Abengoa has inaugurated a 1.5 MMly (396,258 gallon per year) demonstration facility in Babilafuente, Salamanca, Spain.
The plant features Abengoa&rsquo;s Waste-to-Biofuels (W2B) technology, which produces cellulosic ethanol from municipal solid waste (MSW) via a fermentation and enzymatic hydrolysis treatment.&nbsp;The plant has the capacity to treat up to 25,000 tons of MSW. During the fuel production process, the organic matter that enters the facility is treated to produce organic fiber rich in cellulose and hemicellulose, which is subsequently converted into ethanol. According to Abengoa, the technology can help prevent more than 80 percent of waste from being landfilled.
&nbsp;&ldquo;This plant once again highlights Abengoa&rsquo;s commitment to technological research and innovation, which has enabled it to maintain a competitive advantage in its sectors, leading projects with huge technological potential and programs that involve world-leading research centers and strategic partners,&rdquo; said Abengoa CEO Manuel S&aacute;nchez Ortega.&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Demonstrating Progress Abengoaâ€™s plant in Babilafuente, Spain, is converting MSW into ethanol.

2013/08/distAbengoa0913_13763180570051.jpg

Abengoa Begins Operations at Demo Plant

Prevention comes first, but in the event of a product or chemical spill, proper planning and knowing how to react to an emergency situation can save lives, environmental resources and money for an ethanol producer.
For example, in 2007, an ethanol plant was the site of one of the largest spills in Iowa&rsquo;s history. Roughly 29,000 gallons of denaturant had spilled out between two railroad spurs, resulting in a 10-day cleanup operation by Seneca Waste Solutions Inc. to recover 32,000 gallons of contaminated water and excavate 5,000 cubic yards of soil. During this operation, the cleanup crew worked in conjunction with regulatory agencies to prevent further adverse environmental impacts without endangering employees.
Be Prepared &nbsp;Contingency planning is key. Matt Deutsch, vice president of Hydro-Klean LLC, says building relationships with local first responders and a response contractor are some of the most important things a producer can do to prepare for a spill. &nbsp;In many cases, the company with a spill has unrealistic expectations of local fire departments and hazmat teams, he says. &ldquo;The fire department can&rsquo;t be there days on end doing a remediation-type project,&rdquo; Deutsch says. &ldquo;The fire department can help berm and dike an affected area, but they&rsquo;re not going to help pick up a spilled product, neutralize the soil or help with the disposal.&rdquo; By understanding those limitations, a producer can understand when response ends and remediation begins, he says.
&nbsp; Chris Biellier, general manager at Seneca, says his company helps producers form emergency plans by conducting vulnerability analyses and assisting with training personnel. During an analysis, Seneca&rsquo;s representatives complete a walk-through of the plant to identify weak areas requiring attention and assess the plant&rsquo;s ability to mitigate spills when they occur. Once vulnerabilities are discovered, Seneca offers suggestions on how to minimize hazards, should a spill occur, until responders are on the scene. &nbsp;Biellier notes rural ethanol plants may have to wait hours before response companies reach the site. Therefore, another aim of Seneca&rsquo;s plan is to assist plants in buying time by either training plant operators or technicians to perform various containment tasks, or training local fire departments on how to quickly assist with mitigating spills until help can arrive.
&nbsp;In addition to building relationships with first responders and completing vulnerability analyses, it is recommended that producers routinely simulate spills. &ldquo;Get your plans in place and train on your plans,&rdquo; says Jim Holland, president of Pinnacle Engineering. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s the No. 1 thing they can do to be prepared.&rdquo; Holland recommends simulation exercises be held at least once a year, addressing different spill scenarios. By recreating spill scenarios, producers can gain experience on how to address and refine a plant&rsquo;s response to various incidents, such as spills from rail load-outs, wet wells and even natural disasters. &nbsp;&ldquo;If they do that, they got 90 percent of it licked,&rdquo; Holland adds.
&nbsp;Holland, Deutsch and Biellier agree that working with a designated contractor has multiple, emergency preparedness benefits. All three say they believe the principal benefit is that the contractor will understand how a plant is situated when a spill occurs. Through this shared understanding, cleanup companies will know the plant and first responder limitations, local geography and geology and how those factors can affect the spill. Having a designated contractor saves on response time since it eliminates the need to negotiate rates during a spill situation, Deutsch says. &nbsp;
Yellow Alert &nbsp;In the case of a spill, a facility&rsquo;s initial reaction can affect how the situation turns out. Deutsch says the No. 1 priority is to assure the safety of plant employees. Workers commonly understand the risks of ethanol and other chemicals that are used during normal operation, he says, however, they should understand what their roles are when an incident occurs, such as evacuating or isolating an affected area until a response team arrives. Some plants even decide to train their own response teams, which tends to cost more, he says.
&nbsp;Once workers are safe, Deutsch says plant employees should not try to &ldquo;attack&rdquo; the spill, but instead try to close drains while evacuating to a safe area. Additionally, plant operators should be knowledgeable about how much material was released and other factors that can affect the spill. Operator estimates of lost liquid, the presence of other hazardous chemicals and drainage patterns provide responders and contractors with valuable information that can mitigate further risks.
&nbsp;All plants should have a spill contingency or response plan and any employee should know how to initiate it, Biellier says. If there is a chance a plant&rsquo;s capabilities will require external assistance, those employees should notify responders immediately since they can be turned away if it is determined help is not required.
&nbsp;Another resource for response planning is the Renewable Fuel Association&rsquo;s Fuel Ethanol Guideline for Release Prevention. Once plant personnel, public safety officials and contractors are notified, the guidelines say the three objectives to address within 24 hours of a spill are: prevent ethanol from reaching surface water, collect pooled liquid ethanol, and begin excavating impacted soil. &ldquo;The further that product gets from its intended area,&rdquo; Deutsch explains, &ldquo;the greater the hazard to the environment, to the people working around it, and the expense is going to go up quite a bit, if you have to deal with more soil, more groundwater and more surface water.&rdquo;
&nbsp;&ldquo;Once it&rsquo;s in the water,&rdquo; Holland says, &ldquo;you pretty much lost it.&rdquo; If that situation occurs, oxygen must be injected into the water with air compressors to bring the body of water back to adequate levels. He explains that keeping the spill contained onsite is much easier to handle and is a relatively lower cost compared to water-based cleanups.&nbsp;
Cleanup and Compliance &nbsp;Once it starts, work to clean up and remediate the spill to meet environmental compliance requirements can take days. Deutsch explains the cleanup process for spills, regardless of the material, are similar. After stopping the initial release, the next step is to prevent the escaped material from flowing offsite. Once the diking process is completed, the collected material can be removed using adsorption pads or other equipment. Finally, &nbsp;the impacted soil is excavated and disposed of, while new soil is placed and compacted, or seeded, depending on the situation.
&nbsp;Communication is one of the biggest challenges in responding to a cleanup, Biellier says. If a leak is still active, disclosure is crucial because responding agencies rely on accurate information to assess the situation. &ldquo;No agency or response company, such as ourselves, can assume we know everything of what&rsquo;s going on,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;So we rely on the plants to have as much information as possible so that good, safe decisions on how to respond are made based on facts.&rdquo;
&nbsp;Another challenge for site remediation is meeting environmental compliance. Biellier explains that states may differ on the cleanup protocols required for each of the chemicals used at an ethanol plant. In those cases, Biellier says a plant will have a designated contact, be it a regional environmental protection agency liaison or a department of natural resources representative. Some states, such as Iowa, follow national environmental guidelines while others, such as California, have stricter, state environmental regulations, he says.
&nbsp;Holland further explains that by the time the initial containment is achieved, contractors should have heard from regulators about what level of ethanol is acceptable in the soil before they begin excavating the contaminated earth. The soil could then be remediated onsite using organisms that consume the alcohol or transported for disposal.
&nbsp;In the case of environmental enforcement and penalties, Holland says the amount varies. If the spill is contained onsite and remediation is completed, penalties and fines might be fairly limited, he says. On the other hand, if the spill is not contained and makes its way to a river, lake or pond, ethanol plants will be responsible for the cleanup cost of any fish kills and there may be additional charges for specialized contractors to assess environmental restoration needs. Holland adds penalties are a challenging topic to address since they depend on multiple factors, such as if the spill was truly accidental or whether some negligence is found. &ldquo;Each situation is unique,&rdquo; he says.
Author: Chris Hanson Staff Writer, Ethanol Producer Magazine chanson@bbiinternational.com 701-738-4970
&nbsp;

Spill Response  Conducting a vulnerability analysis can help ethanol producers minimize hazards when spills do occur. Operators can also be trained in performing various containment tasks.

2013/08/SeptEPMSpillFeat5_13763232975056.jpg

2013/08/SeptEPMSpillFeat_13763233473993.jpg

2013/08/SeptEPMSpillFeat3_13763233748714.jpg

On Standby  By working with a designated contractor, ethanol plants are able to have tailor-made, spill response strategies.

2013/08/SeptEPMSpillFeat6_13763233993547.jpg

Operation Oxygen  A Pinnacle representative, in boat, monitors aeration activity in a waste pond after contact with ethanol. 

2013/08/SeptEPMSpillFeat2_13763234676253.jpg

Prepared plant operators are trained to quickly and efficiently react in the case of a chemical accident. 

When Spills Happen

Grain storage safety is a top-priority issue for ethanol producers such as Highwater Ethanol LLC. &ldquo;One thing I tell my employees,&rdquo; says Brian Kletscher, CEO, &ldquo;is if there is any question at all if an employee should be doing something, they need to stop and talk it over and go through it. We don&rsquo;t want to have to call their family and tell them there has been an accident at Highwater. We want them to go home the same way they showed up to work that day.&rdquo;
&nbsp;Grain engulfment is currently the leading cause of death inside grain bins, and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Organization reports the number of incidents has increased, doubling between 2006 and 2010. More recent studies, including one completed by Bill Field, a professor at Purdue University, found that in 2011 no fewer than 30 incidents across farms and commercial grain handling facilities were reported.&nbsp;
&nbsp;The good news, however is, more thorough safety procedures, first responder training and expanded public awareness of grain engulfment are having a positive impact. Field&rsquo;s research found that in 2011, the ratio of fatal-to-nonfatal incidents decreased 69 percent. By 2012, the number of documented entrapments had dropped to 19, a 37 percent decrease from the year before.
&nbsp;Engulfment can occur in one of three ways. One scenario involves a person standing on the surface of flowing grain inside a silo. Once the grain begins flowing, the worker has roughly four seconds to react before he or she becomes completely immobilized by the surrounding material. Within 22 seconds, the person can become completely covered.
&nbsp;The most common engulfment situation occurs when workers attempt to loosen grain that has crusted and bridged, restricting the flow of grain. Bridging can occur when grain has more than 15 percent moisture content or mold causes grain to begin spoiling and clumping, forming a crust that stretches across a bin, Kletscher says. Underneath the crust lie potential voids, especially if the bin has been partially emptied. These can unexpectedly collapse beneath a worker, trapping him in seconds.
&nbsp;Field found in his research that the primary cause of entrapment situations in 2011 was victims trying to dislodge crusted grain while the unloading equipment was running. Similarly, dislodging steep piles of grain along the sides of a bin can trigger avalanches and bury unsuspecting workers.
&nbsp;Once engulfed, the trapped person experiences what is described as being squeezed by a constrictor. Glenn Pribbenow, director of the Kansas Fire and Rescue Training Institute from the University of Kansas&rsquo; Continuing Education program, explains that with each exhale, the surrounding material fills in the space around the chest and prevents lungs inhaling to their full capacity, leading to suffocation.&nbsp;
Equipment and Procedures &nbsp;Engulfment scenarios can be frightening to consider for any plant with onsite storage. However, providing adequate safety equipment and better first responder training and enforcing OSHA-approved practices are just a few of the ways engulfment dangers are being addressed.
&nbsp;The OSHA safety standard for grain handling requires that employers provide annual training and specific procedures to guarantee a safe work environment. Shane Rasset, a safety manager at Highwater Ethanol, agrees that training is crucial. &ldquo;I&rsquo;d say that either lack of training or lack of hazard information would probably be one of the big reasons why accidents happen,&rdquo; he says.
&nbsp;Before a person can enter a grain storage bin, an employer must ensure all mechanical, electrical, hydraulic and pneumatic equipment that may pose a threat are de-energized, disconnected or prevented from accidental operation. Next, the environment inside the bin must be tested for combustible gases and oxygen content. If the oxygen content does not meet a 19.5 percent threshold, respirators are required. Ventilation is mandatory if the environment contains more than 10 percent combustible gas. Additionally, the employer has to ensure the entering worker will not be walking down grain to make it flow or entering underneath bridging grain, practices that are prohibited by OSHA. Once those criteria are met, the employer may permit a worker to enter.
&nbsp;&ldquo;Inside a grain storage bin, it can be very dangerous,&rdquo; Kletscher says. &ldquo;We, generally, would not allow anybody to go inside the grain bin unless they&rsquo;re completely tied off and can be winched out.&rdquo; The company prefers that no one enter the bin at all, he says.
&nbsp;If there is sufficient grain that may pose an engulfment hazard, the agency requires a worker to be equipped with a body harness with a lifeline or utilize a boatswain&rsquo;s chair to ensure the employee will not sink any deeper than the waist. At Highwater, a worker will use a tripod to lower another worker through the top in order to clear grain that may have accumulated along the bin walls.
&nbsp;In addition to the safety equipment, a second employee acts as a point of contact for the bin worker. This observer maintains a line of communication with the person in the bin and is trained in rescue operations. Therefore, if an incident were to occur, the observer can assist in digging out the worker from waist-deep grain or call for help, if needed. &nbsp;Kletscher says Highwater&rsquo;s observers are equipped with two-way radios to maintain contact with both the person in the bin and the control room. He adds the company&rsquo;s safety manager is in the vicinity as well.&nbsp;
Rescue Training &nbsp;Even when adequate safety equipment and training are provided, accidents can still occur. Therefore, OSHA requires facilities to have suitable rescue equipment on hand. Some first responders and grain industry employers are developing emergency response equipment and training classes, such as the grain engulfment rescue training program developed last winter by the KFRTI. Pribbenow explains the class was created after the institute was approached by a group that was trying to meet grain rescue training needs. The group included the Kansas Cooperative Council, Kansas Grain and Feed Association and the Kansas Farmers Service Association.
&nbsp;The one-day class acts as a beginner&rsquo;s course in addressing the most common rescue methods and the lengthy task of rescuing a person in an engulfment situation. Pribbenow explains the first half of the training day focuses on OSHA regulations, prevention and grain bin rescue procedures and practices. During the afternoon session, the class then practices with KFRTI&rsquo;s 35-foot rescue trailer, which was developed to simulate engulfment rescue scenarios.
&nbsp;Created around the same time as the class, the trailer contains a grain bin, hopper and storage compartments for tools and materials. Once assembled, the class learns and then demonstrates rescue methods and bin cutting techniques in an open-top hopper and models used for cutting. Afterward, they apply their knowledge at a larger, closed-top bin to simulate the tighter conditions that occur in real-life scenarios. In addition to playing the role of rescuers, Pribbenow says the students also play victims by becoming engulfed up to their waists. This makes the students more empathetic to the victims by understanding how difficult it is to escape those conditions.
&nbsp;Rescue methods to extract an engulfment victim are not a quick process. Pribbenow explains rescuers cannot simply pull a victim from the grain. He says to pull someone buried chest-deep in grain would require 1,200 to 1,400 pounds of force, which would cause serious harm to the victim&rsquo;s body. Therefore, the most common rescue method is to use coffer dams to dig a victim out.
&nbsp;The coffer dams form a perimeter around the victim and can be made of almost any material, from a repurposed 55-gallon drum to special interlocking, aluminum walls. &nbsp;The rescue tubes used by KFRTI are from Missouri-based KC Supply Co. Inc.Jeff Lavery, owner of KC Supply, explains the tubes are first lowered into the bin in either four or six sections, depending on the size of the opening. The first section is placed perpendicular on the uphill slope of the grain to prevent more material from sliding down and burying the victim even further. Next, the other sides of the tube are slid into the grain, interlocking with the first piece. After the tube is assembled, rescuers may start excavating the grain inside the tube to relieve pressure on the victim. He adds the bottom of the tube initially only goes 18 inches beneath the grain&rsquo;s surface; therefore, it can be pushed down using external handles to gradually move the tube downwards as more grain is removed around the victim. Lastly, once the pressure is decreased enough, rescuers can help the victim out of the grain for medical treatment.&nbsp;
Author: Chris Hanson Staff Writer, Ethanol Producer Magazine chanson@bbiinternational.com 701-738-4970

