Much of the discussion about fuels that will be used by the automobiles of the future to reach the federal targets for higher mileage and lower greenhouse gas emissions has centered on higher octane fuel and higher compression engines. That&rsquo;s great news for ethanol, since those happen to both be areas where ethanol holds a distinct advantage over gasoline.&nbsp; Ironically, it&rsquo;s also an area where automakers and the oil industry have a great deal of information and history, apparently.
An article by Jamie Lincoln Kitman in The Nation magazine tells about General Motors&rsquo; experience with higher blends of ethanol, and mentions the work of a GM engineer named Thomas Midgley, who applied for a patent on an alcohol-gasoline blend as an anti-knock fuel.&nbsp; According to article, Midgley drove a car with a high compression engine to a Society of Automotive Engineers meeting in Indianapolis, using a gasoline-ethanol blended fuel containing 30 percent alcohol. Midgeley told the group that &ldquo;Because of the possible high compression, the available horsepower is much greater with alcohol than with gasoline."
Why haven&rsquo;t we heard this before?
The Nation article also talks about two brands of gas sold in England, Cleveland Discoll and Kool Motor&mdash;(which contained) 30 percent and 16 percent alcohol, respectively.&rdquo; Those fuels were the products of two U.S. oil companies, and the article points out that the companies advertised the E30 and E16 as &ldquo;the most perfect motor fuel the world has ever known, providing&nbsp; extra power, extra economy, and extra efficiency.&rdquo; Meanwhile, back in the United States, the same big oil companies were savaging alcohol fuels in the halls of Congress, saying it would destroy engines.
Now that sounds more familiar.
Here&rsquo;s the really interesting part&mdash;the article I&rsquo;m referencing actually ran 13 years ago in the March 20, 2000, issue of The Nation, and was entitled &ldquo;The Secret History of Lead.&rdquo; The incidents above all took place in the 1920s. And while it is fascinating to learn that the world&rsquo;s largest automaker determined E30 was a fantastic fuel in the 1920s, and that the forerunners to ExxonMobil and Citgo sold E30 and E15 in England almost a hundred years ago, what may be more instructive and relevant to our current situation is the rest of the article, which documents the dishonesty and callousness that GM, Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil) and DuPont displayed as they fought to keep alcohol out of the U.S. fuel supply.
They fought to keep it out, to keep tetraethyl lead in. Lead isn&rsquo;t something that exists in oil before they take it out to make unleaded gas. It was added to reduce knock.&nbsp; And these three companies owned &ldquo;ethyl&rdquo; and stood to make a fortune by adding it to gasoline.
The refiners knew about the health hazards of leaded gasoline and so did the U.S. public health officials&mdash;but oil companies just said the claims weren&rsquo;t true, and bought-and-paid-for regulators and elected officials believed those claims. Ethanol was safer and more effective than lead, but oil companies fought court battles, encouraged laws to keep any other additives out of the market, and when all of that failed, they simply mounted a smear campaign against other fuel alternatives and additives, complete with phony studies paid for and controlled by the original lead partners.
It took more than 60 years to get lead out of the fuel supply, even as thousands of people literally died every year as a result of contact with lead. Maybe we should be more encouraged by ethanol&rsquo;s&nbsp; progress?&nbsp; &ldquo;The Secret History of Lead&rdquo; should be required reading for all ethanol supporters. It is a sobering view of the lengths some industries have gone to, to protect enormous profits in the past.&nbsp; And those who forget the past (or don&rsquo;t even know about it) are condemned to repeat it.
Author: Ron Lamberty Senior Vice President, American Coalition for Ethanol 605-334-3381 rlamberty@ethanol.org&nbsp;

2013/05/Ron-Lamberty_13686441743244.jpg

Required Reading (You're Already Taking the Test)

News reports have shown that in recent years major oil companies like Chevron and Exxon have &ldquo;given up&rdquo; on biofuels. The consensus is that the work to develop biofuels is too difficult for them to figure out and that it would be too costly and not profitable enough. Really, are they serious? Moreover, do they expect Americans to believe quitting is the best option for our future?&nbsp;
After just a few years of effort and little commitment to research and development, they just decide that, well, it&rsquo;s not easy, so let&rsquo;s just give up. What if Thomas Edison had given up on the light bulb? Where would we be now? Sitting in the dark.
Persistence and the understanding that there was a better way to provide light drove Edison to make an inspired thought a reality. It may have taken years and many others to perfect the light bulb, but persistence led the way to progress. Neither Edison, nor those who followed his footsteps, decided to give up.
It took years and countless trials to develop the bulb and filament technology. There were certainly critics and I am sure that the whale oil industry, who then supplied the fuel to oil lamps, was adamantly opposed to the idea. They didn&rsquo;t want to become irrelevant, so they opposed it. But they could not stop it&mdash;today there is electric light everywhere.
Americans pride themselves on hard work and ingenuity. There is little doubt that we believe that the collective strength of our great nation is derived from the amazing people it is comprised of, like Edison and other great visionaries and inventors. We have always been a forward-thinking country that plays the long game, looking for solutions to the problems we currently face and also ones we anticipate will arise in the future.
Enter 21st century energy. While we are dangerously dependent on fossil fuels, many pioneers have recognized there are many viable components to a more diverse energy portfolio, and one answer that can play a significant role is renewable fuels. They are sustainable, unlike the current carbon-based fossil fuels we rely on today.
This industry started small, with a few pioneers and has grown tremendously over the past few decades. It has grown to become self-sufficient from government subsidies and more efficient in terms of water usage and power output. And it is infinitely renewable&mdash;just some sun and rain to perpetually grow the feedstock.
However, the success of renewable fuels threatens the bottom line and market share of oil companies, such as Exxon and Chevron. While these companies initially promoted these fuels, they could not make the same profits and also found that drilling for oil was easier than advancing technology of biofuels and new infrastructure for them to secure our energy future.
So, not only have these companies given up on their research into renewable biofuels, but they have actively engaged in public affairs campaigns and legal and regulatory hurdles to block any future progress. According to one new report, a return of 5 percent wasn't enough for companies used to margins triple that. They are putting corporate profits ahead of energy security and they simply do not care.
Just imagine where we would be if a 19th century inventor were as timid as a 21st century corporation. Biofuels are sustainable and are cleaner and better for our environment. As we continue to learn of the harmful emissions that traditional fossil fuels generate while being burned to fuel our vehicles, we must reaffirm our dedication to producing cleaner fuels that are better for the air we breathe and also protect the environment for both current and future generations.
If great inventors, such as Edison, could see the progress we have made, they would be amazed. Furthermore, they would be inspired by the current pioneers&mdash;those perfecting first-generation biofuels and developing next-generation fuels from diverse feedstocks to secure our energy needs for the future while serving a critical role in preserving our environment.
On the other hand, companies like Exxon and Chevron&mdash;those who not only gave up on biofuels production and research but fought against progress&mdash;would certainly disappoint the great inventors. Their stubborn actions to accept a failed status quo goes against the very spirit of American ingenuity and progress.
It truly is a shame that 21st century corporations give up on meaningful advancements and fight against progress just to keep those deep pockets full of excessive profits at the expense of progress and our nation.
Author: retired Gen. Wesley Clark Co-chair of the Growth Energy Board of Directors 202-545-4000 info@growthenergy.org

2013/05/clark_wes_13686442674423.jpg

Biofuels, Light Bulbs and Why Quitting is Not an Option

Through more than a quarter century proudly advocating for U.S. ethanol producers, the one issue that seems impervious to logic and just will not go away is the pernicious food vs. fuel canard. It simmers like a hot ember awaiting Big Oil&rsquo;s windbags to blow it into a raging fire as their political agenda demands. It resonates among Washington&rsquo;s elite, who think their food comes from the Safeway and don&rsquo;t know the difference between sweet corn and No. 2 feed corn.&nbsp; The facts are too difficult to grasp.&nbsp;
Make no mistake, despite decades of educating urban policy makers that ethanol simply uses the starch component of corn, and that a very high-value, high-protein feed remains to be consumed by poultry and livestock, the food vs. fuel debate continues to be the single biggest obstacle to the continued growth of the industry. We have to do an even better job of conveying our message.
The first accompanying chart emphatically demonstrates what should be the most important message, i.e., oil drives food prices, not corn and not ethanol! Every step of the food supply chain is reliant on petroleum products&mdash;from diesel fuel used in farm machinery, natural gas used in food processing plants, plastics used in food packaging, to gasoline or diesel used to transport the food to the restaurant or grocery store. In fact, the correlation coefficient between global food prices and global oil prices since 2000 is 0.92, a near-perfect relationship.&nbsp;
The second chart underscores that, contrary to what our opponents say, food price inflation has been falling while ethanol production has been increasing over the past decade. Food price inflation has been lower (2.9 percent) since the renewable fuel standard (RFS) passed than in the 20 years prior (3.02 percent). And two of the lowest food-inflation rates in the past 50 years have occurred since the passage of RFS2 in 2007.
Facts can be nettlesome to our opponents. But facts are the only thing I know to keep the cynics at bay. Use them. Respond to the media and public officials who willingly or unwittingly ignore reality. Do it and we will prevail. And the RFS will be preserved. Author: Bob Dinneen President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association 202-289-3835 <img src="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/email-images/docs/US-Global-Food.jpg" alt="" width="400" /> <img src="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/email-images/docs/US-Food-Chart.jpg" alt="" width="400" />

2013/05/Bob-Dineen_13686443523826.jpg

Eat This!

Last week, the parts per million level of CO2 in the world's atmosphere reached nearly 400 parts per million for the first time in 15 million years. What&rsquo;s the big deal? Come on, that&rsquo;s only .0004 of one percent. I mean, how bad can that be?
Unfortunately, that&rsquo;s the way many people think about CO2. Look, there are clearly multiple positions on the impact CO2 levels have on our global climate change. But there is one inescapable fact. Despite all the background noise, 97 precent of scientists agree the increase in the levels of CO2 is primarily manmade.
One could argue, so what? Besides, CO2 is a global issue and anything we do to combat global warming is nullified by China, India and others. We see the smog-ridden cities in other countries where people are literally choking on pollution and often think: what&rsquo;s the use? It&rsquo;s like trying to counter a hurricane with fans.
Interestingly only about 50 percent of Americans believe global warming is manmade and will have much of an impact on our world. In the U.K., only 1 in 20 believe global warming is something that they should be overly concerned about. While Australians might have a bit more concern about global warming, they continue to ship millions of tons of coal to China and other parts of the world, while boasting about their tax on carbon.
In truth, global warming is probably not going to be an issue that drives renewable energy. At least not until we are staring an environmental Armageddon in the face, by which time it may be too late. What will drive renewable energy will still be price, rural economic development and energy independence. Not that those are bad things, they are clearly important drivers, but the clock is ticking on our environment.
We have the capability to make great strides with renewable energy. Make no mistake, China, India and others are working hard to build renewable energy projects. Coal is just a tool to get them from point A to point B. I am convinced that in the years ahead, China and India will become world leaders in renewable energy.&nbsp;
We don&rsquo;t have to worry about saving the planet as some suggest, it will go back to default very quickly when we are no longer here. So you can be the judge of whether reaching 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is a big deal, but for me, I&rsquo;m going with the science and the majority of science says: Take action and take it now!
That&rsquo;s the way I see it.
Author: Mike Bryan Chairman, BBI International mbryan@bbiinternational.com

2013/05/MIKE_13686447351093.jpg

CO2 Levels Rising … Big Deal!

An ethanol plant manager is typically focused on running the daily operations and producing a quality end product. In addition to ensuring the equipment and people inside the plant are running correctly, human resource needs must also be met.
When it comes to finding and hiring the right employees, a little community involvement goes a long way. Be active in local and school job fairs and career days. This provides personal interaction with people who are eager to work. When your plant has an open position, a person who has already heard about the plant or met a plant recruitment manager will be more likely to apply. It also pays to sponsor community events. This ensures local visibility and name recognition, which is a key recruitment tool.
Be sure to recruit for open positions using the latest technology. Placing an ad in the newspaper used to be enough but today&rsquo;s employees are scanning job boards, social media and LinkedIn to find work. The local Chamber of Commerce may also have a job board that can help reach candidates with specific skills and put together a pool of qualified candidates.
Interviewing potential employees also takes preparation. Ask candidates the right questions, check their references and conduct appropriate background checks and drug screenings. The extra effort ensures you utilized all resources available to get the best people on board.
If you question your ability&mdash;and time&mdash;to post an effective job description or whether you are asking the right interview questions, call on a human resources consultant for the best approach. Think about what you need to do to get the best candidates in the door. Experience counts and that&rsquo;s why companies utilize consultants who work in human resources on a regular basis.
Training new and current employees is a vital step in maintaining an efficient and happy workplace. When a new person starts work, don&rsquo;t assume they know what they&rsquo;re doing based on previous experience. Offer a thorough orientation of the plant and provide knowledge they can use now and in the future. Giving them the time up front pays dividends later.
The first 90 days on the job are vital and the initial training can make a new employee feel they are valued by the company, which contributes to positive morale. Excellent new hire training also gives them the confidence to hit the ground running.
For current employees, training has to be relevant and apply to what they&rsquo;re doing today and in the future. Make it engaging by avoiding a lecture-style classroom and get participants involved. Training is costly if employees do not grasp or remember the concepts because they were bored or uninterested. Make it worth the time by showing them the connection of how their daily work impacts the future of the company.
Dealing with employee compensation issues can be a sensitive subject but an employer who is prepared can avoid having an awkward conversation. Do your homework to be sure pay is competitive in the marketplace, which can be accomplished using salary survey data. Also, remind employees about the value of their benefits, not just the salary numbers. Pay your folks based on performance and provide incentives for quality work. Having a systematic plan, including pay ranges for compensating staff is much better than winging it.
Salaries are one of the largest expenditures for a company and an HR consultant can help companies review what each employee is compensated to ensure the company is effectively managing this cost. In this economy a 3 to 4 percent raise should not be expected every year but it&rsquo;s also important to reward people who continue to do great work. Other options are to give a lump sum payment, or bonus, instead of a raise.
Getting the right employees on the bus is essential and keeping them is critical. Thus, providing positive and strong human resource strategies is key to driving that bus, or company, down the road. Author: Rob Southern Kennedy and Coe LLC consultant specializing in human resources rsouther@kcoe.com or 316-691-3736

2013/05/Rob-Southern_13686439562273.jpg

Get on the Bus: Human Resource Strategies Essential to Success

After being accused of driving up food prices, grabbing land in Africa, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are now claiming that biofuels are costing society too much money.
A group of green NGOs recently hired the services of the International Institute for Sustainable Development to trigger a debate on the economics of EU biofuels. It is not the first time that IISD published such a report. IISD has been hitting at biofuels for several years. The process is strongly influenced by people close to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and funded by those who don't like us. Last year a similar report was issued then financed by food company Nestle. Now it is the NGOs. Is this coincidence? Is there some sort of unholy alliance here?
The latest report, &ldquo;Biofuelsâ€•At What Cost?,&rdquo; claims that in 2011 EU governments provided around 10 billion euros ($13 billion) to the biofuels industry.&nbsp; A relatively high number compared to the 2012 IEA World Energy Outlook, which said that in 2011 total global biofuels subsidies were $24 billion, or less than 10 percent of global oil subsidies. Whether the 10 billion euro figure is correct is neither here nor there as long as there is a high figure, easy to remember. It is all about easy publicity.
Those taking the trouble to study the report can only conclude that the number is the creation of researchers and reviewers with an imaginative mindset but no practical knowledge of the subject matter. The report has severe methodological errors, often contradicting IISD's own methodology and/or previous research, next to the array of material factual errors.
Maybe it's a predictable result knowing that the report was peer reviewed by those with the same ideological biases and no academic qualifications in industrial and agricultural sciences. The authors expressly prevented review by industry experts with appropriate academic credentials, on the pretext that industry reviewers would have leaked the report to the press. So much for an honest peer-review process.
The major flaw with the IISD report is that it is almost entirely about excise tax exemptions, a subsidy paid to fuel suppliers. With the introduction of the renewable energy directive, known as RED, member states now overwhelmingly use mandates to achieve their binding renewable transport energy obligations. Interestingly enough, those mandates did not result in higher fuel prices at filling stations.
So, if EU member states decide to pay fuel suppliers to buy biofuels through excise tax exemptions (such exemptions being a policy tool appropriate for the voluntary biofuels blending policies of the past and simply redundant in the face of a binding mandate) then it's fuel suppliers who are skinning governments and consumers.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s why only a minority of member states have such excise tax exemptions today and why those exemptions are quickly disappearing, facts conveniently omitted from IISD&rsquo;s report. Indeed, if all excise tax exemptions disappeared tomorrow, the EU biofuels industry would see its market stay the same as it is today.
But do tax exemptions result in the high costs as pictured by this report? It doesn't seem to be in line with a very recent study carried out by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) that looked into the socio-economic impact of the fuel ethanol sector in France. The study found that jobs were created directly and indirectly and that in 2010 the value added to the French economy was 815 million euros. In addition, the French government made a net profit of 305 million euros thanks to additional tax income as a direct and indirect result of 158 million euros of tax exemption to the oil industry for using biofuels.&nbsp;
The PwC study is in sharp contrast to the IISD study. Even though the PwC study is limited to ethanol and France, the numbers are so distinct from what IISD is claiming that I consider the latter a cheap publicity stunt, carefully planned and timed to rock the biofuel boat once more. Author: Robert Vierhout Secretary-general, ePURE Vierhout@epure.org

2013/05/ePURE_13686440531098.jpg

Rocking the Biofuels Boat with a Publicity Stunt

Years ago I read a book called &ldquo;12: The Elements of Great Managing.&rdquo; I can&rsquo;t say it transformed my professional life but its core takeaways stuck with me. The book&rsquo;s premise is that, through extensive polling, it had been discovered that 12 simple questions universally determine employee job satisfaction. Question No. 1 is elemental: &ldquo;Do I know what is expected of me at work?&rdquo; The other 11 questions address praise, clarity of mission, voice, sentiments about co-workers, workplace friendships and opportunities for professional development. The collective essence of the questions is reflected in the managerial insight offered in this issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine, both anecdotally and in the form of hard data about ethanol plant employee salaries and job satisfaction.
This month&rsquo;s cover story profiles ICM&rsquo;s disciplined, stepwise quest for cellulosic ethanol, but our theme is different topic altogether: personnel recruiting, training and compensation. It&rsquo;s brought to life in an ambitious 20-page section anchored by Holly Jessen&rsquo;s infographic-dense reveal of our 2013 U.S. Ethanol Plant Personnel Compensation &amp; Job Satisfaction Survey. The detailed results of the survey, starting on page 36, provide a snapshot of an industry that employs a satisfied, well-compensated and increasingly experienced workforce. It also depicts a workforce that is loyal, well-trained, highly educated and hard-working.
Once again our survey reveals that money isn&rsquo;t everything. America&rsquo;s ethanol plant employees, while appreciative of their salaries, rate job security as the most important determinant of their professional happiness, followed by a positive workplace atmosphere, good benefits and, finally, competitive pay. Ethanol producers have known this for years, and as we discover in this month&rsquo;s Q&amp;A with Big River Resources&rsquo; Deb Green, maintaining a positive workplace environment starts with the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Cultivating a thoughtful, supportive work environment, along with great training, competitive pay and good benefits, has enabled Big River to achieve an extremely low turnover rate, and because of it, industry-leading financial and operational performance.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Jessen&rsquo;s other feature in this issue, &ldquo;More than Just Staff,&rdquo; on page 48, delivers additional insight about attracting and retaining employees. In it, Ascendant Partners&rsquo; Scott McDermott advises producers to offer competitive compensation programs even when margins are tight. Our salary survey indicates that most producers agree with him. Despite difficult times facing the ethanol industry, 68 percent of survey respondents said they received a raise in the past 12 months; 69 percent of respondents also received monetary bonuses in the same time period. The bottom line: The U.S. ethanol industry is providing high-paying, rewarding careers to thousands of men and women who, in return, make American ethanol plants run efficiently, safely and profitably.
&nbsp;
Tom Bryan, President &amp; Editor in Chief tbryan@bbiinternational.com

2013/05/Tom-Bryan_1368644856775.jpg

Take Care of Your People  and Your People will  Take Care of You

April 29&mdash;Despite the pressure in the corn market seen over the past couple of weeks, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. Both gasoline and ethanol prices are starting to rebound as demand for fuel starts to pick up speed in front of the summer driving season. Despite a 35 cent per gallon price erosion over the past months, in late April in just one week implied demand for gasoline rebounded and inventory levels started to fall. The outlook for ethanol demand has also improved over the past couple of weeks with inventory levels falling below year-ago levels.
For ethanol to maintain demand growth, gasoline demand needs to improve significantly. Ethanol usage throughout the country is directly correlated with overall demand for gasoline. There are still a lot of questions concerning economic strength that need to be answered over the coming weeks. But smaller inventory levels and increased implied demand in the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration report is creating hope that overall gasoline and ethanol demand may not be as sluggish as previously thought.

