The new year rings in a number of daunting challenges for U.S. ethanol producers. Gasoline use continues to fall off and the blend wall remains at a standstill, so producers are selling into a market that is on the decline and artificially limits ethanol use. Otherwise, uneconomical imports from Brazil are flooding the U.S. due to biased trade policy and bizarre indirect land use change scoring by the U.S. EPA, adding to ethanol&rsquo;s supply/demand imbalance. Corn supplies are tight and margins are even tighter. If that weren&rsquo;t enough, the battle over the renewable fuel standard (RFS) continues.
Against this backdrop, producer-members of the American Coalition for Ethanol recently met to help determine the action plan that our grassroots advocacy needs to pursue in 2013. Among the many priorities identified by these members, a few rise to the top.
Market access is clearly our industry&rsquo;s top priority. ACE provides unmatched expertise in helping petroleum marketers understand the benefits of ethanol blends and blender pumps, so we will focus on expanding ethanol use by continuing to collaborate with petroleum marketers and automakers this year. E15 is the most important opportunity to expand ethanol use in the short-term. ACE will prioritize educating retailers about the benefits and availability of E15 and launch some new and creative ways to overcome the hurdles standing in the way of more E15 use. We are also working with automakers to identify the higher ethanol blends that will provide the valuable octane needed for future engine technologies.
Developing the market for E15 in the short-term and higher ethanol and octane opportunities in the long-run depend upon the market access created by the RFS. That&rsquo;s why another priority for ACE in 2013 will be to win the RFS battle to secure a place in the market for higher ethanol blends.
It would be nice if free market principles cleared the path to more ethanol use. Let&rsquo;s recall, however, what a truly free market does: it rewards low-cost alternatives, it promotes innovation, and a free market fosters competition. Despite the fact that ethanol is the low-cost alternative and ethanol producers are innovating and becoming more efficient, left to their own devices, oil companies&mdash;our customers&mdash;wouldn&rsquo;t use as much ethanol as called for under the RFS because they control the market.
An old saying about Capitol Hill applies to our industry&rsquo;s relationship with oil companies: there&rsquo;s no such thing as a permanent victory or permanent defeat, just permanent battles. Yes, oil companies are our customers. But make no mistake, in D.C., they are our fierce competitors. Winning the EPA decision over whether the RFS should be waived was anticlimactic because we knew the facts and law were on our side. But the battle continues as Big Oil and other opponents simply turn the page in their game plan to now seek repeal of the RFS in Congress. Given all the tax benefits and artificial market advantages enjoyed by oil companies, the RFS is the only tool we have to try and level the playing field.
As the first group to advocate for an RFS, ACE will be aggressive in drawing attention to its success. Our opponents will claim to Congress the RFS is broken and in need of &ldquo;repair&rdquo; (i.e. repeal). Our job will be to explain that the RFS is working and delivering important benefits to America.
ACE will also continue to be active in mobilizing strong grassroots support for ethanol, taking steps to activate members to stand up and promote the benefits of ethanol in their communities, states and with federal policymakers. Several years ago we initiated the first ethanol industry fly-in to the nation&rsquo;s capital; this grassroots event will be held again March 13 and 14. The facts are on our side, but if our opponents are louder and more visible in the halls of Congress, the alternative reality they are trying to create about ethanol becomes fact. We are also supporting the Fuels America campaign designed to go on offense and reframe the public conversation about ethanol, an effort that is long overdue.
Our forward-looking action plan to expand market access alongside automakers, retailers and policymakers will only succeed with your support and involvement. That&rsquo;s why it is critical to remain engaged. Join us in D.C. for the ACE fly-in. Take action in your communities. Be part of our grassroots team and take an active role in ACE&rsquo;s mission of making American ethanol the consumer fuel of choice.
 Author: Brian Jennings Executive Vice President, American Coalition for Ethanol 605-334-3381 bjennings@ethanol.org

2012/12/13548116702632.jpg

New Year Challenges

The decision by the U.S. EPA to deny a waiver on the renewable fuel standard (RFS) was the right decision. With this statement I will probably only echo what many colleagues in or related to the ethanol sector have said already. Clearly, the decision is good news for the American ethanol sector, but it should also be important for those who design policy and adopt laws at the other side of the pond in Europe.
The EPA decision gave at least two clear messages to those who favored the waiver and to the rest of the world: First of all, the food/fuel issue was greatly exaggerated, and secondly, the RFS has an in-built flexibility that makes a waiver on the mandate unnecessary. The EPA officials were able to distinguish fact from fiction when they made their assessment on the impact of ethanol production on commodity prices, the food and the feed market.
Hopefully, European regulators will take note of what has happened. If they are intellectually honest, they should acknowledge that if the U.S. biofuel policy has no real negative impact on the food/feed market, then surely the European policy cannot have any impact at all. Compared to the U.S. volumes, the European volumes are simply too small to have any significant impact. Even the estimated volumes for 2020 are small, comparable in size with today&rsquo;s ethanol production in the U.S. Unfortunately, EU regulators seem to be under the spell of Big Food and the self-righteousness NGOs no one seems to question.
I have always wondered why there is this anxiety in the EU around food.
Europe has become the biggest food importer in the world since it reformed the European Common Agricultural Policy. This reform was partly the result of international trade agreements. Land the size of Germany (35 million hectares, or 86 million acres) is needed outside Europe to feed Europeans. The result is that Europe has taken arable land out of production year-on-year and we have created a huge protein deficit. It is not that we couldn&rsquo;t produce these proteins ourselves, but we cannot do it competitively with soymeal. As the EU common agricultural policy no longer allows production support for farmers, we have no other option but to import protein, importing 35 million metric tons of soymeal annually to feed animals.
We reduced arable land use in Europe for another reason. In 2006, under pressure of a World Trade Organization ruling, Europe reduced its sugar production by 6 million tons, equal to 700,000 hectares. A total of 83 sugar refineries had to be closed. Europe was restricted in its sugar exports and mainly Brazil is benefiting from this situation. This 700,000 hectares can be used for growing wheat or corn for ethanol production. It would not impact on land outside the EU, nor commodities for food use.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the EU is taking 500,000 hectares of arable land out of production each year. Yet, it seems that this is not enough; another 7 million hectares should be taken out of production to boost green farming. At least that is what the European Commission proposed as part of another reform of Europe&rsquo;s agricultural policy.
All in all, Europe seems to have too much land. In any case, there certainly seems to be enough land to produce biofuels and at the same time reduce the protein deficit via distillers grains.
These land facts, plus the EPA decision, should have an impact on European politicians who are gifted with common sense thinking. The EPA has set a clear example and the EU should follow.
In any case, Europe&rsquo;s plan to limit conventional biofuel, and even prevent its production beyond 2020, will not change America&rsquo;s view on its biofuel policy. America&rsquo;s ethanol is needed to reduce America&rsquo;s addiction to oil and to become less dependent on the Middle East&mdash;considerations Europe doesn&rsquo;t yet care about.
 Author: Robert Vierhout Secretary-general, ePURE Vierhout@epure.org

2012/12/13548115877161.jpg

Setting the Example

Happy New Year to all of you in the ethanol industry, who, in my opinion, are part of one of the greatest success stories in the history of America! While this past year has been one of the most challenging we have ever faced, and we certainly understand we will face more challenges in the new year,&nbsp; we have won every hurdle that Big Oil and Big Food have thrown at us, and we will continue that success this year.&nbsp; We won numerous legal battles against Big Oil and Big Food in 2012&mdash;we won the battle over the waiver of the renewable fuel standard (RFS) and we stopped them on the legislative front from dismantling the RFS.&nbsp;
In 2013, we will see some of the greatest challenges and opportunities in history for our industry&mdash;and we are prepared for both. Big Oil and Big Food will again make an all-out assault on the RFS, we will continue to face unfair trade practices from Brazil, barriers to open trade to the European Union, a bizarre regulatory scheme in California, and every conceivable hurdle to get more market access for E15 and higher blends. And we will succeed.&nbsp;
Our biggest challenge and opportunity in the New Year is market access. One of the reasons Growth Energy was formed was to anticipate and respond to what our industry needs to succeed. We recognized that one of the biggest obstacles for our industry was the impending blend wall.&nbsp; In March 2009, we filed the waiver to increase the ethanol blend up to 15 percent, recognizing that fuel consumption in America was declining and that our industry had the capacity to produce more than enough to meet the 10 percent regulatory cap. While our opponents have erected every regulatory and legal hurdle imaginary to prevent higher blends, we expect to overcome these hurdles this year.&nbsp;
Our big focus will be working with retailers to get E15 and flex-fuel pumps into more retail establishments nationwide. We will continue to work with pump manufacturers to offer minimal cost retrofit kits for retailers. And, we will pursue regulatory changes to address the Reid vapor pressure problem, the minimum purchase requirement obstacle and all the other regulatory hurdles impeding the adoption of higher blends.&nbsp;&nbsp;
This year we will have a new Congress and an Obama administration supportive of renewable fuels, creating an opportunity to further promote our industry. We cannot take things for granted, however, we need every one of you to engage with your members of Congress to ensure our industry&rsquo;s future.&nbsp;
Everyone recognizes what a tough year 2012 was. Our industry is a winner, and winners succeed, and we will succeed because we have the facts on our side. Whether it&rsquo;s food versus fuel, environmental benefits or savings to consumers, we are a great benefit to all Americans. But we cannot sit back and hope for success, we must stand up and fight for our industry. At Growth Energy, we will be leading the fight for our industry and urge you to do the same.
American ethanol is a win for America. We have reduced our dependence on foreign oil. We are now 10 percent of America&rsquo;s fuel supply. We have created more than 400,000 jobs in the U.S.&mdash;jobs that cannot be outsourced overseas. We generate more than $50 billion in gross domestic product. We have improved our nation&rsquo;s air quality and our environment, revitalized our rural economy, and saved consumers money at the pump. Because of you, our industry is one of the greatest American success stories. Let&rsquo;s continue to spread the message.&nbsp;
On behalf of everyone at Growth Energy, we wish you a Happy New Year! Author: Tom Buis CEO, Growth Energy 202-545-4000 tbuis@growthenergy.org

2012/12/13548279434907.jpg

Expanding Market Access

What a year 2012 has been. We&rsquo;ve completed the hard work necessary to introduce E15 as a new fuel and now the rollout has begun. E15 is now for sale in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. We&rsquo;ve also endured a historic drought that caused economic pain and emotional discomfort for farmers in the Midwest, livestock and poultry producers nationwide, and a 15 percent reduction in ethanol production resulting in a handful of plants shuttering until financial conditions improve. As if that weren&rsquo;t enough, the fierce battle to protect the renewable fuel standard (RFS) is already underway. Fortunately, the facts proved once and for all that the RFS is working and flexible, thus no waivers were granted by the U.S. EPA this year.&nbsp;
2013 may have a rocky start for the industry, but there is also good news on the horizon, especially as we watch cellulosic companies move from the promising talk of the future to meaningful production of ethanol at market scale.
As important as these innovations are and as serious as the challenges facing us are, it is always good to take time and reflect on the year that was and will be, with a certain amount of levity, of course. As is tradition, I give you 2013&rsquo;s In and Out list:
 <img src="http://images.bbibiofuels.com/img/1262012_10_39_49_AM.jpg" border="0" alt="jan-epm-chart" />
Author: Bob Dinneen President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association 202-289-3835

2012/12/13548117897534.jpg

The Year That Was  and Will Be

First, let me say Happy New Year! I do hope that the coming year for each of you is very rewarding, both on a personal level and a business level.
The coming year will, of course, bring lots of new challenges for the ethanol industry, but, as we have in the past, I suspect we will prevail. I&rsquo;m not sure if 2012 was our toughest year ever, but it has to rank right up there in the top two or three. But with the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s decision not to grant a waiver to the renewable fuels standard (RFS), it at least ended on a bit of a high note.
So, we press on, moving into the coming year with some trepidation, but at the same time, confident that we remain on the right side of the issue. There will no doubt be new challenges that will test our mettle, along with new opportunities to demonstrate the viability and importance of renewable energy.
Hopefully, Congress is a bit more coordinated and supportive in 2013 than it was in 2012 on the issue of ethanol and renewable fuels in general. Of course, only time will tell whether the Obama administration will accomplish more with a still-divided Congress than in his first term or face the same recalcitrant challenges. As with all forms of energy, whether fossil or renewable, public policy is a crucial element in its success or failure. The elimination of the oil subsidies would be a good first step, to begin the process of leveling the playing field.
We speak of high corn prices like it&rsquo;s a bad thing. One of the original premises of the ethanol industry was to provide a mechanism that would support commodity prices while providing a cleaner and safer environment. That certainly has been accomplished. Unfortunately, anyone who knows agriculture, knows that the current high corn price rarely makes its way to the average corn farmer&mdash;a good price on the farm, perhaps, but $7.50 a bushel, likely not.&nbsp; So these high corn prices that directly affect the profitability of the ethanol industry, generally are not finding their way to the growers. Who actually gets the $7.50 per bushel? I&rsquo;ll leave that for another column.
So as we move into 2013 with corn prices close to an all-time high and oil prices at their lowest level in some time, it looks as though we are still in for a few months of tough sledding. Plants that have a high debt load are generally the first to fail or temporarily shut down, those with lower debt and cash reserves can ride out the market fluctuations. But isn&rsquo;t that true for most industries? When times are tough, low debt and cash on hand rule the day. Often, it&rsquo;s a matter of timing more than bad financial planning. Timing in terms of when the plant was built, how quickly the debt could be paid down, whether the plant was under-capitalized and if there were unanticipated shifts in markets.
So, as they say in merry old England, &ldquo;chin up and keep a stiff upper lip.&rdquo; 2013 will be interesting ride.
That&rsquo;s the way I see it.
Author: Mike Bryan Chairman, BBI International mbryan@bbiinternational.com