Emergency Preparedness  Kansas Fire and Rescue Training Institute provides instruction to fire departments and local grain companies. Here, students use the 35-foot rescue trailer to simulate a grain engulfment rescue.

2013/08/SeptEPMGrainHandling_13763224613981.jpg

Suited Up  Shane Rasset, safety manager at Highwater Ethanol LLC, demonstrates some safety equipment for bin entries.

2013/08/EPMshaneSafetyPhoto_13763226344764.jpg

Combatting grain engulfment accidents with proper equipment, procedures and training. 

Seconds to React

A good process safety management (PSM) program in an ethanol plant is thorough down to the details, including a diagram of every pipe, valve and sensor, showing model and make&mdash;the pipe and instrument diagram (P&amp;ID). Backing that up are files of process safety information (PSI), including, but not limited to material safety data sheets (MSDS). There&rsquo;s also SOPs, MIPs, the PSSR, MOC and PHA to consider.
&nbsp;&ldquo;A producer would be wise to have someone who understands all of those acronyms and what they mean,&rdquo; says Charles Palmer, a partner with the law firm Michael Best and Friedrich LLP. While ethanol producers know well that an accident or complaint can trigger an inspection by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, in the past two years, OSHA has also randomly selected several plants for inspection. Since November 2011, OSHA has had a national emphasis program on process safety management.
&nbsp;Though ethanol plants are small compared to mammoth oil refineries or petrochemical manufacturers, they are held to the same comprehensive process safety standards. There is one big difference. &ldquo;One of the nice things about the ethanol industry is that it is a relatively new area of energy production,&rdquo; says Greg Dale, a partner with Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. &nbsp;&ldquo;As an industry, it&rsquo;s relatively new compared to petroleum. We&rsquo;re dealing with newer equipment, more modern technology and, associated with that, more modern safety parameters built into the system.&rdquo;
&nbsp;A search of the OSHA database for records involving ethyl alcohol manufacturers shows that, indeed, older facilities generally have the most violations. Over the past three years, the number of violations per plant ranged from just one to the highest at 17, with most being less than five violations. The penalties ranged from just under $1,000 to nearly $10,000 per violation. The initial penalty was almost always reduced. In 2011, 23 plants were inspected and in 2012 another 15. Ten plants were inspected through June of this year.
&nbsp;The database reveals that in the 12 inspections conducted between October 2011 and September 2012, there were 77 violations and a total of $160,000 in penalties. By far, the largest category was for process safety management violations, at 37, accounting for $113,000 in penalties. The other categories trailed far behind, with six violations on permit-required confined spaces and five citations each for respiratory protection, hazard communication and general requirements. Other categories received one or two citations each.
&nbsp;&ldquo;The guys that got five citations, but who really put a lot of work into their PSM and felt they had their ducks in a row and were really on top it, were surprised that they got five citations,&rdquo; Palmer says. &ldquo;You&rsquo;re talking about people who take a lot of pride in what they do, and one citation is too much.&rdquo; It can be challenging, too, to explain the fines to a board of directors, he says. &ldquo;But there&rsquo;s hundreds of different ways you can be cited under the PSM standard and it&rsquo;s unusual that if OSHA is doing a PSM inspection you don&rsquo;t get a citation.&rdquo;
&nbsp;The PSM standard requires a thorough examination of all potential safety issues in a process hazard analysis (PHA) that must be reviewed every five years at a minimum by a plant&rsquo;s PSM committee. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be written for every part of the process, complete with safety protocols. Organizational charts are needed that show employee roles and responsibilities, and records must be kept to document that employees are properly trained and informed on safety procedures. Process safety information (PSI) must be available for each component of the system, including, but not limited to material safety data sheets (MSDS). The P&amp;ID must be kept current, showing every process component, and a mechanical integrity program (MIP) in place that insures equipment is regularly inspected and properly maintained.
&nbsp;The management of change (MOC) process demonstrates the sort of detail and thoroughness required. Palmer uses the example of replacing a tank. &ldquo;A committee sits down and says here&rsquo;s the material in the old tank, the valves in the old tank and the features of the old tank that were put in here to provide these safety factors. The new one is different in these five ways: Do they provide all of the old safety features? Will they provide more? Will it interact properly with the rest of the system? People on the committee pick apart potential problems and there&rsquo;s notes being taken.&rdquo; The MOC file for that change to the process should include documentation that the manufacturer agrees that the features on the new tank are equal to or superior to the old, he says, and that features on the new won&rsquo;t interact adversely on other parts of the process.
&nbsp;Another problematic area can be the prestartup safety review (PSSR), which documents that new systems are properly installed and all pertinent operating, maintenance and safety procedures are valid and in place and employees are properly trained. While such a comprehensive requirement for a new plant, or newly installed system, seems achievable, the standard applies all the way back to when the plant was initially built. &ldquo;The frustration is I can&rsquo;t recreate history,&rdquo; Palmer explains. &ldquo;I can&rsquo;t, as the person in charge today, go back and correct the things that weren&rsquo;t done yesterday.&rdquo; He has seen cases where OSHA wants to go back several years, even to startup. &ldquo;You can imagine if you have to have every valve, every pipe, every tank, what model, what make, what number, and all the details that are in the system, and you can&rsquo;t take the system apart and find those things if it wasn&rsquo;t done right initially.&rdquo; It is particularly frustrating on acquisitions, he says. &ldquo;The current ownership and management is being held responsible for the sins of the past.&rdquo; There has been some success, through not conclusive, with legal challenges seeking a statute of limitations for OSHA, he adds.
&nbsp;With such a daunting standard, what are managers to do if they are concerned about holes in their PSM program?
&nbsp;A number of engineering firms include safety in their consulting services and several companies specialize in safety program management. Many plants manage their safety programs in-house, but rely on these contractors for regular safety audits to help in identifying problem areas.
&nbsp;Palmer says on occasion, managers express concern that such audits will provide a roadmap for a future OSHA inspector. Involving an attorney can shield some information under attorney/client protection, he says. Part of a PSM program, though, is demonstrating that employers are regularly assessing process hazards, identifying potential problems and taking steps to fix them.
&nbsp;Palmer has other pointers for ethanol producers. When OSHA comes knocking, the employer has the right to know why they are there, he says. &ldquo;If an employee complains about a forklift being unsafe, the goal is to take them to that forklift and show them the forklift is not unsafe and close the inspection at that point, rather than it expanding into PSM, grain handling and a wall-to-wall inspection.&rdquo;If an ethanol producer negotiates a settlement with OSHA to reduce penalties, Palmer recommends the producer get a list of specific steps needed to address the violation that can be checked off as they are completed.
&nbsp;It is important to know that the average OSHA inspector is not qualified to do a full PSM inspection, he adds. &ldquo;If you are prepared, you&rsquo;ve got your documentation, your manuals, you&rsquo;ve got a person who is knowledgeable and is on the ball with respect to PSM, who shows significant training and knows the answers and is prepared in an organized fashion to lay out those answers&mdash;the inspector is likely to accept the documentation and may want to look at one component of the process, but not do a full blown inspection.&rdquo;
&nbsp;Having an inspection expand to full-blown will require OSHA to bring in a qualified PSM team leader, he adds. &ldquo;These are individuals who have worked in the chemical or petroleum industries and they are very familiar with large refineries. They will expect an extreme amount of detail in process safety management, and will be looking under every rock. If there&rsquo;s a valve missing on your P&amp;ID, you&rsquo;re going to get a citation for it. If your diagram doesn&rsquo;t show everything&mdash;you can imagine if it&rsquo;s not drawn to the absolute detail&mdash;multiple citations for that. Anytime you made a change and you didn&rsquo;t go through change management, a citation for that.
&nbsp;&rdquo;When asked whether such detailed PSM standards are considered onerous, Dale replies, &ldquo;They are. They do require a great deal of employer attention. They were set out that way.&rdquo; Process industry facilities are very complex, he points out. &ldquo;You have various forms of energy coming together&mdash;electrical, thermal, mechanical&mdash;all in a combined process. Unless there&rsquo;s an organized method in which you track things like maintenance and review hazards, things tend to get away from some employers.&rdquo; While good documentation can be onerous, he admits, it helps with addressing issues before they become a problem or an incident. &ldquo;World history is replete with examples. By the very nature of these facilities, if something goes wrong, it can go catastrophically wrong.
&nbsp;&rdquo;Both attorneys say the ethanol industry is proactive and genuinely concerned with providing safe work environments. &ldquo;OSHA has the ability to factor into its penalty the good faith of the employer,&rdquo; Dale says. In the view of the inspector, &ldquo;is this an employer that seeks to do the minimum or is this a very comprehensive program? It&rsquo;s audited regularly and any issues that are identified are promptly rectified. Those kinds of things can have an effect on penalty levels and just overall perspective of OSHA as to whether this is an employer that means business about the health and safety of workers.&rdquo;
Author: Susanne Retka Schill Senior Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com

2013/08/processethanollead0913_13763213489041.jpg

 An accident can mean an OSHA inspection of an ethanol plant. But, for the past two years, OSHAâ€™s national emphasis program on process safety management has provided another reason for OSHA to come knocking.

2013/08/processethanolsign0913_13763214875619.jpg

2013/08/process-chart0913_13763216347941.jpg

Process safety management requires comprehensive hazard analysis and records.

Emphasis on Details, Documentation

The International Energy Agency has released its second annual Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report, predicting that world biofuel production will increase from 1.86 million barrels per day in 2012 to 2.36 million barrels per day in 2018. If the prediction is correct, biofuels will account for 4 percent of global road transportation fuel demand in 2018.
Ethanol is expected to remain the dominant biofuel in 2018, with 1.81 million barrels per day of production. Within the U.S., the IEA expects ethanol production to reach 853,000 barrels per day in 2013, increasing to 979,000 barrels per day in 2018. Production in Brazil is expected to reach 436,000 barrels per day this year, and increase to 536,000 barrels per day in 2018. Ethanol production is also expected to increase in Europe, from 67,000 barrels per day in 2012 to 100,000 barrels per day in 2018.