Gasoline demand: Better late than never

1. The Renewable Fuels Association has added three new members: Monroe, Wis.-based Badger State Ethanol, Plainview, Neb.-based Husker Ag, and Redfield, S.D.-based Redfield Energy LLC. Redfield Energy is a 55 MMgy facility with 43 full-time employees. The dry mill plant became operational in April 2007 and produced its 300 millionth gallon of ethanol in February. In addition to ethanol, the plant also produces approximately 162,000 tons of modified wet and dried distillers grains each year. The 70 MMgy Husker Ag plant is a farmer-owned cooperative with more than 600 members. The facility employs 50 full-time employees and produces 450,000 tons of modified wet distillers grains each year. The 57 MMgy Badger State Ethanol plant employs 47 people. In addition to ethanol, the facility produces 128,000 tons of dried distillers grains annually, along with 50 percent corn protein and corn oil. Carbon dioxide captured at the plant is used in the food industry. 2. CSX Corp. has announced winners of its 19th annual Chemical Safety Excellence Awards, which recognize customers for their commitment to the safe transportation of hazardous materials by rail. The awards are presented to customers that ship more than 600 car loads of hazardous materials during the year without a release due to factors such as not securing valves or closures properly. Several companies active in the ethanol industry were recognized with the award this year, including Buffalo Lake Energy Corp., Cardinal Ethanol LLC, Cargill, Eco-Energy Inc., Flint Hill Resources LLC, Granite Falls Energy LLC, Patriot Renewable Fuels LLC, Pioneer Trail Energy Corp., and Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy. 3. The Biotechnology Industry Organization has named Jay Keasling as the recipient of its 2013 George Washington Carver Award for innovation in industrial biotechnology. Keasling is a professor of biochemical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, an associate laboratory director at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CEO of the Joint BioEnergy Institute, and director of the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center. He was selected for the award due to its contributions to the field of synthetic biology promoting the use of engineering microbes to produce biofuels, medicines and cosmetic compounds from biomass, such as sugarcane and grasses. Past recipients of the award include Gevo Inc. CEO Patrick Gruber; Charles O. Holliday, Jr., chairman of DuPont&rsquo;s board in 2009; Gregory Stephanopoulos, the Willard Henry Dow professor of chemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2010; Feike Sijbesma, CEO of Royal DSM in 2011 and Steen Riisgaard, president and CEO of Novozymes in 2012. 4. LanzaTech has appointed Ken C. Lai as vice president of its Asia Pacific operations. Based in Shanghai, he will oversee the development and commercialization of the company&rsquo;s gas-to-advanced biofuel facilities and continued development of LanzaTech&rsquo;s value chain partners in the region. Prior to joining LanzaTech, Lai served as general manager of licensing and sales for the Asia Pacific region at Shell Global Solutions International B.V. He has more than 30 years of experience in technology licensing, sales, account management and business development in the petroleum refining and petrochemcials industry. 5. Royal DSM, the global Life Sciences and Materials Sciences company, has appointed Christian Koolloos as business manager of bioethanol with DSM&rsquo;s biobased products and services business unit. In his new position, Koolloos will be responsible for DSM&rsquo;s involvement in cellulosic ethanol production outside of the Poet-DSM Advanced Biofuels joint venture. His responsibilities include developing and managing DSM&rsquo;s enzymes and yeast business in the field of cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol and other renewables. Koolloos joined DSM as the commercial manager of yeast in 2011 through the acquisition of C5 Yeast Co., which was created as a spin-off of Royal Nedalco. 6. RINAlliance, a cloud-based software utilized by renewable fuel blenders across the U.S., has won the 2013 Prometheus Clean Energy Innovation award. The award is sponsored by the Technology Association of Iowa and recognizes the state&rsquo;s top technology innovators and entrepreneurs. Criteria for the award include market position, business impact, growth and positive impact on the environment. The RIN Alliance had a record year in 2012, experiencing a 104 percent increase in revenue, a 63 percent increase in the number of subscribers, and, in response to a satisfaction survey, 83 percent of respondents saying the organization exceeded expectations and 17 percent saying it met expectations. To date, RINAlliance subscribers have blended more than 1.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel. 7. Abengoa Bioenergy S.A. has joined the Fuels America coalition, a broad group of stakeholders representing the biofuels industry, national security interests, agriculture and other sectors. The group is focused on educating the both the public and policy makers on the benefits of renewable fuel. The group supports the continued implementation of the renewable fuel standard and the economic development and savings to consumers that result from its implementation.&nbsp; 8. John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil Co. and CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy, has joined the Fuel Freedom Foundation&rsquo;s board of advisors. Fuel Freedom is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to breaking America&rsquo;s oil addiction by opening the fuel market to allow replacement fuels, such as ethanol, methanol, and others to fairly complete with gasoline. 9. Propel Fuels has been named the 2013 Green Innovator of the Year by the San Mateo County Economic Development Association in California. Propel was recognized for its pioneering approach to providing consumers with better access to renewable fuels and clean mobility options.&nbsp; 10. The U.S. DOE has announced the selection of BioProcess Algae LLC to receive a grant of up to $6.4 million as part of a project related to the production of biobased hydrocarbon fuels that meet military specifications. The project will use renewable carbon dioxide, lignocellulosic sugars and waste heat through BioProcess Algae&rsquo;s Grower Harvester technology platform, which is collocated with the Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc. ethanol plant in Shenandoah, Iowa.
&nbsp;
Share your industry briefs To be included in Business Briefs, send information (including photos and logos if available) to: Business Briefs, Ethanol Producer Magazine, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks ND 58203. You may also fax information to 701-746-8385, or email it to evoegele@bbiinternational.com. Please include your name and telephone number in all correspondence.

2013/05/Ethanol-BB-4_13686436738698.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-BB-3_13686436709133.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-BB-1_13686436670645.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-BB-2_13686436694009.jpg

Business Briefs

The concept of sustainability has been around for decades, though only recently felt on a large scale. Many companies are showing that environmentally friendly and economically sound are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Siemens AG has estimated that its products and services have enabled its customers to substantially reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In 2011, Siemens helped its customers reduce annual CO2 emissions by about 320 million tons, an amount equal to the total annual CO2 emissions of Berlin, Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul, London, New York, Singapore and Tokyo combined.
There is much discussion in the media today about green business, sustainable initiatives, and the like. But it can be difficult to decipher how these issues are being played out at the individual and community level. The good news is: sustainable business practices are happening in villages, towns and cities around the globe.
Take Havelock, Ontario, for example. This small central-eastern Ontario community is home to Kawartha Ethanol Inc., a midsize ethanol producer. Kawartha Ethanol began operations in 2010, and has a production capacity of 80 MMly (21 MMgy)&mdash;enough to fill more than 1.4 million average-size vehicle gas tanks. The company&rsquo;s aim is to operate in the most sustainable way possible. How it achieves that goal, bringing sustainable business to small-town Ontario, is a story that both Kawartha Ethanol and Siemens are proud to tell. From Grain to Greener Gasoline Fuel-grade ethanol, which is 99 percent pure alcohol, has a number of important properties that make it an excellent automotive additive. It is clean-burning and has a high percentage of oxygen (35 percent), which means fuel combustion is more efficient. When used in vehicles, ethanol decreases carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30 percent, according to the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. Ethanol is not in itself a complete solution to global warming but, with an average daily consumption of 88.6 million barrels of oil around the world, as reported by the International Energy Agency in 2012, this type of greenhouse gas reduction is an important step on the path to sustainability.
So, how do Kawartha Ethanol&rsquo;s production processes contribute to a greener environment? The primary focus is in three areas: reducing water usage, reclaiming heat and saving energy. Control systems and multiple analytical devices play a significant role in these sustainability solutions. Water Usage Reductions While it takes 1,851 gallons of fresh water to produce a single barrel of crude oil, most ethanol plants can reuse about one-third of the total water they consume says the CRFA. At Kawartha Ethanol, plant designers have gone above and beyond this in their water reuse initiatives.
The plant has four containment areas surrounding its chemical storage vessels and another two surrounding its fuel storage tanks. These concrete barriers prevent chemicals from leaching into groundwater in the event of a spill. Since these areas are outside, they naturally collect rainwater. None of this water goes to waste. Pumps move rainwater back into the ethanol process, at the stage where corn is mixed with water to make a slurry. Reusing this water from the containment areas is a water-saving solution created by Kawartha Ethanol&mdash;and an effective one at that.
Containment areas, of course, serve to prevent damage from accidental spills. In addition, if a spill occurred in the containment area, any rainwater that had been gathered would be contaminated and could become unusable for the mixing stage of the ethanol process. Kawartha Ethanol has implemented a number of safety measures to prevent spills in these areas. The plant uses digital pressure transmitters for continuous level monitoring on its chemical storage vessels. These transmitters monitor the hydrostatic pressure in the vessels and convert the measurements to level readings. Vibrating point level switches are used as backup for the facility&rsquo;s continuous systems, providing overfill protection for the chemical vessels and throughout the production process. To monitor recirculated water, as well as other material moving from process to process, Kawartha Ethanol uses a number of flowmeters combined with transmitters. Heat Reclamation During the manufacturing process, temperature and pressure control is crucial to ensuring a quality final product and a safe working environment. Throughout ethanol production, temperature measurement is most important to operators.
Kawartha Ethanol uses product-to-product heat exchangers to redistribute thermal energy throughout the plant. Heat exchangers circulate high-temperature liquids or slurries with low temperatures, without mixing these materials.
Following are three examples of where heat exchangers are used in the process:
&bull; In hydrolysis, enzymes break down the corn mash into simple sugars, creating a great deal of heat. The mash must be cooled from 85 to 41 degrees Celsius (185 to 106 degrees Fahrenheit ) before moving to the fermentation stage. Cooling waters circulate in order to lower mash temperatures to within the optimal range. This process can reclaim more than 40 C of heat without using extra energy to cool the mash.
&bull; After distillation, centrifuges separate the whole stillage into cake and liquid, which is then concentrated through a series of evaporators that use waste heat from distillation. The two products are then recombined to form distillers grains.
&bull; In the energy center, flash steam is created in the boiler condensate system, where liquid moves from a high-pressure to lower-pressure areas. Instead of using energy to heat process water for use during ethanol production, heat exchangers circulate water with flash steam.
Temperature and pressure control instruments play an important role in these heat reclamation systems. Kawartha employs temperature transmitters to monitor the mash cooler, making sure that the slurry enters the fermentation stage at the correct temperature.
The pressure created during the ethanol process also needs to be closely monitored. Pressure transmitters measure areas such as the boiler condensate system. Because too much pressure can be dangerous, these devices are equipped with safety functions and advanced diagnostics to ensure accuracy. Valve positioners accompany all of the temperature and pressure transmitters in the facility and provide intelligent diagnostics. Energy Savings Ensuring that no heat is lost in transport is another important initiative for plant designers at Kawartha Ethanol. Customized insulation wraps are secured around pipes and vessels containing heated material. If operators ever need access to instruments, they can easily unwrap the insulation, perform any needed maintenance and then rewrap it.
All of the process instruments monitoring these pipes and vessels at Kawartha are connected through a Profibus network, sending information to a distributed control system (DCS); Kawartha uses Siemen&rsquo;s Simatic PCS 7 system. In the control room, operators can see immediately if a piece of equipment requires maintenance, and respond quickly. The system provides high-performance engineering tools, with features such as alarm management, process safety and asset management. As Bill Harris, electrical supervisor at Kawartha Ethanol sums up, &ldquo;Our process includes hundreds of Siemens instruments measuring flow, level, pressure, and temperature&mdash;all feeding back to a centralized DCS system via the Profibus network. We rely on the accuracy and dependability of this system to ensure that we operate efficiently and safely.&rdquo; Support for Sustainability Two decades ago in his book, &ldquo;The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability,&rdquo;&nbsp; Paul Hawken declared: &ldquo;Leave the world better than you found it; take no more than you need; try not to harm the environment; make amends if you do.&rdquo;
These words echo the drive behind the sustainability initiatives currently in place at Kawartha Ethanol. If anything, the need for greener practices in industry has only increased over the past two decades, and will not soon disappear. Siemens process instruments play an important role in helping companies like Kawartha Ethanol operate their plants efficiently, by providing operators with precise process information.
Recently named one of Canada&rsquo;s Greenest Employers for 2012, Siemens Canada demonstrates its corporate values as well as its products are aligned with sustainable practices. Striving to &ldquo;leave the world better than they found it,&rdquo; Kawartha Ethanol and Siemens prove that green business is indeed possible, both in small towns and on a global scale. Author: Leigh Parnell Sensors and Communication Manager, Siemens Canada 905-315-6933 leigh.parnell@siemens.com
&nbsp;
The claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ethanol Producer Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).

Siemensâ€™ Sitrans P pressure transmitters, mounted on pipes, monitor steam in the plant.

2013/05/Ethanol-Cont3_13685575136771.jpg

Kawartha Ethanol saves energy and water through multiple initiatives at its plant in Havelock, Ontario.

2013/05/Ethanol-Cont2_13685575126136.jpg

Dozens of flowmeters measure water, chemical dosing and material flow throughout the ethanol production process.

2013/05/Ethanol-Cont_13685575112694.jpg

Process controls underlie effective water, energy saving strategies in 
ethanol production.  

Instrumentation, Control Systems Contribute to Sustainability

Due to the continued challenging economic climate, we now see a new level of stress for many ethanol companies. The challenging downturn that began in 2012 has continued into this year. Although there has been some relief as of late, most analysts are projecting tight margins in the second half of the year, or at least until new crop harvest (assuming we get a good corn crop). This will be the fourth challenging margin period the industry has faced in the past 20 years. Independent ethanol companies have learned a lot about maneuvering through tough markets over the years, and this has helped protect shareholder value.
The ethanol industry entered 2012 expanding production to new heights. The increased production, as well as a shift from being a net exporter to net importer, caused U.S. ethanol stocks to build and start to pressure ethanol production margins. The oversupply of ethanol, the end of the blending credit and the short corn crop this past harvest have again deteriorated the financial condition of some ethanol producers. Fortunately, companies are better positioned than in the past. Many have learned from the mistakes made in the previous downturns.
The worst downturn in ethanol was in the mid-1990s (Period 1) when the U.S. had a very severe drought and ethanol had heavy competition from methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). The lack of pricing power against MTBE as an oxygenate substitute caused over half of the capacity to be idled, restructured or sold during this period. Period 2 in the early 2000s was difficult, but, instead of a sustained downturn like the mid-1990s, there was a mix of bad and good margin months. Ethanol companies had learned to idle or slow the business during negative margin months to minimize losses and most ran during stronger months. This allowed the companies to preserve cash through the downturn. The other important lesson that many plants learned from the mid-1990s challenge was to avoid selling in distressed periods.
In Period 1, the independent ethanol companies that were forced to sell saw plant values cut in half. The industry was much smaller then, at about 1.4 billion gallons of production capacity, which included wet mills and dry-grind ethanol plants. Even though the average ethanol producer had earning power of about 90 cents to $1.10 per gallon, these plants were sold for 50 to 60 cents per gallon or even idled permanently in some cases. The low plant values could be attributed to a lack of potential buyers, the size of the industry, the lack of lenders and the fear the industry would not come back.
A number of companies that had liquidity problems in Period 2 were not forced to sell because they learned to raise additional capital instead of selling in a crisis. These capital injections from debt, equity or both saved these independent ethanol companies from destroying shareholder value. Many also learned that their options for debt are very limited in times of distress. The banks lending to the industry only extended credit to very low-leveraged and well-run ethanol companies. The banks were unwilling to lend if there was even marginal risk they would not be covered in a forced liquidation.
We also saw mergers and bankruptcies play some role during these periods. The mergers, however, were not mergers of &ldquo;equals.&rdquo; They usually entailed material dilution of the existing shareholders. Several companies took on equity partners rather than lose the asset through foreclosure, the thought process being: if the bank is going to force a sale of the business and the likely market value would be at or below the debt against the asset, the company would be better off diluting its equity with an equity partner rather than losing everything in a bank-led sale. Although this is not a common occurrence, there are numerous examples of independent ethanol companies that have lost everything because they were unwilling to consider this option.
The downturn after the 2006 ethanol margin boom (Period 3) exposed new challenges for the ethanol industry. The industry was two-thirds the way through a 10-fold expansion, from about 1.4 billion to almost 15 billion gallons of capacity, when prices and margins came crashing down from all-time high corn and ethanol prices. Corn prices at the time were approaching $7 per bushel and ethanol prices were approaching $3.50 per gallon when the prices fell as fast as they had risen. It wasn&rsquo;t negative margins that caused distress in this period, it was the collapse in prices and margins.&nbsp; When margins compressed, all weaknesses of the new ethanol companies were exposed.
By 2007, the rush to build plants and the strong global demand for construction materials drove construction costs from well below $2 per gallon for a 100-plus million gallon plant to $2.30 to $3 per gallon on an installed basis. The expansion in margins and fervor to build plants brought in new and inexperienced lenders, which also drove up leverage on these higher-cost facilities. A number of the plants sold under distress in 2008 and 2009 were very competitive plants. The challenges for these companies were the relatively high capital costs and high debt levels to be serviced in a lower-margin environment. Operating plant values again approached the 50-cent-per-gallon level, which brought a number of new companies into the ethanol industry.
The other two challenges exposed during Period 3 were poorly structured contracts and over-extended hedging positions. A number of companies were long corn or did not have the adequate liquidity to support margin calls in their hedging program. The speed and the size of the fall in prices caught many off guard. For some, many millions of dollars of financial damage occurred in a matter of days and weeks. A number of independent ethanol plants were again able to endure this stress because they had strong balance sheets or capital infusions. Others weren&rsquo;t so fortunate and were forced to sell.
The second challenge exposed in the dramatic margin compression was in poorly structured and poorly written contracts that many independent ethanol companies had written in order to get their projects from concept to construction. Many companies are still working through these challenging contracts today. The challenges include high priced or uncompetitive origination and marketing contracts, extremely long-term contracts, partnerships or contracts that were one-sided and/or created dependencies that put the company at a disadvantage, contracts that did not consider counterparty risk, and contracts that companies simply did not understand. Many ethanol companies have spent considerable time and resources restructuring, canceling or fighting these contracts. They are now much better at vetting and negotiating mutually beneficial agreements.
The final area where many independent ethanol plants have made material progress toward building or preserving shareholder value is their relentless pursuit to improve the core business. These improvements have come from better management and better intelligence used to run the business. Most ethanol plants today have at least some understanding of their cost competitiveness or what we at Ascendant Partners Inc. refer to as EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) competitiveness. Most are constantly looking for ways to improve plant efficiencies, origination programs, product marketing and logistics. They constantly assess the adoption of new commercial technology and the upgrading of coproduct streams.
All of these lessons have positioned independent ethanol companies to not only endure, but to thrive during this period of compressed margins. We have seen very few forced sales in this fourth period relative to earlier downturn cycles. The independent ethanol companies have used the lessons learned over the past 20 years to maneuver through the current tough markets. Although we will certainly see distressed sales, we will likely also see more consolidation strategies that allow companies that choose to exit the business to receive value commensurate with their earnings and others that merge, partner or adopt new technology to position the business for greater value in the future.&nbsp; Author: Scott McDermott Partner, Ascendant Partners Inc. 303-221-4700 Mcdermotts@ascendantpartners.com
&nbsp;
The claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ethanol Producer Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).