2012/12/13548122230536.jpg

Chin Up and Keep a Stiff Upper Lip

In the weeks leading up to the completion of this issue, our editors interviewed personnel at multiple U.S. ethanol plant labs, the National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center and several lab- and data-focused service companies to deliver on this month&rsquo;s important lab innovation theme.
Tim Portz, our executive editor, stepped inside the well-equipped laboratory at Corn Plus LLLP, in Winnebago, Minn., where he met lab manager Courtney Trask, the subject of this month&rsquo;s Q&amp;A. In &ldquo;Keeping Corn Plus in the Sweet Spot,&rdquo; on page 35, Trask says monitoring and adjusting the performance of an ethanol plant has become a truly data-driven process. She tells us that vendors such as HPLC software reps often guide lab personnel through routine troubleshooting and data analyses. And she verifies that the U.S. ethanol industry&mdash;if Corn Plus is typical&mdash;continues to make capital investments in new lab equipment, despite tight margins. In fact, Trask says, her biggest challenge right now is not a lack of new technology, but getting comfortable with all of the new equipment and practices in her laboratory. &ldquo;Our situation is difficult right now because we have implemented so many new things at the plant in the past few months,&rdquo; she tells Portz.
Trask will, of course, lean on her vendors for support and guidance as she continues to master new gadgets and roll out new procedures in her space. Likewise, service providers like Efficient Green Energy are also helping lab personnel bridle new technology and harness better data. As Holly Jessen reports in her page-30 feature, &ldquo;Measurable Success,&rdquo; the Iowa-based company is enabling producers to capture and cleanse data, train personnel and benchmark their lab practices against competing facilities.
NCERC&rsquo;s Sabrina Trupia says successful ethanol plant labs are built around three intersecting components: &ldquo;performance, understanding and communication.&rdquo; Each component, especially the latter, must be methodical and unremitting. After all, even the best data integrity practices fall flat when internal communication breaks down.
External communication is important, too. This is a competitive industry, yet metered collaboration between ethanol plant labs is tolerated, and even encouraged by some producers. In addition to Green Energy&rsquo;s laboratory benchmarking program, companies like PhibroChem, through its Ethanol Performance Group, are engaging lab personnel in training programs that include analytical round robins between multiple facilities. It&rsquo;s clear that, in today&rsquo;s environment, data-driven performance strategies require lean producers to build support groups that include vendors, service providers and&mdash;now, more than ever&mdash;each other.
Tom Bryan, PRESIDENT &amp; EDITOR IN CHIEF tbryan@bbiinternational.com

2012/12/13548123499372.jpg

Labs Look to Vendors and Each Other for Answers

Given the state of the economy and the high price of corn, many ethanol producers are exploring cost-reduction strategies, including partnering and co-locating with innovative noncorn feedstock producers and grain storage facilities. These strategies may create excellent opportunities for consolidation and new growth, however, they may also have significant permitting implications pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act and state-implemented air permit programs.
For stationary sources that emit pollutants above certain thresholds, including most ethanol production facilities, the CAA requires permits be issued prior to construction and operation. Such permits are typically issued to an individual facility owner or operator and dictate very specific operational, pollution control and recordkeeping requirements. In the CAA, if certain factual criteria are met, two different stationary sources may be considered a single stationary source and regulated as such, requiring each to account for the others&rsquo; emissions, construction projects, modifications and compliance determinations.
The test for determining if two facilities should be considered a single stationary source is well-defined in federal and state-delegated statutes and rules. For two facilities to be considered a single stationary source, they must: 1) be on contiguous or adjacent property, 2) belong to a single major industrial grouping, and 3) be under common control by the same entity. (CAA 40 C.F.R. &sect; 52.21(b)(6). In other words, two facilities must satisfy all three criteria before an agency can regulate them as a single stationary source.&nbsp;
The first criteria is not always a straightforward analysis. If two facilities are physically located on contiguous or adjacent properties, then this criteria is satisfied. U.S. EPA guidance has broadened this concept, however, such that two facilities that are physically separated by several miles can nonetheless be considered a single source, if the two are functionally related. Courts have added uncertainty by challenging EPA on this broadened interpretation. Therefore, a source may want to consult with an attorney if two projects are to be separated by less than 20 miles.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The second criteria, belonging to a single major industrial grouping, may appear straightforward, but as with most elements of the CAA, this analysis is complicated by EPA guidance. The Standard Industrial Classification code system classifies facilities to determine applicable federal and state regulatory programs. There are 10 divisions of SIC codes, each representing an industry sector, and within each division are multiple subsets called &ldquo;Major Groups.&rdquo; (See www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.html for more information on the SIC code system.)&nbsp; A plain reading of the second criteria indicates that if two facilities operate under the same SIC code, the second criteria is satisfied; and if under different SIC codes, it is not.&nbsp; EPA has issued guidance, however, suggesting that the regulator can completely disregard the SIC codes, even if different, and require an additional &ldquo;support facility&rdquo; analysis based on various criteria developed by EPA.&nbsp; Importantly, the &ldquo;support facility&rdquo; analysis and criteria have never been promulgated as a rule by EPA; rather, the concept is discussed in a preamble that has never been promulgated as a rule.&nbsp;
The third criteria, common control, requires a more fact-intensive evaluation. To determine if two facilities would be considered under common control, EPA generally relies upon the Securities and Exchange Commission definition, which is &ldquo;the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management and polices of a person, whether through the ownership or voting shares, by contract, or otherwise.&rdquo; This criteria has been the subject of numerous administrative interpretations and judicial decisions, resulting in significant case precedent and EPA guidance. Because this criteria is highly fact-specific, facilities must carefully consider available guidance and should consult with an attorney prior to determining whether two facilities satisfy this criteria.
In summary, ethanol producers considering new partnerships and co-locations&nbsp; must be aware of potential air permitting implications, and resulting operational and management complications that can arise.
 Authors: Todd Palmer Partner, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich 608-283-4432 tepalmer@michaelbest.com Anna Wildeman Associate, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich 608-283-0109 ajwildeman@michaelbest.com

2012/12/13548114851109.jpg

2012/12/13548114854731.jpg

Co-location Plans Impact Air Permit

1. RSB Services Foundation, the implementing entity of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, which has developed a Global Sustainability Standard and Certification System for biofuel production, has added John Slade as regional director for business development in North America. Slade has nearly 20 years of experience in the biofuels industry in North America and Asia. He has spent most of his career in the enzyme business. Prior to joining the RSB, Slade served as a strategic consultant for DSM NV, and spent 17 years at Novozymes. He has also held positions at Cargill Inc. and currently holds two biotechnology application patents. 2. Archer Daniels Midland Co. has named Gary Towne as vice president of ADM Corn Processing. Towne previously served as chairman of the management board of Alfred C. Toepfer International G.m.b.H., a global grain merchandising company that is 80 percent owned by ADM. He also previously served as ADM&rsquo;s manager of Global Risk and Ethanol. In addition, ADM has named Domingo Lastra as chairman of the management board of ACTI. He previously served as president of ADM South America and as ADM&rsquo;s vice president of Business Growth. 3. Highwater Ethanol LLC has added Luke Schneider as its chief financial officer. Prior to joining Highwater Ethanol, Schneider served as chief financial officer for Heron Lake BioEnergy LLC., where he also held a variety of other positions, including senior accountant and staff accountant. The appointment became effective Dec. 3, and coincided with the resignation of Brian Kletscher from the position of interim chief financial officer. Kletscher will continue as the company&rsquo;s CEO. 4. Platts, a division of the McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., has completed its acquisition of Kingsman SA, a privately held, Switzerland-based provider of price information and analytics for the global sugar and biofuels markets. The acquisition will expand Platts&rsquo; capabilities in biofuels, provide an entry into the agriculture markets and add skills in fundamental market analysis. Kingsman offers a range of daily, weekly and monthly reports covering ethanol, biodiesel and sugar. As a unit of Platts&rsquo; new agricultural group, Kingsman will continue to offer its existing product portfolio under the Kingsman brand led by its founder, Jonathan Kingsman. 5. Industrial enzyme producer Novozymes and cellulosic biofuel company Beta Renewables, part of Gruppo Mossi &amp; Ghisolfi, have announced an agreement to jointly market, demonstrate and guarantee cellulosic biofuel solutions. As part of the agreement, Novozymes will acquire a 10 percent share in Beta Renewables, paying approximately $115 million for the equity, marketing fees, other intellectual property rights and milestone payments. The two companies will offer customers looking to produce biofuels from agricultural residues, energy crops and other cellulosic feedstocks a combination of Novozymes Cellic enzymes and Beta Renewables&rsquo; Proesa engineering and production technology.
6. Evogene Ltd., a developer of improved plant traits for the food, feed and biofuel industries, has announced the launch of its Phenomix platform, which utilizes advanced proprietary technologies for the collection, storage and integrated analysis of vast amounts of phenotypic data directly from the field. Through the use of Phenomix, Evogene researchers can evaluate crop behavior in environments closely resembling growth conditions existing in commercial agriculture. The two key data types utilized by Evogene&rsquo;s infrastructure for improving plant traits are phenotypic and phenotypic. Phenomix provides a direct field-to-computer research communication channel that constantly streams physiological, structural and environmental data inputs from the field. The platform was successfully validated in an 18 acre field trial of various wheat varieties. 7. Atlas Commodity Markets has announced the promotion of Bob Shults to president of Atlas Commodity Holdings. Shults is a cofounder of the firm, and has been responsible for daily operations and development of its business since July 2006. In his new role, Shults will ensure strategic focus on new opportunities and manage the changing regulatory environment. Prior to founding Atlas, Shults served as managing direct of commercial services and a member of the executive management committee for APX Inc. He also served on the board of directors of the Environmental Markets Association. He has more than two decades of experience in the energy sector in trading, origination, risk management, technology, operations, accounting, regulatory, strategy, project management, and project development. 8. Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc. has entered into an asset purchase agreement to sell 12 grain elevators located in northwestern Iowa and western Tennessee to the Andersons Inc. The sale involves approximately 32.6 million bushels, or 83 percent, of its agribusiness storage capacity and all of its agronomy and retail petroleum operations. The estimated sales price for the facilities and certain related working capital is $133.1 million, including the assumption at closing of term debt of approximately $28.3 million. 9. RC Fuels has announced the addition of Rex Roehl as its business development director. In his new position, Roehl will further develop the company&rsquo;s growing portfolio of national and regional accounts for its Rich Yeast product portfolio. Prior to joining RC Fuels, Roehl served in business development and asset management roles at Indeck Energy Services. He has also served on the boards of several ethanol plants for Indeck, including Big River Resources and Highwater Ethanol. RC Fuels&rsquo; Rich Yeast is a proprietary product designed as a drop-in replacement for conventional yeast for fermentation that reduces the need for preprocess enzymes, reducing production costs for a typical plant. 10. The U.S. Grains Council has announced the official approval of the Syngenta corn variety MIR 162 Agrisure Vipterra in the EU, opening the door for exports of U.S. distillers dried grains with solubles. The decision came after years of industry leadership and efforts, especially those partners of the USGC in the EU, including COCERAL, FEFAC and the Irish Feed Millers Association.

2012/12/13548103534815.jpg

Slade has worked as a scientist and held sales positions in North America, Asia, India and Australia. 

2012/12/13548103541.jpg

Towne joined ADM in 1997 and most recently led the ACTI organization.