2013/08/distEthanolProd0913_13763175966647.jpg

IEA Predicts Global Ethanol Production Increase

John Deere has introduced a flex-fuel model to its ZTrak line of commercial lawn mowers, the Z925MFlex Fuel. It is compatible with all fuels ranging from E0 to E85. The 24.6 horsepower mower is available with either 54- or 60-inch blades.&nbsp;
The mower is powered by an aluminum block, air-cooled, vertical shaft, electronically fuel-injected engine. According to Chase Tew, product marketing manager for John Deere Commercial Mowing, the engine&rsquo;s improved horsepower, torque and fuel efficiency is a result of a closed-loop electronic fuel system that uses an oxygen sensor to continuously monitor oxygen levels in the exhaust gas.&nbsp;
&ldquo;The flexibility to run machines with fuel blends ranging from straight gasoline up to 85 percent ethanol will appeal to customers who want to be more green, burn less fossil fuel, and still have multiple fuel options available,&rdquo; said Tew.&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Flex-Fuel Mower Enters Marketplace

Carbo Analytics was awarded a $150,000 U.S. DOE grant for the development of a sugar analysis system under the Small Business Innovation Research program. The system aims to provide a rapid determination of accessible C5 and C6 sugars in a biomass sample.&nbsp;
According to Carbon Analytics, it has partnered with CEM Corp., a developer of microwave digestion systems, to prepare biomass samples. The combined solution is expected to allow biofuel operators to flag potential feedstock programs, and facilitate suppliers in developing and supplying the highest value products.&nbsp;
&nbsp;&ldquo;These funds enable us to get the joint solution in the hands of biofuel operators even sooner,&rdquo; said Thomas Reilly, chief technical officer at Carbo Analytics, which was one of 79 companies selected from 750 applications to receive fiscal year 2013 funding under the program.&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Sugar Analysis System Wins Funding

An annual biofuels report filed with the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Global Information Network predicts that the Canadian ethanol production will increase by approximately 4 percent this year. Canadian ethanol plants are expected to produce approximately 1.98 billion liters (523.06 million gallons) of ethanol this year, up from 1.09 billion liters in 2012. Production is projected to increase further in 2014, reaching 2.01 billion liters.
According to the report, 15 ethanol plants are expected to be operational in Canada this year, representing a combined capacity of more than 1.8 billion liters. The report estimates that approximately 99 percent of that capacity is currently in use.&nbsp;
In 2013, Canadian producers are expected to use corn as feedstock for 78 percent of the ethanol used, with 21 percent derived from wheat. Corn oil production has also increased in recent years, reaching 96,000 metric tons last year.

2013/08/distCanadianProd0913_13763183655131.jpg

Canadian Ethanol Production to Increase

The 420 MMly (110 MMgy) Vivergo Fuels Ltd. wheat-to-ethanol plant in Hull, U.K., began operations in July. The plant, a joint venture between AB Sugar, BP and DuPont Industrial Biosciences, was built for more than $448 million.&nbsp;
The plant&rsquo;s annual production capacity is equivalent to one-third of the U.K.&rsquo;s current ethanol demand. The facility will also produce 500,000 metric tons of distillers grains annually, enough to feed about one-fifth of the U.K.&rsquo;s diary herd.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Praj Industries Ltd. provided the license for the technology as well as basic engineering and some equipment, including the core process block of liquefaction, fermentation, distillation, multi-effect evaporation and molecular sieve dehydration. According to Praj, the highly efficient facility features a unique integrated distillation, dehydration and evaporation system, which reduces energy consumption, including a 30 to 40 percent reduction in water and steam use.

Wheat Ethanol Plant Opens in Hull, UK

The U.S. EPA has issued a supplemental final rule under the renewable fuel standard (RFS) that finalizes cellulosic pathways for biofuels made from giant reed and napier grass feedstock. The rule contains a life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis of biofuels made from these feedstocks and establishes a system of registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements designed to address concerns over the invasive potential of napier grass and giant reed.&nbsp;
Through a separate rulemaking process, the EPA is also establishing a fuel pathway for ethanol produced from barley. In mid-July agency published a notice of data availability that outlined its analysis to qualify barley as a feedstock for two categories of fuel under the RFS; conventional renewable fuel that meets the 20 percent greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction threshold, and advanced biofuel that meets the 50 percent GHG reduction threshold.&nbsp;

2013/08/distGHGemissions0913_13763189473695.jpg

EPA Approves, Proposes New Fuel Pathways

Woodland Biofuels has announced it will receive up to $800,000 in funding from the Canadian government under the Federal Economic Development program. The money will be used to operate and optimize its demonstration-scale plant in Sarnia, Ontario.&nbsp;
The funding comes in the form of a loan, with what President and CEO Greg Nuttall called &ldquo;favorable repayment terms,&rdquo; through the Investing in Business Innovation initiative.&nbsp;
Woodland Biofuels&rsquo; Catalyzed Pressure Reduction technology can be used to produce cellulosic ethanol utilizing a variety of feedstocks. The company plans to test different feedstocks at its demonstration plant, which is in the commissioning phase.&nbsp;
"Our government recognizes that innovation holds the key to long-term economic stability for the people, communities and businesses of Ontario," said Parliament member Pat Davidson. "Our investment in Woodland Biofuels will lead to opportunities for job creation, growth and long-term prosperity in Ontario, and will strengthen Canada's position as a global leader in clean energy."

Woodland Biofuels Gains Demonstration Plant Loan

It&rsquo;s no secret that revenue from corn oil extraction has been key in keeping many ethanol plants producing in recent times of tight margins. It accounts for an increasing portion of total revenue as the majority of ethanol plants have now adopted and optimized the technology to extract the coproduct, also known as distillers corn oil. Bernie Hoffman, vice president of business development and minority owner of WB Services LLC, says that, according to those in the know, by the end of the year or early next year it&rsquo;s estimated that about 80 percent of U.S. ethanol plants will be recovering corn oil. That&rsquo;s a big market.
&nbsp;Now, WB Services is offering ethanol producers a way to turn corn oil into high-value fuels on site. The company has&nbsp;two separate technologies, both commercially available now, that call for co-location of either a biodiesel or renewable diesel facility with an existing ethanol plant. &ldquo;We think this just adds another arrow to the quiver for an ethanol plant as far as diversifying their product mix and insulating them against tough times,&rdquo; Hoffman says. Rachel Overheul, engineering manager for WB Services, agrees. &ldquo;It brings a lot of potential market value to the ethanol plant, as opposed to being dependent on the corn oil market,&rdquo; she adds.
&nbsp;The company has built and is operating a 2 MMgy biodiesel plant and is in the process of completing construction on a 3 MMgy renewable diesel facility, both in Sedgwick, Kan. Although neither facility is co-located with an ethanol plant, both serve as a showpiece for potential customers interested in co-location. &ldquo;They can come and see the technology at work, feel comfortable with the way they operate,&rdquo; says Ron Beemiller, company president and CEO.
&nbsp;WB Services has two additional reasons for building the facilities, he adds. For one, they are commercially viable, even factoring in the cost of purchasing corn oil at market value and transporting it in from elsewhere. Co-locating also has many advantages, however, including on-site production of the feedstock, lowered capital expenditure and use of existing infrastructure. Although WB Services has talked to companies interested in building the facilities as stand-alone plants, its main focus is on working within the ethanol industry. &ldquo;We think that the highest value location is co-located,&rsquo;&rdquo; Beemiller says.
&nbsp;The third, and possibly most important, purpose of the biodiesel and renewable diesel plants is continued research and development. Built next door to the WB Services office, the company&rsquo;s engineering staff is continuing process development and process improvement projects. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s kind of perpetual around here,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;That never stops.&rdquo;
&nbsp;Although both facilities are designed specifically for corn oil as the feedstock, the technology is feedstock flexible. &ldquo;You can use almost any organic oil or grease,&rdquo; Beemiller says. &ldquo;There are a few restrictions, but not many.&rdquo; And, although the facility is designed to use 100 percent of the corn oil production at the co-located ethanol plant, the technology offers the flexibility needed so the company could choose to go to other feedstocks when corn oil values go up.
&nbsp;From construction to commissioning, the biodiesel facility takes about six to eight months to build. The renewable diesel facility, on the other hand, goes up in about 12 to 14 months. Although the economics are very attractive for both plants, Hoffman says the biodiesel facility has a lower per-gallon construction cost than the renewable diesel facility.&nbsp;The return on investment or payback&nbsp;period will vary, of course, depending on future commodity prices. However, WB Services estimates it&rsquo;s about two years or less for both the biodiesel and renewable diesel facilities. &ldquo;We would hope it would be quicker but in most people&rsquo;s books, a two-year payback on a capital investment is pretty good,&rdquo; Hoffman says. &ldquo;If you improve on that, hallelujah.&rdquo;
 Getting There&nbsp;
&nbsp;Beemiller purchased the business that is now WB Services in late 2006, after working at ICM Inc. for more than six years. The core business offers ethanol producers and other renewable industries a variety of plant and optimization services. Beemiller and Hoffman are former co-workers who started work at ICM in the same week. The two kept in touch after leaving ICM, working on a few projects together and, as corn oil extraction grew, comparing notes on technologies for biodiesel production from corn oil, Hoffman says, adding that he came on board at WB Services later, as the company grew. &ldquo;We saw corn oil as a potential coproduct stream that, in the short term, was very profitable for the plants but we thought long term there were probably higher-value products that could be created,&rdquo; Beemiller says.
&nbsp;The search for a good corn oil-to-biodiesel technology took several years. &ldquo;We kissed a lot of the proverbial frogs,&rdquo; Hoffman says. It was during that search that the renewable diesel technology was discovered. Then, through an existing relationship the company had with Novozymes, they learned about a project in Denmark, for which Novozymes was developing an enzymatic process for corn oil-to-biodiesel. The company was looking for a partner to take it from the laboratory to commercial application, he says, and ended up signing a commercialization agreement.&nbsp;
&nbsp;The biodiesel technology can run either as a traditional biodiesel plant, with the acid esterification and transesterification production steps, or the enzymatic process, Beemiller says. Unlike most other&nbsp;biodiesel technologies, which are limited in the amount of corn oil that can be processed, this technology was specifically designed around the higher free fatty acid content of corn oil and doesn&rsquo;t have those limitations. &ldquo;Typically most standalone biodiesel plants can run between 10 and 20 percent corn oil and the rest has to be some other, much lower FFA feedstock to blend it down,&rdquo; he says, adding that the technology utilized by WB Services does not require pretreatment.&nbsp;
&nbsp;Integrating the bolt-on biodiesel plant with an ethanol plant is quite easy, Hoffman says. The facility is tied into the ethanol plant&rsquo;s distributed control system and, to cut down on the need for spare parts, uses the same brand of pumps, valves, motors and other components. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a very comfortable operation,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;For an ethanol plant, it looks and feels a lot like making ethanol.&rdquo;
&nbsp;Another benefit is that very few additional staff are needed to handle the biodiesel production facility. Existing operators and maintenance staff can run it with only the addition of a brew master, who is in charge of making sure the batches are completed properly. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re pretty confident that you can bolt on a biodiesel plant and probably only add one or two people,&rdquo; Hoffman says.&nbsp;
The renewable diesel facility produces a true drop-in fuel that is molecularly identical to petroleum-based diesel. It meets the standard for ASTM D975 fuel. &ldquo;The only way to tell the difference is to carbon date the fuel,&rdquo; Beemiller says.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;In contrast to the biodiesel facility, ethanol producers won&rsquo;t be as familiar with the renewable diesel plant components or production process. &ldquo;[It&rsquo;s] a more complicated process, but the integration is more elegant,&rdquo; Hoffman says.
&nbsp;The process is energy long, meaning it actually produces excess energy that can be used to power the facility in addition to the coproduct naphtha and a small amount of water. The fuel gas produced, a mix of propane and butane, can be used to displace natural gas use. For a facility producing between 2 and 2.5 MMgy of renewable diesel, an excess of 5 to 6 MMBtu per hour of fuel gas could be used for power generation, Overheul says. Production of naphtha, which can be used as a denaturant for ethanol, would range between 310,000 and 370,000 gallons a year. While neither the fuel gas nor naphtha production are enough to totally displace the plant&rsquo;s natural gas or denaturant needs, integrating those coproducts into the ethanol plant would certainly save the facility money.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;Which production facility an ethanol producer is interested in will depend on their needs and comfort level with new technology. &ldquo;Honesty I think it&rsquo;s a win, win whichever technology you choose,&rdquo; Overheul says. &ldquo;So it&rsquo;s just which technology or capital expenditure you&rsquo;re more comfortable with laying out. It&rsquo;s a really great opportunity to take a byproduct, the corn oil, and turn it into something with much higher value.&rdquo;
&nbsp;There are lots of benefits for ethanol producers that add either technology, Hoffman agrees. First, the facility will have an opportunity to generate D5 advanced biofuel renewable identification numbers, or RINs. In addition, both are considered very low-carbon intensity fuels, as it relates to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. That&rsquo;s likely only going to grow in relevancy as other states besides California are considering implementing a LCFS, Hoffman says. Finally, there&rsquo;s the reality that ethanol producers are facing increasing criticism right now. &ldquo;One of things we like about biodiesel and renewable diesel is there doesn&rsquo;t seem to be the blending pushback,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The market seems more receptive to the diesel fuels than they do ethanol.&rdquo;
Author: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946&nbsp; hjessen@bbiinternational.com
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Progress Report  Construction workers assemble the WB Services renewable diesel facility. The facility is expected to be completed in the fourth quarter. 

2013/08/colocationEPMlead0913_1376320321053.jpg

Going Advanced  A 3 MMgy corn-oil-to-renewable diesel facility is under construction in Sedgwick, Kan. WB Services LLC offers ethanol producers two co-location opportunities, bolt-on biodiesel or renewable diesel technology. 

2013/08/SeptEPMWBServInside_1376320575844.jpg

Going Up  Interested parties are able to tour the site of the renewable diesel plant, shown here, as well as the biodiesel plant, which is currently in operation. 

2013/08/SeptEPMWBServ1_1376320733151.jpg

A Kansas-based company is offering two bolt-on options for ethanol producers looking to turn crude corn oil into biodiesel or renewable diesel.