2013/05/Ethanol-Con_13685580054492.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-Chart2_13685580033233.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-Chart1_13685580006079.jpg

Protecting shareholder value during periods of margin stress.

Lessons Learned From Past Downturns

In northern Iowa, Absolute Energy LLC was experiencing heavy mineral fouling issues at its 115 MMgy ethanol plant. Fouling in the evaporators resulted in elevated steam pressures that inhibited the plant from increasing production rates. Sulfuric acid was being utilized to lower the pH in an attempt to alleviate the fouling. Chemical and maintenance costs, along with employee exposure to dangerous chemicals, were increased, while frequent cleaning in place (CIP) and hydro-blasting were required to keep the plant operating at less-than-desired production rates.&nbsp;
 Many industrial processes are prone to mineral fouling, the severity of which depends on water pH and process temperatures. Fouling creates insulating deposits on hot metal surfaces that reduce heat transfer efficiency. In ethanol plants, the sources of the problematic minerals, calcium and magnesium, are primarily incoming corn and water. Ethanol plants and distilleries around the world have always dealt with calcium oxalate deposits (commonly referred to as beerstone) given the nature of the processes they employ.&nbsp; Action&nbsp;&nbsp; Buckman Laboratories International Inc. was asked to analyze the mineral deposits at Absolute Energy and come up with a solution that would reduce or eliminate the need for sulfuric acid. Buckman performed qualitative and quantitative analyses on the deposits, ultimately determining that calcium oxalate was the main cause of the fouling, even though there were other minerals present, as well as organics.
 As a chemical solutions company working on process and water treatment needs in multiple industries, Buckman has developed Bulab 8301, a special blend of polymers that reduces calcium oxalate deposition in process operations where high temperatures exist in conjunction with relatively higher pH ranges. At Absolute Energy, Bulab 8301 was fed into the thin stillage stream with the use of a programmable metering pump. The amount used needs to meet allowances set by the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration that are intended to maintain the safety of animal feed and thus ultimately, the human food supply. Buckman uses an outside consultant to evaluate the suitability of ethanol process treatments for safe use. Based on this analysis and the FDA allowances, Bulab 8301 is used as an evaporator deposit control additive up to 20 parts per million, based on thin stillage flow to the evaporators. Results Using the treatment, the plant was able to reduce sulfuric acid usage by 45 percent (0.75 truckloads per week), decrease CIP frequency, increase process pH, increase syrup solids, improve water balance, significantly decrease hydro-blasting down to none in the past 30 months, operate the beer column more consistently, thus reducing steam usage and base losses, decrease employee exposure to acid handling, reduce maintenance costs associated with acid pumps and piping and maintain lower sulfur levels in the distillers grains.
 Buckman and Absolute Energy personnel have collaborated for more than four years in an effort to maximize the benefits to the process from the treatment. Over time, it has been discovered that starting with extremely clean metal surfaces gives the best results. Minimizing mineral fouling also reduces the amount of organic fouling as the organics need something to bind to in order to build up&mdash;an important key to reducing the need for hydroblasting. Absolute Energy also believes the corn oil centrifuges stay cleaner with the treatment system, although it doesn&rsquo;t have a baseline to measure against since oil extraction was implemented after the antifouling measures were taken. With other plants making the same observation, Buckman is now seeking verification. Bulab 8301 has the potential to help with beerstone deposits in other areas of the process, such as the beer column top trays and beer mash exchangers. Data is currently being collected to verify the application economics.
The recent addition of phytase-based products to the ethanol process has somewhat masked beerstone concerns, as high phytase dosages have resulted in elevated levels of magnesium phosphate, which precipitates onto hot metal surfaces. This fouling is more significant than typical beerstone levels as it builds deposits quickly, resulting in increased evaporator pressures that many times require ethanol operators to reduce operating rates and increase hydroblasting and CIP frequency. The challenge for the ethanol plant manager is to minimize overall mineral deposits as much as possible by reducing phytase addition and then treating areas of deposition with the correct chemical application. Understanding which mineral deposition is occuring is crucial. Bulab 8301 targets beerstone deposition, so plants that are challenged with both calcium oxalate and magnesium phosphate fouling benefit from combination products.
 Mineral depositions create many challenges within the ethanol plant and producers should choose their chemical applications carefully to ensure they are giving their process the best chance to produce every gallon as economically as possible. &nbsp; Authors: Jerry Tegels District Manager, Buckman ggtegels@buckman.com&nbsp; 515-249-9637 Kevin Mundell Ethanol Manager, Buckman krmundell@buckman.com 515-708-2411
&nbsp;
The claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ethanol Producer Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).
&nbsp;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporated Pressure Graphs 
These graphs give a historical snapshot from the distributed control system of the Absolute Energy plant. In each, the top line represents the incoming steam pressure to the first effect evaporator that fluctuates with the steam demand for distillation and is directly related to production levels. The bottom line represents the steam pressure to the second effect, which increases if fouling occurs in the evaporator tubes. If the differential pressure between the effects (the delta-P) is maintained or decreased when incoming pressures increase, it's a good indication that fouling is not occurring. If the delta-P increases, causing the bottom line to move farther from the top line, it&rsquo;s an indication that fouling is occurring. The reduced heat exchange efficiency will cost the ethanol producer more in fuel costs as more steam is required. Both graphs show that a delta-P was maintained, with a few exceptions caused by events such as a power outage or a sensor freeze-up during cold weather.
<img src="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/email-images/docs/Ethanol-Optimization-Cont-9mo.jpg" alt="" width="500" /> <img src="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/email-images/docs/Ethanol-Optimization-Cont-15mo.jpg" alt="" width="500" />

The photo on the left shows the mineral fouling present shortly after chemical treatment began. The other photos were taken after implementation, with no hydroblasting being done for 18 months.  

2013/05/Ethanol-Contribution-Opt_1368556922565.jpg

Proper treatment resolves multiple bottlenecks caused by mineral deposits.

Absolute Energy Tackles Evaporator Fouling

April 29&mdash;Natural gas prices have dropped over the past several years as the market increasingly recognized that natural gas supply was growing at a much more rapid pace than demand. In 2008, prices were above $8 per MMBtu and the &ldquo;experts&rdquo; thought prices would continue to go up, but shale drilling dramatically changed market expectations. Not surprisingly, as prices dropped, drilling activity directed at natural gas dropped as well. However, production continued to grow in spite of diminished drilling for natural gas. That may be changing.
As the chart shows, monthly production numbers are certainly flattening and may be starting to drop. This may be the beginning of a sustained drop in natural gas production or perhaps just a lull in production increases. At this time, the answer isn&rsquo;t known for certain. After all, production dropped in the first quarter of 2012 but then rebounded to hit historic high levels. Certainly the answer matters to natural gas consumers since natural gas prices are highly responsive to natural gas supply. If natural gas production is dropping, prices are likely to be well above $5 per MMBtu as the market recognizes movement into a supply short position. If, on the other hand, production remains steady or increases, prices likely will remain at $4 per MMBtu or lower. For consumers who believe the downtrend will continue, it may be a good time to &ldquo;get long&rdquo;. For those who believe the downtrend is transitory, maintaining a short position is the best strategy.

2013/05/Natural-Gas-Chart_13686430172366.jpg

Has the supply boom come to an end?

April 29&mdash;The corn market has been under pressure for most of the year as money exits agriculture type commodities. In addition, follow-through selling came as the USDA placed a bearish undertone in the March stocks report. However, the market will shift to the fundmental perspective. First, old crop supplies are tight or in tight hands reflected by the very firm basis levels exhibited throughout the U.S. Secondly, new crop prices will be under pressure with even below trend line yields but planting delays could cause some immediate concern.
Corn movement from the producer has been vitually nonexistent since the March stocks report. With lower prices, producers have been less excited about moving corn as their attention focuses on the next crop, therefore, cash markets have been historically tight. This should keep old crop supported at values observed in April.
With recent moisture, the new crop outlook is more optimistic but one would not assume trend line yields are achievable. With more acreage slated in areas that are historically less productive the national yield curve will see a drag. However, without a drought at the magnitude of last year, new crop production is much more promising this year. The demand picture will be a moving target and that will be determined by price throughout the 2013-&rsquo;14 marketing campaign. New crop corn will hold $5.20 support levels until better yield prospects are more defined.

The March corn planting intentions compared to the 2012 acreage numbers, showing change up or down in each state in thousands of acres.

2013/05/Corn-Report-Map_13686431334809.jpg

Corn demand picture a moving target

April 29&mdash;As May begins, the DDGS market is paying close attention to planting delays and the impact on corn availability for the rest of the summer, until harvest. The rapid futures price drops, as seen after last month&rsquo;s report, enabled ethanol plants to lock in margins through May, and ensured sufficient DDGS supplies through the month. Since then, announcements of restarting idled ethanol plants pushed the DDGS-as-a-percentage of corn number from 99 percent down into the low 90s, as buyers assumed more production coming.
Demand, which traditionally starts to drop off with the warmer spring weather, has been steady, but prices have dropped since the end of March. Wet/modified distillers grains demand has started to drop off and plants that shipped their product locally for the winter are now loading cars and pressuring the destination markets. Export container demand from the Chicago area, which is usually the premium market, has seen product being shipped into it from as far away as western Iowa. Barge shipments, which were dicey because of low water in March, were being shelved because of high water. That tonnage is needed in other destinations, namely trucks into Chicago.&nbsp;
Looking ahead, plant margins are going to be affected by the availability of old crop corn, which will influence their production, and the DDGS supply. As of late April, it was still profitable to make ethanol and the resulting DDGS supply is expected to depress the percentage of corn calculation. A spike in corn prices will reverse that process.

DDGS price drops as percentage of corn

In the years since Ethanol Producer Magazine conducted its last salary survey, which was carried out in 2009 and published in early 2010, readers have repeatedly asked when it would be updated. Wait no longer. The results of the 2013 U.S. Ethanol Plant Personnel Compensation &amp; Job Satisfaction Survey are in.
More than 2,000 emails were sent out to U.S. ethanol plant employees and 367 responded, a nearly 20 percent increase from the number of respondents in 2009. The online survey, which was open for about two and a half weeks, closed April 10. The survey was comprised of 38 questions. Respondents who said they are corporate management or general managers were directed to a separate set of questions regarding the plant as a whole, such as total payroll for the plant and the best methods for filling open positions at the facility.&nbsp;
The data was self-reported without random sampling techniques. While this means the results may not be representative of the ethanol industry as a whole it does provide an interesting snapshot of the ethanol plant employees who answered the survey.
Who Are They? The survey reveals some basic demographic data about respondents. Nearly 39 percent&mdash;the highest percentage reported&mdash;work at midsize facilities with capacities of 40 to 59 MMgy. Another 37 percent work at 100 MMgy or larger plants. In contrast, the 2009 survey showed 47 percent were at midsize plants while only 28 percent were at 100 MMgy or larger plants.
The highest percentage of respondents, or 77 percent, report that the ethanol plants they work at are operating at 90 to 100 percent of capacity. Only 5 percent, or a total of 17 survey takers, say the plant they work at is currently idle. Another 3 percent, or just nine people, say the plant is shut down.
A full 97 percent of the respondents work full time at a U.S. ethanol plant. Male employees are much more prevalent, coming in at 77 percent of the total. The 23 percent of women respondents holds fairly steady from the 24 percent of women in the 2009 survey. Of current women respondents, 62 percent are lab managers, lab techs or environment health and safety workers. No female maintenance managers, plant managers, lead operators, operators or maintenance technicians responded to the survey.&nbsp;
More respondents, or a total of 41 percent, are college graduates than any other education category. More than 14 percent went on to do post-graduate work or completed post-graduate degrees. Another 30 percent have post-high school vocational/technical training or have taken some college courses and 13 percent have completed a high school degree or GED. Just four survey takers, or 1 percent of the total, had completed only some high school education.
Looking at years worked in the ethanol industry, the categories of 7 to 9 years and 5 to 6 years are tied for first place, with 27 percent of the total reporting each one. Another 17 percent have worked in the ethanol industry 10 to 14 years. Only 3 percent have worked in the industry 20 to 29 years and 1 percent 30 years or more. On the other end of the spectrum, 1 percent have worked in the industry less than one year.
The majority of respondents, or 68 percent, say they have only worked at one ethanol plant. Another 18 percent say they have worked at two ethanol plants in the past 10 years. In answer to a question about in what industry they had received the majority of their experience, more respondents (36 percent) say the ethanol industry than any other category. The agriculture industry comes in behind ethanol, at 19 percent of the total. When management answers that question for the plant as a whole, the agriculture industry is the clear winner, with 66 percent saying their employees received the majority of their experience in the ag industry before taking a job at an ethanol plant. Let&rsquo;s Talk Dollars Undoubtedly, information on salary, benefits and bonuses draws a lot of attention. This year, for the first time, EPM asked survey takers with positions in management to report on total plant payroll, including benefits. Of the 29 corporate or general managers who answered, all but one report payrolls in the millions, with 20 of them saying it is in the $2 million to $3.8 million range. Two say total payroll is $10 million or $10.5 million. The lowest total payroll is $125,000. It&rsquo;s unknown if that figure is for an idled plant with a limited staff or perhaps a mistaken entry in the survey. The next lowest number is $1.5 million.
Managers reporting for the plant as a whole also gave salary ranges for 15 job titles. For some positions, there is a salary range that came out as a clear winner, with at least 40 percent or more managers reporting the same salary range for the job and the remaining answers spread out among the other categories at much lower percentage totals. The numbers show most managers report that boiler technicians, operators and lab technicians are paid between $40,000 and $49,999. Most environmental health/safety employees and lead operators are in the $50,000 to $59,999 category. Lab managers are most often put in the salary range of $60,000 to $74,999. Maintenance managers and plant engineers are most often in the $75,000 to $99,999 range. General managers fell into the $100,000 to $149,999 salary range.
The remaining job titles fell into more than one category of salary ranges. For instance, the salary of maintenance technicians is fairly evenly split between two categories, ranging from $40,000 to $59,999. Controllers/chief financial officers and operation managers also don&rsquo;t fall into a clear salary range, instead the majority of managers report salary ranges for both jobs are spread across three categories, starting at $60,000 and topping out at $149,999. Finally, the most common salary ranges of commodities managers and plant managers lie across two categories, ranging from $75,000 to $149,999.
Going back to questions asked of all survey takers, 22 percent of respondents say their salary ranges from $100,000 to $149,999, the highest percentage total of all the categories. The ranges of $75,000 to $99,999 and $60,000 to $74,999 follow at 21 and 18 percent, respectively. Only 9 percent, or a total of 28 survey takers, have salaries of less than $40,000 and only 3 percent, or 10 survey takers, have salaries of $200,000 or more. The 2009 survey takers report somewhat lower salaries overall. At that time, the largest percentage of respondents were paid between $60,000 and $74,000 and another 17 percent were paid less than $40,000.
The majority of this year&rsquo;s survey takers work between 41 and 54 hours a week. The categories with the two highest percentages are 33 percent working between 45 and 49 hours and 20 percent working between 50 and 54 hours. Only 12 percent work between 55 and 59 hours and another 6 percent work 60 and 69 hours a week. Notably, 71 percent of survey takers say they are not compensated for overtime. Only 19 percent say they are paid time and a half for overtime.
Overall, the survey shows that 64 percent of respondents feel they are compensated about right for their work. In comparison, 32 percent feel they are compensated too little. Notably, 2 percent, or 7 people, admit they are compensated too much.
Despite difficult times facing the ethanol industry, 68 percent say they have received a raise in the last 12 months. Of those receiving raises, most, or 31 percent, received a 3 percent raise. Between 9 and 11 percent received raises of 4 percent, 5 percent or 6 to 9 percent. Only 6 percent received raises of 10 to 14 percent while another 5 percent received a raise of 15 percent or more. Notably, 85 percent received their raises without being promoted or any change in responsibility. The vast majority (79 percent) say salary reviews are offered annually. Another 13 percent say there is no regular schedule for salary reviews. One person, who checked the other category, comments that all workers get the same 2 percent raise once a year, whether it is deserved or not. The results of the 2009 salary survey also show that ethanol plant employees are receiving raises. At that time, 51 percent received a raise in the previous 12 months.
The most recent survey also shows that 69 percent of respondents received monetary bonuses in the past 12 months. About 40 percent say their bonus was between $1,000 and $4,900. Another 13 percent say they got bonuses between $5,000 and $7,499. Interestingly, the next highest category is a tie, with exactly 11.61 percent receiving a bonus of less than $1,000 and another 11.61 percent getting $10,000 to $14,999.
On the benefits side, the majority of respondents report receiving health insurance (96 percent), 401(k) packages (92 percent), dental insurance (89 percent) and life insurance (88 percent). Another 75 percent are offered disability insurance and 60 percent cell phones. The least commonly offered benefits are company vehicles, stock options and incentive pay, ranging from 11 percent to 6 percent.
When it comes to hiring, 59 percent of plant management answering for the plant as a whole say promoting from within is the most effective method of filling positions at their facilities. Another 34 percent say promoting from within is sometimes effective. Next in the lineup comes word of mouth, which 24 percent say is very effective and 62 percent say is sometimes effective. Managers had the lowest confidence in job fairs, with none considering them very effective, 7 percent considering them sometimes effective, 10 percent neutral and 3 percent usually ineffective. Job Satisfaction Setting the issue of compensation aside, the majority of survey takers report being happy with their jobs at ethanol plants. In all, 51 percent say they are very satisfied with their jobs and 17 percent are extremely satisfied. Another 23 percent are somewhat satisfied. The last two categories, very unsatisfied and unsatisfied, are made up of only 6 and 4 percent of the total.
Looking at what factors are most important in job satisfaction reveals that the No. 1 most important thing is job security, with 60 percent of the total rating it as very important. A positive atmosphere (49 percent rates this as very important), good benefits package (48 percent) and competitive salary (47 percent), follows close behind. A challenging work environment is also important, with 40 percent of respondents rating this category as very important.&nbsp; A short commute is at the bottom, with only 14.8 percent rating this as very important to job satisfaction.
In all, 42 percent say they aren&rsquo;t considering a new job, presently. Another 40 percent say they aren&rsquo;t currently looking for a new job but would consider it, if a good opportunity came along. Only 11 percent are actively looking for a new job and 6 percent are strongly considering starting a job search.
Author: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

