblin says.
Today, Cenergy&rsquo;s clients include Fortune 500 companies, utilities, public institutions and private investors, and its first successful project&mdash;developed as part of AgPower Partners with Dean Foods Company and London-based Camco Clean Energy at Big Sky Dairy near Gooding, Idaho,&mdash;recently received the Innovation Center for U. S. Dairy&rsquo;s Sustainability Award for Outstanding Achievement in Energy. Cenergy is a partner in AgPower Group, which develops, owns and operates biomass projects, and recently completed development of the largest dairy digester project in the U.S., a 4.5 MW system on a 15,000-head dairy near Jerome, Idaho.
 &ldquo;One of the advantages of the way we have developed our business model is that we now have potential lenders who know it, understand it, and are willing to consider financing a project based on it,&rdquo; Joblin says. The third-party owner model is designed to take the burden off of the dairy producer, but still provides them with benefits that make it worth their while. AgPower Group, which uses a DVO Inc. modified plug-flow digester technology, can make the development process much easier for a dairy farmer, who is usually unfamiliar with how the process works, and doesn&rsquo;t have the time required to develop and operate a project. Additionally, an experienced third-party owner may have established a good reputation in the finance community, which is invaluable when it comes to funding a project.
 &ldquo;It doesn&rsquo;t require investment by the dairy; nor does it require the dairy to guarantee the loan,&rdquo; Joblin explains. &ldquo;At the same time, they experience a drastic reduction in manure management costs, gain superior bedding for the animals, are helped with environmental compliance and make a little bit of cash flow from the project.&rdquo; In turn, AgPower benefits from the sale of electricity, carbon credits and renewable energy certificates, if the state has a renewable portfolio standard.
 Lauren Toretta, vice president of CH4 Biogas, says that initially, the potential owner of the project needs to achieve an understanding of the dairy&rsquo;s current manure management system and needs, as well as their long-term engagement requirements in this type of project.&nbsp; &ldquo;Basically, these are components of an overall feasibility and profitability assessment,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Once that&rsquo;s complete, assuming that it&rsquo;s viable, the siting, permitting, design and construction begins.&rdquo; CH4 Biogas recently completed a 1.4 MW biogas plant at 2,000-head Synergy Dairy in Wyoming County, N.Y., one of the leading dairy production regions in the U.S. It takes in about 425 tons of waste per day and is the largest on-farm anaerobic digestion project in the state.
 The dairy&rsquo;s involvement, once a company such as AgPower or CH4 is committed to the project, is quite simple:&nbsp; continue business as usual with the same number of cows, provide manure to the digester and continue to take back liquid effluent, all without having to worry about operating the digester system. &ldquo;We do the rest,&rdquo; Joblin says.
 Once operating, the AD systems are run by a combination of remote and on-site techniques. &ldquo;Our biogas system is run and monitored by SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) for remote control and oversight, but there are two employees there who handle the daily operations on-site,&rdquo; Toretta says. &ldquo;We have additional remote support through our Danish partner who monitors SCADA, and provides problem solving and expertise to our on-the-ground team.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 In AgPower&rsquo;s case, it contracts a company to operate the project for them. Since starting its third-party biogas business model approach, lessons have been learned in the wake of finished projects. In Joblin&rsquo;s case, he says there have been several.
 Lessons Learned 
 For Joblin, the first lesson is that state regulations&mdash;California, for example&mdash;can make or break a project, no matter the need for the dairy or the economics of the project. But, no project is the same. &ldquo;While we have tried to create a cookie-cutter structure, every project is different and will have its quirks,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That impacts the economics.&rdquo;
 Another take-away is that while a digester has benefits that make them worthwhile&mdash;including a little extra revenue for the farmer&mdash;sometimes expectations for revenue are unrealistic. &ldquo;Many farmers mistakenly think our project will be a cash cow for their dairies, and that never happens,&rdquo; Joblin says. With recent changes in government support&mdash;such as the loss of the ITC grant program and sharply reduced wholesale energy prices&mdash;Joblin says these kinds of projects can no longer be financed on power purchase agreements. &ldquo;The potential post-digester revenues will make or break a project,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;[The industry] has to develop better markets for fiber, nutrient and coproducts such as algae and greenhouse operations.&rdquo;
 As for the coming year&rsquo;s prospects, Joblin believes these projects will be harder to finance based on the dairy industry&rsquo;s current struggles, and the need for potential third-party owners to know clients will be around for the long haul.&nbsp; &ldquo;We must be assured one way or another that the dairy will be in operation for as long as our project is,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Falling power prices may also add to the struggle.&rdquo;
 Overall, the core of third-party ownership project models requires one major factor for success, however. &ldquo;Having a good partner, and a division of labor,&rdquo; Toretta says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a very symbiotic relationship&mdash;we work closely with the farm and farmers, but each of us is able to focus on what we do best.&nbsp; Our individual successes are linked, so our goals are aligned.&rdquo;
 &nbsp; Author: Anna Simet Contributions Editor, Biomass Magazine (701) 751-2756 <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a>