Harnessing Corn Oil Power

Following certain plan design changes required by the law, major pieces of the 2010 Affordable Care Act were to go into effect starting in 2014. These included the insurance exchanges and the so-called individual mandate and employer mandate. However, on July 2, the Treasury Department announced that it would not enforce the employer mandate until 2015. Thus, employers of 50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees now have a one-year reprieve from pay-or-play. This announcement soon led to calls to delay the individual mandate. At the same time, we will soon learn how the insurance exchanges will look in terms of insurance products and prices, as the exchanges are anticipated to open their doors in October.
The Treasury Department stated that the employer mandate was delayed to address employer concerns that the reporting requirements are too complex. The delay is welcome and it is expected that clearer guidance will be forthcoming. However, even if rules are clarified, the requirement that large employers must offer coverage to full-time employees in 2015 may still affect employer decision making in 2013 and 2014. Labor statistics, survey responses and news reports indicate employers are hiring a higher percentage of part-time employees than before and that pay-or-play has had a role in this trend. The question is whether the one-year delay and the anticipated reduction in complexity will motivate employers to now hire more full-time employees.Beyond dealing with the law&rsquo;s complexity, employers are also faced with other long-term planning concerns, such as the cost of coverage that is offered to eligible employees, and how their competitors may modify their own workforces and plan designs. Employee benefits continue to be a strong component in attracting and maintaining the best employees. Moreover, how do employers who contemplate using more part-time employees and perhaps more leased employees ensure that the work will be done as effectively as with full-time employees? This is a challenging balancing act.
Similarly, uncertainty exists concerning the manner in which insurance carriers will engage in their own decision making. Insurance carriers who were interested in selling products on the state and federal insurance exchanges have already submitted bids for the various plan designs that will be available on the exchanges in 2014. However, if the individual mandate is delayed as the employer mandate was, it is anticipated that fewer uninsured but healthy individuals will be motivated to obtain coverage from the exchanges next year. Such a change in assumptions could cause carriers to want to modify the pricing of their exchange products. Although considerable resources have been expended in creating the exchanges, a delay in the individual mandate could significantly affect their rollout later this year.
Our advice for employers is first, continue to monitor news reports and other alerts to keep abreast of those elements of the law that affect your decision making. Second, because most employers are not insurance experts, communicate early and often with your consultants. Understand that while brokers may know about pricing and available plan designs, an employee benefits attorney will be better suited to advise about strategies for compliance, taking pricing and design into account. Third, be nimble; engage in long-term planning to the extent required but think in terms of alternative possibilities and ranges. Understand that difficulty in making budget projections will be the &ldquo;new normal&rdquo; for some time to come. Through all of this, the goal is to attract and maintain the best employees by offering coverage they value. Thankfully, for many employers, the delay in the employer mandate will temporarily relieve some of this pressure and allow more time for strategic planning.
&nbsp;
Author: Charles P. Stevens, Attorney, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich LLP 414-225-8268 cpstevens@michaelbest.com
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

2013/08/Sept-EPM-Biz-Stevens_13763142622175.jpg

Crystal Ball: Predicting 2015 Health Care Reform

United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC, &nbsp;a 60 MMgy plant near Friesland, Wis., is offering its employees a flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) program that provides employees with $2,500 to support the purchase of a new or used FFV. The program is designed to provide UWGP employees with an incentive to purchase a vehicle capable of using higher blends of ethanol, thereby increasing awareness and consumption of renewable fuels. &nbsp;&nbsp; CPM, a supplier of process engineering, process equipment and aftermarket parts for the biofuels, oilseed, animal feed and food processing industries, has appointed Todd Fierro as Crown Companies general manager. Fierro fills a new executive management position responsible for global coordination of all sales, operations, engineering, strategy, and administrative functions. He will be based in Roseville, Minn., and will report to CPM CEO Ted Waitman. Most recently, Fierro served as president of Oshkosh Corp.&rsquo;s commercial segment, focusing on new product introduction and strategic development.&nbsp; Poet-DSM Advanced Biofuels LLC has hired Michael Nealon as its new corporate controller. He is responsible for planning, organizing, directing and controlling the consolidated accounting and financial reporting function for Poet-DSM. Prior to joining Poet-DSM, Nealon spent more than 11 years at Glacial Lakes Corn Processors, where he first worked as a controller, and most recently served as finance manager. While employed at Glacial Lakes, he established the company&rsquo;s accounting system and procedures. Nealon also has accounting and finance experience in the real estate, credit card and gaming industries.&nbsp; Stoel Rives partner Graham Noyes is transferring his practice to the firm&rsquo;s Sacramento, Calif., office. He represents clients involved in conventional and advanced biofuels, as well as forestry, agricultural, and solid waste-to-energy projects, and biogas projects involving anaerobic digestion, thermo chemical gasification, and other advanced technologies. Noyes has extensive experience with the federal renewable fuel standard and California&rsquo;s low carbon fuel standard. He is also a well-known speaker and writer on renewable energy credits and renewable identification numbers.&nbsp; DuPont and the National Corn Growers Association have announced a new program to develop corn farmers for agricultural leadership opportunities. The NCGA DuPont New Leader Program will help to empower growers to share their story of their farmers and the benefits of a robust agriculture system with key audiences, including consumers, media and decision makers.&nbsp; Germany-based CropEnergies AG has acquired U.K.-based ethanol producer Ensus Ltd., which operates a 400 MMly (105.7 MMgy) wheat ethanol plant in Yarm, England. CropEnergies intends to invest more &pound;50 million ($76.82 million) to improve the competitiveness of the plant, and intends to restart once essential maintenance work is completed.&nbsp; Fuels America coalition members have announced the launch of a new ad campaign. The ads highlight the fact that there is a choice when it comes to our energy future, and that our nation does not have to be beholden to oil&rsquo;s monopoly over the gasoline supply and the negative impacts that entails.&nbsp; The U.S. Senate has voted to approve Gina McCarthy&rsquo;s nomination to lead the U.S. EPA by a vote of 59 to 40. Prior to her nomination, McCarthy served as assistant administrator for the EPA&rsquo;s Office of Air and Radiation. She replaces former Administrator Lisa Jackson, who resigned in December. &nbsp; Chemtex International Inc. and Murphy-Brown LLC have signed a long-term agreement for the supply of purpose-grown energy crops and residues to be used as cellulosic feedstock in Project Alpha, Chemtex&rsquo;s cellulosic ethanol facility planned for Clinton, N.C. The agreement covers a number of feedstocks to be grown on approximately 6,000 acres of land owned or controlled by Murphy-Brown. The crops will be grown on acreage not typically used for grain production. Final execution of the agreement is contingent upon achieving financial closure for the project.&nbsp; Flint Hills Resources LLC has announced an agreement with Platinum Ethanol to acquire its 100 MMgy Arthur, Iowa, ethanol plant. The transaction is expected to close later this year, and the purchase price has not been disclosed. Once the purchase is complete, Flint Hills will own six ethanol plants, five of which will be located in Iowa.&nbsp;&nbsp;
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz have appointed Kevin Kephart as the new committee co-chair of the Biomass Research and Development Initiative Technical Advisory Committee. Kephart, vice president of research and development at South Dakota State University, will serve as co-chair beside former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. The committee is made up of 32 volunteers from industry, academia, nonprofit organizations and local government who discuss and work with technical issues involving energy and agriculture.
Poet LLC has hired Rob Walther as director of federal affairs, tasked with opening a Poet office in Washington, D.C. He will represent Poet and highlight the value of domestic, renewable biofuel in talks with members of Congress, their staff and federal agencies regulating renewable fuels.&nbsp;
ICM Inc. has signed a contract with Industria Paraguaya de Alcoholes S.A. for the sale of an evaporator and dryer system at its plant in Nueva Esperanza, Paraguay. Inpasa was founded in 2006 to produce fuel ethanol derived from several feedstocks including sorghum, corn and sugarcane.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Dan Wegner, right, UWGP commodities manager, is presented with a check for his purchase of a 2013 Ford Focus FFV by Carl Benck, UWGP president.

2013/08/bb-ethanol-UWGP-0913_13763157966056.jpg

Fierro brings diverse leadership experience to Crown Companies.

2013/08/BB-ethanol-Fierro-0913_13763162935333.jpg

Nealson has more than 10 years of experience in the ethanol industry.

2013/08/bb-ethanol-Nealon-0913_13763163627935.jpg

Noyes has extensive experience in the biofuels and bioenergy sectors.

2013/08/bb-ethanol-Noyes-0913_13763164136522.jpg

Representatives of the ethanol industry have applauded McCarthyâ€™s approval.

2013/08/bb-ethanolMcCarthy0913_13763166016131.jpg

Kephart has expertise in biobased projects and fuels.

2013/08/bb-ethanolKephart0913_13763167246466.jpg

Business Briefs

The United Kingdom Overseas Development Institute, an independent think tank, recently published a report on biofuel projects in five developing countries, four in Africa and one in Asia.&nbsp;
The project was triggered because of the claims by several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that the European Union&rsquo;s biofuel policy had resulted in major land grabs, especially in Africa and some parts of Asia, pushing people off their land and reducing the land available for growing food crops.
Action Aid, one of the most aggressive antibiofuel NGOs, claimed that a total of 50 million hectares of land had been grabbed for biofuel production. This figure was taken from a database called the Land Matrix that is compiled by the International Land Coalition. Fifty million hectares is the size of Spain.
This database, when published in 2012, received significant media traction and the numbers taken from it were accepted at face value. One year later, we now know that the Land Matrix database is not very reliable.
Earlier this year, in its booklet &ldquo;Myths and Facts about Bioenergy in Africa,&rdquo; the NGO Pangea was the first to raise questions on the reliability of the database. The program manager of the ILC interviewed admitted that it was &ldquo;very hard to verify data&rdquo; and that they were very careful &ldquo;not to describe any of their data as verified.&rdquo; Unfortunately antibiofuel advocates never indicate this reality when they make reference to the database.
The ODI work is stunning. When comparing several sources on land acquisitions associated with biofuel, the numbers vary substantially. For Africa, the numbers quoted are between 7.5 million and 18.8 million hectares. The researchers believe that the data is highly sensitive to the time period covered and the methodology used.
In the four African countries investigated by the researchers&mdash;Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia&mdash;fieldwork showed that only 1.5 million hectares of land were allocated for biofuel production, which is less than half of the 3.1 million hectares cited in the database.
But the more shocking result from their work is that only &ldquo;a tiny proportion (of that allocated land) is actually being cultivated.&rdquo; For the four countries investigated, the total surface of land under cultivation is 26,600 hectares. Land for ethanol crops is less than 10 percent of that number: 2,280 hectares.&nbsp;
So, the total land allocation for biofuel production is a mere 226 square kilometers; just over one-third of the size of Madrid and less than 1 percent of the 3.1 million hectares that are supposedly allocated to biofuels.
One of their findings also demonstrates what we, the biofuels industry, have always claimed: There is no food vs. fuel controversy. &ldquo;The findings suggest that there is little basis for making strong statements that biofuel production in developing countries causes widespread undermining of food security through displacing food or competing for resources,&rdquo; the report says.&nbsp;
These are important and far-reaching conclusions that should bring some sense back into the European debate on biofuels. Unfortunately, as often is the case: First wild accusations are made, covered broadly by the media, and then once the dust is settled and once the facts surface, there is total radio silence.
The ODI report did not gain any media traction. Maybe it was too painful for journalists to acknowledge that they have been reporting on a land-grab-for-biofuel hoax. &nbsp;The best way for NGOs and the politicians who support them unequivocally to save face is to ignore these findings.We know what to do next: spread the results and tell the world about the hoax.
Author: Robert Vierhout Secretary-general, ePUREVierhout@epure.org

2013/08/ePURE-EPM-rob-1210_13763129910578.jpg

Spread the  Word About the  Land-Grab Hoax

Following certain plan design changes required by the law, major pieces of the 2010 Affordable Care Act were to go into effect starting in 2014. These included the insurance exchanges and the so-called individual mandate and employer mandate. However, on July 2, the Treasury Department announced that it would not enforce the employer mandate until 2015. Thus, employers of 50 or more full-time and full-time equivalent employees now have a one-year reprieve from pay-or-play. This announcement soon led to calls to delay the individual mandate. At the same time, we will soon learn how the insurance exchanges will look in terms of insurance products and prices, as the exchanges are anticipated to open their doors in October.
The Treasury Department stated that the employer mandate was delayed to address employer concerns that the reporting requirements are too complex. The delay is welcome and it is expected that clearer guidance will be forthcoming. However, even if rules are clarified, the requirement that large employers must offer coverage to full-time employees in 2015 may still affect employer decision making in 2013 and 2014. Labor statistics, survey responses and news reports indicate employers are hiring a higher percentage of part-time employees than before and that pay-or-play has had a role in this trend. The question is whether the one-year delay and the anticipated reduction in complexity will motivate employers to now hire more full-time employees.Beyond dealing with the law&rsquo;s complexity, employers are also faced with other long-term planning concerns, such as the cost of coverage that is offered to eligible employees, and how their competitors may modify their own workforces and plan designs. Employee benefits continue to be a strong component in attracting and maintaining the best employees. Moreover, how do employers who contemplate using more part-time employees and perhaps more leased employees ensure that the work will be done as effectively as with full-time employees? This is a challenging balancing act.
Similarly, uncertainty exists concerning the manner in which insurance carriers will engage in their own decision making. Insurance carriers who were interested in selling products on the state and federal insurance exchanges have already submitted bids for the various plan designs that will be available on the exchanges in 2014. However, if the individual mandate is delayed as the employer mandate was, it is anticipated that fewer uninsured but healthy individuals will be motivated to obtain coverage from the exchanges next year. Such a change in assumptions could cause carriers to want to modify the pricing of their exchange products. Although considerable resources have been expended in creating the exchanges, a delay in the individual mandate could significantly affect their rollout later this year.
Our advice for employers is first, continue to monitor news reports and other alerts to keep abreast of those elements of the law that affect your decision making. Second, because most employers are not insurance experts, communicate early and often with your consultants. Understand that while brokers may know about pricing and available plan designs, an employee benefits attorney will be better suited to advise about strategies for compliance, taking pricing and design into account. Third, be nimble; engage in long-term planning to the extent required but think in terms of alternative possibilities and ranges. Understand that difficulty in making budget projections will be the &ldquo;new normal&rdquo; for some time to come. Through all of this, the goal is to attract and maintain the best employees by offering coverage they value. Thankfully, for many employers, the delay in the employer mandate will temporarily relieve some of this pressure and allow more time for strategic planning.