2013/05/Survey-Chart4_13686421416593.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-Survey_13686414537241.jpg

2013/05/Survey-Chart1_1368642137881.jpg

2013/05/Survey-Chart2_13686421393187.jpg

2013/05/Survey-Chart3_13686421405471.jpg

2013/05/Survey-Chart5_13686421425502.jpg

2013/05/Survey-Chart6_1368642143518.jpg

2013/05/Survey-Chart9_13686424632048.jpg

2013/05/Survey-Chart8_13686423149795.jpg

The latest salary survey includes data on everything from total plant payroll, previous job experience of employees, the most important factors in job satisfaction and more. 

2013 US Ethanol Industry Salary Survey

Maintaining the roster of full-time employees at Big River Resources falls to Deb Green, human resources manager. Staffing four ethanol production facilities and two grain handling terminals, Green relies heavily upon her existing team to welcome new employees into the company, pass along vital skills and assure employee safety. Recognizing that these critical initiatives are widely varied, the company keeps things simple by distilling all of them down to a company-wide focus on the Golden Rule to help boost company morale. How many people are employed across the organization and what percentage of those folks have to be replaced each year because of retirement or attrition? Big River Resources employs and is a management company for 237 full-time employees.&nbsp; The company also employs some part-time and seasonal help with the grain elevator facilities. The turnover rate per year is about 11 percent. Most of the jobs at an operating ethanol plant are relatively technical in nature. Is it difficult to find candidates with the right technical background? Big River Resources performs on-the-job training, which provides process-related employees the skill sets needed to operate efficiently. The position that we have recently had a difficult time filling was qualified instrumentation/electrician. This varies per site or territory. What have you found works best from a recruiting standpoint? Are you always in an active state of recruiting, or do you only begin looking when there is a specific job opening or need? When there is a job opening, Big River Resources posts the position internally first. Several of our managers have been promoted from entry level positions. Many excellent employees have been found from employee referrals. Big River Resources also has an online application website. Newspaper help-wanted ads are also used to find applicants.
Big River Resources is able to keep an applicant listing for some positions. This accelerates the hiring process. There are other positions that recruiting begins upon a job opening. Can you talk a little bit about the training program you&rsquo;ve developed for new employees? Training is ongoing at Big River Resources. For most positions, employees are trained through on-the-job training by the site employees. Once an employee is hired, the second item&mdash;after new hire paperwork&mdash;is harassment and violence training. After this training, the new hire has an extensive safety training program to complete. This program is coordinated through the safety manager and the site safety/environmental coordinator. Once safety training is completed, the employee begins on-the-job training.
Throughout the year for all employees, additional formal safety and vendor training is performed. Key personnel also use their skills for operational training. Supervisor training, team building, and other performance enhancement training are available throughout the year. New employees receive an introductory period review evaluation at 45 and 90 days. This allows the manager to concentrate specifically on the new hire. If the review shows the new hire is having an issue in a specific performance area, a different training strategy may be implemented to assist the employee. In the past, we have found significant improvement in the next evaluation. This is thanks to recognizing there was an issue early and addressing it by another method that worked better for the employee.&nbsp;
The state of Iowa has an excellent training grant program that is available for new, existing, and expanding facilities. This grant was used at our two Iowa facilities and was instrumental in helping with the initial bulk cost of getting new staff trained. How has it evolved as the organization has grown? The training process has become more streamlined. As everyone gets familiar with their jobs, they can focus and adjust to what works well and what does not work well.&nbsp;
For example, the introductory period review evaluation form was implemented after a few new hires were not performing at 90 days. We wanted to make certain the new hires were given the chance to be successful at Big River Resources. This chance begins with a successful training time frame. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Are you finding more and more applicants with industry-specific experience now that the industry is mature? Yes, for the exempt (salaried) positions, as these employees are more likely to relocate.&nbsp; However, the turnover rate for exempt positions is very low at Big River Resources.&nbsp; Occasionally applicants with previous ethanol experience apply for nonexempt (hourly) positions.
How important is employee morale for the organization? Enormous, ginormous, astronomic, gigantic. A negative attitude is not tolerated at Big River Resources. If an employee possesses a toxic attitude, the attitude can quickly infect other employees, and be detrimental to morale. Regardless of the skill sets the employee may possess, the employee has a choice to correct their attitude or be relieved [to pursue] other opportunities. How does Big River positively affect employee morale? Big River Resources believes employees are its most important asset. Therefore, we take every opportunity to shine, polish, and protect our most important asset.
The company is diligent to train, careful to coach and counsel, and thoughtful through difficult personal life events. Managers have been given the leeway to care for employees and be considerate during unexpected life events. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is the company culture. It starts with the board of directors and senior managers and gets absorbed into the entire staff. Positive morale can be difficult to keep at times, but the company culture definitely helps with morale and, ultimately, retention. Do you think it is an advantage from a staffing perspective to have multiple production facilities? After all, ethanol producers with only one facility can&rsquo;t reach out to another lab manager or general manager if they get stuck, have turnover or other issues. The advantage of multiple production facilities is administrative staff. For example, one senior manager (general manager, financial director, etc.) for four facilities is more cost effective than one for each.&nbsp;&nbsp;
In regard to one facility not being able to be reach out to another, quite the contrary. One facility can and does reach out to other facilities within the industry. A company does not need to own multiple facilities for this to happen. While this is common within the industry, it is not universal. It does depend on the culture of the company.
The ethanol industry requires a marketplace to survive. One production facility is not capable of supplying the entire marketplace and government-mandated usage. This tends to aid the ethanol industry in functioning with a collaborated effort. It is not uncommon for one facility to contact another facility within any department. The relationships are built through organizations and previous experiences and the opportunity to assist another facility, if needed, is welcomed. Big River Resources participates in this, both within and outside of its own organization.
Big River Resources has contacted other ethanol companies for parts in an emergency breakdown and has eagerly assisted other companies in the same situation. The industry benchmarks wages and company stats, assisting facilities in finding the strengths and potential weaker areas. When a new project is being considered, it is not uncommon for a company to seek advice from another facility.
In a unique way, certain companies within the ethanol industry function as a team. If one team member needs something, the others are eager to oblige within the constraints of potential confidentiality agreements.

2013/05/Ethanol-Q-A_1368642811152.jpg

Employees are the No.1 asset of Big River Resources LLC and Deb Green is tasked with seeing to it they are well-trained, safe and happy. 

Q&A: Practicing the Golden Rule

Like any industry, ethanol production companies face hiring challenges. For facilities located in rural areas, it can prove difficult to find experienced workers willing to relocate to small-town America. Another potential frustration is putting time and company resources into training employees who can be lured away into industries who may be able to offer more competitive compensation packages. &ldquo;We have been a heck of a training ground for industries that can pay far more than we can,&rdquo; says Tom Willis, CEO of Conestoga Energy Partners LLC, which operates three ethanol plants in Kansas and Texas.
The importance of hiring the right person for the right position adds another layer. Scott McDermott, a partner at Ascendant Partners Inc., puts it this way. &ldquo;In the end you want to select the best talent not necessarily just staff,&rdquo; he says.
Neal Jakel, general manager of Illinois River Energy LLC, tells Ethanol Producer Magazine that strong teams and employees aren&rsquo;t created overnight. &ldquo;It takes time and patience to find and develop a great team,&rdquo; he says. He also points out that ethanol plants are highly technical businesses that require optimization, adding that it&rsquo;s essential that the workforce has strong technical skills. &ldquo;If you don&rsquo;t have a technical work force from the information technology to the maintenance department, a facility will be leaving opportunity, i.e. money, on the table, which in these very tough economic times is not a prudent business practice.&rdquo;
Brian Thome, CEO of Edeniq Inc., said developing the right team is of paramount importance to the development company&mdash;second only to safety. Edeniq, which is working on technologies for corn-ethanol facilities as well as second-generation cellulosic ethanol, doubled its workforce from 50 to 100 employees in 2012. The No. 1 focus during the hiring process is finding people who are a good fit for the team, he says. For Edeniq that means idea generators who work well in a team structure.
Tom Griffin, Edeniq&rsquo;s chief technology officer, is passionate about the topic of finding the right employees and then keeping them motivated. For Edeniq, one make-or-break interview question is whether the applicant has a passion for biofuels, because those people are more likely to become sustained long-term employees. Asked to talk about an employee success story, Griffin said he started with a list of 15 employees and whittled it down to six coming from diverse backgrounds, experience and educational levels. &ldquo;I get excited talking about our team,&rdquo; he says, adding that he found it difficult to narrow the list down. &ldquo;We have a really good team and I could go on for a really long time.&rdquo; Company Culture One of the biggest difficulties facing employers is employees who come to work, punch a time clock and do as little as they can get away with until it&rsquo;s time to go home, says Betsey Upchurch, CEO of P4 Consulting. They have complaints about the things their managers do but they, and often their managers, don&rsquo;t have the skills or ability to create resolution. &ldquo;So they just kind of grumble, grumble, grumble and resist,&rdquo; she says, in her soft Southern drawl. &ldquo;With margins like they are, you can&rsquo;t afford that. You&rsquo;ve got to have people there, working hard, paying attention and bringing things that are a problem&mdash;before they are a big problem&mdash;to your attention.&rdquo;
P4 Consulting works with companies, including ethanol plants, on improving company culture for better success and profitability. Basically, it boils down to helping leaders lead and firing up employees so they are excited and engaged, rather than just punching a time clock, she says. The first step is assessing current company culture in four areas and identifying what it does well and in what areas it needs to do some growing. The list starts with evaluating the company&rsquo;s mission or vision. &ldquo;Do people know where they are going and why it&rsquo;s important?&rdquo; she asks. Clear policies and procedures allow a company to be consistent in execution. The next key point is empowering employees to work, grow and develop. Finally, there&rsquo;s adaptability, which allows companies to move quickly in response to market signals and produce consistently quality products.
Improvement in weak areas starts with the leaders because the company culture, good or bad, is a direct reflection of what those at the top are doing. &ldquo;In every company that we work with in any industry, people leave because of their boss most often,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;If you don&rsquo;t want your good people to leave then you have to have talented management.&rdquo; In her line of work, Upchurch has encountered managers who run the gamut from terrible to marvelous. Some don&rsquo;t have good management skills but they do have potential. &ldquo;With a little development work, they end up being great,&rdquo; she says.
Changing company culture is about creating a senior team who know what the company values are and understand what they are asking of employees. The next step is helping middle management catch that vision and know their place in it. It&rsquo;s about shifting power down, which ultimately gives senior leaders more power, although it can be a difficult transition. Upchurch describes it as asking leaders to &ldquo;quit being in the doing end of things and be in the inspiring, directing, creating, strategic end of things, and leave the execution and tactical stuff to supervisors, leads and front line.&rdquo;
Upchurch talked about two specific projects at ethanol plants, in which P4 Consulting was able to help management empower employees with positive results. In the first example, teams of four to five people became involved in the interviewing and hiring process for operator and entry level jobs. When teams, including supervisors and leads, are in on interviews there were fewer hiring misfires. &ldquo;What happens is, they pick better to begin with,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;They ask hard questions because it&rsquo;s not fun for them when they get someone that&rsquo;s not good to be on the team.&rdquo; The second project took place at an ethanol plant where employees were grumbling about pay levels. The feeling was that there was no clear system for determining how much people got paid. A task force of employees was assembled, with the direction that the executive team didn&rsquo;t want to pay for seniority but rather ability and capability. The group examined each job and assigned monetary value for knowledge and skill levels. Under this system, employees don&rsquo;t get raises on specific timetables, but when they reach specific markers. &ldquo;Essentially, if someone comes to work for the company, they know on day one what they have to do to get raises,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;It works because one, they created it, and two, they know what they have to do to make more money.&rdquo; Turnover and employee grumbling went down significantly after the project was completed and it was revealed the plant&rsquo;s pay scale was actually pretty consistent. &ldquo;Mostly people were in pretty much the right spot but the difference was that they knew they were, instead of guessing,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Basically when people don&rsquo;t have information they just guess the worst sometimes.&rdquo;
Conestoga Energy understands the importance of cultivating a positive company culture, Willis says. Established in 2006, the company spent the first two years trying to build a business, not a culture, and as a consequence didn&rsquo;t work well as a team. In fact, Willis says, the turnover rate in the first two-plus years was about 90 percent. By focusing on improving its company culture, training, teamwork and empowering employees, Conestoga Energy now has a 24 percent turnover rate for its plant employees, a number that is below industry average.
To get where it is today, the company spent a lot of time developing and defining its core values. Beyond just creating policies based on those values, Conestoga Energy takes the extra step of explaining why it&rsquo;s important and how it impacts employees (who they prefer to call teammates) and the company in day-to-day operations. &ldquo;Under the old corporate model of 25 years ago,&rdquo; Willis says, &ldquo;the boss asked you to do something&mdash;why? Because I told you so.&rdquo; When employees understand the why and are given the opportunity to give their input on decisions, it leads to better buy in and performance. &ldquo;We have a saying that we succeed or we&rsquo;ll fail as team,&rdquo; he says.
Of course, not every person will fit into Conestoga Energy&rsquo;s unique family atmosphere, Willis explains. And not every team member is 100 percent happy every day. &ldquo;But for the most part I think our people would tell you they feel empowered, they know where we&rsquo;re going, why we&rsquo;re going there and what their role is,&rdquo; he says, adding that the company still has a long ways to go. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s like golf, the quest of impossible to ever play a perfect round of golf,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Every day it&rsquo;s, &lsquo;How do we get better?&rsquo;&rdquo;
McDermott agrees that it&rsquo;s very important to have clear company goals that tie into management goals and goals for staff. &ldquo;They want to believe that their leadership has a vision for the future for the businesses, so they are not just kind of swinging in the wind,&rdquo; he says. Training, Compensation Speaking about the difficulty of competing for skilled workers with other industries with deeper pocketbooks, Willis said Conestoga Energy works around this by hiring untrained workers and training them on the job. &ldquo;I can tell you this,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;it&rsquo;s a heck of a lot easier to try to grow them inside than it is to go outside and try to recruit all the time.&rdquo; The key is to hire people with potential, desire and heart, things that cannot be coached. That&rsquo;s where on-the-job training and continuing education come in. &ldquo;You&rsquo;ve got to invest in your people,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;You can spend all the money you want on technology&mdash;and we&rsquo;ve spent a lot of money in capital investment in technology&mdash;but they are only as good as the people that run them.&rdquo;
Thome and Jakel also mentioned the importance of professional development. Edeniq sets aside a budgeted amount for ongoing professional development for each one of its employees. At Illinois River Energy, in addition to the training opportunities at a local community college, the company is developing its own in-house skill block program.
A challenging market environment takes a toll on bonus and incentive programs, McDermott says. However, as the labor markets improve, it&rsquo;s important that ethanol plants stay competitive, ideally with compensation programs that combine performance incentives and profit sharing. Companies that pay out only basic hourly salary face challenges in keeping employees motivated. &ldquo;What we have seen is, people are not as engaged to make these improvements to keep these plants competitive in that old structure,&rdquo; he says.
Companies are at an advantage when they understand that it is in their best interest to make sure employees are offered performance incentive bonuses to help the plant reach for improvement milestones&mdash;even when margins are tight. &ldquo;Frankly, it&rsquo;s the difference between these guys making money and losing money these days,&rdquo; McDermott says.
And, it&rsquo;s important that those bonus plans aren&rsquo;t based exclusively on the company&rsquo;s financial performance, says Donna Funk, a member of the accounting and consulting firm Kennedy and Coe LLC. &ldquo;The plant production employees, they can&rsquo;t control what you buy your grain for or what you sell your ethanol for,&rdquo; she says. Reward metrics based on what employees can control, such as plant cleanliness, safety and ethanol conversion rates, tend to motivate better.
Of course, it isn&rsquo;t just about money. There&rsquo;s no replacement for management telling employees when they have done well, McDermott says. &ldquo;Staff knows when these companies are not doing well and even if you aren&rsquo;t able to necessarily compensate them, you need to have recognition,&rdquo; he says.
There are a multitude of things companies can do to show their employees they appreciate them. At Conestoga, Willis takes the time to send each employee a personal birthday card as well as quarterly meetings to thank team members. Jakel says Illinois River Energy gives awards for buying flex-fuel vehicles and clothing. Then there&rsquo;s food, which Jakel referred to as the No. 1 motivator, adding that &ldquo;a well fed employee is a happy employee.&rdquo;
On the day that EPM interviewed Thome, Edeniq was having a barbeque, as part of a monthly employee luncheon schedule. On National Pi Day, one of the employees brought in pies to share. And two or three times a year the company plans family outings. The next one on the schedule is a company softball game and barbeque. &ldquo;We work hard on making the environment fun for people to be around and spend time together even outside the working environment,&rdquo; Thome says. Author: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

Edeniq employee Cam Cast talks about feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol. Edeniq doubled its workforce from 50 to 100 in 2012. 