2012/12/13548103544776.jpg

Business Briefs

From a square-footage point of view, a typical ethanol plant laboratory barely registers in the overall scheme of things. It&rsquo;s a clear case of looks being deceiving, however, because its impact on the bottom line is anything but trivial.
Kevin Howes, plant manager of Homeland Energy Solutions LLC, views the in-house laboratory at the Lawler, Iowa, ethanol plant as a crucial piece in the company&rsquo;s success. &ldquo;We view the lab as the third leg of the operational stool, the other two being maintenance and production,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;All three are a necessity to have a functional operation. &hellip; If one is missing or broken you will fall.&rdquo;
Improving ethanol plant yield begins with data gathered in the lab, putting the lab manager and lab technician, who work full time at Homeland, in the front lines of protecting profitability. &ldquo;At today&rsquo;s corn prices, if you could improve your ethanol yield by 0.01 gallon of ethanol per bushel of corn ground, a 100 MMgy ethanol plant could positively impact their bottom line by $1 million,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Everything from a simple slurry pH measurement, to fermentation [high-performance liquid chromatography] HPLC readings, through moisture measurement in the final denatured ethanol can impact this number.&rdquo;
The way to get there is through data integrity or placing the utmost importance on quality control. &ldquo;The lab must generate timely, accurate information in order for the right decisions to be made to maximize the plants profitability,&rdquo; Howes says. Making sure lab instruments are calibrated correctly to give proper readings can have a big impact but is often overlooked, he added.
Data integrity is crucial at a research facility like NCERC but it&rsquo;s no less important at production plants, says Sabrina Trupia, assistant director of biological research at the National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center. She makes the argument that the ethanol plant lab&rsquo;s ability to positively influence profitability is linked to whether it is staffed with qualified and well-trained employees. That&rsquo;s going to be the company&rsquo;s first line of defense in keeping yield at optimal levels, Trupia says. For example, a lab that utilizes the right tests and recognizes a stuck fermentor early on won&rsquo;t have to add additional antibiotics, yeast or enzymes, which can be costly. Not catching it on time could result in lower quality distillers grains as well as a loss of efficiency. &ldquo;In this day and age, where it is a really knife edge where a plant makes it or breaks it, it&rsquo;s even worse,&rdquo; she says. Howes agrees, adding that, &ldquo;In today&rsquo;s environment of very tight crush margins, there is no room for error.&rdquo;
Susan Scherlinger, the lab coordinator at Show Me Ethanol LLC, a 55 MMgy plant in Carrolton, Mo., also talked about the lab&rsquo;s role in holding the line on input costs and yield. Additionally, the lab provides checks and balances to ensure the company doesn&rsquo;t send out off-spec product to its customers, she says.&nbsp;
Having a quality control program in place is essential, says Wayne Mattsfield, manager of analytical and microbiological services for the Ethanol Performance Group, part of PhibroChem. He spoke about the topic in October at the fifth annual Fuel Ethanol Laboratory Conference, put on by Midland Scientific Inc. He recommends the use of data quality objectives, a process in use by industries and government organizations. It helps labs determine what&rsquo;s needed in data quality and the number of data samples, based on internal measurements of precision and accuracy. In some cases, the data might not need to be so precise, while other situations require careful accuracy.&nbsp; &ldquo;If you don&rsquo;t have a [quality control] program, there&rsquo;s really no way to determine that&mdash;how good the data happens to be&mdash;and therefore, you may not be able to monitor processes well,&rdquo; he said. Beefing It Up Ethanol producers searching for ways to improve their lab operations have a variety of options. NCERC, which is located 20 miles from downtown St. Louis, offers training for ethanol plant lab employees. Wherever training is completed, it is best accomplished in three stages, Trupia says. Initially, it&rsquo;s about exposure to lab procedures, followed by active demonstration and, finally, hands-on training. She has identified three intersecting components for successful lab staff: performance, understanding and communication.
Performance refers to their ability to put out reliable analysis and data with fewer samples needing to be re-run and less time spent on each test, Trupia says. &ldquo;If they are qualified, they know how to do it, they know how to do it well, they make fewer mistakes and they know that the data is reliable,&rdquo; she says.
Understanding the process is another significant factor in ethanol plant lab success. To illustrate this, Trupia recounts working with interns at NCERC. Yes, they might be able to complete tasks in the laboratory after someone else sets everything up for them. But without understanding how the instrument works, what the data is used for and even the ethanol production process, they are at a disadvantage. &ldquo;They can&rsquo;t just push buttons,&rdquo; she said, adding without understanding the process, a lab worker is unable to recognize or troubleshoot any problems that develop.
Finally, lab staff must be able to communicate what&rsquo;s discovered in the lab to operations. That means passing on the appropriate information, including more than just data values, she said. A past NCERC intern completed a master&rsquo;s thesis on improving communication between the lab and the ethanol plant and concluded that in order to respond quickly to changes in plant conditions, communication must be constant.
Scherlinger agrees that training is very important. She has been working at Show Me Ethanol since the plant started up in 2008, and was promoted from within because she had previous lab experience. The company is very good about sending her to conferences and training sessions and makes it clear that lab is a vital part of its daily operations. &ldquo;They come to you with a lot of questions,&rdquo; she says.
Iowa-based Efficient Green Energy also aims to help the ethanol industry improve lab operations. The startup company was launched in June, at the 2012 International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo, on the premise that lab data is vital to improving yield.&nbsp; &ldquo;We've seen a lot of variation in industry practice and firmly believe the companies who focus on the insight lab data provides are the ones who continue to succeed in our current operating environment,&rdquo; says Brian Steenhard, president of the company.
The company sees a gap in the ethanol industry&rsquo;s ability to harness lab data to make operational decisions. A crucial factor is the lab&rsquo;s ability to capture accurate data. In fact, one of the first things done, when beginning work with a new ethanol plant, is to go through the facility&rsquo;s records as far back as they exist, scrubbing it for errors. This helps identify meaningful relationships. &ldquo;Without accurate data, it&rsquo;s hard to make good, sound operational decisions,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;so our first step in the process is just to make sure that the data is cleaned up and as accurate as possible.&rdquo;
Efficient Green Energy also provides training for lab staff. All lab staff, whether they are new employees or seasoned lab workers, can benefit from additional training, Steenhard says, adding that there&rsquo;s a varied amount of expertise at work in ethanol plant labs. That can range from employing lab managers or technicians to simply utilizing operational staff, or some combination of all three. The company&rsquo;s training program focuses on helping employees understand the theory behind various lab tests and the path to optimal yield improvement, not just how to complete the tests.&nbsp;
On the data management side, Efficient Green Energy can offer ethanol production plants Ferm Up, its trademarked web-based data collection software. The company has also started a benchmarking program, specifically for ethanol plant labs. The ethanol industry is still evolving and it&rsquo;s valuable to have the opportunity to talk to others in the industry about things such as chemical trials and recipe variations.&nbsp; &ldquo;The industry needs those types of relationships, so that we can continue to promote ethanol as a viable alternative to gasoline,&rdquo; he says.
Mattsfield recommends that companies take advantage of training opportunities through local technical colleges or universities as well as attending relevant conferences and seminars. Like other companies, Phibro offers training at the plant or in the company&rsquo;s St. Paul, Minn., location. He emphasizes the positives of participating in proficiency sample programs, which can help an ethanol plant lab identify areas for improvement. One example is a round robin, in which a sample is split up among several different participants. Each lab analyzes the sample and the data is pooled for statistical examination, which reveals to each participant how close they came to the statistical mean. Phibro recently started a HPLC round robin among ethanol producers. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s just another way for laboratories to check to see how they fare against another laboratory statistically,&rdquo; he says.
Overall, he&rsquo;s impressed with the ethanol plant lab staff he has met. &ldquo;They are always eager to expand their knowledge and improve their processes,&rdquo; he says. The bottom line is that every lab should have an ongoing aim for advancement. &ldquo;There is a place for improvement in any laboratory, whether it be a well-established laboratory in industry or governmental laboratory,&rdquo; he said. Author: Holly Jessen Features Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

Lindsay Kuhn, lab manager at Homeland Energy Solutions LLC, works in the 140 MMgy ethanol plantâ€™s laboratory. 

2012/12/13548098262738.jpg

â€˜We've seen a lot of variation in industry practice and firmly believe the companies who focus on the insight lab data provides are the ones who continue to succeed in our current operating environment.â€™

2012/12/13548098265828.jpg

Sharon Kipp,  lab technician, takes a sample at Homeland Energy Solutions LLC.

2012/12/13548098269912.jpg

An in-house ethanol plant laboratory staffed with qualified, well-trained personnel is an indispensable edge in tough times.

Measurable Success

Calculating the current ethanol yield at Corn Plus LLLP is Courtney Trask&rsquo;s first duty when she reports to work at the 49 MMgy facility in Winnebago, Minn., each morning. As lab manager, Trask monitors pH and glucose levels, temperature and yeast health plantwide, all with an eye toward achieving maximum ethanol production. In her perpetual quest to optimize Corn Plus for ethanol, DDGS and corn-oil production while keeping bacterial infection at bay, the South Dakota State University graduate enlists the help of vendors, co-workers and peers she has met at industry events. When and where did your interest in science begin? Growing up on a cattle ranch in Western South Dakota gave me exposure to science at a young age. When we would treat our cattle or calves I was always a little curious about how the treatment actually worked. I knew as soon as I entered high school that I wanted to attend college to earn my doctorate degree in pharmacy. As my college career began, my plans didn&rsquo;t quite work out so I decided to go with the next science-based degree that I had a strong interest in, which led me to receive my (bachelor of science) in microbiology. I had no idea that my interest in microbiology would lead me to the places that it has in my career.&nbsp; What were your first days as a lab manager like? The learning curve was definitely steep.&nbsp; There is a lot to learn, and it can sometimes be overwhelming. I relied&mdash;and still do&mdash;heavily on my fellow employees, as well as vendors, to help decrease that overwhelming feeling. I attended several industry events right away and had the opportunity to create relationships with other lab managers in the industry. These relationships have also helped me become more familiar with the field and have allowed me to make more informed decisions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Talk a little about the counsel your vendors provide and how you utilize it as you go about your day. The ethanol process is monitored using a combination of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), pH, Brix, temperature, and yeast counts. Our fermentation process is also monitored every six hours, which means that each of the variables is different for each time during fermentation. Our vendors have been extremely helpful in sorting out which information is the most important to keep an eye on as well as what the numbers should look like at each hour. They have also been able to quickly analyze our data when our plant is struggling. Our HPLC rep has also been a huge help with assisting me in understanding our HPLC software to ensure we are getting accurate numbers. I also use my vendors when our plant is experiencing something that I haven&rsquo;t seen before; their knowledge is vast because they work with so many plants.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In the sea of numbers you are constantly measuring and analyzing, what is the one number you look at first each morning? Ethanol is what we were built to do, so that is definitely the number that I look at first.&nbsp; If these numbers are lower than I like to see, I begin looking at the multiple variables that can cause a fermenter to not finish with the desired amount of ethanol. The first variable that I turn to is glucose. This number is important in judging how well the fermenter performed because yeast utilizes the glucose to produce ethanol. This means that if the glucose number is high, the yeast could have utilized more of the glucose to produce more ethanol. When this is the case, then I start looking into the multiple factors that could cause yeast stress. It is indeed a very data-driven process, and it&rsquo;s an important part of my job to use the available data to make decisions about the performance of the plant.&nbsp; How much variance do you experience in the data you measure each day? Do your yields fluctuate quite a bit? Our yield does fluctuate more than I would like to see. There are just so many variables that are involved, that it can sometimes be difficult to determine where the problem may be coming from. It isn&rsquo;t uncommon to make several changes before you find the root cause of the problem. I do believe that as the plant becomes even more data-driven and as I become more comfortable with analyzing the data that the plant will begin to run more smoothly, and it will be easier to narrow down the source of the problem.
Do you see patterns emerging in the variations you see in the lab? Are there certain points in the process that end up on a short list of usual suspects? Patterns do tend to show up in the lab data. We like to say in this industry that &ldquo;trends are your friends.&rdquo; They often help to determine the source of the problem.&nbsp; There are definitely things that end up on a short list of usual suspects. These things are often verified by the trends that we see in the data.&nbsp; What can you tell me about the samples pulled from the plant each day? We have nine fermenters here at Corn Plus. Currently seven of those fermenters are online, and being tested every six hours. This means there are roughly 15 to 20 fermentation samples per shift, which means there can be close to 40 fermentation samples every 24 hours. This is only our fermentation samples. There are also multiple samples that the lab as well as the operators take every few hours or at least once daily to ensure that the plant is running smoothly.&nbsp; Can you explain what happens in a bacterial infection at an ethanol plant? Bacterial infections are most often caused by some type of dead leg in the process which is an area that cannot be properly cleaned. The corn mash can sit in this area, which just so happens to be the perfect pH, temp, and food source for bacteria growth to flourish. This can also be caused by improper cleaning, weak cleaning solution, or a multitude of other variables. From a microbiologist standpoint, I learned this piece of advice from a vendor just recently. If you have a pocket or dead leg of bacteria with a total cell count of 108, it only takes 1 gallon of that high bacterial contaminated mash into 1,000 gallons of clean mash to turn the clean mash into a 105 environment. In this industry, anything 105 or higher is considered an infection, so 1 gallon of infected mash can create a high risk environment early in fermentation.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It seems there is a sweet spot you are working to achieve and maintain from a production standpoint. Is this difficult to hold, or are you simply making minor adjustments to hold that position once it&rsquo;s established? There is definitely a sweet spot that we would like to run and I feel that we will get to a point where we can make only minor adjustments to keep within the sweet spot parameters. Our situation is difficult right now because we have implemented so many new things at the plant in the past few months. I strongly believe that the more and more comfortable we get with the new equipment the easier it will be to maintain the sweet spot for good production. I also understand that stuff happens and there will more than likely always be a threat for a situation to occur. The best we can do is become knowledgeable about the decisions that we make, and above all make decisions based on data.