Author: Charles P. Stevens, Attorney, Michael Best &amp; Friedrich LLP 414-225-8268 cpstevens@michaelbest.com

2013/08/Sept-EPM-Biz-Ethanol-Charlie-Stevens_13763

Today, with nearly 80 percent of American ethanol plants extracting corn oil, our industry is a good-size fish in a not-so-big pond. The global demand for corn oil is growing, but is it developing fast enough to meet output and sustain prices? If not, will some producers consider opportunities to convert their corn oil to higher-value coproducts on site? It seems likely. This month&rsquo;s page-30 cover story, &ldquo;Harnessing Corn Oil Power,&rdquo; by EPM Managing Editor Holly Jessen, focuses on a Kansas-based company demonstrating the viability of co-locating biodiesel or renewable diesel production with ethanol facilities. As Jessen reports, WB Services is now ready to bolt on biodiesel or renewable diesel production capability to any corn ethanol plant that seeks it. Once integrated, the biobased diesel plant would run in tandem with the ethanol plant, relying on the same automation systems, the same infrastructure and essentially the same people. What&rsquo;s so compelling about this corn-oil-to-higher-value-products offering is the fact that it&rsquo;s a bolt on to a bolt on&mdash;new coproducts from relatively new byproducts&mdash;and another illustration of our industry&rsquo;s ongoing quest to maximize the value of corn.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; From there, we take this issue on an environmental health and safety (EH&amp;S) field trip, examining hazard analysis and recordkeeping, grain storage safety and emergency spill response. The first piece in this EH&amp;S lineup, &ldquo;Emphasis on Details, Documentation,&rdquo; on page 36, offers preparedness tips for unannounced OSHA drop ins. In the past three years, nearly 50 U.S. ethanol plants have been spot-visited by OSHA. Some inspections have yielded multiple violations and onerous fines, mostly for misunderstandings over rigorous process safety management rules. In this must-read for anyone responsible for ethanol plant compliance, safety and change management, EPM Senior Editor Sue Retka Schill tells us compliance isn&rsquo;t just about avoiding process hazards but identifying potential problems and taking steps to prevent them from becoming risks.&nbsp; Next, EPM Staff Writer Chris Hanson reports on grain engulfment prevention. Hanson&rsquo;s story, &ldquo;Seconds to React,&rdquo; on page 44, tells us how engulfment happens&mdash;unexpectedly and in seconds&mdash;and why adequate safety equipment, procedures and rescue training saves lives.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Hanson continues with a page-50 feature on spill prevention, cleanup and emergency response. &ldquo;When Spills Happen,&rdquo; gives us an understanding of how ethanol plant emergency spill response service providers enable producers to prepare for and react to accidental discharges. We learn that responding to spills isn&rsquo;t just about containment and cleanup but also employee safety and environmental compliance. An ethanol plant&rsquo;s ability to react on the spot, if and when a spill occurs, is the result of thorough contingency planning and, as always, solid training.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

2013/08/Ethanol-Tom-Bryan_13760647853653.jpg

Remarkably Innovative,  Vigorously Responsible

Corn to ethanol has provided the necessary pathway to a strong renewable fuels program in North America. I think we can safely say that without the corn-to-ethanol program, we likely would not have a renewable fuels program, period. In today&rsquo;s hostile environment, corn seems to have gone from the darling of the dance to dregs of the dungeon in just a few short years. Yet it remains the pathway to the future. Without the corn-to-ethanol program, the renewable fuels industry is dead in the water. It appears the oil industry is also well aware of that fact, hence the onslaught of ridiculous invitees like Wendy's into the renewable fuels standard (RFS) debate. Seriously, come on, the RFS costs one Wendy&rsquo;s franchise owner with four restaurants $120,000 per year? Do these people think we&rsquo;re stupid? Apparently they do, because each claim is becoming more and more unbelievable.&nbsp; Is anyone in Congress actually making them substantiate these crazy claims, or do they just take it at face value and say, &ldquo;Wow, I didn&rsquo;t realize that?&rdquo; Without the RFS, corn to ethanol is dead! Without corn to ethanol, at least for the present, the renewable fuels industry is dead. This is why the focus has been less on the actual use of ethanol, but more on the use of corn to make the ethanol. Corn, like it or not, has become the soft underbelly of our industry, yet it is our lifeblood. In the years ahead, as cellulose, algae, sweet sorghum and other promising feedstocks emerge, corn will take its rightful place as the pioneer of this industry. As the saying goes, the &ldquo;Pioneers get the arrows and the settlers get the gold.&rdquo; Corn pioneered this industry and remains a vital part of our future. In time, however, as corn growers continue to find other exciting avenues for development, it will become less and less of a target for the arrows flung by the dizzying array of archers bought and paid for by Big Oil. Corn farmers have stood toe to toe with Big Oil over the past 30 years and won battle after hard-fought battle. Not because they were smarter, richer or better organized, but because they were and are on the right side of the issue. Agriculture, not Wendy&rsquo;s, or some other oil industry flunky holds the keys to the future.&nbsp; So let&rsquo;s be clear: While corn is taking the arrows, the real target is ethanol and the market share it&rsquo;s taking from is oil.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That&rsquo;s the way I see it.
Author: Mike Bryan Chairman, BBI International mbryan@bbiinternational.com

2013/08/MikeBryan-Ethanol_13760651096765.jpg

Pioneers Get the Arrows, Settlers  Get the Gold

There's absolutely no correlation between retail gas prices and ethanol renewable identification number (RIN) prices. RINs are free. Let me repeat. RINs. &nbsp;Are. Free.&nbsp;
Ethanol producers are required to give RINs to refiners and gasoline marketers when they purchase a gallon of ethanol. It&rsquo;s simple. Buy a gallon of ethanol, get a RIN for free.
Today, as the renewable fuel standard (RFS) requirement drives ethanol demand beyond 10 percent blends, a thinly traded and opaque market for RINs is developing so that oil companies can trade RINs amongst themselves to ease compliance. Unfortunately, oil companies would rather drive up the price of RINs than invest in E85 pumps or allow the sale of E15.&nbsp;
Instead of blending to higher levels, Big Oil pulled out a play from their scare tactic playbook. They claim that rising RIN prices are being passed down to consumers and increasing gas prices at the pump. But facts can be nettlesome when you&rsquo;re trying to mislead folks. You see, gasoline prices were actually falling when RIN prices spiked in March, and gasoline prices have been falling again since early June while RIN prices have escalated. The correlation of RINs to gas prices since Feb. 1 has been -0.3, meaning that increasing RIN prices correlate best to decreasing gas prices!
<img src="http://ethanolproducer.com/blog-images/vfh-ethanol-chart-0913.jpg" alt="" hspace="5" align="right" /> At a recent U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on the RFS, I sparred with Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, over Big Oil&rsquo;s false assertion that RINs are impacting gasoline prices. Curiously, the day after the hearing, RIN prices plummeted. It seems rising RIN prices have a better correlation to congressional hearings than to gasoline prices! Hmmm. &nbsp;
Big Oil doesn&rsquo;t like paying for RINs but the rational solution to their problem is obvious. Blend more ethanol.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Author: Bob Dinneen President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association 202-289-3835

2013/08/Bob-Dineen-NEW_13763380475573.jpg

RINs are Free

The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is the most important and innovative U.S. energy policy in the past 40 years. It has been the single most effective tool at encouraging the production of ethanol, which, as you know, is the only large-scale, commercially viable alternative to fossil fuels.&nbsp;
Since 2005, our industry has created and supported nearly 400,000 domestic jobs here at home that cannot be outsourced. Not only are we keeping more jobs at home, we&rsquo;re keeping more money at home, too. We contribute more than $40 billion annually to our nation&rsquo;s gross domestic product and are driving investment into new technologies and advanced biofuels. And, American ethanol has helped curb our dependence on volatile foreign oil markets from 60 percent in 2005 to 40 percent in 2012.
The numbers don&rsquo;t lie. The RFS and homegrown American ethanol have made great contributions to our nation, boosting our economy, improving our national security and fostering future prosperity and innovation.
The attacks against our industry are growing day by day. Big Oil and its cronies have lined their coffers with years of absurd subsidies, reaping record profits while consumers get robbed at the pump. They&rsquo;ll do anything to maintain their near-monopolistic grasp on the liquid fuels market.&nbsp;
The more our industry grows, the more we strengthen, the more nervous Big Oil will become. So, we call on you, our supporters and allies across the American ethanol and biofuels industries, to step up to the plate. While we can&rsquo;t match Big Oil&rsquo;s bank accounts, we have strength in numbers. Help us grow our grassroots movement to fight back.
You know why our industry is successful and poised for huge growth. We&rsquo;ve created the single most dynamic economic market in modern agriculture. We&rsquo;re revitalizing our rural economies. We&rsquo;re making our nation more energy independent. We&rsquo;re saving our neighbors every time they fill up at the pump. We&rsquo;re cleaning our environment and air for today and for future generations. Furthermore, it&rsquo;s a success story to see younger generations return home to continue the legacy of their family farm.&nbsp;
But have your members of Congress heard this story? Your story? We ask you to share your experiences and tell the world why ethanol matters. Tell Congress why the RFS and fuels from the farm matter to you, to your community and to our nation.&nbsp;
Renewable fuels are reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs at home and improving our environment, all while providing consumers with a choice and savings at the pump. Big Oil will stop at nothing to block any competition from renewable fuels and prevent their success. That is why you must act and call today.
Author: Tom Buis CEO, Growth Energy 202-545-4000 tbuis@growthenergy.org

2013/08/DRIVE-EPM-tom-1210_1376066515766.jpg

Batter Up:  Step Up to the Plate for the RFS

Congress returns to work in September with some proposing to &ldquo;reform&rdquo; the renewable fuel standard (RFS) by reducing it. As part of this effort, key lawmakers recently asked the American Coalition for Ethanol to help them understand what is responsible for higher renewable identification number (RIN) prices. Our response was: You&rsquo;re asking the wrong question.
Congress should be asking who is responsible for rising RIN prices and why. &nbsp;The answer is that refiners are so RINsane about repealing the RFS and controlling 90 percent of the fuel market that they are willing to pay for RINs and block consumer access to E15, E30 or E85, just to avoid buying ethanol (which costs less than gasoline).
Talk about RINsane, data from the U.S. EPA indicates refiners historically treat RINs as a reward for blending more ethanol than required by the RFS. &nbsp;Because ethanol has been less expensive than gasoline, for years most refiners have blended significantly more ethanol than their annual obligations. As a result, they&rsquo;ve been able to keep an oversupply of RINs on hand to limit the potential for more ethanol use. Refiners rolled 2.5 billion excess 2012 RINs over for compliance with the RFS in 2013. The current Big Oil hue and cry isn&rsquo;t about RIN prices, it is fear of actual competition from blends above 10 percent ethanol and having to let market forces actually decide pump prices.
That oil companies have been willing to pay $1 or more for a RIN, just to avoid buying ethanol at 70 cents per gallon less than gasoline and offering consumers safe and tested E15, should tell Congress everything it needs to know about the RFS. It is needed now, more than ever. And the lack of transparency in RIN trading leaves open the possibility that unscrupulous traders or refiners could create skewed transactions for the purpose of manipulating the RIN market for financial gain or to make a political point.
As I&rsquo;ve written in this column before, frankly, RINs are further proof the RFS works. Petroleum marketers who blend ethanol with gasoline are also allowed to &ldquo;separate&rdquo; RINs from physical ethanol gallons. It requires more paperwork, but they&rsquo;ve identified an advantage in purchasing ethanol for much less than gasoline, acquiring a RIN on top of the ethanol savings, using some of the RIN to pay for new infrastructure for E15 or E85, and passing a significant pump savings to consumers. Petroleum marketers are able to do what Big Oil suggests cannot be done&mdash;overcome the E10 blend wall&mdash;and they are doing so while saving consumers money.
Refiners have choices. As with other arguments they use to attack the RFS, even the volume of gasoline sold in the U.S. is largely under their control. By refining fewer barrels of oil and exporting gallons that could be added to the domestic fuel supply, oil companies are unilaterally reducing their own opportunity to blend ethanol and receive the RINs that come with those gallons at no cost, and they are choosing not to provide enough supply to the market to bring prices down. The fact that they are willingly spending more money and raising fuel prices by refusing to blend ethanol indicates the lengths oil companies are prepared to go to protect their continued artificial dominance in the marketplace. &nbsp;
Most ethanol opponents in Congress have rightfully concluded they don&rsquo;t have the votes to repeal the RFS, so what of this effort to reform the RFS by reducing it? &nbsp;
We&rsquo;ve got to be clear. Reducing the RFS below 10 percent of the U.S. gasoline market does not constitute reform of the RFS. It&rsquo;s a capitulation to oil companies who don&rsquo;t want consumers to have access to low-cost blends such as E15 and E85. Arbitrarily cutting the corn ethanol levels to satisfy demands of Tyson, Smithfield, and Perdue Farms, who feel entitled to cheap corn forever, does not constitute reform either. And, abandoning the cellulose portion of the RFS, when this promising fuel is at the cusp of commercialization and EPA has the tools it needs to make reasonable adjustments on its own, will drive investment overseas and prevent the U.S. from realizing further reductions in greenhouse gases.
Or, we could say it&rsquo;s RINsane.
Author: Brian Jennings Executive Vice President American Coalition for Ethanol 605-334-3381 bjennings@ethanol.org
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

2013/08/Grass-Ethanol-Jennings_13760676892922.jpg

RINsane About Repealing the RFS

Chip Energy has broken ground on a biomass recycling and pelletizing plant in Goodfield, Ill.&nbsp; Once complete, the prototype plant will be capable of producing 100 tons per day of condensed biomass from a variety of feedstock sources, including wood waste, energy crops and agricultural residues. In addition to pellets, the facility will have the ability to produce briquettes and logs. The plant is expected to be operational during the third quarter of this year.
 The plant is being constructed from recycled shipping containers configured in a vertical fashion, which results in a footprint spanning only 70 feet by 104 feet, but reaches 70 high. Paul Wever, president of Chip Energy, said the design will increase the efficiency of the facility.
 Wever also operates a construction equipment company that prototypes and builds specialized tools for the off-highway equipment industry. He has leveraged that experience to develop the pellet plant, with the aim to supply the equipment and technology to a wide range of customers, particularly those in the power and cellulosic fuels industries.