2013/05/Ethanol-Cam_13686359328516.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-Employees_13686359356923.jpg

â€˜In every company that we work with in any industry, people leave because of their boss most often. If you donâ€™t want your good people to leave then you have to have talented management.â€™

2013/05/Ethanol-Betsey_13686362752704.jpg

â€˜I get excited talking about our team. 
We have a really good team and I could go on for a really long time.â€™

2013/05/Ethanol-Griffin_13686362765326.jpg

Attracting and retaining a team of dedicated and motivated employees is integral to company success.

More Than Just Staff

The Beast is parked along a wall near the door. Auntie Em and Dorothy are rolled off to the side, out of the way, as the number and size of reactors have grown to demonstration scale at ICM Inc.&rsquo;s research facility in St. Joseph, Mo. The laboratories packed with analytical machines hum at a fast pace.
Even on a quiet day between big integrated runs, more than a dozen people were running system trials, pulling samples to test and evaluate the data. On that March day, pilot plant supervisor Jon Licklider and scientists Chris Gerken and Laers Malburg gave Ethanol Producer Magazine a behind-the-scenes look at the research facility.
ICM&rsquo;s work on cellulosic conversion technology began in earnest in 2009, with a $25 million grant awarded by U.S. DOE. The Kansas technology provider and engineering company that teamed up with Fagen Inc. to build nearly two-thirds of the capacity in the U.S. ethanol industry was shifting gears to join the ranks of companies designing the next generation of cellulosic ethanol processes.
The initial work was done with the refrigerator-size, flask-scale reactor called the Beast. That soon scaled up to two reactors capable of handling 50-gallon batches, dubbed Auntie Em and Dorothy. The Wizard of Oz theme is most appropriate, as many in the ICM research and development team pulled up stakes from the heart of Kansas, where ICM is headquartered at Colwich, to move across the Missouri River to St. Joseph, Mo.
As work progressed, the tanks grew bigger and more numerous and personalized naming got dropped in favor of numbered tanks. In all, there are five 15,000-gallon pilot fermenters and four 35,000-gallon hydrolysis/fermentation reactors housed in the pilot facility on the LifeLine Foods LLC campus.
Once owned by a large oats processor, the warehouse and processing plant were turned into a food-grade corn products facility by the farmer cooperative AgraMarke Quality Grains. ICM installed a 50 MMgy ethanol plant to add value to excess starch supplies, acquiring a 49 percent share in LifeLine in the deal. With much of the old warehouse standing empty, ICM utilized unused space for both its starch-based and cellulosic research and development.
In late November, the R&amp;D team completed a six-week, continuous, integrated run of the Generation 1.5 process. Doing a 1,000-hour run is a whirlwind experience. &ldquo;The laboratory is filled with people running tests, all day and all night,&rdquo; says Malburg. More than 2,000 samples were pulled during the continuous run, with about 10 tests run on each sample. Some tests needed to be done as the run progressed, while other fractions could be labeled and set aside for later analysis. Data was collected at every pump and every valve as well via the distributed control system. In all, the data report was more than 900 pages long in March, and growing.&nbsp;
The patent-pending Gen 1.5 cellulosic technology is built on two trademarked and proprietary technologies that can be implemented in stages: Select Milling Technology and Fiber Separation Technology. Select milling has been installed at about a dozen ethanol plants, demonstrating enhancements of 2 to 3 percent more ethanol and 10 to 20 percent greater oil recovery. Similar enhancements may be gained in ethanol and oil yields from removing the fiber with the newest technology, even without taking the fiber to the cellulosic conversion step. (See sidebar.) Going the final step of converting the fiber to cellulosic ethanol brings the total gain from Select Milling Technology, Fiber Separation Technology and Gen 1.5&nbsp; to 14 percent in ethanol production and about a 70 percent increase in oil recovery. Or, as the ICM team likes to put it, allowing the same ethanol production from 14 percent less corn.
Ethanol producers going the cellulosic route will have a few more tasks on the front end, says Gerken, whose scientific focus on the team is pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. A dilute acid pretreatment step hydrolyzes hemicellulose to xylose while also fluffing the cellulosic structure for the enzymatic action that breaks down the cellulose to glucose. From there, the pretreated fiber can take one of two paths. In the hybrid hydrolysis and fermentation, the pretreated and hydrolyzed fibers are first fermented in separate tanks using genetically modified (GM) yeasts for C5 conversion before being introduced into the plant&rsquo;s main fermenters.&nbsp; &ldquo;Some ask why we do that,&rdquo; says Gerken about the two-stage fermentation, &ldquo;but you get some added efficiencies, and you don't get to 14 percent unless you do that.&rdquo; If the producer doesn&rsquo;t want to go the GM route and is willing to give up the C5 conversion, the pretreated, hydrolyzed fiber fraction can be sent directly to the corn starch-based mash being fermented by conventional yeast. From there on, the two processes are comingled through the back end of the plant.
Malburg, a yeast specialist on the team, explains that ICM has worked with several companies that are developing GM yeasts for C5 conversion. The GM yeasts, however, will require federal approval before they can be used commercially because they end up in the distillers grains feed coproduct. &ldquo;Those [yeast] suppliers are in different stages in the regulatory path,&rdquo; Malburg says. &ldquo;But, we think within a year there will be more than one GM yeast approved.&rdquo;
Designing a successful cellulosic process goes far beyond pretreatment, enzymes and yeasts. One of the first challenges in the Gen 1.5 development was figuring out how to handle the highly viscous material on the front end. Licklider says they quickly began using flexible hoses, rather than piping, and installed motors, valves and pumps on skids that could be moved aside with forklifts.&nbsp; &ldquo;We can make changes on the fly,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;We have fabricators, electricians, and computer programmers on staff.&rdquo; They also make a point to use the same suppliers of the various components as the starch-based designs.
Systems were developed individually until the big test of the integrated run last winter. &ldquo;When running continuously you get buildups you don&rsquo;t see in batches,&rdquo; Malburg says. &ldquo;We knew it was there and would be coming, but we didn&rsquo;t have a good idea of the scale of the scale.&rdquo; For a time, the ICM team thought they might be looking at a new polymer coproduct, he adds wryly, but as the process was refined, the team altered the pretreatment to avoid the issue.
With the 1,000-hour run on the integrated corn fiber process under their belts, the team is preparing for a similar run on the Gen 2 cellulosic ethanol process in late summer, initially using energy sorghum as feedstock. Once hydrolyzed, the sorghum behaves much like the corn fiber, Malburg adds, but the two cellulosic feedstocks handle quite differently when mixed with water and pumped through the front end. &ldquo;Corn fiber is more like a flake, like wheat bran,&rdquo; Malburg says. &ldquo;Sorghum is more stick-like. What we&rsquo;re learning now is what it will take to get our front end humming along with energy sorghum.&rdquo;&nbsp;
For Gen 2, ICM is targeting a scale that would co-locate 25 MMgy of cellulosic ethanol production with a 100 MMgy first- generation plant. Gen 2 will include new levels of energy integration, Gerken says. &ldquo;There will be a lot more unit operations that take energy loads. With the co-located approach&mdash;cellulosic and starch plants&mdash;we&rsquo;re looking at the energy needs of the entire process and how to make the best use of the lignin.&rdquo;
While Gen 1.5 is going to add some complexities to the front end of a first generation plant primarily in the pretreatment step, Gerken cautions that Gen 2 is going to be a 20-fold increase in complexity. &ldquo;As a result, we&rsquo;re trying to automate as much as possible,&rdquo; Malburg adds, explaining the team is testing several kinds of probes in multiple locations.
As the R&amp;D work continues on Gen 2, Licklider says his team of plant operators are preparing standard operating procedures for Gen 1.5 and getting ready to go out in the field as the first Fiber Separation Technologies and Gen 1.5 systems are installed. Indeed, the first ethanol producer in ICM&rsquo;s early adopter group was running water through the system to check for leaks in mid-April before starting up its Fiber Separation Technology. A full announcement and more details on the process will be released at the International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo set for June 10-13 in St. Louis. Author: Susanne Retka Schill Senior Editor, BBI International publications 701-738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com
&nbsp;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stepping Up Technologies Gen 1.5 is built on ICM&rsquo;s trademarked and proprietary Selective Milling Technology, a process enhancement designed for first-generation corn-ethanol plants that offers a 2 to 3 percent ethanol yield boost and a 10 to 20 percent oil increase in the dozen or so plants that have added the system so far. Going the next step with the new wet fractionation technology, trademarked Fiber Separation Technology, will add another 2 to 3 percent increase in ethanol yield and 15 to 20 percent on oil, says Kurt Dieker, ICM director of product development. Each of those steps have been designed for a targeted payback of around a year.
Rather than going to a finer grind, the ICM process backs off to a coarser grind from the hammermills to keep fiber sizes larger, followed by a secondary grind once the grain is slurried and before liquefaction. &ldquo;The goal is liquefy everything but the insoluble fiber,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s a reason we went with wet fractionation. When you grind corn dry, the fiber grinds just as well as everything else. When you grind corn wet, the fiber doesn&rsquo;t tear as easily. We also want to macerate the germ because germ has 85 percent of the oil.&rdquo;&nbsp; By freeing the oil and keeping the fiber molecules larger, he adds, &ldquo;that allows us to separate it more easily and get the same or larger yield with less horsepower.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Efficiencies are gained in targeting solids, he says. A 56-pound bushel of corn amounts to 47 pounds of solids when moisture is subtracted. That is reduced in a prescreening step to 9 to 10 pounds going through selective milling. By concentrating the stream, horsepower requirements and operational costs are reduced, he points out. The next step takes the 10 pounds down to 4 or 5 pounds of actual fiber content.
In shifting commodity markets and an uncertain political environment, giving the customer options is important, says Dieker. The fiber can simply be separated and added back to the distillers grains, creating more fermentation space by removing the unfermentable fiber solids. The separated fibers can also become a new feed coproduct. &ldquo;For some markets that will be preferred, in that it is a high-fiber, lower-protein supplement and they can add specific components back in. Dairies, for instance, add specific fats for the positive impact on milk.&rdquo;
The third choice is to send the fiber into Gen 1.5 for conversion to cellulosic ethanol, starting with a dilute acid pretreatment before going through enzymatic hydrolysis. Once again, there are options. More than 80 percent of C5 sugars can be converted by first fermenting the fiber mash with GM yeast, before sending it to the corn starch fermenter to complete the C6 fermentation. If the producer wants to avoid the use of GM yeasts for C6 conversion, forfeiting that ethanol yield boost, another option is to send the hydrolyzed fiber to the corn mash for fermentation with conventional yeasts. The fiber conversion achieves a rate of greater than 100 gallons per ton, while the overall gain is about 10 percent more ethanol per bushel of corn on top of the gains from selective milling and fiber separation.&nbsp;
ICM estimates the Gen 1.5 payback will be a little under two years, if the value of the cellulosic renewable identification number (RIN) stays high. If it doesn&rsquo;t, it would be closer to three years, Dieker says. &ldquo;It also depends on what market you&rsquo;re in&mdash;what you&rsquo;re getting for your coproducts and what you value your fiber as,&rdquo; he says, adding that he suspects regional patterns will develop based on feed market preferences.

ICM scientist Chris Gerken stands by the Beast, the flask reactor used in the early stage of the companyâ€™s cellulosic ethanol research.  

2013/05/Ethanol-ICM-Chris_13686350965147.jpg

Ongoing trials at ICMâ€™s pilot cellulosic biorefinery means a steady stream of samples need analysis in the multiple laboratories supporting R&D. 

2013/05/Ethanol-ICM-Lab_13686350983101.jpg

ICM senior scientist Laers Malburg illustrates how cellulose fiber is structured and the principle underlying pretreatment systems designed to open the structure for enzyme action.  

2013/05/Ethanol-ICM-Malburg_1368635102438.jpg

A conveyer transports cellulosic feedstock across the street into ICMâ€™s cellulosic pilot facility, housed in a former warehouse on the LifeLine Foods campus. Part of the LifeLine corn processing facility is in the background.   

2013/05/Ethanol-ICM-Life_13686353758416.jpg

Pilot plant supervisor Jon Licklider explains data collection and analysis lies at the heart of researching new processes. 

2013/05/Ethanol-Feat-ICM_13686355955705.jpg

In a 1,000-hour run, the ICM laboratory technicians who support the pilot plant keep busy running multiple tests from samples they collect around the clock. 

2013/05/lab-slurry-ICM_13686355551451.jpg

A closer look at cellulosic R&D by ICM Inc. 

Gen 1+1.5+2 Equals Process Progress

To capture an image of where the ethanol industry is going, it is imperative to understand where it has been. In the past five years, the industry persevered through an economic bust, maintained vigilance in its recovery and steeled itself against tight margins with greater efficiencies and valuable coproducts. To learn how the industry is currently faring, researcher Steffen Mueller with the Energy Resources Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago and John Kwik, president of Dominion Energy Services, surveyed ethanol producers to gauge the industry progress in reducing the energy and environmental footprint of corn-ethanol production.
The 2012 corn-ethanol survey was sponsored by the National Corn Growers Association and the Illinois Corn Marketing Board. Additional support came from the Renewable Fuels Association, Growth Energy member plants and the Nebraska Ethanol Board. Out of 162 plants operating in 2012, ranging from 30 to 111 MMgy in production capacity, 84 responded to the survey. The report notes that plants smaller than 30 MMgy and those processing mixed feedstocks were excluded from the analysis. Historical Comparison Since the last survey reported by Mueller in 2008, corn-ethanol plants have incrementally improved performance in thermal energy application, water usage and ethanol yield. The study shows that modern energy and processing technologies have reduced the energy footprint of the process, including sophisticated heat integration, combined heat and power (CHP) technologies, variable frequency drives, advance grinding technologies, various combinations of front- and back-end oil separation, and innovative ethanol and distillers dried grains (DDG) recovery.
The 2012 survey shows that ethanol yield has increased 1.43 percent to 2.82 gallons of undenatured anhydrous ethanol per bushel of corn. The progress in ethanol production can be credited to innovations being adopted across the industry despite economic downturns, Mueller says. Through plant retrofits, the producers were able to increase ethanol yields on a per-bushel basis and utilize electricity and thermal energy more efficiently. New technologies in corn production, such as slow-release fertilizers and sophisticated corn hybrids and machinery, have also reduced the overall energy and environmental footprint of the corn ethanol industry. &ldquo;What the survey shows is that the ethanol industry is still very dynamic,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Despite economic downturns, the industry has increased yield while simultaneously reducing overall energy consumption at the plant level.&rdquo;
According to the 2008 report, the average plant utilized 26,206 Btu of thermal energy per gallon produced. The latest findings indicate an 8.95 percent decrease to an average of 23,862 Btu per gallon. Mueller says this figure represents a snapshot across all ethanol plant technologies, coproduct drying practices and geographic locations. To put it in perspective, a 50 MMgy ethanol plant will save more than 117 billion Btu per year in thermal energy compared to five years ago. The energy efficiency improvement is even more dramatic when compared to a 2001 USDA commissioned survey that showed 36,000 Btu thermal energy was used per gallon produced.&nbsp;
Not surprisingly, corn oil yield increased significantly. The survey shows an average of 0.53 pounds of separated corn oil is produced per bushel&mdash;a nearly fivefold increase from the 0.11 pounds per bushel reported in 2008. It&rsquo;s also notable that the jump in corn oil production resulted in a 0.5 percent decrease in DDG yield and a 2.7 percent increase in electricity usage.
Water use has declined by 0.74 percent since 2008 to 2.7 gallons of water used per gallon of ethanol. Although less than 1 percent change might not seem a large adjustment, it&rsquo;s more than a 50 percent reduction of water per gallon of ethanol produced in 2005, as reported by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.&nbsp; Emerging Technology Summaries Going beyond the average reported among those returning the survey, the report digs into the impact on ethanol yield and efficiencies for 15 emerging technologies.&nbsp; Some of the most promising technologies for improved ethanol production, Mueller says, are CHP operations, diversification of corn oil recovery systems, better grinding techniques and carbon dioxide scrubbers.
The report describes two CHP turbine configurations that operate at pressures between 150 and 600 pounds per-square-inch gauge. In these models, a steam turbine generates electricity to offset the power bought from the grid while meeting the plant&rsquo;s thermal energy requirements for process heat. In some locations, the systems are scaled up to generate electricity as a coproduct sold to a local utility.
Both front- and back-end corn oil recovery methods are summarized in the report. The Brix oil separation process for front-end oil recovery increases oil yield from 0.4 to 0.48 pounds per bushel, but at the added cost of increased electrical usage of 0.02 kilowatt (kW) per gallon of ethanol. Higher recovery rates for corn oil can be achieved by combining the traditional oil recovery process with new technology. As an example from the seven back-end oil recovery technologies briefly reviewed, one hybrid system boosts yield to 1.2 to 1.4 pounds of oil per bushel of corn. The process puts together a front-end oil recovery system with back-end oil technology to increase oil yield.
Carbon dioxide scrubbers are another technology featured within the report. This technology involves installing a new condenser ahead of the CO2 scrubber to remove trapped ethanol and return it to either the beerwell or into the rectification column. By utilizing the newer CO2 scrubber technology, plants report a yield increase of 0.1 gallon of ethanol per bushel.&nbsp; Plant Configurations Besides describing the separate emerging technologies, the report takes a closer look at four plant configurations that all yield more ethanol than the reported average. This section of the report was designed to assist plant owners in determining the direction they would like to take their plant, Kwik explains. The plants serve as models for assessing improvement opportunities.
Two configurations are among the most common, differing only in the treatment of the distillers grains. The first utilizes the traditional corn dry-mill process plus back-end oil extraction and 100 percent DDGS. The best performing facilities in this configuration yield 2.85 undenatured ethanol gallons, extract 0.75 pound of corn oil and produce 13.7 pounds of DDGS on a dry basis from every bushel of corn processed.
The second one is identical to the first, with the exception that half the distillers grains are dried and half are sold wet. Both can attain the same ethanol and corn yields and use the same amount of electricity per gallon. However, the second configuration yields, on a dry basis, 6.85 pounds each of wet and dry distillers per bushel while using 16 percent less thermal energy. The report notes the distillers grains yield is lower than the average in both models due to higher ethanol yields.
The next two configurations described in the report illustrate where the industry is heading, Kwik says. One focuses on the production of multiple coproducts utilizing multiple technologies and yields 2.89 gallons of undenatured ethanol, 3.25 pounds of protein, 0.48 pounds of front-end oil, 0.8 pounds of back-end oil and 9.47 pounds of DDGS per bushel, on a dry basis. These facilities utilize multiple technologies to produce the diverse coproducts. In addition to standard dry milling, the model employs batch fermentation, either high or low temperature cooking, advanced grind technology, front-end and back-end oil recovery with advanced systems and protein recovery. &ldquo;Because of some of the grinding technology, we enhance the coproducts,&rdquo; Kwik explains. &ldquo;You also achieve the benefit of additional ethanol and oil.&rdquo; He adds this creates a metric for achievable goals that can be used by plant owners in their own revenue calculations and to help with comparative analyses of the different technologies.
Kwik says for producers not ready to handle multiple coproducts, the fourth model demonstrates a more efficient plant that produces the highest ethanol yield with lowest overall thermal requirements of all configurations studied, while still producing DDGS. This model yields 2.85 gallons of ethanol, 0.75 pound oil and 13.7 pounds of DDGS per bushel, on a dry basis, but only uses 19,500 Btu of thermal energy and 0.75 kW of electricity per gallon of ethanol. Although the list of employed tools is not as extensive as the third model, it does utilize batch fermentation, either high or low temperature cooking and back-end oil recovery. Where this model stands apart is that it utilizes a superheated flash dryer to bring DDGS down to 11 to 12 percent moisture. About 85 percent of the thermal energy input is recovered by condensing evaporated vapors in an external heat exchanger and by recycling the latent heat of vaporization back into the process. Condensing vapors from the dryer, however, does require the facility to process the excess condensate that cannot be recycled as backset through anaerobic digestion or waste treatment.
Many factors will influence which direction plants take as they plan for future enhancements, Kwik says, with the most prominent being location and finances. &ldquo;What you do with your plant is really dependent on your geographic location,&rdquo; he says. He cites facilities in Iowa and Illinois where the cattle-feeding needs of distillers grains customers limit how much oil they can extract, while others near dairy operations are able to extract more oil without affecting distillers grains value.
Although the report offers milestones and methods to producers wanting to increase their ethanol yield, the biggest challenge might be to secure capital to fund projects. The technology is ahead of the financial stability of the current ethanol market. &ldquo;We have the technology to make plants more sustainable,&rdquo; Kwik says. &ldquo;We just can&rsquo;t get the capital to implement the technologies even with attractive returns.&rdquo; Author: Chris Hanson Staff Writer, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4970 chanson@bbiinternational.com