2012/12/13548095864824.jpg

Courtney Trask talks about the vital role her vendors play in maximizing plant yield and how she and her team manage a dizzying amount of daily operational data.

Q & A:  Keeping Corn Plus in the Sweet Spot

An old-time plant manager once said he could tell there was trouble brewing by the smell when he arrived at the plant in the morning. A sudden contamination event causing that distinctly sour smell is often a relatively straightforward problem to solve. &ldquo;In a transient contamination, you might see something suddenly happen from one fermentation to the next, something suddenly dropped or changed and it&rsquo;s raising alarm bells in the process control system,&rdquo; explains Graeme Walker, scientific director of the Ethanol Institute and professor of zymology at the University of Abertay in Scotland.&nbsp; &ldquo;That might point to some contaminated material coming in, or something that an operator has done by mistake, perhaps leaving some cleaning solution in the fermentor.&rdquo;
The bigger challenge to the quality control team at an ethanol plant is spotting a chronic contamination well before it becomes an issue. The root problem can be ingrained in the process, Walker suggests, most likely residual contaminants that have been there quite a while, resistant to normal cleaning routines. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s the chronic situation that can be more difficult to identify and do something about,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;A chronic contamination gradually builds, showing up in small incremental changes in the process. The chronic contaminations would be a buildup of biofilms of contaminant bacteria in pipework, for example. These are difficult to remove because they are in the nooks and crannies where automatic cleaning systems won&rsquo;t remove them.&rdquo;
Biofilms are ubiquitous in industrial plants, he adds. &ldquo;Most living micro-organisms in nature exist in biofilms attached to surfaces. Certainly in the human body, bacteria stick to tissues in the body in the form of biofilms,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;And, keeping the medical analogy going, bacterial biofilms are notoriously difficult to treat with antibiotics and anti-infective drugs in a hospital environment. It&rsquo;s a similar scenario in an industrial environment. If you get a buildup of biofilms, you may occasionally kill just the upper surface of the biofilm cells but the ones that are deep-seated can be more resistant to antimicrobial agents.&rdquo;&nbsp;
Bacteria are a problem for ethanol producers because every molecule of acetic or lactic acid produced by a bacterium means there&rsquo;s one less molecule of ethanol produced by yeast. Bacteria grow very quickly in the right environment, doubling every 15 minutes to an hour, Walker says. Thus, theoretically, a single cell can multiply to more than a million (1 x 106) cells in five hours and to 2.8 x 1014 cells in 12 hours. The single most important tool in an ethanol plant&rsquo;s arsenal to limit that exponential growth is a microscope. &ldquo;Even fairly rudimentary microbiological monitoring is helpful,&rdquo; Walker says. &ldquo;By that I mean you don&rsquo;t have to have a PhD in microbiology working in your plant, but with relatively simple training you could get people to provide useful information.&rdquo; Gram stains, slide cultures and direct microscopy can be used to detect bacteria in samples and, by using certain dyes, can provide additional information on viability, morphology and identity of bacterial contaminants. There are also a number of rapid tests, such as bioluminescence methods where swabs can be used to take samples from tank walls and quickly show contamination using the accompanying luminometer.
Cleanliness is crucial to avoid contaminated fermentations, Walker stresses. &ldquo;That means you&rsquo;ve removed the vast majority of unwanted organisms.&rdquo; But with ethanol plants providing the ideal environment for micro-organisms&mdash;ethanol-producing yeast being the good and bacteria the bad&mdash;monitoring the levels of residual bacteria becomes the goal. &ldquo;Things to look out for include the consistency of alcohol production and yields from week-to-week and month-to-month,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;If things are beginning to show a downward trend that might point the finger at the levels of hygienic cleanliness in the plant, and the fermentation vessel particularly.&rdquo; Spotting Incremental Change In addition to watching for downward trends, ethanol producers need to know their baseline numbers, stresses Chris Richards, global sales manager for Lallemand Biofuels and Distilled Spirits. He&rsquo;s part of the Lallemand team troubleshooting fermentation issues and doing hygiene audits at ethanol plants. &ldquo;You have to know what your plant normally does when it is running well,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;so you can tell the difference when it is not.&rdquo; There can be quite a variation from plant to plant in those baseline numbers. A plant&rsquo;s quality control team can monitor ethanol yield trends as one baseline indicator. If yields begin to drift lower, it&rsquo;s time to look for issues in plant systems that can include issues with grind, with enzyme dosing or distillation inefficiencies. For fermentation quality assurance, increasing organic acid levels are a prime indicator of increasing bacterial contamination.
While the contamination may first be spotted in the fermentor&mdash;where any bacteria in the mash have many hours to multiply&mdash;the source may be elusive. &ldquo;You can have a contamination from a fill line or heat exchanger that only shows in the fermentor because the mash only remains in the heat exchanger for a few seconds or minutes,&rdquo; Richards explains.
Multiple samples need to be gathered from as many places as possible and analyzed, using one of several methods, such as titrations, high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) or fluorescence microscopes. The samples need to be re-analyzed after several hours to determine if bacteria are growing.&nbsp; An increase in the organic acids, or other indicators being tested, indicates a possible source of contamination.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;
Sometimes the sources of chronic contaminations are structural. Many plants were engineered for mechanics and cost effectiveness and not necessarily optimized for hygiene, Richards points out. Furthermore, when changes to a plant are proposed, the economic and process impacts are well studied, while the hygienic implications can sometimes be overlooked. He recommends that a plant&rsquo;s quality control team systematically select areas of the plant to review in detail, looking at each line connection and valve. &ldquo;Look at the product running through the branch or line and assess the risk to the process by looking at the type of product, frequency of cleaning and normal temperatures,&rdquo; he says. Look for and eliminate dead legs&mdash;lines that are no longer in use, or perhaps used only occasionally&mdash;and make sure that there is no potential for bacterial contamination to move into the process. An ongoing project for every plant should be to optimize the pipework, he adds. Key things to look for include verifying internal weld surfaces are polished, making sure valves aren&rsquo;t positioned too far from the T and finding any pipe runs with low points that are not drained. Each tank and all heat exchangers need scrutiny as well, using the same sort of logic as applied to pipework, Richards advises.
While plants can&rsquo;t change design easily, a good set of standard operating procedures can be designed to optimize hygiene.&nbsp; &ldquo;Find key performance indicators that can be used to monitor effectiveness,&rdquo; he says. Clean in place (CIP) procedures need to be reviewed to make sure the fluids are at the proper temperatures, the correct cleaners are used, the cleaning head is matched to the CIP cycle time and that the head is rotating properly. It can be easy to install a new cleaning head and not remember to make the appropriate adjustments, he adds. A rotating head with off timing can result in a significant portion of a tank not being properly cleaned.&nbsp;
Decisions to slow throughput could be problematic as well. A simplified example would be to slow the flow in the plant by 50 percent. &ldquo;What are the implications of this from a hygienic point of view?&rdquo; he asks. If the turbulence in the pipes and heat exchanges is reduced, particles are less likely to stay in suspension, he suggests, and deposits are more likely to form. Cleaning protocols may need to be adjusted to insure those deposits are flushed out.&nbsp; What&rsquo;s an Acceptable Loss? So, if bacteria are ubiquitous and plant design sometimes works against thorough hygiene, how clean is clean enough? &ldquo;We have to be realistic, alcohol plants are not pharmaceutical, they are not going to be sterile,&rdquo; Walker says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a case of keeping an eye on the process and monitoring potential contaminating microorganisms. It&rsquo;s going to be impossible to completely, 100 percent, remove them. As long as plant managers are able to live with what might be there, and it is not deleteriously affecting the yields and the process to a huge extent, that&rsquo;s probably going to be okay.&rdquo;
Mike Ingledew, professor emeritus at the University of Saskatchewan who preceded Walker as the scientific director of The Alcohol School, suggests that even low, 1 to 4 percent losses in well-operated plants adds up to serious money. Running his calculations a year ago, with 209 plants in the U.S. producing 14.76 billion gallons, Ingledew figured a 1 to 4 percent loss amounted to between 147 MMgy to 588 MMgy for the industry as a whole. With ethanol at $2.20 per gallon, that would add up to an average loss per plant ranging between $1.5 million to $6.2 million per year, all at low infection levels.
The move towards decreased antibiotic use has increased the chance for infections, Ingledew adds. &ldquo;In my view, unless someone finds new antimicrobials that act at low concentrations to kill or prevent growth of contaminant microbes, the industry's only recourse might become cleaning and sanitation of all vessels and ancillary equipment prior to addition of&nbsp; almost sterile mash and the adding of culture yeasts with very few contaminating microbes,&rdquo; Ingledew says. &ldquo;This cleaning and sanitation technology is already used in the dairy and brewing industries, but is more expensive and would reduce profits significantly.&rdquo;&nbsp; Dairies and breweries use things like caustic cleaning solutions, descalants, sodium hypochlorite, iodophors and hydrogen peroxide to sanitize. &ldquo;It will take such measures to eliminate the use of antibiotics, yet remove inherent contamination at decent cost,&rdquo; he adds. &ldquo;Serious microbial audits in the plant will become commonplace.&rdquo; Author: Susanne Retka Schill Contributions Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com

Removing lines no longer in use reduces potential for contamination.

2012/12/13548090006699.jpg

A blanked line on a fermentation outlet is an example of a dead leg where contaminants can hide.

2012/12/13548090013984.jpg

An example of clean yeast is shown with a fluorescence microscope, equipment that offers ethanol plant laboratories some advantages. 

2012/12/13548090018487.jpg

A florescence microscope illuminates a sample of round yeast cells contaminated with rod-shaped bacteria.

2012/12/13548090022575.jpg

Keeping bacteria in check for quality fermentations requires close attention to hygiene.

Ferm Assurance

Assembling for the first time since the recent&nbsp; election and the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s announcement&nbsp; that it will retain the renewable fuels standard, biofuels industry stakeholders met at the National Advanced Biofuels Conference &amp; Expo, held in Houston, Nov. 27-29. Presentations were given by advanced biofuel industry leaders. Michael McAdams, Advanced Biofuel Association president, was keynote speaker and Andrew Holland, senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project, also presented. During the general session panel, CEOs of advanced biofuel companies discussed the race to bring capacity for new biofuels online, as well as the need to increase production of existing biofuels. Attendees also participated in tours of the 35 MMgy REG Houston LLC state-of-the-art biodiesel plant and the USS Texas, a retired U.S. battleship.