Prototype pellet plant breaks ground 

You can&rsquo;t run a wood pellet mill without wood. This seems obvious, but I frequently hear from people who think they have identified a technology and customer combination that will make for a successful project, but yet they haven&rsquo;t given much, if any, thought to their wood supply.&nbsp;
 Of course, identifying wood supply is critical to a pellet project&rsquo;s success, and should be one of the earliest steps taken when evaluating opportunities. Whether building a pellet mill to serve the domestic heating market or offshore export, finding a location and developing a wood supply strategy that allows for a consistent and reliable supply at a price the mill can afford and suppliers can profit is critical to a project&rsquo;s success.
 Many developers&mdash; often at the urging of financial backers&mdash;seek to find long-term contracts that lock in the volume and price of wood for years. In a few places, such a strategy might actually work.Unfortunately, many of the contracts that I have seen cross my desk as part of due diligence simply don&rsquo;t&mdash;and can&rsquo;t&mdash;provide the certainty and surety that the developer wants it to. There are a few reasons for this:
 &bull; It is hard to find a wood supplier that is sufficiently creditworthy to stand behind a long-term contract. Yes, there are good organizations, run by good people, with years or decades of experience in the forest industry. I am sure they will do everything they can to honor a contract (or, perhaps more importantly to them, a handshake). However, many companies just don&rsquo;t have the financial resources to stand behind a long-term contract, and if a supplier can&rsquo;t back a contract, it is of limited value.
 &bull; Wood supply relies upon a fragmented supply chain, with landowners, foresters, loggers and truckers all participating before wood gets to the mill. It is uncommon to find a firm that has all of these components, and it&rsquo;s very hard to contract a credible promise to supply something you don&rsquo;t own or control.&nbsp;
 &bull; Wood used for energy is low-grade, and just isn&rsquo;t worth as much as other products coming off a logging job. Landowners make much more money selling sawlogs for lumber production than wood for pellet production. The money from sales to pellet mills may be important, but it often isn&rsquo;t the primary focus for assuring long-term profitability.
 Given these challenges, wood pellet projects should instead concentrate on developing a system and infrastructure to manage a wood supply that is consistent, reliable, and provides for stable volume and price. In truth, this is important with or without a long-term wood supply agreement. Elements that a project should consider include:
 Diversity of supply. Make certain that there are multiple suppliers, perhaps providing multiple types, of feedstock. This way, failure of a single supplier doesn&rsquo;t have catastrophic results for the pellet mill. Surge capacity with existing suppliers. Make certain that suppliers can &ldquo;turn up the volume&rdquo; for short periods of time, to account for interruptions from other suppliers.
 Significant wood storage capacity. Allow for buying when supplies are plentiful and to provide a buffer against any short-term supply interruptions (e.g., weather, or market-related downtime at a sawmill that provides sawdust as a feedstock).
 Clear price expectations. Make the price something that loggers know and can make enough money to justify investment in equipment. Sometimes efforts to squeeze the price down as far as it can go has short-term benefits, but almost always causes some suppliers to leave a facility and results in a higher, more volatile price in the long-term.
 Reflect supplier costs. Suppliers use diesel in the harvest, processing and transport of wood to a facility. They also have no control over diesel costs. Communicate to suppliers how changes in diesel&mdash;both increases and decreases&mdash;will be reflected in the price you pay them.
 Pellet mills are simply the latest in a long line of forest industries that need significant and price-stable volumes of wood. No matter what a supply contract does or doesn&rsquo;t say, a project&rsquo;s real success can be best addressed by giving careful thought and planning to wood supply. Author: Eric Kingsley Vice President, Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC 207-772-5440 <a href="mailto:kingsley@inrsllc.com">kingsley@inrsllc.com</a>

2013/08/Pel-Biomass-Eric-Kingsley-0913_1377010925237.jpg

Fiber Supply Critical to Pellet Project Success

The conversion of half of its generating capacity from coal to biomass has placed Drax Group and its power station in Drax, England, among the top stories in the biomass-to-energy sector. Once complete, Drax Group will own and operate the largest biomass-derived power station in the world. But while the bulk of attention is given to the conversion activities at the power facility, the innovation generated by this transition is certainly not limited to the plant alone.
 The pellet facility, located just 6 miles east of Drax in the village of Goole, was built in 2008, fully commissioned in 2009, and may well be the world&rsquo;s first commercial-scale pellet facility processing significant quantities of dedicated energy crop inputs, predominantly miscanthus.&nbsp; This 100,000-ton-per year facility has added energy crops to its input stream, and the crop now represents about 40 percent of the material consumed at the facility. Wheat straw and rapeseed straw make up the rest, representing 45 percent and 15 percent of the input volume, respectively. Once pelletized, miscanthus pellets can deliver between 16.8 and 17.1 gigajoules per ton (GJ/t). Comparatively, wood pellets typically generate between 17 and 18 GJ/t.
 Drax Group is diligently working to build the most sustainable biomass supply chain possible for the power station. Commenting on the role that energy crops like miscanthus will play in this endeavor, Melanie Wedgbury, head of external communications, notes, &ldquo;Miscanthus presents a long-term, dedicated fuel with great sustainability credentials. It can be grown on marginal land and is a viable option for U.K. farmers. The product does not require any mechanical drying and can be processed through pellet mills that are designed for straw pelleting with some modifications.&rdquo;
 In order to keep the facility in Goole adequately supplied with the requisite volumes of miscanthus, Drax currently has supply agreements with nearly 120 farmers in the area. Drax's initial contracts were with producer groups only, avoiding individual contracts. Realizing that in order to achieve the volumes it was targeting, Drax would also need off-take contracts with individual producers, and thus formed a producer program titled Green Shoots Programme. Drax&rsquo;s decision to offer off-take agreements to individual farmers provides them with the surety they need to procure capital and make the investments necessary to establish the crop on their land, including the purchase of harvesting equipment. &ldquo;For farms with marginal land or areas of the farm that are expensive to farm, this is an easy decision,&rdquo; Wedgbury says. &ldquo;Cash flow is an issue for smaller farmers, however, banks and finance companies will now support this activity on farms.&rdquo;
 Establishing and growing required input volumes is only a part of the challenge Drax has worked to overcome. Effectively pelletizing the fibrous miscanthus came with a steep learning curve, and for this, Drax worked hand-and-glove with its pellet mill supplier Andritz.&nbsp; &ldquo;Andritz has been very helpful throughout the project at Goole and the collaboration has resulted in a joint learning program, for both Drax and Andritz, when tackling the processing of difficult materials, such as miscanthus,&rdquo; says Wedgbury.
 While Goole&rsquo;s production volumes represent a tiny fraction of the 6 to 7 million tons of biomass the power station will require, it remains a vital aspect of the company&rsquo;s long-term biomass strategy, and continues to deliver valuable discoveries for Drax. &ldquo;Energy crops and the Goole pellet plant have created a year-round opportunity for local growers, haulers and labor forces, as well as a source of usable sustainable biomass,&rdquo; Wedgbury adds. &ldquo;Wider than that, it has been an essential part of Drax&rsquo;s learning curve in understanding how pellet mills operate and has informed our decision making for other investment opportunities in the biomass supply chain.&rdquo; Author: Tim Portz Executive Editor, Biomass Magazine 651-398-9154 <a href="mailto:tportz@bbiinternational.com">tportz@bbiinternational.com</a>

2013/08/Pel-Biomass-drax1-0913_13770110026379.jpg

2013/08/Pel-Biomass-drax2-0913_13770110038848.jpg

2013/08/Pel-Biomass-drax3-0913_13770110056951.jpg

Drax Group is leveraging its capabilities to build the most sustainable supply chain possible.


Casting a Wider Feedstock Net

In this issue of Biomass Magazine, we investigate the momentum building for purpose-grown or dedicated energy crops and algal biomass inputs. Crops like arundo donax, miscanthus, Giant King Grass, switchgrass and others are being cultivated, as their name suggests, exclusively for their downstream conversion into energy products. On the one hand, this frees these crops from some of the agronomic practices so common in their food and feed crop cousins. Largely, energy crops are perennials, and once established, deliver abundant volumes of biomass per acre. Moreover, energy crops are often grown on marginal lands that wouldn&rsquo;t deliver the requisite yields with more traditional annual cropping systems. Together, these two attributes alone form the impressive one-two punch that continues to drive investment in the kind of plant breeding, stand establishment and conversion research activities that are featured in the pages that follow. On the other hand, because these crops are designed exclusively for the production of energy products, there are no other markets driving their development or delivering additional revenue streams that could augment the revenues producers will receive for the biomass bound for energy production.
 Sue Retka Schill&rsquo;s feature &ldquo;Dedicated Feedstock Forerunner&rdquo; succinctly outlines this dichotomy as she compares the feedstock plans for Chemtex&rsquo;s Project Alpha in North Carolina with the plans for the cellulosic ethanol facilities currently under construction in the Corn Belt. Retka Schill reports that the acres required to deliver the necessary biomass to Project Alpha will ultimately be half of the acres required to yield the same number of biofuel gallons when compared to standard corn yields and conversion rates. The biggest difference, and arguably the biggest challenge for energy crop developers, is that growers and converters must overcome producer risk. Perhaps the last thing farmers in Iowa concern themselves with when planting corn in the spring is finding a market for the resultant bushels. Their market is virtually assured. Energy crop growers are not guaranteed this surety and, as a result, the acres currently engaged in energy crop production number in the hundreds.
 The opportunity is there. Collectively, the projects featured in this month&rsquo;s issue will generate a market for tens of thousands of energy crop acres. If one thing is certain, it&rsquo;s that energy crops are increasingly being identified as an input for every energy market this industry serves, and the success of converters and growers will follow the same trajectory.