2013/05/Ethanol-Feature-Lead_13686347776877.jpg

2013/05/Ethanol-Feature-Text_13686347028432.jpg

The results of a 2012 corn-ethanol survey reveal progress in yield, energy and water use.

Ethanol Industry Snapshot

On May 9, at a monitoring station atop the volcano Mauna Loa, scientists concluded that for the first time ever, the daily average for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm). The station has already recorded hourly spikes above this threshold, but until that day, the daily average had not exceeded 400 ppm.
 The public and the policymakers in this country may debate the implications and ramifications of this number, as well as the general trend of carbon in the earth&rsquo;s atmosphere. Amongst climate scientists, however, there is little debate about how human beings are changing the planet&rsquo;s climate. Unfortunately, climate scientists do not draft nor pass laws, and the U.S.&mdash;which was recently eclipsed by China as the No.1 generator of carbon dioxide&mdash;has no binding policy to begin limiting the amount of carbon that can be emitted via the production of the energy products we are so reliant upon.
 While more than half of U.S. states have a renewable portfolio standard on the books, and a handful of others have renewable targets and goals, the country&rsquo;s policy and policymakers have, so far, shown no appetite to explicitly target carbon dioxide and pass robust policy that would significantly limit or make more expensive the generation of energy from fossil fuels by placing a price on its carbon. More and more, our industrialized peers are distancing themselves from our policy reluctance and charging forward with aggressive energy policies, all drafted and implemented to dramatically decrease carbon dioxide associated with energy production.
 Anna Simet&rsquo;s feature, &ldquo;End of an Era,&rdquo; examines the complete elimination of coal from Ontario&rsquo;s energy diet, and her article reports that &ldquo;By the end of this year, the province will have shut down or converted 17 of its 19 coal units.&rdquo; The power station featured in her piece, the 211-MW Atikokan Generating Station, is in the middle of coal-to-biomass migration, and the plant will burn wood pellets exclusively by mid-2014.
 The ongoing conversion story at the Drax Power Station in England is tailor made for this conversion and retrofits issue. Drax's enormous biomass conversion, featured in &ldquo;Yorkshire&rsquo;s Game Changer,&rdquo; on page 14, is a case study in the role aggressive policymaking can play in dramatically changing the trajectory of a country&rsquo;s energy future.
 Whether or not policymakers in the U.S. eventually confront carbon emissions in a meaningful way almost seems beside the point now, as North American biomass resources are increasingly being tapped to deliver reduced-carbon Btu to foreign power facilities that are generating billions of dollars in capital investments for pellet facilities and port infrastructure. As Peter Emery, production director at Drax wryly muses, &ldquo;We&rsquo;re getting your biomass supply chain ready for you, so it&rsquo;s there when you are ready for it.&rdquo;

2013/05/Tim3_2010_1369167816956.jpg

For Many, Climate Debate Over

BIO welcomes new members, adds to governing board The Biotechnology Industry Organization has added several new members to its Industrial &amp; Environmental Section, including Calysta Energy, American Science and Technology Corp., LanzaTech, The Coca-Cola Co., Lignol Energy Corp., Neol Biosolutions and Plum Creek. In addition, BIO has appointed Scott Vitters, general manager of The Coca-Cola Co.&rsquo;s PlantBottle Packaging Platform, to the governing board of its Industrial &amp; Environmental Section. The section represents companies at every stage of the value chain in renewable feedstock, biobased product and renewable chemical production. Berkley biochemical professor wins Washington Carver award The Biotechnology Industry Organization named Jay Keasling as the recipient of its 2013 George Washington Carver Award. Keasling is a professor of biochemical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, an associate laboratory director at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CEO of the Joint BioEnergy Institute, and director of the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center. He was recognized for his contributions in the field of synthetic biology promoting the use of engineering microbes to produce biofuels, medicines and cosmetic compounds from sugar and other forms of biomass. Forestry Endowment names chief financial officer The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities has announced the addition of Signe Cann as chief financial officer. In her new role, Cann will be responsible for the Endowment&rsquo;s finances and organization efficiency. Prior to joining the Endowment on a full-time basis, she had been conducting a short-term consulting project on ways to enhance the organization&rsquo;s financial systems. In January, she accepted the role of interim CFO. Niebling rejoins INRS Charlie Niebling has rejoined Innovative Natural Resources Solutions LLC. He served as a partner with the company in the mid-1990s. INRS is a natural resource consulting company with offices in New Hampshire and Maine that specializes in renewable energy and forest sustainability. As a member of the INRS team, he will continue to work in the biomass thermal sector, in both development and strategic communications. For the past seven years, Niebling was the general manager of New England Wood Pellet. He maintains a consulting agreement with NEWP. Neibling was a founder and first board chair of the Biomass Thermal Energy Council and recently received the 2013 International Excellence in BioEnergy Award from BBI International. BPA announces additions to board of directors The Biomass Power Association has announced Tom Beck, chief commercial officer of ReEnergy Holdings Inc., as its new chairman of the board. Paula Soos, vice president of government relations at Covanta Energy Corp., the current chair, will serve as vice-chair. Bill Libro, director of government affairs for Minnesota Power, and Marvin Burchfield, vice president of the solid fuel business unit at FSE Energy, are joining the board as new members.

Beck is a founder of ReEnergy. He sits on the companyâ€™s board of directors and is a member of its executive committee.

2013/05/BB-BMM-Beck-0613_13691680254827.jpg

Signe Cann has served in various CFO and consulting roles during her career. 

2013/05/BB-BMM-Cann-0613_13691680265749.jpg

The award recognizes Keasling for his contributions to synthetic biology

2013/05/BB-BMM-Keasling-0613_13691680292424.jpg

Libro manages federal legislative and regulatory issues for Minnesota Power, a subsidiary of ALLETE, a Midwest energy company.

2013/05/BB-BMM-Libro-0613_13691680322299.jpg

Niebling brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to INRS.

2013/05/BB-BMM-Niebling-0613_13691680364786.jpg

Vitters is general manager of Coca-Cola Co.â€™s PlantBottle Packaging Platform, which is advancing plant-based packaging materials. 

2013/05/BB-BMM-vitters-0613_13691680403839.jpg

The International Energy Agency has made its annual report to the Clean Energy Ministerial, reporting that renewable technologies are a bright spot in an otherwise bleak assessment of progress towards low-carbon energy development.
 According to the report, renewable power technologies are on track to meet the 2 degree Celsius scenario (2DS) targets by 2020. The 2DS describes an energy system consistent with an emissions trajectory that is expected to give an 80 percent chance of limiting global temperature increases by 2 degrees Celsius. Power production from solid biomass, biogas, renewable municipal solid waste and liquid biofuels grew by more than 170 terawatt hours (TWh) from 2000 through 2011, a growth rate of more than 8 percent per year. By 2011, approximately 310 TWh of capacity was installed, up from 280 TWh in 2010.

Global biomass/waste power generation (in TWh)

2013/05/News-BMM-IEA-0613_13691682655449.jpg

Biomass power expected to grow globally

Legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Senate could significantly level the playing field between fossil energy and renewable energy if passed by Congress and signed into law. The bill, titled the Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act, would allow investors in renewable energy projects access to the corporate structure of master limited partnerships (MLP), which offer significant tax benefits compared to other business structures. MLPs are currently only available to investors in fossil energy projects.
 MLPs are taxed as a partnership, but ownership interests are traded like corporate stock on a market. While income generated by C corporations is taxed at both the corporate and shareholder level, MLPs are only taxed at the shareholder level, since they are treated as a partnership for tax purposes. The bill was introduced by Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del.; Jerry Moran, R-Kan.; Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Bill would open MLPs to renewable energy investors 

Retrofitting is an important practice that helps extend the life of a biomass facility. It allows a facility to adapt to changing technologies and environmental standards, ensuring compliance with new laws. Facilities sometimes qualify for government help toward the cost of the updates, which can sometimes be costly. Retrofitting is an easy, sensible way to maintain continued and reliable use of renewable energy resources, without constructing an entirely new facility.
 A plan is currently under consideration by the Connecticut General Assembly to reduce the eligibility of biomass under the state&rsquo;s renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The proposal would disqualify retrofitted biomass facilities as renewable energy producers, because the facility would not be &ldquo;new&rdquo; enough. If enacted, this will affect biomass facilities all over New England.
 There are many reasons this proposal is not logical. Perhaps the biggest one is that a retrofitted biomass facility is every bit as clean as a brand new one; there is no practical difference between the two in terms of emissions and efficiency.
 The owners of biomass facilities, both in and out of the state, have invested tens of millions of dollars to install state-of-the-art technology to comply with Connecticut&rsquo;s stringent requirements. These investments, made in reliance on a stable energy policy, should be recognized and respected. In addition to tightening emissions on biomass plants, the study opens the state's portfolio of renewable energy sources to large hydropower&mdash;including hydropower and, possibly, fossil fuel power generated in Canada&mdash;and gives the state a way to enter into long-term contracts with energy project developers.
 Facility owners and operators won&rsquo;t be the only ones financially affected by the Connecticut Department of Energy &amp; Environmental Protection&rsquo;s plan. The proposal stands to cost Connecticut taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The study upon which proposed law is based shows that RPS program compliance costs would be at least 20 percent higher&mdash;or $300 million more over a 10-year period&mdash;if 75 percent of the currently eligible biomass resources were to be eliminated from the RPS beginning in 2015.
 Up until a few weeks ago, Connecticut state government encouraged the practice of retrofitting. The state&rsquo;s new approach to biomass is a reversal. It provides no environmental benefit, it will be more expensive for ratepayers, and its fundamental shift in policy will send a conflicting message to investors about the stability of the Connecticut market. Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association <a href="http://www.biomasspowerassociation.com">www.biomasspowerassociation.com </a> <a href="http://mce_host/posts/ailto:bob@biomasspowerassociation.com">bob@biomasspowerassociation.com</a>

2013/05/Bob-Cleaves_Standing_13691685619522.jpg

Retrofitted Biomass Facilities:  As Good As New

Since the commissioning of its first boilers in 1974, the 3,960 MW power plant at Drax, England, has resisted stasis. A decade after coming on line, the plant was expanded and nearly doubled in size to arrive at its current capacity. Since then, it has survived a miners strike, witnessed&nbsp; the privatization of the power generation industry in England, been owned by an American company, been purchased out of bank possession, and is presently one-third of the way through what is likely the largest coal-to-biomass plant conversion the world will ever see.
 The power plant in Drax, instantly identifiable by its collection of 12 massive hyperboloid cooling towers and 850-foot-high chimney (at one time the largest industrial chimney in the world), delivers between 7 and 8 of the United Kingdom&rsquo;s&nbsp; electrical power. Drax&rsquo;s output is double that of its closest U.K. rival, and with the exception of the Belchatow Power Station in Poland, no other power station in Europe is capable of matching its output.
 In so many ways, the enormity of the station is an incredible asset. It does, however, possess one glaring liability: as the U.K.&rsquo;s largest coal-fired power station, Drax Power Station also holds the top spot on the country&rsquo;s list of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters, generating more than 20 million tons annually. With growing awareness and an acknowledgment of the consequences of a high carbon energy platform in Britain and Europe, the government acted.
 Two policy measures in the European Union and the U.K., intended to spur the region toward a less carbon intensive energy future, set the table for action at Drax.&nbsp; First, the U.K.&rsquo;s Renewables Obligation set increasing minimum percentages of electricity that power providers had to obtain from renewable sources. Next, the EU deployed the world&rsquo;s largest emissions trading platform in 2005, the European Union Emission Trading Scheme, effectively putting a price on CO2 emissions. Together, the two form a classic carrot-and-stick policy combination.
 With just one power generation asset in its portfolio, the options for mitigating the risk of escalating carbon prices for the Drax Group were limited. Peter Emery, production director at Drax, notes, &ldquo;We couldn&rsquo;t just shut down the coal plant and build gas plants. All the other technology was a long way off, so we needed some sort of plan that gave us a future.&rdquo;
 Therefore, the team at Drax devised a three-part plan to drive down the facility&rsquo;s carbon profile.
 Three-Part Plan
 Part one of Drax&rsquo;s plan to retool its plant for compliance with mandatory policy was to make the facility operate as efficiently as possible, utilizing existing and proven technologies. Part two was to identify a less carbon-dense fuel source, and part three would involve the capture and sequestration of any CO2 that remained in the production profile after the first two measures were implemented.
 To make the facility run more efficiently, the Drax team turned toward a modernization of the facility&rsquo;s steam turbine fleet. The Drax Group made an investment of over &pound;100 million ($153.7 million) and replaced all of the high- and low-pressure steam turbines at the facility, increasing the plant&rsquo;s overall efficiency by around 5 percent. While that percentage may seem small, Emery warns against discounting the number too much. &ldquo;That might not sound like a lot, but 5 percent when you are burning 10 million tons of coal is half a million tons of coal, which is 10,000 tons a week and a million tons of CO2 a year.&rdquo;
 While the turbine upgrade began moving the needle toward reducing the plant&rsquo;s CO2, its effects would be limited to a 5 percent reduction. To further reduce its carbon profile to levels the company was targeting, they moved into the second part of the plan: replacing coal with a more carbon benign fuel source. Biomass offered the Drax Group a fuel source that could be introduced into their production process and cofired with coal, and would drive the CO2 numbers at the facility down to a level the team felt was optimal.
 In 2006, as Drax was researching cofiring, the British government announced its intention to reform the Renewables Obligation scheme, and Drax would once more have to adapt to a game change. When the Renewables Obligation scheme was first drafted, all renewable technologies were awarded saleable Renewable Obligation Certificates at the same rate. As the program became established, however, policymakers feared that one or two near-term renewable technologies would be all that would attract investment dollars, and modified the policy to drive investment into a broader portfolio. Most notable for Drax, megawatts derived from the cofiring of biomass were first reduced to 0.5 ROC per MWh, and subsequently to 0.3 ROC per MWh. With the revenue opportunity presented by cofiring biomass reduced by nearly 70 percent, Drax amended its conversion plans during the second quarter of 2012, and decided upon the complete conversion of three of its boilers to&nbsp; biomass.
 Reflecting on this policy shift, Emery notes full conversion is easier for policymakers to defend, suggesting that &ldquo;instead of having green units with a black tinge&mdash;which you are always going to get with cofiring&mdash;if you can do a full conversion, you&rsquo;ve got a green unit. There&rsquo;s no debate about it.&rdquo;
 Cofiring to Full Conversion
 Converting three of its boilers to fire exclusively on biomass will require Drax and its supply chain partners to source, pelletize, ship by sea and rail, unload, temporarily store, and finally, deliver nearly 7 million tons of woody biomass to the plant&rsquo;s boiler every year. This effort is already underway at the Drax site, at several of the U.K.&rsquo;s busiest ports, at ports in the U.S., and in the construction of new pellet facilities in the southeastern U.S. The budget for Drax&rsquo;s share of this ambitious undertaking is currently estimated at &pound;700 million.
 Moving and storing massive amounts of solid fuels is not new to Drax, nor the ports and rail partners that work with Drax. The facility currently welcomes 35 coal trains each day, moving nearly 10,000 tons of coal onto the facility property. The difficulty is not the volume, but instead in the handling properties that are unique to biomass. For example, the biomass that will feed Drax&rsquo;s boilers cannot be allowed to get wet. It must move in covered rail cars, from covered storage sites to enclosed storage containers on site, then along covered conveyers before it is delivered to the boilers. The first physical sign of Drax&rsquo;s progress are two of four planned pellet storage domes that have risen just to the west of the plant&rsquo;s southern cooling towers. Two more domes will be established and completed by the end of 2014, bringing the on-site covered storage capacity to nearly 300,000 metric tons.
 Now that the technical challenges are understood and solutions are under development and construction, Drax&rsquo;s focus is on building a supply chain that achieves the highest degree of sustainability possible. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re on the start of a journey, and we think that sustainability is a fundamental building block to that,&rdquo; Emery says, drawing attention to the sustainability policy drafted and enforced by Drax. Drax&rsquo;s sustainability policy ensures that the biomass that comes from the nearly 4,600 square miles of forest required for its fuel supply align with current accepted sustainability practices. Recognizing that the science of sustainable biomass is fluid, Drax makes clear its intentions of keeping pace with any changes, noting in its policy, &ldquo;Over time we will seek to amend or improve them by working with accredited bodies to develop the use of internationally recognized standards and principles which will apply to all of our biomass procurement activities. In so doing, we hope to foster environmental leadership today and in the future.&rdquo;
 Drax&rsquo;s future as a predominantly biomass-fueled facility and company has become central to the organization&rsquo;s mission. Its 2012 annual report is titled &ldquo;Our Transformation Continues,&rdquo; and features schematic illustrations of a coal yard and the construction of the facility&rsquo;s pellet domes. Drax is now firing one of its boilers exclusively on biomass, and by the end of the year will have completed nearly half of the planned infrastructure work. Next year, as the infrastructure and supply chain mature, a second boiler will be commissioned for biomass combustion.&nbsp; Plans are already in place to accelerate commissioning of the third boiler, initially planned for 2016-&rsquo;17.
 In a broad scope, the enormity of Drax&rsquo;s efforts have catapulted the organization into a leadership role in the biomass industry.&nbsp; &ldquo;We are inventing a whole new business from the forests to produce electricity, and that&rsquo;s a big ask,&rdquo; says Emery. Recognizing that the conversion was ultimately inevitable, he adds, &ldquo;we only have this coal facility. We&rsquo;ve got a big carbon problem, and if we don&rsquo;t do something, we&rsquo;re out of business.&rdquo; Author: Tim Portz Executive Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:tportz@bbiinternational.com">tportz@bbiinternational.com</a> 651-398-9154

Drax's Three-Point Plan: Drax Production Director Peter Emery identifies the three parts of Drax's carbon reduction strategy as efficiencies via turbine upgrades, conversion of three boilers to biomass fuels, and carbon capture and sequestration.