Industry leaders meet  in Texas at advanced biofuels conference 

George Wackerhagen, vice president of Plant Operations and Technical Services for NAES Corp., has more than 30 years experience operating and maintaining power generation assets across a wide spectrum of technologies and fuels. He currently leads plant operations for 120 some facilities that NAES Corp. operates and maintains on behalf of its clients.&nbsp; With 400-plus MWs of biomass power already in its portfolio, NAES and Wackerhagen have established a significant presence in the industry. The team is now looking to grow its market share in the advanced biofuels space as conversion technologies are proven at pilot-scale and new facilities create a need for experienced operators. You&rsquo;ve spent the bulk of your career in energy generation. Where did you get your start? After graduating with a degree in electrical engineering, I spent the first part of my career in design, operation and maintenance of electrical systems, focusing on reliability, capital improvements and customer service in a large utility. I moved into the merchant generation field in the mid-&rsquo;90s and ultimately lead operations and maintenance (O&amp;M) for a variety of power facilities and technologies around the world. I accepted the opportunity to join NAES and the O&amp;M organization in 2009. I had watched NAES grow significantly during this time, and knew they were a global market leader and one of the best in the business. And, I love the O&amp;M business and the challenges of operating more than 100 facilities and multiple technologies around the world. What aspect of energy generation has changed the most since you began your career? Clearly, the efforts to deregulate the industry and the fits and starts of this evolving reality has changed the business markedly during the last 20 years. The industry has gone from the rate-base staid utility model to one with very smart, innovative investors who view risks in different ways through new economic lenses ground by regional market signals.&nbsp; Contributing to this change is the evolution of new innovations in fuels and technologies in conventional generation, and by interest in renewables as the industry seeks to produce more environmentally friendly energy with a wider variety of fuels.&nbsp; What has been the biggest contributor to the growth of NAES Corp. since 2002 when it had fewer than 20 operating facilities in its portfolio compared to nearly 120 now? The short answer is that there are really two major contributors. The first is the external market, which became increasingly complex and forced companies to operate in areas where they had limited expertise. The result was a significant need within the industry to outsource to companies whose models were built on transparency, owner-alignment and being exceptional at one thing. The second is more specific to NAES and stems from our laser-like focus on providing flawless operations and maintenance to facilities so that our clients can focus on what they do best. We are firm believers in the concept that if you can&rsquo;t be best in the world at something, you shouldn&rsquo;t be doing it. We are also focused on taking advantage of our fleet size. This pays dividends to our customers in terms of purchasing power. By connecting facilities of similar technologies, needs, or problems, we are better able to quickly discern and solve issues, which pay dividends in performance. Our biomass managers routinely talk with one another and with in-house technical experts about specific problems. We also see interaction between coal and other conventional boiler plant personnel as well due to the use of common technologies in plant systems. It is the advantage of connecting to others and being part of a virtual fleet.&nbsp;&nbsp; NAES operates virtually all types of generation facilities including biomass power facilities. What are the challenges unique to biomass power facilities? &nbsp;We&rsquo;ve been operating biomass facilities for 25 years and you don&rsquo;t have to go far to see the unique challenges in biomass. It starts with the fuel; supply price and quality, delivery and handling, the works. Weather affects the biomass fuel supply from the gathering process right on through the combustion process. There are also significant technological differences among facilities. The types of boilers can have a major impact on day-to-day operations as well as routine and annual maintenance requirements. We create different boiler management plans for facilities that would otherwise appear similar in scale and scope.&nbsp; We are also working with many late-stage developers in the commercialization of second-generation biomass-to-fuels plants. These are innovative, but also unproven technologies at commercial-scale. The result is that there are significant unknowns in terms of their actual operational and maintenance profiles so it will take the whole of our experience and infrastructure to support their success. &nbsp; In our industry there is a lot of discussion about modifying coal plants to cofire biomass. Operationally, how feasible is this? Is it more likely that we&rsquo;ll see a migration to completely reconfiguring for biomass like the Drax Power Station facility in the U.K.? &nbsp;In our experience today, we see many facilities in the process of cofiring or switching from coal to biomass with fairly simple changes in fuel handling, boiler front, and controls. With the significant pressure on coal, we expect to see conversions to exclusive biomass fuel continuing, supporting both the renewable mandates in states and regions as well as limiting capital investments in emissions control equipment as required in a coal operation. We have some clients that are in the process of completing coal-to-biomass conversions for these reasons. After a planned outage for maintenance, is there an appreciable difference in efficiency and output at a facility, or is maintenance performed predominantly to extend the life of the parts and pieces in a given facility?&nbsp; We always have our eyes on efficiency as it tells you a lot about the shape of your facility both before the outage and after a maintenance outage. It can tell you if you have accomplished what you set out to do. But in a biomass facility, much of an outage is about replacing or refurbishing worn parts. Ultimately, with an expert job in the outage, we expect to attain improvements in efficiency and reliability.&nbsp; What percentage of the work performed during a scheduled maintenance outage arises from something discovered during an inspection of the plant once it is idled?&nbsp; We are clearly working to plan maintenance in a biomass facility using observation, performance and predictive programs such as vibration monitoring, oil testing and thermography to identify the appropriate scope of work for an outage. Obviously, the more we can predict and plan, the smoother and more effectively the outage will go. We are working to reduce the unplanned work in the outage to less than 10 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp; NAES recently rehabilitated two smaller biomass facilities in California. Where do you begin in your efforts to bring a facility back into production?&nbsp; When NAES takes on the operation and maintenance of a facility, we look immediately at problems that are affecting those things most important to our customers and those things that produce the most value for our customer&rsquo;s dollar. Often this includes an analysis of all single points of failure with a corresponding assessment and evaluation of what can be done to fix the problem. The team at the facility is supported by NAES technical staff to find the best solutions to the problems. We are also able to draw on experiences at other facilities with similar problems for potential solutions. While facilities may have significant differences, there can often be similarities at a system or subsystem level where other facility expertise can help. We have to drive performance.

2013/01/QA-Biomass-Wackerhagen-0113_13575908884094.jpg

NAES Corp.'s George Wackerhagen discusses strategies to keep a diverse portfolio of energy generation facilities, including 400-plus MWs of biomass power, operational and at peak efficiency.  


Minding the Fleet

When personnel at Wheelabrator Inc.&rsquo;s 53 MW waste-to-energy (WtE) plant in Falls Township, Penn., are ready to commence a scheduled plant outage, meticulous planning has been underway for many months, including procurement of materials and agreements with contractors.
 That&rsquo;s the case with all of the company&rsquo;s plants, according to Art Posey, Wheelabrator senior manager of maintenance, because a high level and detail of planning is the key to successful execution of an outage.
 &nbsp;Like coal and other types of power plants, WtE and biomass power facilities undergo several outages a year&mdash;both major and minor&mdash;and plans are dictated by several factors, including weather, electrical demand and trash flow, which is unique to WtE plants. If all goes well with maintenance, unplanned shutdowns are minimal.
 For the plant maintenance team at Covanta Energy, the job is never done. When a major outage is complete, planning for the next one begins immediately, says Frank Miller, vice president of maintenance technology. Deciding the right time for an outage isn&rsquo;t just a matter of choosing a random date, however, as there are many factors that need to be taken into account. &ldquo;Your commitment on the power side of things is taken into consideration&mdash;whether your permit or agreement with the local utility agrees with the optimum time to do an outage&mdash;as well as economic drivers such as fuel opportunities and cost in the case of biomass plants, and also practical issues, meaning the condition of the boiler,&rdquo; Miller says.
 During a boiler&rsquo;s years of operation, various components will need to be replaced, and their condition from outage to outage is heavily scrutinized. This includes auxiliary equipment or equipment external to the boiler such as fans, motors and conveyors, and internal boiler components including pressure parts, water wall tubes, super heaters, and various parts needed to generate steam in the boiler. &ldquo;They all have a finite life and replacement has to be planned out,&rdquo; Miller says.&nbsp;
 Major maintenance done at an WtE plant or biomass plant may vary for numerous reasons, one of which may be the long-term replacement plan for a particular part or piece, and its year-to-year condition.&nbsp; &ldquo;We monitor the boilers when they come down, perform nondestructive testing, measure wall-to-wall thickness, and the thickness of the tubes through extensive parts of the boiler,&rdquo; Miller says. This helps maintenance answer the question of what immediate repairs need to be done, versus repairs integrated into the long-term plan.
 Prior to the boiler being brought down, Covanta requires completion of a unique set of internal technical safety standards that must be completed, most of which are inspections. At that point, the plant is ready to undergo an outage.
 Cooling and Cleaning
 Accurately deciding when to cease trash flow to the boiler can influence whether the outage begins at the agreed-upon time, Posey says, as trash has to be fully processed through the unit and the ash run out, followed by a cooling process. That takes some time, as a typical WtE plant can reach temperatures above 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. How fast a boiler cools greatly depends on the size and configuration of boilers, according to Miller, but typically it takes anywhere from 6 to 12 hours. WtE plants&rsquo; cooling rates vary greatly on the amount of refractory in the boiler, a cement or concrete-like material that is often sprayed onto boiler walls with a gun apparatus, or applied in the form of blocks or various-shaped tile. &ldquo;Its primary purpose is to protect the tubes in the combustion zone where it does a couple of things, one of which is to protect tubes from impingements or excessive heat,&rdquo; Miller explains. By capturing the heat energy from combustion, refractory works as part of the temperature profile throughout the boiler. Distribution of heat in the boiler isn&rsquo;t uniform, Miller adds, as it happens more intensely in some areas than others.
 Aside from the refractory, a lot of heat is still trapped in the boiler water and steam, so cool water and air are circulated through the boiler to get it down to a proper temperature for entry. Then, the outage crew begins an hour-by-hour plan that maps out the sequence of activities that must occur from the time the boiler is down to when it is generating power again, beginning with an initial inspection from outside of the boiler to gauge the amount of deslagging work required.
 &ldquo;You don&rsquo;t enter a boiler unless it&rsquo;s properly locked and tagged out, with safe entry permits,&rdquo; Miller says. &ldquo;These initial inspections are done from doorways to get an idea of the condition of the boiler.&rdquo;
 Cleaning may begin with the use of high-pressure, industrial water spray equipment to remove ash and soot, according to Posey. Standard practice at a WtE plant is to then dynamite the boiler in various locations. &ldquo;The reason we do that is because fly ash is very sticky, and depending on the configuration of tubes and their shapes, it tends to stick and accumulate in various places&mdash;in the realm of tons&mdash;forming clinkers,&rdquo; Miller explains.
 Once clinkers are cooled off, they sometimes fracture and fall or dislodge on their own, but in many cases personnel have to help them along.
 Although biomass power plants have some slagging issues, they aren&rsquo;t to the extent of WtE plants, and rather than in the combustion zone, they occur in the superheater sections of the boiler. &ldquo;The reason for that is because many boilers are designed as big boxes made of water wall tubes with an open path for the flue gas to pass through, but various components of the boiler may hang down in that path&mdash;sometimes called pendants&mdash;intentionally getting in the way of the flue gas to absorb heat,&rdquo; Miller says.
 Those obstructions cause a mixture of fly ash and sand from the biomass boilers to accumulate in the superheater areas, typically cleaned out with dynamite detonation cords, which are wound with much smaller amounts of dynamite and then wrapped around the boiler tubes. &ldquo;When it&rsquo;s ignited, it causes the tubes to shake violently, instead of resulting in the concussion you get from a dynamite blast,&rdquo; Miller says.
 In the case of both WtE and biomass boilers, employees or contractors usually finish the deslagging process by knocking out loose bits of slag and ash with long sticks. The resulting slag may be run out on the grate system or manually removed from the boiler, depending on where it is.
 Overall, a good deslagging experience takes around 8 hours, Miller says, and a not-so-good experience requires around 20 hours of work. Usually, it&rsquo;s completed during a 12-hour shift.
 Since a boiler is considered a confined work area by the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, there are safe operating procedures that have to be followed in order to achieve a permit necessary for entry. This includes locking shut all of the steam and water valves leading to the boiler so work can take place without any chance of cutting into pressurized lines, Posey explains, as well as locking out electrical supply to fans, pumps and conveyors. The boiler is drained and vented, moving equipment including ash and grate systems are shut down, and the air in the boiler is sampled to ensure it is safe for sustained work. Once that&rsquo;s been completed, permits are issued for entry and work can begin.
 Permits and Inspection 
 The extent of scaffolding, which is typically erected in the major passages of a boiler, largely determines whether the outage is major or minor. Once it&rsquo;s erected, the operations group controlling the outage issues permits to various work groups, which may be working in or outside of the boiler.
Shift supervisors usually sign off on the permits, but sometimes there are separate outage supervisors, according to Miller. &ldquo;Typically, it&rsquo;s dictated by how much work is going on, but operations always controls the boiler and plant environment, and maintenance performs the work, first complying with the safe work permit process.&rdquo;
 Permitting is not a simple process. Each work group leader has to understand how a permit is issued, what safety precautions need to be taken and what has to be locked out. Every Covanta employee or contractor working on the site is required to put a personal lock on a lock box, augmented with a key that will unlock the boiler. &ldquo;Sometimes, you may have upward of 300 people working in an outage, and every employee locks himself on that permit, so it cannot be closed out until all of the locks are off,&rdquo; Miller says.
 Once again, planning is key, as the plan must include what permits come out first, what has to be done in what order, and what time contractors are to show up.&nbsp; &ldquo;Permits become a major boiler activity&mdash;making sure the planner or maintenance department knows exactly the sequence of events becomes very important, as well as the estimation of time it will take to walk down the permits.&rdquo;
 Once permitting to access the scaffolding is obtained, typically the first internal work done is cursory inspections, or boiler walkthroughs to gain an idea of their condition. It may be what was expected, but occasionally is not. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ll also do extensive nondestructive testing, which can be done in many different ways,&rdquo; Miller explains. &ldquo;Typically in our industry, we use ultrasonic metal thickness testing, which measures boiler tube and boiler wall thickness. It&rsquo;s a direct way of measuring the condition of the tube and the rate of metal loss, the primary causes of which are erosion and corrosion.&rdquo;
 Erosion and corrosion occur to different degrees in biomass power plants and WtE plants. At a WtE plant, anything can make its way into the waste stream, including plastics and items containing lots of chlorides and sulfides. At high temperatures, salts become very aggressive in regard to corrosion, according to Miller. &ldquo;You don&rsquo;t really see salt in the fuel stream at biomass plants, but they have other, less-aggressive things going on,&rdquo; he says. &rdquo;[Biomass plants] have sticky and sand-like fly ash, and typically use a bed of sand in the combustion zone, so that sand also goes through the flue gas stream until it is separated. Operating for thousands of hours at high temperatures while being sand blasted causes boiler tubes to have aggressive erosive metal loss, but not to the extent of a WtE plant of a similar size.&rdquo;
 A key to preventing boiler tube erosion and corrosion is proper application of Inconel, a stainless steel alloy that was invented a couple decades ago. &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve been in the business since they first started building plants, and we fought this aggressive corrosive and erosive environment for many years trying to understand what was causing it,&rdquo; Miller says. &ldquo;Over time, numerous things improved, such as how we were combusting trash and our combustion controls, but one thing we continued to notice is that regular boiler tubes, which are typically just carbon steel, were very susceptible to that double whammy of corrosion and erosion.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Using Inconel, which is welded on the outside of the tube internal to the boiler as an overlay, has extended boiler tube life significantly. &ldquo;In some cases 20 years,&rdquo; Miller says, adding that Covanta has a dedicated Inconel crew.&nbsp;
 The initial erosion and corrosion inspections and overall boiler evaluation should result in a good map of pressure part conditions, most of which are typically anticipated. &ldquo;Operating these boilers for 20 years, we have a pretty good idea of metal loss rates,&rdquo; says Miller, who has a total of 35 years in the energy industry. &ldquo;We try to predict where particular components or parts of the boiler will be at a certain time and plan accordingly, but we also have to be ready to respond to as-found conditions. They might be more aggressive than we expected, so we have to be ready for that with two plans of action: anticipated work, and emergent work or as-found conditions.&rdquo;
 Work and Unplanned Outages
 With such a range of different maintenance and repair work to do, having a do-it-all person in-house for most waste-to-energy or biomass power companies isn&rsquo;t realistic. At Wheelabrator, specialty repair contractors are utilized to perform most of the work done during an outage, Posey says. &ldquo;Our employees are involved in all aspects of the outage, but are vastly outnumbered by the contractors brought in to perform the bulk of the work.&rdquo; While all plant maintenance and operations personnel are involved in an outage, as well as employees from other Wheelabrator facilities and regional outage teams, contractors for water washing and/or blasting, scaffolding, testing and inspection, mechanical repairs, certified boiler repair, refractory, insulation and valve repair may all be brought in, as well as representatives from equipment manufacturers.
 For a company like Covanta Energy, which owns or operates more than 40 plants across the U.S., it&rsquo;s a different story. &ldquo;Covanta Field Services&rsquo; primary job is to perform boiler work in most of the facilities we own and operate,&rdquo; Miller explains. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a 148-employee, five-crew team that travels to various plants when they are down for repair to perform the actual, physical repair work on the boilers.&rdquo;
 Covanta has 200 to 210 outages per year with so many plants, and CFS performs approximately 80 percent of those outages. Each plant typically undergoes two outages a year, one major and one minor. &ldquo;Since we&rsquo;ve pursued a very aggressive pressure part program during the last five to six outages, we&rsquo;ve been able to go to one major and one minor outage a year, usually about six months apart,&rdquo; Miller says. &ldquo;Having a good boiler reliability program allows us to do a lot of preplanning and preparation of components on a planned basis, rather than on an as-found basis, which is very costly and time consuming.&rdquo;
 Still, unplanned down time does happen. &ldquo;Unscheduled outages occur several times a year in most boilers,&rdquo; Posey says. &ldquo;Tube failures are, by far, the leading cause of unscheduled boiler outages, which typically last about 24 hours.&rdquo;
 Tube failures can affect other tubes in their vicinity, causing them to fail as well, so when a water or steam tube is repaired, it&rsquo;s important to perform a wide inspection of the area to determine what else might have been affected. &ldquo;Nobody likes to fix a tube leak and then have to bring the boiler back down after discovering a nearby tube is leaking,&rdquo; Miller says.
 Unplanned outages can also be caused by other component failures such as a motor on an important fan or a pressure part leak, and while they are turned around as fast as possible, any active work orders are also attended to.
 Overall, outage costs vary with the size and design of the plant, and in the case of WtE plants, the annual refuse throughput. Typically, according to both Posey and Miller, around 75 percent of a plant&rsquo;s annual maintenance budget is spent during outages. As plant operators and maintenance personnel continue to achieve innovation and expertise, however, that number is going down. &ldquo;We have improved our boiler availability so much that the historical reasons for boilers to come down for repair&mdash;tube failures&mdash;is really dwindling,&rdquo; Miller adds. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s really allowing us to focus on the secondary problems.&rdquo; Author: Anna Simet Contributions Editor, Biomass Magazine asimet@bbiinternational.com 701-751-2756
&nbsp;
 Overcoming Unplanned Outages By Luke Geiver
 The best way to handle unplanned outages or severe weather events is to be prepared before they happen. The team at ReEnergy Holdings Inc., a New York-based biomass operations company that runs 12 plants throughout the Northeastern U.S., has the experience to prove it. In the fall of 2011, the team had to deal with a record-breaking winter storm system, and earlier this year, the team endured Hurricane Sandy.
 Jim White, vice president of operations, says all of his plants establish guidelines and procedures to address emergency conditions for different types of events. For weather related events, each facility&rsquo;s staff will perform a safety check before a storm hits, securing loose material or equipment, clearing walk downs to avoid flying debris and verifying that shift personnel have the appropriate supplies in case they are required to stay past their shift. In some instances, a plant may have to purchase extra feedstock, backup equipment or storm clean-up supplies prior to the peak of a weather event. &ldquo;We try to minimize any potential damage to equipment,&rdquo; White says, in addition to the company&rsquo;s main goal of plant personnel safety. &ldquo;Most of the equipment has a redundancy; there will be two of everything. As we start to see some concerns, we can energize another pump or take one offline to protect the equipment.&rdquo;
 When a storm is approaching, each plant team will provide input on what to expect based on past events, White adds. But that isn&rsquo;t the only important communication line that should be in place. Most biomass plant managers need to be in contact with the regions Independent System Operator, the electricity grid&rsquo;s governing body. &ldquo;We have an obligation to make sure we are communicating with them [ISO] as far as what issues we may be having onsite,&rdquo; White says. In some cases, an ISO may require a plant to decrease generation due to grid issues or the loss of transmission lines. At times, he says, a plant may have to cycle the equipment off proactively to prevent any significant damages, an action that might allow the plant to go online sooner after an unscheduled shutdown. In other cases, a plant manager may have to inform an ISO that strong winds or heavy rains are impacting production. &ldquo;This is where interaction with the ISO is critical,&rdquo; White says. &ldquo;When we come out of these events we look at what we can tweak to our systems to make them better.&rdquo;