2013/08/Tim3_2010_13770101578431.jpg

A Grower Community Musters

Attorney moves practice to California Stoel Rives partner Graham Noyes is transferring his practice to the firm&rsquo;s Sacramento, Calif., office. He represents clients involved in conventional and advanced biofuels, as well as forestry, agricultural, and solid waste-to-energy projects, and biogas projects involving anaerobic digestion, thermochemical gasification, and other advanced technologies. Noyes has extensive experience with the federal renewable fuel standard and California&rsquo;s low carbon fuel standard. He is also a well-known speaker and writer on renewable energy credits and renewable identification numbers. BTEC releases developer tools The Biomass Thermal Energy Council has announced the release of two new tools to help manufacturers, project developers, engineers and architects better understand biomass systems for the commercial building sector. A resource library hosts more than 100 documents on a variety of topics, from technical and financial topics, to information on policy, case studies and health and environment. The second is a stakeholder document that outlines the individuals and groups of people in a community that project developers should consider when deliberating the development of new projects. Development of the tools was supported by a grant from the Wood Education and Resource Center of the U.S. Forest Service.
 BioNitrogen announces board, executive changes Biobased urea fertilizer producer BioNitrogen Corp. has made several changes to its board. Carlos Contreras, CEO of the company, was promoted to chairman of the board. Mario Beruvides, previous chairman of the board and a professor of industrial engineering at Texas Tech University, is continuing to serve on the board of directors. Juan Vazquez has stepped down from the board, but is continuing to act as an advisor to the company. Roger Imperial, who has served as a senior consultant at Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, also joined the company&rsquo;s board of directors. In addition, Ernie Iznaga, who previously served as operations manager of BioNitrogen, has been promoted to the position of vice president of operations. Drax reveals biomass railcar The Drax Group plc has unveiled the U.K.&rsquo;s first purpose-built biomass rail freight wagon at the National Railway Museum in York. The wagon was developed by designers at Lloyd&rsquo;s Register Rail and manufactured by WH Davis. It will transport biomass from the Ports of Tyne, Hull and Immingham to the Drax Power Station, which is located near Selby. The wagon has a capacity of 116 cubic meters and can transport 71.6 metric tons of biomass. The volume of the newly designed wagon is nearly 30 percent larger than freight wagons currently in use in the U.K. CPM appoints general manager CPM, a supplier of process engineering, process equipment and aftermarket parts for the biofuels, oilseed, animal feed and food processing industries, has appointed Todd Fierro as Crown Companies general manager. Fierro fills a new executive management position responsible for global coordination of all sales, operations, engineering, strategy, and administrative functions. He will be based in Roseville, Minn., and will report to CPM CEO Ted Waitman. Most recently, Fierro served as president of Oshkosh Corp.&rsquo;s commercial segment, focusing on new product introduction and strategic development. ACORE announces interim president, CEO The American Council on Renewable Energy&rsquo;s board of directors has announced Michael Brower, Mosaic Federal Affairs senior federal policy director and principle, will step in to lead the organization during its search for a new president and CEO. Brower is currently a member of the board of directors. He will begin the role in September and will immediately begin working in collaboration with Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, ACORE&rsquo;s outgoing president and CEO. McGinn was recently nominated by President Obama to serve as the next assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations and environment. Senate approves EPA administrator The U.S. Senate has voted to approve Gina McCarthy&rsquo;s nomination to lead the U.S. EPA by a vote of 59 to 40. Prior to her nomination, McCarthy served as assistant administrator for the EPA&rsquo;s Office of Air and Radiation. She replaces former Administrator Lisa Jackson, who resigned in December. &nbsp; Emera completes sale of Canadian plant The Nova Scotia government has announced the sale of the 30 MW biomass-fired Brooklyn Power Corp. plant is complete. Emera Energy Inc. purchased the facility for $25 million. The government first announced the sale in December 2012 following its decision to purchase Bowater Mersey Paper Co. Ltd. from Resolute Forest Products Inc. and change the name to ReNova Scotia Bioenergy Inc. The Brooklyn Energy facility was purchased as part of that deal. Kephart named to advisory committee USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. DOE Secretary Ernest Moniz have appointed Kevin Kephart as the new committee co-chair of the Biomass Research and Development Initiative Technical Advisory Committee. Kephart, vice president of research and development at South Dakota State University, will serve as co-chair beside former Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. The committee is made up of 32 volunteers from industry, academia, nonprofit organizations and local government who discuss and work with technical issues involving energy and agriculture. Canadian thermal system gains EPA qualification Heat Smart Plus Inc., the factory representatives for Manitoba-based Piney Manufacturing, announced that the company&rsquo;s new biomass heating system has gained U.S. EPA qualification for North American distribution. The news comes following two years of development and testing. The Portage and Main EnviroChip 500 biomass heating system is fueled with wood chips. A large fuel storage bin is coupled with a high-efficiency boiler to consistently generate 280,000 Btu per hour. A water and glycol mix is pumped from the boiler into a building by means of insulated underground pipe. Resulting heat is dissipated by a heat exchanger or in-floor hydronic heat loops. Sundrop Fuels selects contractor Sundrop Fuels Inc. has named international engineering and construction firm IHI E&amp;C International Corp., a U.S. subsidiary of Toyko-based IHI Corp., as contractor of choice for its inaugural facility near Alexandria, La. The combined commercial and demonstration plant will annually produce approximately 60 million gallons of gasoline from natural gas while providing the platform for Sundrop Fuels to prove its proprietary gasification technology for making renewable gasoline from woody biomass. DOE grant supports development of sugar analysis system Carbo Analytics was awarded a $150,000 Small Business Innovation Research grant for fiscal year 2013 from the U.S. DOE to support the development of a biofuels sugar analysis system. The technology aims to provide a rapid determination of accessible C5 and C6 sugars in a biomass sample. The company has partnered with CEM Corp., a developer of microwave digestion systems, to prepare biomass samples. The combined solution is expected to allow biofuel operators to flag potential feedstock problems and facilitate suppliers in developing and supplying the highest value products. NSF funds biobased isoprene research Biofuels research underway by C5.6 Technologies of Middleton, Wis., and the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point is getting a boost from a $224,292 National Science Foundation grant. C5.6 Technologies and the Wisconsin Institute for Sustainable Technology at UW-Stevens Point will use the funding to support continued research on the development of bacteria that will ferment sugar into isoprene, a high-energy molecule that can be used to make jet fuel and other products. The funding was awarded through the NSF&rsquo;s Small Business Technology Transfer Program, which promotes innovation in the private sector by linking businesses with university researchers. Mississippi pellet plant planned The Mississippi Development Authority has announced Green Circle Bio Energy plans to locate a wood pellet plant at the George County Industrial Park near Lucedale, Miss. The 500,000 ton per year facility is expected to be operational by spring 2015. Pellets produced at the proposed facility will be exported from the Port of Pascagoula to European markets. The project represents a company investment of $115 million. Iowa landfill gas project expands Waste Management of Des Moines announced the expansion of its Des Moines Metro Methane Recovery Facility at the Metro Park East landfill in Polk County, Iowa. The plant is the results of a public-private partnership between Waste Management and Metro Waste Authority. The plant currently generates 6.5 MW of power. Once the expansion is complete, the production capacity will expand to 11.2 MW. The new plant will add three additional engines to convert landfill gas into energy, with room to add a fourth engine in the future.

2013/08/BB-Biomass-BTEC-0913_13770102632455.jpg

2013/08/BB-Biomass-Kephart-0913_13770102672945.jpg

Representatives of the ethanol industry have applauded McCarthyâ€™s approval

2013/08/BB-Biomass-McCarthy-0913_13770102703756.jpg

Noyes has extensive experience in the biofuels and bioenergy sectors. 

2013/08/BB-Biomass-Noyes-0913_13770102724688.jpg

2013/08/BB-Biomass-SUNDROP-0913_13770102736719.jpg

A report published by U.K.-based energy purchaser SmartestEnergy highlights the contribution commercial-scale independent renewable energy projects are making to the region&rsquo;s energy industry. The analysis, titled &ldquo;Energy Entrepreneurs Report 2013,&rdquo; indicates that 392 projects came online in 2012, with 2,011 independent power projects in existence in the U.K. at the end of the year.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 In 2012, the total number of independent biomass projects grew by 2 percent, while anaerobic digestion projects increased by 5 percent. Biomass projects now make up 32 percent of onsite capacity, with anaerobic digestion projects accounting for 22 percent. Onsite projects are defined as those developed by a business to power manufacturing facilities and commercial premises.
 Farm-owned generation capacity was the fastest growing category of independent generators, with a 74 percent increase in projects. Biomass accounted for 2 percent of on-farm projects, and anaerobic digestion 9 percent. Farmers owned 17 percent of the U.K.&rsquo;s commercial-scale independent renewable energy projects last year.

2013/08/Pow-Biomass-News-0913_13770103722665.jpg

Independent power production contributes to UK energy mix 

Dominion Virginia Power placed its biomass-fired Altavista Power Station into commercial operation in July. The 51 megawatt facility in Altavista, Va., is the first of three stations the company is converting from coal to biomass. Dominion is also converting two similar stations in Hopewell, Va., and Southampton County, Va., to run on biomass.
 Dominion acquired all three power plants in 2001. They had been in operation since 1992 and were used primarily to produce steam for manufacturing plants, and intermittently to meet peak electricity demand. In April 2011, the company announced its plans to invest approximately $165 million to convert the plants to be fueled with waste wood.
 According to Dominion, conversion of the Hopewell and Southampton stations is progressing on schedule. Both plants are expected to reach commercial operation before the end of the year. All three plants are expected to operate continuously following conversion to biomass, helping to meet Virginia&rsquo;s voluntary renewable energy goal of 15 percent by 2025.

Conversion of Altavista Power Station complete 

In the aftermath of the D.C. Circuit&rsquo;s decision on how the U.S. EPA will regulate greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions from biomass, many questions have been raised, indicating a lot of confusion about what the decision means for the regulation of biogenic CO2 emissions.
 First, let&rsquo;s clear up what the decision actually achieved. Importantly, contrary to some press reports, the decision is not about whether EPA can legally exclude biomass, and also does not halt the three-year study. To quote the court, &ldquo;Because the Deferral Rule cannot be justified under any of the administrative law doctrines relied on by EPA, this opinion&hellip; leaves for another day the question whether the agency has authority under the Clean Air Act to permanently exempt biogenic carbon dioxide sources from the PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) permitting program.&rdquo; If and when EPA adopts a permanent exemption for some or all biogenic carbon dioxide sources, we will have the benefit of three years of scientific study, as well as fully briefed and contextualized arguments about EPA&rsquo;s authority under the Clean Air Act. In other words, the Court found EPA&rsquo;s rationale for deferring GHG regulation as lacking, not that regulation of biomass was scientifically sound or even justified under the Clean Air Act.
 Here&rsquo;s a summary of the rule&rsquo;s sordid history, which is needed when trying to understand the recent decision. Shortly after promulgating the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued a Call for Information, seeking technical and scientific information to &ldquo;evaluate different accounting approaches&rdquo; for measuring biogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Specifically, EPA sought information about how to treat biogenic carbon dioxide sources differently for purposes of measuring the emissions that trigger the PSD and Title V permitting programs. For example, EPA requested comments on how to &ldquo;determine the net impact on the atmosphere of CO2 emissions&rdquo; and the &ldquo;appropriate spatial/geographic scale for conducting this determination.&rdquo;
 In March 2011, EPA, citing its ongoing efforts to understand the unique characteristics of biogenic carbon dioxide, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on whether it should defer regulation of these sources for a three-year period. Simultaneously, it published a guidance document for determining best available control technology (BACT) for biogenic carbon dioxide emissions from sources that were regulated under the PSD permitting program at Step One of the Tailoring Rule.
 Based on comments and studies received during the notice-and-comment period, and following up on the Call for Information, EPA issued a rule&mdash;the one challenged in the court case&mdash; postponing regulation of biogenic carbon dioxide sources for three years. In support of this so-called Deferral Rule, EPA repeatedly emphasized that &ldquo;the issue of accounting for the net atmospheric impact of biogenic CO2 emissions is complex enough that further consideration . . . is warranted.&rdquo;
 It is important to keep in mind that the Deferral Rule contains a sunset provision: absent further agency action, on July 21, 2014, biogenic carbon dioxide will be regulated under the PSD and Title V programs, as modified by the Tailoring Rule.
 Although the Deferral Rule is a temporary regulation, it functions, in effect, as a permanent exemption from the PSD permitting requirement for any biogenic carbon dioxide source constructed during the three-year deferral period. Exempted sources would have to obtain PSD permits only if they undertake a modification project after the deferral period ends.
 The Deferral Rule is also voluntary. To quote EPA, &ldquo;Each state may decide if it wishes to adopt the deferral and proceed accordingly.&rdquo; At least one state, Massachusetts, is currently regulating biogenic carbon dioxide sources at Step Two of the Tailoring Rule.
 Contrary to reports in the media, EPA&rsquo;s position is not to permanently exempt biomass. In fact, as noted by the dissenting judge, EPA has conceded &ldquo;the possibility&hellip;that more detailed examination of the science of biogenic CO2 will demonstrate that&hellip;some biogenic feedstocks&hellip;have a significant impact on the net carbon cycle.&rdquo;
 EPA is not permanently treating biogenic CO2 emissions differently. As the Deferral Rule explains, EPA believes, based on the evidence currently in its possession, that further study may support a decision to give special treatment to some biogenic emissions.
 We look forward to working with EPA to craft a rule that acknowledges the benefits of biomass as a way to fight climate change and promote healthy forests, and the need to expand&mdash;rather than close&mdash;energy markets for biomass. Author: Bob Cleaves President and CEO, Biomass Power Association <a href="http://www.biomasspowerassociation.com">www.biomasspowerassociation.com </a> <a href="mailto:bob@biomasspowerassociation.com">bob@biomasspowerassociation.com</a>

2013/08/Bob-Cleaves_Standing_1377010624723.jpg

Setting Record Straight on  Tailoring Rule Decision

Near the Columbia River just outside of eastern&nbsp; Oregon&rsquo;s Boardman sits the state&rsquo;s last operating coal plant, a 600-MW facility built in the late 1970s. Though the plant has plenty of years left in it, the state's decision to phase out coal left Portland General Electric&nbsp; exploring its options.
 In 2010, PGE was approved to continue to burn coal at Boardman until 2020, with some temporary emissions controls upgrades. After that, $500 million in additional pollution controls would be required to comply with federal and state sulfur, nitrogen and mercury rules, thus enabling the plant to continue operations until at least 2040.
 Ultimately, PGE faced three possibilities&mdash;closing by 2020, making costly upgrades, or switching to another fuel source.&nbsp; If closed, it would make history as the youngest coal plant in the U.S. to shut down as a result of air quality regulations, but doing so and building a new plant elsewhere makes more economic sense than keeping it open for upgrades.
 With the upgrade option ruled out, the fate of the plant rests on the feasibility of using torrefied energy crops as fuel, and PGE has spent the past several years conducting in-depth research and rigorous testing to determine what the possibilities are.
 Exploring Options
 Initially, PGE looked into repowering with natural gas, but rendered that option unfeasible. &ldquo;We did a study on natural gas and found the area didn&rsquo;t have a gas line, but that wasn&rsquo;t the real issue,&rdquo; says Jaisen Mody, PGE projects manager. &ldquo;The issue was that the Boardman boiler was designed for coal combustion, and using gas in the existing boiler made it highly inefficient. The cost wasn&rsquo;t conducive to running the plant long-term, as we would have to change out the boiler. We decided that converting an old Rankine cycle coal boiler wasn&rsquo;t the way to go because of the capital expenditure.&rdquo;
 Basically, it boiled down to the notion of using gas meant building a new gas plant, adds Steve Corson, PGE spokesman.
 When PGE began evaluating biomass back in 2010, wood pellets were tested but gummed up the plant&rsquo;s pulverizers. Crop research began at that point, and arundo donax was chosen as a fuel of interest due to its great growth potential. It&rsquo;s been found to produce upwards of 35 dry tons per acre per year, compared to switchgrass, which will yield 4 to 13 dry tons per acre per year.
 PGE has been growing arundo test plots around the Boardman area for the past couple of years&mdash;about 92 acres&mdash;and has harvested it a few times, storing the crop for test burns, Mody says. He adds that while the initial emphasis was mostly on arundo, that&rsquo;s changed a bit.
 On one hand, a single energy crop is attractive because it&rsquo;s dedicated to producing feedstock volumes needed, but reliance on a single fuel source is risky for a number of reasons, including harsh weather, natural disasters or pests. &ldquo;So we&rsquo;re also investigating other biomass sources, including sorghum and ag waste,&rdquo; says Mody.
 One thing that&rsquo;s certain is that if energy crops and biomass are used at Boardman, they will be torrefied first. &ldquo;Torrefaction is the right way to repower Boardman with biomass, because we&rsquo;re anticipating no changes to plant equipment,&rdquo; Mody says.
 Corson adds that torrefaction would allow the plant to pulverize the fuel just as it is doing with coal, but green biomass would require a lot of changes. Additionally, researchers have found that torrefied biomass is more hydrophobic than Powder River Basin coal, which is currently used at Boardman.
 Later this year, PGE is installing a torrefier at Boardman, and will then begin its test burns, according to Mody. &ldquo;These test burns are critical for us,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We think running this test will prove to us that we can run torrefied biomass through the plant, and we&rsquo;ll also collect emissions data. Then we&rsquo;ll sit down and figure out what it&rsquo;ll take to run the plant for air permitting and the economics of that.&rdquo;
 Mody notes that each feedstock tested&mdash;arundo or sorghum&mdash;could have a different effect on the boiler, slagging or fouling it, so close attention will be paid as to what source is torrefied and how.
 According to a study done in 2012 by researchers at the University of Washington, Washington State and Oregon State University, operating at 300 MW and producing power under optimal economic conditions, about 1.25 million tons of torrefied arundo would be used by Boardman, based on the Btu content of torrefied arundo (10,400 Btu per pound). About 94 dry tons of arundo would produce 52.7 tons of torrefied chips, the researchers found, so a total of 67.6 thousand acres of arundo would be required to produce 1.25 million tons of torrefied chips and support torrefaction, assuming 33 dry tons per acre per year.
 Of course, while multiple sources would be used, Mody admits obtaining necessary quantities remains PGE&rsquo;s biggest challenge in the quest to repower with biomass.
 Moving Foward
 &ldquo;It's [repowering] always been one issue&mdash;the source of biomass,&rdquo; says Mody. &ldquo;How can we procure and move enough in an economic manner that would sustain a large plant? The production of biomass, whether we&rsquo;re growing or buying it, remains our biggest challenge. That&rsquo;s why we&rsquo;re looking at diversity now&mdash;one species isn&rsquo;t the answer. It&rsquo;s about what we can grow at a reasonable price, and what&rsquo;s available out there.&rdquo;
 If the torrefaction test burns are successful, more work has to be done to calculate the economics and emissions profiles of a full-scale torrefier. Once that data is complete, PGE will bring it to its integrated resource planning process, which is a comprehensive plan presented to the public utility commission that lays out its generating portfolio resource requirements.
 At that time, the next step for Boardman will be decided, Corson adds. &ldquo;At this point, what we&rsquo;ll really be saying is, okay, we know we can do this, is it better than the other options?&rdquo; Author: Anna Simet Managing Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-751-2756