2013/05/Pow-BMM-Emergy-0613_13691688094772.jpg

A Tale of Transition: From the west, the southern cooling towers form a backdrop for Drax's coalfields and the first two of four domes that will store wood pellets it will use for half of its  future output. 

2013/05/Pow-BMM-Feature-0613_13691688113409.jpg

Critical Path Project: Deploying pellet storage and handling on the site is imperative to guarantee an uninterrupted supply stream once the boilers are converted and commissioned for biomass.

2013/05/Pow-BMM-pic1-0613_13691688127539.jpg

HALFWAY THERE: With two of four pellet domes nearly finished, foundation work for the third and fourth pellet domes has commenced.

2013/05/Pow-BMM-pic3-0613_13691688149001.jpg

Upon completion of its ambitious conversion, Drax Power Station will be the world's largest single-site producer of biomass-derived power. 

Yorkshire's Game Changer

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities created a database in 2010 that tracked industrial and select community-scale users of wood-to-energy facilities across North America. This spring, the Endowment unveiled major improvements to that database.
 Through the Woody Biomass Joint Venture, a partnership between the&nbsp; U.S. Forest Service and the Endowment, updates were completed to the database to ensure it serves as the most comprehensive and up-to-date source of users and processors for wood for energy, including electric facilities, thermal installations and pellet mills.
 The University of Tennessee Office of Bioenergy Programs created and houses the system, with original funding provided by the Endowment, Forest Service, American Forest and Paper Association, Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada, Forest Products Association of Canada, and several others.

2013/05/News-BMM--US-0613_13691691434407.jpg

The Endowment upgrades,  expands biomass database

German Pellets has announced plans to construct a 1 million-metric-ton pellet plant in the central Louisiana town of Urania. The facility is being developed at the former site of a Georgia Pacific fiber and particleboard plant that closed more than a decade ago. As such, much of the facility&rsquo;s infrastructure is already in place, including railway siding. The pellet plant is expected to be operational next April.
 News of the new plant came as German Pellets prepared to open a 500,000-metric-ton pellet plant in Woodville, Texas. The company plans to export pellets manufactured at both plants to Europe. Shipping will be completed via the harbor of Port Arthur on the Gulf of Mexico, a deep-water port where the company operates storage and loading systems.
 German Pellets also operates 14 pellet plants throughout Germany and Austria.

German Pellets plans second U.S. plant

My last column in Biomass Magazine described the carefully orchestrated presentations during which members of Maine&rsquo;s Congressional delegation were informed of the merits that tax legislation would provide thermal biomass, the same favorable treatment that&rsquo;s been accorded to other forms of renewable energy for years. As predicted, U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, is now introducing the Renewable Biomass Heating Initiative Act of 2013. If passed, this bill will amend Sections 25 and 48 of the Internal Revenue Service Code to put our industry on the same level playing field as other renewables.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 There&rsquo;s one problem however: the bill won&rsquo;t exactly be moving forward at warp speed.&nbsp; Once scored by Congressional staff for impact upon federal revenues, the bill &ndash;despite its boost to economic growth&mdash;will appear on the books as an expenditure, and Congress is hardly in a spending mood. Even more daunting: thermal biomass is not a national energy system. There is scant representation of northern tier states on the 38-member&nbsp; U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, with which tax law must originate. The Biomass Caucus, diligently assembled by the Biomass Thermal Energy Council, is relatively small. It will take very adept maneuvering and leveraging before we can achieve federal tax parity with other green energy.
 In the meantime, our Maine industry has therefore undertaken a major state legislative initiative, aimed at vastly increasing sales of pellet heating systems and Maine wood pellets. Details of our legislative &ldquo;ask&rdquo; are particular to Maine and subject to change, and therefore less important than the lessons being learned, which are:
 &bull; Don&rsquo;t spend any more time arguing with &ldquo;the insulationists.&rdquo;&nbsp; When our state&rsquo;s energy policy and program administration were completely revamped about five years ago, equal emphasis was placed upon reducing oil consumption (Maine ranks #1 in the nation in dependency upon home heating oil) by curtailing energy consumption and by fuel-switching.&nbsp; However, once federal stimulus funds ran out, all the emphasis has been on insulation and weatherization.&nbsp; A de facto policy alliance has emerged between the state&rsquo;s most influential environmental organization, which sees reduced consumption as its highest priority, and the oil dealers, who would rather be seeing homeowners cut their oil consumption than switch altogether.
 Fortunately, legislators understand that people have to pay the oil bill, and that the bill for the average Maine home has gone from $2,000 in 2007 to $3,000 at present. The &ldquo;insulationists&rdquo; will continue to claim, with justification, that &ldquo;the cheapest fuel is that which you don&rsquo;t have to buy.&rdquo; There is no winning this argument. Legislators, however, realize that reducing energy usage is only part of the answer; switching to Maine&rsquo;s home-grown fuel is the other part, and one that creates local jobs.
&bull; Identifying special funding streams is critical to success. Any fuel-switching program is going to require an initial outlay of funds, and tapping into a state&rsquo;s general fund means competing with hundreds of other worthy (and a few unworthy) claimants, from health care to highways. There are, however, energy-related funds coming to states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, there are pockets of discretionary funds available to state energy and housing agencies, and many homeowners have equity that can be brought into play with attractive loan programs such as the PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) program.
 &bull; Don&rsquo;t concede to sharing programs with other renewable energy sectors. As noted above, the other sectors all have their federal tax incentives. To quote Les Otten of Maine Energy Systems, &ldquo;If they are going to be included in this program along with us, they&rsquo;ll be double-dipping.&rdquo; Because thermal biomass is excluded from federal tax incentives, as well as from many state renewable energy credit programs, we deserve to seize the high ground. And hold it.
 &bull; The oil dealers can be our best friends. The folks who install oil burners and deliver heating oil are good guys. They extend credit in times of individual hardship. They deliver in harsh winter weather and after hours, when necessary. They are welcome in most homes, in which they have installed reliable and convenient heating systems. They have many friends among state legislators.&nbsp; They are family businesses, often third-generation, which once delivered ice and coal. They will be bulk delivering wood pellets some day; some of them already are. Our most listened-to speaker at a recent hearing was an oil dealer who has added pellets to his line of business.
 By the time you read this article, our legislative initiative will have met with success, failure, or something in between. Stay tuned. Author: Bill Bell Executive Director, Maine Pellet Fuels Association <a href="mailto:feedalliance@gwi.net">feedalliance@gwi.net </a> 207-752-1392

2013/05/Pel-BMM-Belll-0613_13691696504658.jpg

Pellet Politics in the Pine Tree State

With the close of 2014, Ontario will make history by becoming the first jurisdiction in North America&mdash;and one of the first in the world&mdash; to drop coal power from its energy portfolio. Pulling off such a feat hasn&rsquo;t proved to be too difficult, evidenced by a quicker-than-planned transition. By the end of this year, the province will have shut down or converted 17 of its 19 coal units, leaving a full year for the remaining two to power down.
 One plant that has already burned its last pieces of coal is Ontario Power Generation&rsquo;s Atikokan Generating Station, a 211-MW coal plant that&rsquo;s being converted from low-sulphur lignite coal to wood pellets. Located in northwestern Ontario&rsquo;s Atikokan, a small, scenic town dubbed &ldquo;the canoeing capital of the world,&rdquo; over 150 construction personnel are currently working on the site of AGS. That number is expected to reach 250 by midsummer, with jobs in construction, technical work and administration.&nbsp; While work on the $170 million project began last September, research of and plans to utilize biomass fuel span many years back.
 History
 Back in the 1970s, Ontario Hydro&mdash;Ontario Power Generation&rsquo;s predecessor&mdash;conducted preliminary investigations of biomass potential that included successful test burns of waste grain material at a number of OPG&rsquo;s coal-fired stations, AGS among them. AGS began operations in 1985 and today employs about 85 people.
 In 2006, the provincial government allocated $4 million to build the Atikokan Biomass Research Center, and after a great deal of research and test burns over the next few years&mdash;as well as the passage of a province-wide law that required the cessation of coal use at all power stations by Dec. 31, 2014&mdash;the project began to gain momentum and make sense to stakeholders and the community. Finally, a major milestone was reached in 2010, when the Ontario Minister of Energy announced the official conversion, and directed the Ontario Power Authority to negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement with Ontario Power Generation for biomass-generated electricity from AGS. Even further research was done then, including sustainability and safe handling and storage analyses, engineering concept studies and combustion and ash studies.&nbsp;
 Initially, the converted plant will cover peak demand, outages and weather-related needs, but using biomass will retain the plant&rsquo;s capability of producing at full load of 205 MW. The conversion to biomass will cost less than building a new natural gas plant. While the cost of powering with wood pellets will be more expensive than coal, the plant will be able to meet the no-coal provincial mandate at minimal costs.
 While AGS isn&rsquo;t the largest biomass conversion completed or ongoing, it is certainly notable&mdash;conversion of a lignite coal generating station to biomass has never been completed on such a scale.&nbsp; &ldquo;Therefore, the technical solutions determined for this plant are very leading edge,&rdquo; says AGS Station Manager Brent Boyko. &ldquo;Components were chosen based on well-established industry success; however, the overall integration for this application is the first of its kind.&rdquo;
 It&rsquo;s actually far more challenging to retrofit a plant than to open a new one, according to Boyko. At AGS, that includes overhauling the fuel handling facilities, installing 15 new burners and installing a new controls system.
 Slipform construction of the storage silos began the week of May 1, according to Darcey Bailey, ABC project engineering manager.&nbsp; Slipforming is the use of a continuous, cast-in-place method that relies on the quick-setting and high-strength properties of concrete to create a structure with no joints. &ldquo;The silos progressed very well,&rdquo; Bailey says. &ldquo;The work was continuous&mdash;24 hours a day, for nine to 10 days straight. The final height of the concrete is 43 meters (142 feet). Both silos were poured together, and the forms are joined with a solid bridge.&rdquo;
 &nbsp;Completed May 11, 2,750 cubic meters of concrete&mdash;over 300 truckloads&mdash;were cast in the silos project, supported by over 200 metric tons of rebar. Now that the silo skeletons are erected, the walls of which are about one-half meter thick, work has begun to link them into the fuel transfer system into the plant. They will have a combined storage capacity of 10,000 metric tons.
 AGS has agreements in place with two northwestern Ontario pellet suppliers. Fuel supply contracts were recently signed with Atikokan Renewable Fuels, which was recently acquired by Rentech Inc., and Resolute Forest Products, each for 45,000 metric tons annually, for 10 years. The fuel has been sourced and will be processed in northwestern Ontario, and both companies include aboriginal involvement.&nbsp; Transportation contracts from the source to the station are also in place, according to Chris Fralick, plant manager for OPG's Northwest Thermal, which runs AGS and Thunder Bay Station. Once on site, the pellets will be received from self-unloading, rear discharge trucks&mdash;about five deliveries each day&mdash; and a new receiving system will transport the pellets to large storage silos via conveyor belt and a bucket elevator.
 &ldquo;When needed for production, the pellets will be delivered to the plant on a first-in, first-out basis from the silos, via new conveyor belts and a second bucket elevator,&rdquo; Bailey explains. &ldquo;Once inside the powerhouse, the pellets are pulverized in the existing system and fed into the boiler much the same way the coal was previously.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Structural steel for the truck receiving and transfer tower is complete, the shell of which is about six stories high.&nbsp; Work on repurposing the coal-handling facilities inside the plant has also begun, and still to come are furnace and combustion system modifications, which will begin this year.&nbsp;
 All 15 of AGS&rsquo;s burners are being replaced with Doosan Mark IV biomass burners. The plant utilizes a wall-fired, pulverized-fuel, radiant-heat Babcock &amp; Wilcox boiler designed for lignite coal fuel, an ideal candidate for fuel conversion, due to the similar heat content of lignite coal and wood pellets. On the back end, new ash transport systems are being installed.
 Major equipment has been ordered and is arriving steadily, Bailey says, and work on the replacement of the controls system will begin soon.
 Besides the many construction workers on site, Atikokan Generating Station staff members are involved with the work going on.
 Looking Ahead
 Besides working directly with AGS staff, contractors have islands set up throughout the station where they are able to work independently.
 AGS employees serve as contract monitors and administrators and work closely with contractors on quality control, says Bailey.&nbsp; &ldquo;Their knowledge and familiarity of the plant and its operations are vital as the work progresses.&rdquo;&nbsp; Therefore, all staff will be involved in commissioning and will be trained on process modifications prior to startup.
 Commissioning and in-service for AGS is planned for mid-2014, and further out on the horizon, OPG plans to continue to explore options for its other power stations. Advanced pellets have shown considerable promise, as they can be handled much like coal, but more research has to be done before they might be considered a viable option. &ldquo;We have tested advanced biomass pellets at some of our other stations,&rdquo; Fralick adds. &ldquo;While they show great promise, we are not quite at the point where they can be used in a commercial environment, but our testing of these materials continues.&rdquo; Meanwhile, Ontario will finish the course it set out on six years ago. While biomass won&rsquo;t be the right option for every plant, AGS is a successful example of preserving time, money and air quality by utilizing an abundant, clean and renewable resource. Author: Anna Simet Managing Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-751-2756

STACKING CEMENT: Slipforming of the fuel storage silos at AGS is now complete.


2013/05/Pel-BMM-AGS-1-0613_13691698365768.jpg

MAKE WAY TO CONVEY: A cutout through six coal bunkers for new feed conveyors. The bottom of the bunkers are repurposed as surge bins.


2013/05/Pel-BMM-AGS-2-0613_13691698379661.jpg

AN AERIAL VIEW: The material transfer tower and silos at Atikokan Generation Station overlook Marmion Lake.

2013/05/Pel-BMM-AGS-0613_13691698393597.jpg

2013/05/June-13-BMM-25_13691703044522.jpg

Motivated by a province-wide coal phase out, Ontario Power Generation is revamping existing assets via a 211-MW coal-to-biomass conversion.

End of an Era

The city of Montpelier, Vt., broke ground on a district heating project that will provide thermal energy to public and private buildings in the downtown area. The project is a joint undertaking by the city and state governments.
 The project will include a biomass heating plant built on the site of the existing downtown boiler system. The plant is expected to consume approximately 12,200 tons of locally sourced green wood chips per year. The project also includes the installation of new hot water distribution lines stretching more than an a half mile to an elementary school and police station.
 Once complete, the project will provide 41 million Btu of heat to 22 state- and city-owned buildings, with the potential to supply an additional 8.1 Btu of thermal energy to other neighboring buildings.

Wood Chip Heat: Montpelierâ€™s biomass-fueled district heating system will transport thermal energy through these lines to city- and state-owned buildings. 


2013/05/News-BMM-Vermont-0613_13691703852569.jpg

Vermont gets biomass district heat project

ClearSign Combustion Corp. and Grandeg have announced their intention to enter into a development agreement to integrate ClearSign&rsquo;s proprietary electrodynamic combustion control (ECC) technology into Grandeg&rsquo;s commercial line of pellet boilers.
 Grandeg intends to provide up to $500,000 to support a phased initial project expected to begin in the second quarter of this year. The goal is to release a commercial solution employing ClearSign&rsquo;s ECC technology in 2014.
 ECC technology computer-controlled, high-voltage, low-power electric fields to manipulate the movement of electrically charged ions that result from combustion. As a result, the technology can be manipulated to control flame shape and the transfer of heat. The technology consists of four basic components, including a controller, software, a power amplifier and electrodes. The technology has been shown to reduce particulate matter, carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbons.

Grandeg to incorporate ClearSign technology into pellet boilers

A working report recently prepared by FutureMetrics Inc. outlines a vision to achieve 15 percent renewable thermal energy in the Midwest by 2025, with 10 percent derived from sustainably produced biomass.
 According to the report, in the Midwest, approximately 97 percent of thermal energy consumed in the residential sector is from nonrenewable sources, and no Midwestern states have adopted formal targets to reduce the reliance on fossil energy in heating markets. While other renewable thermal energy options exist in the U.S., the report stresses that biomass is the region&rsquo;s most abundant renewable resource for thermal applications.
 Data included in the analysis demonstrates that Michigan currently leads the Midwestern states in biomass utilization for thermal energy. The state generates 4.44 percent of its thermal energy from biomass sources. Minnesota, Ohio and Indiana generate a relative 2.66, 2.51 and 2.32 percent of thermal energy from biomass. Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin all generate less than 2 percent of their thermal energy from renewable biomass sources.
 While little biomass is currently being utilized for thermal energy production, the report estimates a great deal of the renewable feedstock is available in the Midwest. About 104.82 million green tons of biomass is available in the region, including 86.73 million tons of agricultural biomass and 18.09 tons of forest biomass for pellet production. By 2025, the quantity of biomass is expected to increase to 147.02 million tons, including 114.5 million tons of agricultural biomass and 29.83 tons of forest biomass.