HARD WORK PAYS OFF: Scheduled maintenance at a biomass facility provides an opportunity for cleaning, testing and, in some cases, equipment upgrades. 

2013/01/Main-Biomass-Gloucester-0113_13575918804408.jpg

IMPROVING PERFORMANCE: Extending boiler tube life can be achieved by welding an overlay onto the tubes to prevent corrosion and erosion. 



2013/01/Main-Biomass-Maintenancework-0113_13575918775185.jpg

PREPARING FOR DISASTER: All ReEnergy employees prepare for oncoming storms by analyzing plant data taken during similar situations. 



2013/01/Main-Biomass-Lyonsdale-0113_13575918833347.jpg

Scheduled outages for plant maintenance and repairs are essential to overall efficiency and functionality.

Planned Outage Protocol

Flat die and ring die pellet mills are the two major designs used in global biomass pellet manufacturing. Each design has its own characteristics and advantages, so in order to select appropriate machinery based on production requirements, as well as efficient maintenance and repair work later on, the features of each should be investigated.
 The Flat Die Design 
 Flat die pellet mills work on a unique vertical design, using gravity as the main force for feeding material through the machine. It hosts a horizontal die with a series of rollers above it, and a screw-center adjusting pressure structure that makes it the more practical pellet mill. The pressed rollers' gap can be adjusted slightly bigger or smaller, and the pellet compression ratio is also adjustable, enabling a manufacturer to meet different pelletizing requirements. Meanwhile, this design greatly reduces pressure to the die and avoids unnecessary malfunction.
 There are two different designs of flat die pellet mill that can make it widely applicable and durable. The first has a rotating die with a stationary roller shaft, and the other has a stationary die with a rotating roller shaft. These two different designs have their own unique features, so one should choose the design according to the raw materials. Generally speaking, if you want to make biomass pellets, you should choose the type with rotating rollers and stationary die.
 The Ring Die Design
 The ring die pellet mill has a sophisticated structure design, the die mold and roller being the most important components. The ring die is drilled with many holes and encloses two rollers fixed on a support. After hardening and tempering, materials enter the ring die cover through inclined channel.
After continuous use and wear, the ring die needs to be changed to guarantee the smooth operation, and it also needs to be equipped with an imperative feeding device. As materials such as wood sawdust, corn, wheat, rice and straw are very light, they need to be pushed into the pelletizing chamber by force. Unlike flat die pellet mills with gravity principles, ring die pellet mills need a feeder device that ensures the machine operates smoothly, allowing for continuous and efficient production.
 The compression rate of a ring die pellet mill cannot be adjusted. Flat die pellet mills ensure an adjustable compression rate that protects the die to a degree, but the uncontrollable pressure of ring die pellet mill, triggered by structural constraints, can suppress materials beyond the pressure load, leading to a broken roller bearing.
 Understanding the design of both a ring die pellet mill and flat die pellet mill, how does one maintain and repair a pellet mill in the &ldquo;right&rdquo; way?
 Maintainence and Repair
 After reviewing the pellet mill design and characteristics, it&rsquo;s important to be aware that operation and maintenance of a machine is also very important because the right use of a pellet mill directly affects the economic benefit. With a flat die pellet mill, one will find that it is easier to access the pellet mill chamber, compared to the ring die pellet mill, while the worn die needs to be changed. Flat die pellet mills have the advantage of the adjustable compression rate, which can reduce roller shell wear, and are significantly superior in the five main areas of to machinery maintenance and repair, the first is consistently checking easy-wear parts.
 For a flat die pellet mill, checking the quick-wear parts at a regular time is easy to do because of its simple design; for the ring die pellet mill, irregularly scheduled inspection is required, and is more challenging due to its complicated structure.
 Regularly adding oil to transmission parts is another important component of maintenance and repair. All transmission parts should be lubricated at a fixed time to ensure long service, and all component parts should also be checked carefully, on a weekly basis especially to determine whether connected parts are loose and if the stroke switch can operate reliably. Regularly cleaning of the screw conveyor and conditioner is also necessary.
 The next and most important aspect of the pelletizing process is the selection of a suitable compression ratio. One should choose different compression ratios according to different materials. so as to improve capacity and reduce wear.
 Last, regularly changing the lubricating oil of the gearbox will lengthen service life.
 Solving Common Malfunctions 
 After functioning for a period of time, both the ring die and flat die will wear. If the die mold isn&rsquo;t changed when it should be, it will directly affect the productivity and pellet quality. Regularly removing and replacing the die is necessary for both flat die pellet mill and ring die pellet mill, but the process for replacing a ring die is troublesome due to the heavy weight of the die the complicated design of the machine.
 Like the die mold, the roller shell is an easy-wear part. Compared with a flat die pellet mill, the roller shell of ring die pellet mill is easier broken, due to uncontrollable pressure. At this point, the flat die pellet mill has an outstanding advantage of an adjustable compression rate, which can reduce roller shell wear.
 Bearing lubrication is very important for all machines. To reduce damage to bearings and ensure they are in normal condition, they should be regularly lubricated. Going too far, however, is as bad as not going far enough: too much oil can also cause damage to a bearing.
 Overloading can cause great damage to both the reduction gear and motor, so it must be avoided. If it does happen, broken parts should be quickly repaired or changed.
 Finally, the gap between ring die and pressure roller should be regularly adjusted to avoid violent vibration damage to the transmission parts and bearing guard.
 While the aforementioned recommendations will help prevent malfunctions, a flat die pellet mill has several advantages when it comes to repair.
 Flat Die Pellet Mill Repair Advantages
 Pellet mill repair is an important area of focus. While each design has its own advantages and disadvantages regarding repair, decades of practical experience and professional feedback indicate the flat die pellet mill is incomparably superior: its structural design is simple, it is&nbsp; easy to operate, move and maintain, and the failure rate is lower.
 Because the flat die pellet mill is structured with a pressure-adjusting screw center, the size of the pressed roller gap can be adjusted smaller or bigger to meet the demand of different materials&mdash;even coarse and difficult-to-process materials can be pelletized. The ring die pellet mill, however, is diametrically opposite. The pressure of coarse and difficult materials combined with its nonadjustable design may increase the need for repairs and their attendant costs.
 Replacement parts for a flat die pellet mill are less expensive than parts for a ring die pellet mill, due to the more complex design of the ring die mill, whose equipment is heavy and particular, and consequently more expensive to replace, especially in the production line. When wear and tear occur in ring die pellet mill parts, usage and maintenance costs will be much higher than those of a flat die pellet mill.
 Systematic staff training is indispensable for the pelletizing industry. Staff training at a flat die pellet mill is much easier&ndash;&ndash;the machine is easier to operate, compared with ring die pellet mill, so staff training will not be as complicated. Based on the simple structure design and easy-to-move characteristic of flat die pellet mills, personnel can master repair techniques and carry out&nbsp; them out professionally and efficiently.
 As a final comparison, the changing of a pellet mill roller and die is easier in a flat die pellet mill, as the pellet mill chamber is more accessible, thereby saving time when changing the die. By contrast, changing out a worn ring die in a ring die pellet mill is a rather complicated process.
 In conclusion, proper operation and maintenance is the key to extending the service life of pellet mills, so maintenance and repair must be carried out properly to achieve a high product output, consuming less time and increasing corporate profits. Author: Linda Zhu Zhengzhou Amisy Machinery info@pellets-mill.com http://www.pellets-mill.com

The ring die pellet mill has a sophisticated structure design; the die mold and roller are the most important components.