AD ADDITIONS: Dairy operations that add biogas installations can generate extra revenue without the typical hassle of ownership if a third-party model is employed.


2012/10/Bio-Biomass-ADsystem-1112_13516089122248.jpg

ALL SEASON LONG: Dairy operators using a biodigester need to understand the long-term requirements of the project before engaging with a third-party like CH4 Biogas or AgPower Partners. 


2012/10/Bio-Biomass-CH4-1112_13516089138806.jpg

GREENER PASTURES: Utilizing third-party biodigester ownership models can reduce waste and increase profits at dairy operations. 


2012/10/Bio-Biomass-Cowsfield-1112_13516089170379.jpg

The third-party ownership model offers dairy farmers a low-hassle, profitable manure management technique.

November 2012

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Going after the Getable

This Isn't Our First Rodeo

The RFS: It's Not Broke, Don't Fix It

The Renewable Fuel Standard—For This Generation and the Next

You Make the Call

Are We Being Stabbed in the Back?

Keep Morale High Even When a Plant is Down

Opportunities and Perils in Green-Black Alliances

A Look Back and a Look Ahead

Financial Innovation Yields Industry Dividends

Biomass to the Rescue

Featured

Economic Development Boon

Going for the Fiber

Corn Ethanol 1.5

Making Cellulosic Ethanol a Reality

Milestones Reached

Up Front, Near the Action … Again

Navigating the Valley of Death

Mapping Out Power Capacity

Algae's Mile-High Potential on Parade

Meet the Biobanker

Adding Dollars to Dairy

Contributions

Ethanol Production from Paper Industry Sludge Examined

Mixing Lignocellulosic Slurries Presents Challenges

Denmark Sets High Goals for Renewables

November 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

Going after the Getable

This Isn't Our First Rodeo

The RFS: It's Not Broke, Don't Fix It

The Renewable Fuel Standard—For This Generation and the Next

You Make the Call

Are We Being Stabbed in the Back?

Keep Morale High Even When a Plant is Down

Opportunities and Perils in Green-Black Alliances

A Look Back and a Look Ahead

Financial Innovation Yields Industry Dividends

Biomass to the Rescue

Featured

Economic Development Boon

Going for the Fiber

Corn Ethanol 1.5

Making Cellulosic Ethanol a Reality

Milestones Reached

Up Front, Near the Action … Again

Navigating the Valley of Death

Mapping Out Power Capacity

Algae's Mile-High Potential on Parade

Meet the Biobanker

Adding Dollars to Dairy

Contributions

Ethanol Production from Paper Industry Sludge Examined

Mixing Lignocellulosic Slurries Presents Challenges

Denmark Sets High Goals for Renewables

November 2012