Report: Midwest has abundant,  increasing feedstocks

The Agricultural Utilization Research Institute is funding a study that will explore the benefits of using biomass-derived heat in Minnesota poultry barns.
 Jim Eiynck, owner of study participant Eventemp Biomass&rsquo; national sales office in Becker, Minn., said the study will observe two barns: one utilizing liquid petroleum (LP) and the other woodchip biomass. The project will quantify the amount of LP and electricity utilized in a control barn and compare that performance with that of the barn heated by biomass. Additionally, the poultry will be assessed in each barn for chemical burns derived from ammonia exposure from the litter.
 Initial observations have been made in other poultry barns using thermal biomass. Eiynck said the potential benefits of forced-air biomass applications originate from the dry heat the system produces. He cited some poultry producers have noticed drier wall insulation, elimination of open-flame heaters utilized in chick facilities, drier litter and lower fan use when utilizing forced-air biomass heaters in their barns.

Minn. to study biomass  heat for poultry barns

Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack has renewed an agreement with U.S. dairy producers to accelerate the adoption of waste-to-energy projects and energy efficiency improvements on U.S. dairy farms. The original memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed in Denmark in 2009.
 Since signing the MOU, the USDA has made nearly 180 awards to help finance the development, construction and biogas production of anaerobic digester programs with Rural Development programs, such as Rural Energy for America Program, Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, Value Added Producer Grants, and others.
 "Through this renewed commitment, USDA and the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy will continue research that helps dairy farmers improve the sustainability of their operations," Vilsack said. "This vital research also will support the dairy industry as it works to reach its long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020."

2013/05/News-BMM-Pie-0613_13691706785325.jpg

USDA, dairy industry renew  waste-to-energy agreement 

Colorado-based Agrebon Inc. is developing a nitrogen fertilizer production plant adjacent to the Tharaldson Ethanol Inc. plant in Casselton, N.D. The fertilizer plant will generate biogas from ethanol stillage. The biogas will then be processed into urea, anhydrous ammonia and urea ammonium nitrate. The project is currently in the financing stage. An agreement with business development partner Progressive Nutrient Systems is already in place, while an agreement with the ethanol plant is nearing completion.
 The technology developed by Agrebon utilizes well-known technology that is used to convert natural gas into nitrogen, but substitutes biogas from an aerobic digestion system for the fossil-based natural gas. Approximately 1 pound of nitrogen can be produced per bushel of corn converted into ethanol. Pilot testing, economic modeling of the process, and an engineering review were completed at the University of North Dakota&rsquo;s Energy and Environmental Research Center.

Biomass-to-nitrogen technology to be  installed at North Dakota biofuel plant

Biogas energy systems have typically been considered a source of renewable electricity and/or combined heat and power, but several projects across the U.S. are demonstrating the suitability of biogas as a transportation fuel. Using biogas as a supply source of lower-carbon, domestic, renewable fuel is an exciting prospect, even in the face of abundant natural gas supplies and low prices.
 Since biogas can be converted to a product that is very similar to natural gas, biogas offers an alternative transportation fuel for vehicles converted or designed to run on natural gas. Given the historically low price for natural gas, many truck and heavy duty vehicle fleets are switching from diesel to natural gas. The build-out of additional natural gas refueling infrastructure and fleet conversions could accelerate the development of biogas as a transportation fuel, which provides diversity to the overall fuel mix and offers greater levels of carbon reductions.
 Biogas as a transportation fuel is also bolstered by the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS). This policy, passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007, sets a national production goal of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. Biogas is designated as an advanced biofuel under the law. The overall framework for the RFS provides more of a market pull for other&nbsp; renewable fuels&nbsp; like conventional and cellulosic ethanol, but the contribution that biogas can make in achieving the ambitious RFS targets should not be overlooked.
 In 2011, the American Gas Foundation commissioned a study by the Gas Technology Institute to determine the total national potential for renewable natural gas. Renewable natural gas is the term of art for defining biogas, a mixture of carbon dioxide and methane, to an upgraded or cleaned form that is mostly methane or substantially similar to natural gas. My organization, the Great Plains Institute, used the analysis from the American Gas Foundation to calculate the potential number of renewable fuel gallons that could be produced from biogas. Under an aggressive scenario, if the U.S. successfully converted 40 to 75 percent of the available livestock, municipal solid waste (MSW), wood residue and agriculture residue feedstocks to renewable natural gas, as much as 29 billion equivalent gallons of renewable fuel could be supplied.
 Obviously, this is an ambitious goal, and does not fully consider the economic or technical potential. However, the analysis demonstrates that biogas could supply a considerable amount of renewable fuel, while greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and should not be dismissed or overlooked.&nbsp; The potential of biogas as a transportation fuel is already being demonstrated by projects across the country.&nbsp; Fair Oaks Dairy in Indiana is successfully displacing 1.5 million gallons of diesel fuel per year by collecting, cleaning and compressing biogas from a large herd of dairy cows.&nbsp; Biogas-based renewable fuel is used to run a fleet of milk delivery trucks and fuel for a public compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling station.
 In Ohio, Quasar Energy Group is working with the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio and Kurtz Bros. Inc. to collect biogas from municipal wastewater biosolids and food/beverage waste fats, oils and greases to displace approximately 1.3 million gallons of diesel fuel per year. A CNG refueling station is available onsite and is also available to public.
 Numerous municipal waste haulers are implementing projects to collect, clean and compress gas from landfills to provide renewable fuel for MSW vehicles. The possibilities are endless, and in addition to producing a lower-carbon source of fuel, materials that would otherwise be a strain on wastewater treatment facilities or livestock producers are transformed into a stable source of domestic, renewable fuel. Biogas is already contributing to the RFS and is positioned to make an even larger impact in the future. Author: Amanda Bilek Energy Policy Specialist, Great Plains Institute. <a href="mailto:abilek@gpisd.net">abilek@gpisd.net</a> 612-278-7119

2013/05/Bio-BMM-Bilek-0613_13691708795116.jpg

Biogas Contributes to a  Diverse Renewable Fuel Mix 

The International Energy Agency Bioenergy Task 39 group has published a report outlining progress on more than 100 advanced biofuel projects under development worldwide. The report, titled &ldquo;Status of Advanced Biofuels Demonstration Facilities in 2012,&rdquo; is the second edition of the analysis. The first was published in 2010.
 Since the first report was published, the production capacity for lignocellulosic biofuels has tripled, with current annual capacity reaching approximately 140,000 metric tons of fuel. The production capacity for hydrotreating technology has grown at an even faster rate, reaching 2.19 million metric tons per year. The analysis included data gathered from 71 actively pursued advanced biofuel products. Additional projects were identified, but are either not being actively pursued or did not provide sufficient data. As of the close of 2012, 48 of the 71 projects were operational, 9 were under construction and 14 were planned.

2013/05/News-BMM-Pie2-0613_13691709364859.jpg

IEA publishes update of advanced,  cellulosic biofuel projects

Researchers at Virginia Tech have developed a revolutionary way to extract large quantities of hydrogen from plant material. Y.H. Percival Shang, an associate professor of biological systems engineering, and his team have used xylose to produce large quantities of hydrogen from any source of biomass. The method releases no greenhouse gases and does not required costly or heavy metals.
 Automobile manufacturers are aggressively trying to develop vehicles that run on hydrogen fuel cells, and Zhang&rsquo;s discovery has opened the door to an inexpensive, renewable source of hydrogen. Obstacles to commercial biomass-to-hydrogen processes have historically included high processing costs and low yields. Zhang said he thinks he has found the answers to those problems through his use of a unique enzyme cocktail.
 &ldquo;Many people believe we will enter the hydrogen economy soon, with a market capacity of at least $1 trillion in the United States alone,&rdquo; Zhang said.

Researchers extract hydrogen from biomass

Anyone who reads Biomass Magazine knows that those of us across the wide range of renewable energy technologies may not all be able to agree on every policy proposal that comes down the line, but there is one piece of legislation that should be universally supported.
 The recently introduced Master Limited Partnerships Parity Act legislation proposed by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, has the potential to accelerate commercialization of the next generation of domestically produced, sustainable energy, fuels and chemicals from almost any feedstock.
 By giving renewable energy projects the same tax incentives and treatment that fossil fuel projects have enjoyed for decades, the MLPPA will help those companies overcome the so-called &ldquo;valley of death,&rdquo; the space between successful pilot or demonstration facilities and full-blown commercial facilities. It will also increase investment opportunities for a wider audience, allowing more people to &ldquo;vote with their dollars.&rdquo;
 This is truly a technology-neutral approach. For many years, the biofuels industry has asked for similar policy treatment to the fossil fuels industry, and this is a powerful step in the right direction.
 Overcoming the Valley of Death
 Currently, many biofuel companies, including the algae industry, have been adept at raising early-stage capital for research and development. Yet, when it comes to the capital-intensive effort of building a facility, many biofuel companies are running into a challenge: the expense is considered too high for traditional venture capital, and too risky for traditional banks.&nbsp; As a result, many companies are forced to spend more time raising funds than deploying technology.
 Expanding the Master Limited Partnership provisions to renewable energy projects would assist in overcoming this problem, as MLPs are able to raise funds as corporations.&nbsp; Ownership interests are publicly traded and offer investors liquidity, limited liability and dividends, but are operated and taxed as partnerships.&nbsp; Due to the current regulations on MLPs, it has been primarily oil and gas companies that have benefited from the arrangement for some time, comprising more than 90 percent of MLPs. This bill levels the playing field, and gives renewable fuel companies the same tax treatment as their counterparts in the fossil world.
 Increasing Investment Opportunity
 In addition to leveling the playing field, MLPs open up an opportunity for consumers to play a role in financing clean energy projects in a way currently unavailable to them. Currently, a large majority of renewable energy projects are financed by a relatively small number of investors, which means only a few investors will reap the financial benefits of alternative energy&rsquo;s success. MLPs would allow all Americans to make an investment in our clean energy future, and support the kinds of projects so many readers of this magazine are working to build.
 Creating Jobs and Driving Economic Growth
 We must be aware that capital availability for development of almost any renewable energy project will have a direct and positive impact on communities across America. Facility development creates well-paying, long-term jobs up and down the supply chain, and salary and revenue taxes resulting from commercial production are funneled back into state coffers, without requiring an increase in any tax rate.
 It is an arrangement that can unleash a new investment engine in America, all without costing the government a single dime.
 For the U.S. algae industry, the timing couldn&rsquo;t be better. Last year, algae-based fuels were offered to consumers for the first time, and we are seeing new pre-commercial algae-to-fuel facilities come online. With the availability of MLPs, companies in our industry will have the necessary framework to accelerate the production of renewable, domestic fuels from algae.
 Almost every other renewable energy and biomass industry would find MLPs similarly attractive. Let&rsquo;s all get to work and voice our support for this bill. Author: Mary Rosenthal Executive Director, Algae Biomass Organization <a href="mailto:mrosenthal@algaebiomass.org">mrosenthal@algaebiomass.org</a> 763-458-0068

2013/05/AdBio-BMM-Rosenthal-0613_13691710910202.jpg

Time for Master Limited Partnerships

While Fiberight certainly isn&rsquo;t the only advanced biofuel company eyeing municipal solid waste (MSW) as its chief input, it may be the only producer hinging its commercialization strategy on the retrofit of a plant designed to produce conventional fuel ethanol from conventional feedstocks. A facility in Blairstown, Iowa, is a central component in Fiberight&rsquo;s efforts to move its conversion approach from pilot-scale to stable and profitable commercial production. Armed with a $25 million U.S. DOE loan guarantee, Fiberight and CEO Craig Stuart-Paul look to prove that their &ldquo;mini-mill&rdquo; concept is capable of converting a varied waste stream into valuable advanced biofuel and coproducts. You have extensive experience in resource recovery and are considered a pioneer in to the use of optical sorting technologies. Why is the sorting of the MSW stream so important to the Fiberight approach? This is the key to the Fiberight process, which is highly focused on recovering recyclables, as well as organics from the waste stream. We have a scalpel approach that allows us to create eight distinct streams of materials from waste and thus convert them most efficiently. They are cellulosic pulp for conversion to cellulosic ethanol; soluble organics for conversion to biogas and potentially bioplastics; recyclable cardboard and paper; recyclable metals; recyclable plastic containers; film plastic for conversion into wax and other polymers; low-grade plastic for cement kilns, and other residues. By demonstrating this approach, we were able to comply with the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s approach to MSW as a renewable biomass feedstock, and were awarded the first pathway approval last year. In 2009, you purchased a 10-year-old corn ethanol plant in Blairstown, Iowa. The facility continues to hold the leading edge of your commercialization plan. What was it about this facility that initially attracted you to it, and how has it remained central to your effort to grow to commercial scale? We realized that there was a certain &ldquo;chicken-and-egg&rdquo; approach to developing the business. In other words, owning the facility and having a permitted plant helped us attract finances, and would significantly reduce the project construction time and risk if we could design a system that would bolt onto existing infrastructure. Given that the main feedstocks we produce from waste are organic in nature, we developed pathways along with our industrial partner, Novozymes, to convert organics to sugar. Once we had sugar, we could use the majority of the existing plant. The capital markets have bought into this strategy, we have been able to secure financing, and the project is ready to start construction. Once started, it won&rsquo;t be long before we begin production. As a corn ethanol plant, the facility was designed to yield 30 MMgy. As a waste-to-ethanol facility, the yield is 6 MMgy. Why does the output step down with MSW?
 The facility is actually rated for 6 MMgy. The previous owners planned to expand to 30 MMgy, but that expansion never happened. Fortunate to us, all the civil work and infrastructure for expansion was installed, which was another thing that incentivized us to purchase the plant. Walk us through what will occur in Blairstown throughout 2013, as the facility is transformed and brought online to produce cellulosic ethanol. We are already into some of the detailed engineering, and have a sequential plan to bring the plant back online as a cellulosic biofuels facility. We will be starting on the changeover of the old plant next month, as we now have the data and design inputs from our Virginia demonstration plant. This will be followed by new hydrolysis systems, pretreatment, and then, finally, the waste processing center. God willing and the creek don&rsquo;t rise, we could be pumping fuel by the end of the year. What were some of the most exciting discoveries that your reference commercial facility in Lawrenceville, Va., yielded as you commenced fully integrated operations last year? The biggest one was probably that when we put together all the diverse unit operations we had developed over the last five years, the plant worked, and worked well. Despite all the work you do, when building an integrated facility, there is always the chance for a major surprise. We managed to avoid this. Beyond that, we have been very pleased with our enzymatic conversion process, and the speed at which we have been able to hydrolyze our substrates, leading to a significant reduction in the amount of new tanks needed in Blairstown. Further, the data we are getting from the anaerobic digestion plant indicates far greater gas production; we are at times converting over 95 percent of COD (chemical oxygen demand) in eight hours less than expected. Finally, our core principal of removing the organic fraction of the waste stream is working well&mdash;we have been able to get good, clean recyclables for separation. How do you balance the endless list of items that must keep completed to keep Fiberight moving forward to meet the milestones you, your public partners (USDA and the state of Iowa) and your private partners are all hoping for? We have to keep laser focused on the goal: delivering a commercially viable project at Blairstown, period. We get at least one offer a day to engage with domestic and international partners to develop projects in the future, but unless we deliver Blairstown well, all of this is moot. On a granular level, we operate under a disciplined program management approach, and I ensure that all of our stakeholders are aligned with the program, thus enabling our small team to deliver key tasks and milestones. This took a while to set up, and the goalposts were still moving until quite recently. Once done, this is an invaluable tool, as it enables us to focus only what needs to get done, and when we do that, we move to what we would like to get done. How important are strategic partners to maintaining momentum on Fiberight&rsquo;s road to commercialization? Our program management approach also allows us to identify areas where we need help, and frankly, without strong partnerships&mdash;particularly like the partnership we have with Novozymes&mdash;we would not be where we are today. If you consider that complex new technologies and processes can take upwards of 20 years to commercialize, it is foolish to think that you can do it all yourself. If you ultimately succeed in developing the perfect black box, someone else has already built a perfectly acceptable one and beat you to market. By working with a core group of focused industrial partners, the knowledge and resource pool increases exponentially, as does the momentum.

2013/05/AdBio-BMM-QA-0613_13691712118141.jpg

Converting an existing dry-mill corn ethanol plant to an advanced biofuel facility has accelerated Fiberight's commercialization plan.

June 2013

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Required Reading (You're Already Taking the Test)

Biofuels, Light Bulbs and Why Quitting is Not an Option

Eat This!

CO2 Levels Rising … Big Deal!

Get on the Bus: Human Resource Strategies Essential to Success

Rocking the Biofuels Boat with a Publicity Stunt

Take Care of Your People and Your People will Take Care of You

For Many, Climate Debate Over

Retrofitted Biomass Facilities: As Good As New

Pellet Politics in the Pine Tree State

Biogas Contributes to a Diverse Renewable Fuel Mix

Time for Master Limited Partnerships

Featured

2013 US Ethanol Industry Salary Survey

Q&A: Practicing the Golden Rule

More Than Just Staff

Gen 1+1.5+2 Equals Process Progress

Ethanol Industry Snapshot

Yorkshire's Game Changer

End of an Era

Contributions

Instrumentation, Control Systems Contribute to Sustainability

Lessons Learned From Past Downturns

Absolute Energy Tackles Evaporator Fouling

Departments

A Trash to Treasure Alchemist

June 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

Required Reading (You're Already Taking the Test)

Biofuels, Light Bulbs and Why Quitting is Not an Option

Eat This!

CO2 Levels Rising … Big Deal!

Get on the Bus: Human Resource Strategies Essential to Success

Rocking the Biofuels Boat with a Publicity Stunt

Take Care of Your People and Your People will Take Care of You

For Many, Climate Debate Over

Retrofitted Biomass Facilities: As Good As New

Pellet Politics in the Pine Tree State

Biogas Contributes to a Diverse Renewable Fuel Mix

Time for Master Limited Partnerships

Featured

2013 US Ethanol Industry Salary Survey

Q&A: Practicing the Golden Rule

More Than Just Staff

Gen 1+1.5+2 Equals Process Progress

Ethanol Industry Snapshot

Yorkshire's Game Changer

End of an Era

Contributions

Instrumentation, Control Systems Contribute to Sustainability

Lessons Learned From Past Downturns

Absolute Energy Tackles Evaporator Fouling

Departments

A Trash to Treasure Alchemist

June 2013