2013/01/Pel-Biomass-Ring-0113_13575921354806.jpg

Flat die pellet mills work on a unique vertical design, using gravity as the main force for feeding material through the machine.


2013/01/Pel-Biomass-Flat-0113_13575921397521.jpg

Repair advantages and disadvantages should be considered when selecting the most suitable option for a pellet manufacturer.

Pellet Mill Repair: Flat Die Versus Ring Die

This month&rsquo;s issue of Biomass Magazine focuses its editorial lens on a critical component of plant operations&ndash;&ndash;maintenance&mdash;and outlines how efficient and well-considered maintenance programs are currently being carried out across the industry. Anna Simet&rsquo;s feature, &ldquo;Planned Outage Protocol&rdquo; takes readers on a stepwise journey through the planned outages that occur at biomass and waste-to-energy facilities across this country. The article is rich in detail and quotes from industry maintenance chiefs, including Frank Miller, vice president of maintenance technology for Covanta Energy, and Art Posey, senior manager of maintenance for Wheelabrator Inc.
 Simet&rsquo;s feature establishes that a majority of facilities experience one major and one minor planned outage each year. A quick calculation then suggests that in the biomass sector alone in any given week in this country, five to seven facilities, on average, are offline and vital maintenance is being performed. The quality of the plan and the expertise of the professionals performing the work determines how quickly the plant comes back online, to efficiently generate not only power, but also revenue. This reality is underscored in this month&rsquo;s Q&amp;A with George Wackerhagen of industry operations and maintenance provider NAES Corp., who notes that &ldquo;with an expert job in the outage, we expect to attain improvements in efficiency and reliability.&rdquo;
 In the same scope, Kolby Hoagland, map and data manager at BBI International, posted a graphic on his Nov. 29 blog at www.biomass magazine.com that illustrates the difference between a biomass power plant&rsquo;s nameplate capacity and its capacity factor, which is the amount of electricity that a power plant actually produces and what it could potentially produce if the plant were run at capacity over an entire year. Hoagland notes that a number of factors contribute to the achieved capacity factor output of each facility, including planned outages to perform plant maintenance.
 Hoagland's blog paints a picture of a broad range of capacity factors achieved across the industry, and while he notes that factors beyond maintenance do contribute, it is clear from the professionals quoted in this month&rsquo;s issue that industry leading producers heavily invest in robust, well-considered and expertly executed maintenance plans, in a perpetual effort to keep their facilities online and at maximum output.

2013/01/Tim3_2010_13575897439133.jpg

Preventative Maintenance for Maximum Performance

This year, Germany implemented &ldquo;Energiewende,&rdquo; a decades-long, common-sense strategy for promoting sustainable, clean energy. Already, the Germans are producing 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources, with biomass accounting for 22 percent of all renewable energy.
 The strategy isn&rsquo;t so different from what we have been talking about for years here in the U.S., and in some cases, implemented on a state level. The Germans, however, have been much more successful in putting ideas into workable national policy.
 One way that the German approach is different from ours is how they talk about energy policy. The conservative German government has cleverly tied its new strategy to market principles, in addition to the sustainability and environmental messages. Often in the U.S., sustainable energy is framed in binary terms. The right wing is hesitant to interfere with market forces, while the left wing idealizes carbon-free solutions that are unattainable. As a result, it&rsquo;s hard to find the middle ground where we can agree that long-term investment in a variety of energy solutions makes sense for both market and environmental concerns.&nbsp;
 Another way that German policy differs from ours is the degree to which individual Germans are invested in the country&rsquo;s energy outcomes. This program has decentralized energy generation, making funding available to local utilities, individual energy producers and rural communities. This has enabled highly-tailored, localized energy solutions, the opposite of one-size-fits-all.
 The best part about this plan is that it is projected to create significant job growth, alongside major savings on energy. The Germans believe that by 2020, they will have added 500,000 jobs to their economy, and they will be making a dent in their national debt by annually spending 22 billion euros less on fossil fuels.
 Hopefully, if and when the U.S. gets around to confronting our energy future, we will be able to emulate parts of Energiewende. If we can learn one thing from the Germans, it should be that the market and the environment don&rsquo;t have to be opposing forces.
 Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association www.biomasspowerassociation.com bob@biomasspowerassociation.com

2013/01/Bob-Cleaves_Standing_13575899861431.jpg

Germany: The Gold Standard of  Long-Term Renewables Strategy

A number of recent reports have highlighted the role that combined heat and power (CHP) can play in meeting the nation&rsquo;s energy needs in coming decades. Distributed CHP systems can replace retiring coal-fired power plants, improve overall efficiency in the electric power sector, and reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Most analyses presume new CHP systems will be fueled by natural gas, yet, relatively little attention has been given to the potentially significant contribution biomass CHP systems could make when used in current and future integrated biorefineries.
 At the end of August, the White House released an executive order to increase installed CHP capacity in the U.S. by 50 percent, or 40 gigawatts, by 2020. At the same time, the U.S. DOE released a report on the status and trends in CHP deployment, and in October, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released its own report, &ldquo;Combined Heat and Power Technology Fills an Important Energy Niche.&rdquo;
 The EIA report findings included that there were about 70 GW of CHP generating capacity in the U.S., accounting for almost 7 percent of total U.S. capacity, with 25 GW in the industrial sector, 2 GW in the commercial sector, and 43 GW in the electric power sector. In 2011, the average capacity factor for generators at industrial CHP plants was 57 percent.
 It also found that more than 65 percent of CHP plants use natural gas as fuel.
 In another recent report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, &ldquo;Coal Retirements and the CHP Investment Opportunity,&rdquo; it was found that CHP systems could theoretically replace more than 100 percent of the anticipated retirements of coal-fired power plants across a dozen states by 2020, &ldquo;but given current policies and recent installation trends, it appears taking advantage of that technical potential could be a challenge.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 The report points out that policies and regulations do not always encourage CHP deployment, and almost all of the states that are facing higher levels of potential coal retirements do not have most of the critical policies in place that yield a healthy investment environment for CHP. Nonetheless, the report finds that &ldquo;while CHP is not positioned to fully replace the lost capacity, it can play a substantial role in meeting these needs, especially in certain states.&rdquo;
 Aside from recognizing other various benefits, none of the aforementioned reports consider the potentially significant contribution to power production that CHP systems could make in integrated biorefineries fueled by renewable biomass during the next decade, especially in some of the states facing the most retirements of coal-fired power plants.
 There are currently about 200 corn ethanol plants operating in the U.S., mostly across the Midwest. All generally operate 24/7 and have high needs for thermal energy and power, and all could have access through existing supply chains to ample quantities of renewable biomass. Further, if the renewable fuel standard is to be met by 2022, as many as 500 new biorefineries will need to be built. Most will have significant needs for heat and power, and most will be using cellulosic feedstocks.
 If a large percentage of these ethanol plants installed or converted to biomass CHP systems, they would likely generate several GW worth of surplus electric power for the grid, given the right policy incentives and utility regulatory environment. Power production could be another coproduct of biofuel production, and it could help displace one of the nation&rsquo;s dirtiest fuels with renewable biomass.
 The key headwinds to converting existing ethanol plants is, of course, the low price of natural gas, generally unsupportive policy and utility regulatory environments in many states, and the depressed condition of the corn ethanol industry today in the wake of the drought and sluggish economy. Moving ahead, however, new biorefinery developers may be able to chart a different course with a longer-term view, and help the nation end its dependence on coal power. Author: Ned Stowe Policy Associate, Sustainable Biomass and Energy Program Environmental and Energy Study Institute nstowe@eesi.org 202-662-1885

Can Biomass CHP Replace Coal Power?

Despite the significant economic and environmental benefits of generating renewable energy from the anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic waste streams, North America, with fewer than 200 AD installations, has lagged behind other parts of the world. Europe has more than 8,000 AD installations, and, according to the German Biogas Association, the number of AD installations in Europe is projected to grow to nearly 25,000 by 2020.
 For environmental reasons, Europe has regulated the diversion of organic waste away from landfills to other solutions such as composting and the production of biogas for power and renewable natural gas. To ensure the economic viability and funding of these renewable energy projects, European governments provide economic support with long-term subsidized power purchase agreements (PPAs). This is not the case in North America, where government support to divert organic waste and provide economic subsidies is not widespread. In order for the AD industry to rapidly develop in North America, solutions must be found to address these issues.
 AD projects typically earn revenue from three sources: converting the biogas into electricity for sale to the grid, charging tipping fees for the processing of the organic waste, and selling the digestate as bio-fertilizer. Even with these combined revenue streams, a typical AD project&rsquo;s payback is five to seven years. In order to attract capital, these projects must find additional revenue streams to reduce the payback to less than three years. To meet current air and water quality standards, these projects must find solutions for sequestering the carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) found in biogas, and reuse the production water from the AD.
 Solutions4CO2&rsquo;s Integrated Biogas Refinery provides AD developers with solutions to these economic and environmental challenges. The IBR platform&rsquo;s enhanced recycling and reuse of the CO2, H2S, digestate and production water from the AD creates additional value-added nutra/pharma coproducts from the production of microalgae. Project paybacks are significantly reduced to less than three years.
 The continuous-flow and modular IBR consists of a biogas purifier and infusion system, algae cultivation system and harvesting and extraction system, which can be integrated with any AD technology. Here&rsquo;s how it works: the AD processes organic waste to produce biogas containing roughly 60 percent methane, 39 percent CO2 and less than 1 percent H2S as well as waste water and digestate. The biogas purifier and infusion system separates over 85 percent of the CO2 and 95 percent of the H2S from the biogas by infusing and dissolving these gasses into water for use in the algae cultivation system, in which the microalgae assimilate over 95 percent of the dissolved gasses over the course of their growth cycle. The purified 90 percent methane stream is used to power a combined-heat-and-power unit, which more than offsets the parasitic load of the entire IBR, and provides some surplus power for sale to the grid. The harvesting and extraction system harvests and dewaters the algae biomass and extracts the oil containing high-value coproducts for sale in the nutraceutical and pharmaceutical markets, and the production water from the system is then recycled and reused in the biogas purifier and infusion system. The residual algae biomass can be sold as bio-fertilizer.
 The potential market for biogas projects in North America is significant, and more realizable now that solutions exist to address the economic and environmental hurdles that have historically faced the industry. An integrated biorefinery platform unlocks this potential. Author: Douglas Kemp CEO, Solutions4 CO2 Douglas.kemp@s4co2.com www.s4co2.com.

2013/01/AD-Biomass-Doug-0113_13575901324272.jpg

The Case for Anaerobic Digestion  in North America

In a series of critical votes at the end of November, the U.S. Senate went on record as strongly backing an aggressive federal strategy for advanced biofuels.&nbsp;
 This was the industry&rsquo;s first major test after the harsh rhetoric of the previous two years. In an effort to embarrass the Obama administration, many naysayers had been comparing renewable energy to Solyndra and &ldquo;fictional fuels.&rdquo;&nbsp; Some, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had successfully imposed restrictions on use of advanced biofuels when the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, the legislation that funds the military.
 The issue came to a head soon after the election, when the full Senate considered the legislation approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
 In an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 62 to 37, the Senate first struck prohibitions from the legislation that would have restricted the military&rsquo;s ability to purchase advanced biofuels. Sponsored by Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, the Senate action had the backing of a broad coalition of groups, ranging from biofuels producers such as the Advanced Biofuels Association, Algae Biomass Organization and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, to energy security groups, the airline industry, farm organizations and environmental groups. Since the House-passed version of the NDAA has this prohibition, the issue will be resolved in a Senate-House conference committee.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 &nbsp;The second vote removed language proposed in committee by McCain that would have barred use of federal funds for the building of advanced biofuels drop-in capacity. In a 54 to 41 vote, this amendment again received strong bipartisan backing. Sens. Udall, Collins, Kay Hagan, D-N.C., Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., were the primary sponsors. Since the House-passed bill contains no provision similar to that proposed by McCain, there is no issue for the conference committee to consider, and the proposed ban will not be in the final legislation.&nbsp;
 &nbsp;These two votes were resounding endorsements for the efforts of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and the Obama administration to use advanced drop-in biofuels. Moreover, it was a major turnaround from the negative votes that took place in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in 2011 and 2012.&nbsp;
 Despite these Senate victories, there are some who will spend enormous sums in an effort to undermine the advanced biofuels initiative, particularly in the House and Senate conference committee. For that reason, we must continue to work to educate many of the members from rural America who benefit from these specific programs.&nbsp;
 These victories were an important step in securing America&rsquo;s energy future. Thank you to all of you who called, wrote or visited with a member of Congress to support this effort.
 Author: Michael McAdams President, Advanced Biofuels Association 202-469-5140 Michael.McAdams@hklaw.com

2013/01/Michael-McAdams_Standing_13575902409244.jpg

Senate Backs Advanced Biofuels

The biomass industry, like almost all sectors of the economy, has been deeply affected by the recession and slower-than-expected economic recovery. Some biomass projects were put on hold in 2012 due to the changes in natural gas supply and price; others were scrapped as a result of inability to attract necessary financing. Often, these two factors went hand-in-hand.&nbsp;
 In 2013, it will continue to be challenging to attract financing. There are, however, areas for potential growth in states with aggressive renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requirements, and at military bases, as a result of military energy security initiatives. Additionally, there will be investor interest in technology that promises to increase the efficiency and reliability of biomass production, especially for technology that has additional applications outside of the biomass industry.
 While utilities in states without an RPS may not be pressured to turn to renewable generation, or are turning to other renewable sources such as wind and solar, the U.S. military is not as cost-sensitive and has a far greater concern for energy independence from a national security perspective. The military, which measures the fuel efficiency of its tanks in gallons per mile, may look like an energy nightmare at first glance, but the Pentagon is pursing ambitious goals for renewable energy. As a result of identifying fossil fuel dependence as a strategic liability, the U.S. Department of Defense is pursuing energy efficiency and energy independence as national security necessities. This drive for energy independence could be a substantial opportunity for the biomass industry, especially in states that lack other renewable resources such as wind and solar.
 The DOD consumes over three-quarters of the total energy consumption of the federal government, which accounts for approximately one percent of total U.S. consumption. The military alone is therefore one of the world&rsquo;s largest consumers of energy. Under the Army&rsquo;s Net Zero Strategy, for example, contracts totaling $7 billion will be awarded over the next 10 years to businesses for the purpose of developing renewable and alternative power generation projects at Army bases. Many large Army bases are located in states that lack renewable resources that otherwise would compete with biomass, such as solar and wind. For example, in the southern U.S., which is home to many military bases, wind is not a viable energy resource&mdash;except perhaps for offshore on the coast&mdash;and solar is not ideal, at least compared to solar in the Southwest. Biomass feedstocks are abundant in the South, however, including both crop residue and timber residue.
 Another significant energy security development is California&rsquo;s recent passage of the Energy Security Coordination Act, which aligns the state&rsquo;s and DOD&rsquo;s energy independence plans. The law encourages collaboration with the military and furthers commercialization of clean energy technologies. California has long been a leader in clean energy and this law helps to further cement its position as the go-to state for energy technology companies. Biomass developers may have significant opportunities under the new California law.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 The biomass industry is and will continue to be significantly impacted by the price and availability of natural gas. The development of technology that allows us to access and extract significant natural gas deposits has resulted in unprecedented and unexpected prices. That said, continued modest growth may be possible in the industrial space, as manufacturers seek alternatives to cut historically high coal-based emissions from their existing boilers by repowering to less-regulated feedstocks including natural gas and biomass. Industrial users of power are also motivated by a desire to break away from the power cost structure imposed by their serving utilities.
 Repowering with biomass will most likely occur at plants that produce a feedstock that can be plowed into a bolt-on biomass facility. Given the historically low price of natural gas, plants that do not self-produce their feedstock or otherwise have low-cost feedstock access are much less likely to pursue biomass generation, unless other economic factors are at play. Chief among such factors would be aggressive, unmet RPS, such as exists in California and a few other states, essentially creating a market for renewables such as biomass. Authors: Kate Bechen Attorney, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich LLP 414-225-4956 klbechen@michaelbest.com Jordan Hemaidan Attorney, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich LLP 608-283-4431 jjhemaidan@michaelbest.com

2013/01/LP-Biomass-Bechen-0113_13575902999321.jpg

2013/01/LP-Biomass-Jordan-0113_13575903044441.jpg

Renewable Portfolio Standards and  Military Bases in 2013

Sapphire Energy appoints new executive officer Sapphire Energy Inc. has appointed Jeff Webster as chief operating officer. In this role, he will oversee current and future business operations, business and project development and corporate affairs. Webster has more than 28 years of industry experience in the biotech, renewable energy, agricultural, oil and gas sectors. Prior to joining Sapphire Energy, Webster served as COO at Solazyme Inc., where he was responsible for leading in-market business units and multiple administrative functions. He has also served as group vice president and general manager of renewable products at Tyson Foods, where he established new growth platforms, partnership and brands while pioneering the company&rsquo;s efforts in the renewable energy space. Biomass Thermal Energy Council elects board members The Biomass Thermal Energy Council has announced the election of six members to its 2013 board of directors. New board members include Christine Donovan, managing consultant at Vermont Energy Investment Corp.; Scott Nichols, president of Tarm Biomass; and Angela Visintainer, senior brand manager at Cambridge Environmental Technologies. Reelected board members include John Ackerly, president of the Alliance for Green Heat; Kristen Cofrancesco, sales and business development manager of North America at Pratt &amp; Whitney; and Dan Wilson, vice president of Wilson Engineering Services. The election was held during BTEC&rsquo;s fourth annual membership meeting Nov. 15 in Washington, D.C. Xebec Adsorption adds board member Xebec Adsorption Inc., a provider of biogas upgrading, natural gas, field gas and hydrogen purification solutions has added Patrick Palerme to its board of directors. Palerme currently serves as a board member at Rona Inc., and is the managing director and cofounder of Global Change Leaders, a consulting group comprised of former GE employees that offers experience in change initiatives, organizational integrations and business mergers and acquisitions. Palerme&rsquo;s expertise, experience and skill set will serve as an asset to Xebec Adsorption as it pursues its growth strategy. Viaspace Giant King Grass planted in Virgin Islands Viaspace Inc. has announced its Giant King Grass is now growing in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The initial shipment was received and planted by Tibbar Energy USVI LLC. The company is developing a 6 MW biomass energy project fueled by a 1,000-acre Giant King Grass plantation. The Tibbar project is scheduled to be online by the first quarter of 2014. The 20-year project is expected to generate 20 full-time jobs and $150 million in economic benefit to the local community through its agricultural- and power-production components. Tibbar and Viaspace have formed an exclusive partnership to grow Giant King Grass on St. Croix. The initial shipment of the feedstock was sent by Viaspace from its California growing site. Italian refinery retrofits for biofuel production UOP LLC, a Honeywell company, has announced that Italian energy company Eni S.p.A. will implement Honeywell&rsquo;s UOP/Eni Ecofining technology at its Venice, Italy, facility to produce renewable diesel. Once complete, Eni&rsquo;s retrofitted facility will be capable of producing more than 100 MMgy of renewable diesel beginning in 2014. The initial conversion of the Venice oil refinery&rsquo;s existing facilities is scheduled to begin during the first quarter of 2013 and be complete by the end of the year. New facilities constructed as part of the project will be complete during the first half of 2015. Anellotech licenses p-xylene technology Anellotech Inc., a technology-based company focused on biobased fuels and chemicals, has signed an exclusive license agreement with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The agreement adds new technology capability to Anellotech&rsquo;s core catalytic fast pyrolysis process, tripling the amount of p-xylene produced from cellulosic biomass. The company is developing a process to produce benzene, toluene, xylenes, and olefins from biomass. The additional technology involves a modified catalyst used within Anellotech&rsquo;s process to enable more economical production of biobased p-xylene, enabling lower-cost renewable polyethylene terephthalate. Both Anellotech&rsquo;s core technology and the new innovation were invented at UMass-Amherst. Airline commits to biojet purchase British Airways has officially committed to a 10-year purchase agreement for biojet produced at GreenSky London, a commercial-scale waste-to-biojet fuel, bionaptha and renewable power plant. The facility is under development by US.-based Solena Fuels Corp. in east London.&nbsp; The 10-year contract equates to approximately $500 million in investment. Once complete, the facility is expected to produce 16 million gallons of biojet fuel, 9 million gallons of bionaptha and up to 40 MW of power. The facility will feature Solena&rsquo;s high-temperature gasification process as well as Oxford Catalyst&rsquo;s/Velocys&rsquo; Fisher-Tropsch reactors and catalyst. Fluor is serving as project engineer for the facility. Microsoft to install biogas fuel cell power plant FuelCell Energy Inc., a manufacturer and designer of fuel cell power plants, has announced a biogas-powered stationary fuel cell power plant will support Microsoft&rsquo;s latest data center research project in Cheyenne, Wyo. Biogas to fuel the plant will be sourced from a wastewater treatment facility. The sub-megawatt Direct FuelCell power plant will be installed at the Dry Creek Water Reclamation Facility in Cheyenne by spring. The plant will provide 200 KW of power to the Microsoft center. Excess power not used by the data center will be provided to the water treatment facility to offset its electric costs. The fuel cell plant will be configured to operate independently and provide continuous power in the event of a grid outage.

A report commissioned by Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) finds that the U.S. military&rsquo;s plans to expand its use of biofuel could generate more than $10 billion in economic activity while creating more than 14,000 jobs by 2020.
 According to Nicole Lederer, E2 co-founder, the military&rsquo;s biofuel initiatives are the single most important market signal to the clean energy industry. Its policies constitute the most comprehensive U.S. federal energy policy to advance clean energy technologies today, she says. &ldquo;They [the military] are doing it for national security objectives; suffice to say, the military believes alternative fuels are mission-critical from an installations, operational and budgetary perspective.&rdquo;
 Lederer added that what we&rsquo;ve experienced so far is the tip of the iceberg. Military demand is helping to scale the advanced biofuels industry into larger markets, she said, including the civil, commercial and aviation markets.

2013/01/News-Biomass-E2-0113_13575905711748.jpg

Military biofuel use could jump-start advanced biofuel market

Pellet producer and global biomass supplier Enviva LP has closed on a $120 million senior secured credit facility that will help complete construction of two 500,000 metric ton pellet mills and the expansion of the company&rsquo;s deep-water port terminal in Virginia to 100,000 metric tons.
 &ldquo;We&rsquo;re delighted by the strong show of confidence from leaders in the banking industry,&rdquo; said Steve Reeves, executive vice president and chief financial officer at Enviva. He added that the corporate borrowing is one of the first credit underwritings in the biomass industry.
 Barclays Bank PLC, Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Royal Bank of Canada and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. served as the joint lead arrangers and joint book runners on the deal. By 2013, Enviva will have 1.72 million metric tons of annual biomass capacity to supply its European utility customer base.

Enviva closes loan for construction of pellet plants

The U.S. Forest Service has announced two 10-year stewardship contracts. The Medicine Bow-Routt Long Term Stewardship Contract was awarded to Kremmling, Colo.-based wood pellet producer Confluence Energy. Under the $4.75 million contract, Confluence Energy will remove beetle-killed trees. In areas where the trees have commercial value for the production of wood pellets, dimension lumber or other biomass products, Confluence Energy will pay for the material to offset the cost to government.
 The $8.66 million White River Long Term Stewardship Contract was awarded to West Range Reclamation LLC, a Hotchkill, Colo.-based forest management company. The contract focuses on the removal of trees susceptible to insects and disease infestations. West Range Reclamation has partnered with Eagle Valley Clean Energy to utilize dead and small-diameter trees removed under the contract as fuel in the company&rsquo;s&nbsp; future 11.5 MW biomass plant in Gypsum, Colo. The power plant is supported by a $40 million loan guarantee awarded by USDA Rural Development&rsquo;s Utility Service in October.

January 2013

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

New Year Challenges

Setting the Example

Expanding Market Access

The Year That Was and Will Be

Chin Up and Keep a Stiff Upper Lip

Labs Look to Vendors and Each Other for Answers

Co-location Plans Impact Air Permit

Preventative Maintenance for Maximum Performance

Germany: The Gold Standard of Long-Term Renewables Strategy

Can Biomass CHP Replace Coal Power?

The Case for Anaerobic Digestion in North America

Senate Backs Advanced Biofuels

Renewable Portfolio Standards and Military Bases in 2013

Featured

Measurable Success

Q & A: Keeping Corn Plus in the Sweet Spot

Ferm Assurance

Minding the Fleet

Planned Outage Protocol

Contributions

Pellet Mill Repair: Flat Die Versus Ring Die

January 2013.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

New Year Challenges

Setting the Example

Expanding Market Access

The Year That Was and Will Be

Chin Up and Keep a Stiff Upper Lip

Labs Look to Vendors and Each Other for Answers

Co-location Plans Impact Air Permit

Preventative Maintenance for Maximum Performance

Germany: The Gold Standard of Long-Term Renewables Strategy

Can Biomass CHP Replace Coal Power?

The Case for Anaerobic Digestion in North America

Senate Backs Advanced Biofuels

Renewable Portfolio Standards and Military Bases in 2013

Featured

Measurable Success

Q & A: Keeping Corn Plus in the Sweet Spot

Ferm Assurance

Minding the Fleet

Planned Outage Protocol

Contributions

Pellet Mill Repair: Flat Die Versus Ring Die

January 2013