BIOMASS OR BUST: Portland General Electric is in the midst of determining whether it will repower its 600-MW power plant in Boardman, Ore., with biomass or shut down.


2013/08/Pow-Biomass-Boardman-0913_1377010717743.jpg

Torrefied biomass may extend the life of Portland General Electric's Boardman Power Plant by several decades.

On Board with Energy Crops

An annual biofuels report filed with the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service Global Agricultural Information Network provides an overview of the rapidly expanding Canadian pellet industry, noting production increased by approximately 33 percent from 2010 through 2012.
 &nbsp;The country was home to 42 pellet plants with a combined capacity of 3 million metric tons last year. In 2010, Canada was home to only 33 plants with a combined capacity of 2 million metric tons. Since 2006, the vast majority of Canadian pellets have been exported, but the percentage of product being shipped overseas has been reduced in recent years. In 2014, the report predicts that 2.21 million metric tons of the 3.23 million metric tons of pellets produced in Canada will be exported.
 While production has grown rapidly, consumption of wood pellets in Canada held relatively steady from 2006 through 2011, averaging between 65,000 and 95,000 metric tons per year. Consumption increased to 233,000 metric tons last year and is projected to reach 690,000 metric tons in 2014.

2013/08/September-13-BMM-18_13770108184044.jpg

Canadian pellet consumption forecast to grow 

The U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change has published tariff levels for the residential version of its Renewable Heat Incentive program. A similar program has been operational in the U.K.&rsquo;s non-domestic sector since November 2011.
 A tariff level of 12.2 pence per kWh (p/kWh) was set for biomass heat. Biomass technologies eligible for participation in the program include biomass-only boilers and biomass pellet stoves with back boilers. Other renewable thermal technologies are also eligible for the program, including air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps and solar thermal installations.
 &ldquo;Investing for the long term in new renewable heat technologies will mean cleaner energy and cheaper bills. So this package of measures is a big step forward in our drive to get innovative renewable heating kit in our homes,&rdquo; said Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker.

2013/08/Therm-Biomass-News-0913_13770111096665.jpg

UK sets tariff levels for residential RHI program 

A white paper published by FutureMetrics investigates the positive economic impacts that Biomass Thermal Utilization Act of 2013 could lead to, should it become law. The bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate in May and the U.S. House of Representatives in July. The report was prepared by William Strauss, chief economist of the Biomass Thermal Energy Council.
 The bill aims to provide tax incentives to support the installation of commercial and industrial biomass heating systems.
 According to the white paper, the substitution of biomass fuels for heating oil and propane systems will have a &ldquo;dramatic positive effect on the economies of thermal energy dependent states.&rdquo; The report specifies that when used in modern high-efficiency boilers, biomass fuels can lower the cost of heat by 40 to 60 percent when compared to heating oil.
 The bill would help ensure money that would have been spent on heating oil or propane stays in the local economy and reduces heating bills, leading to additional disposable income being spent locally. The measure would also support the biomass supply chain, creating new jobs. The sale and installation of new heating systems would also generate jobs, and lead to sales tax revenues and income tax revenues.

Analysis outlines economic benefits of biomass thermal incentives 

About 4 million Americans heat with U.S. EPA-certified wood stoves, and 8 million with old, uncertified ones. Neither group is getting the low emissions and high efficiency that they should, so a new breed of wood stove is needed to ensure that homeowners don&rsquo;t routinely dampen down airflow to get longer burns. The solution is to control combustion air by a computer, not by a human.&nbsp;&nbsp;
 Computer chips are optimizing efficiency in virtually every major household appliance. Soon, sensor technology will control airflow, indicate the optimal time to refuel and average efficiency, when to clean the chimney and how many gallons of oil were avoided. This will not only increase efficiency and save money, but also reduce emissions and improve safety.
 The Alliance for Green Heat and Popular Mechanics created the Wood Stove Design Challenge to showcase and test cutting-edge innovations along with newly designed hybrid, masonry, condensing and electricity-producing stoves. An expert panel of 10 judges selected 14 finalists from five countries out of 50 applicants, and the teams will compete in the Wood Stove Decathlon in Washington, D.C., in November. There, the stoves will be rigorously tested for emissions and efficiency, and assessed for potential end-user error.
 Many in the stove industry are excited about a new breed, but others are resistant or sensibly cautious about new designs. To stay competitive, however, companies need to anticipate the most significant technology trends that are shaping their industry.
 Connecting stoves to the Internet allows engineers to monitor how their stoves are being used and what can be modified to better them. This can also enable technicians to diagnose problems remotely, saving time and money by instructing the stove owner over the phone on proper maintenance and use. Stoves that monitor and meter heat can be eligible for renewable energy credits (RECs) or certificates just like solar panels or geothermal systems. RECs give owners of renewable energy appliances an ongoing energy production subsidy, enabling a shorter payback period. This helped the solar panel industry take off, and it can do the same for wood and pellet appliances.
 Will this technology innovation provide one more option, or disrupt and dominate the market? Pellet stoves added an option. This one will, too.&nbsp; Automation and sensor technology may help reduce the cost of wood stoves and make it easier to meet the EPA&rsquo;s upcoming stricter emissions standards. Regardless, wood heat needs an image makeover if it is going to be embraced as a major component of our renewable energy future. Otherwise, it will be sidelined or even restricted, like Montreal&rsquo;s recent ban of the use of all wood stoves by 2020, even U.S. EPA-certified ones.
 One of the hallmarks of energy efficiency innovation is the removal of the consumer from the equation. Savings are achieved not because one operates something correctly, but because the technology does. Our cars, furnaces, dishwashers and refrigerators embody this principle. Woodstoves are beyond ready to join this revolution.
 The real value of the Wood Stove Design Challenge is not instigating the invention of new technology, but it will:
 &bull; Speed up the integration of technologies that already exist and make them more affordable.
 &bull; Bring together people from different disciplines to tackle challenges, share ideas and develop partnerships.
 &bull; Draw policymaker attention and raise the profile of the technology featured.
 &bull; Generate public enthusiasm and influence consumer attitudes.
 &bull; Engage youth and encourage inventors outside the industry.
 When Ben Franklin invented the Franklin stove, he amalgamated existing designs into a mediocre stove despite the existence of far cleaner and more efficient designs already prevalent in Europe. Franklin&rsquo;s major contribution was the ability to market a mediocre technology that people were ready and willing to use. His challenge was to get consumers to stop relying on smoky fireplaces, and he was pretty successful.&nbsp; Today our challenge is to get consumers to stop relying on old, uncertified wood stoves and prevent them from routinely using EPA certified stoves poorly.
 If wood stoves are going to continue to be a major residential energy player, we need a new breed that is genuinely clean, efficient and user friendly. Join us in November to be part of the process. Author: John Ackerly President, Alliance for Green Heat <a href="http://www.forgreenheat.org">www.forgreenheat.org</a> <a href="mailto:jackerly@forgreenheat.org">jackerly@forgreenheat.org</a>

2013/08/Pel-Biomass-ackerly-0913_13770112197541.jpg

Reinventing the Wood Stove: Vital to Wood Heat's Future

When viewing photos of the BIQ apartment complex in Hamburg, Germany, one might question whether or not it&rsquo;s real. The futuristic-looking, gleaming green facility was officially put into operation at the end of April, and its makers claim it is the world&rsquo;s first photobioreactor (PBR) facade.
 Hosting 200m&sup2; of integrated photobioreactors, the five-story, 15-unit apartment complex grows algae on its surface and produces heat and power as a result. The microalgae used in the facades are cultivated in flat panel glass bioreactors, according to designer Arup&rsquo;s European research leader Jan Wurp. &ldquo;In total, 129 bioreactors have been installed on the south-west and southeast faces of the four-story residential building. The heart of the system is the fully automated energy management center where solar thermal heat and algae are harvested in a closed loop to be stored and used to generate hot water,&rdquo; says Wurp.
 The innovative facade system is the result of three years of research and development by Colt International, based on a bioreactor concept developed by SSC Ltd. and design work led by Arup. Funding support came from the German government&rsquo;s ZukunftBau research initiative.
 How It Works
 The photobioreactors positioned on the southwest and southeast sides of the building grow algae not just for energy production, but also for controlling light and shade in the building.&nbsp; Each is 70 cm wide, 270 cm tall and 8 cm thick, and is mounted on a steel frame and arranged within a group.
 Photobioreactors are filled with an aqueous solution and CO2 is constantly added as a nutrient, which enables the algae to flourish. It is supplied to the algae via a saturation device that directly introduces flue gas from a micro-CHP (combined-heat-and-power) system into the water circuit. The use of CHP is controlled as needed for the desired growth of algae, and a monitoring network continually checks all parameters relevant to the process, which is almost fully automated.
 The culture medium in the photobioreactors is constantly stirred by supply of compressed air through an airlift to prevent the microalgae from sinking and settling. Small, lattice-like beads serve as scrapers and are enclosed within the photobioreactors, and prevent algae from depositing on the glass. The photobioreactors are all connected in a series, so algae and its medium circulate through all of them when the system is operating, according to concept designer IBA-Hamburg.
 The photobioreactors may reach a temperature of 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) during the day when facing sunlight, thus acting as solar thermal absorbers. As the medium is heated, it is circulated through the building service center. At a central location, algae biomass is filtered out from the culture medium and collected, which takes place in a flotation system, specially developed by IBM-Hamburgh&nbsp; together with&nbsp; company AWAS International GmbH.
 After the liquid is separated from the algae, most is returned to the photobioreactors, with a small amount being removed from the system and discharged into a public sewer. The harvested algae is fed to an external biogas plant, which sends power to the grid, and powers the micro-CHP.
 On the thermal side of the equation, heat demand by the building is relatively low, and needed on a seasonable basis, so several components are in place to store and make use of heat when necessary. Heat is drawn off the algae-filled medium through a heat exchanger, and thermal energy is distributed throughout the building for several uses, including heating the air and preheating hot water. Excess heat is stored 80 meters deep in geothermal boreholes, from which energy is drawn with heat pumps as needed in periods of low heat generation by the bioreactors.
 At the same time, waste heat from the flue-gas production process&mdash;the nutrient for the photobioreactors&mdash;is captured and also used to heat water, and surpluses are stored.
 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; According to IBA-Hamburg, although it wasn&rsquo;t implemented, the original plan used photovoltaics on the roof. Though it could easily be done in the future, in the meantime, electricity will be drawn from the grid.
 While the initial photobioreactor facade design was implemented at an apartment, IBA-Hamburg believes it is a good fit for several other applications, including&nbsp; industrial and commercial constructions, buildings for public infrastructure, trade, or residential buildings.
 Rainer Mueller of IBA-Hamburg points out that this is an example of algae production technology leaving the lab and being brought to real life, as a piece of architecture. &ldquo;So now we have to survey the bioreactors,&rdquo; Mueller says. &ldquo;We do this monitoring together with renowned universities, and we also use the feedback of the residents. As for now, everything is running smoothly from the operational point of view. Some of the people who moved in told us that in the beginning, they just had to get used to the occasional bubble sound made inside the water panels.&rdquo;
 Boiled down to a very basic idea, IBM-Hamburgh&rsquo;s&nbsp; vision behind the energy concept is the connection of different energy sources working together, thus bringing together, in one circuit, solar energy, geothermal energy, a condensing boiler, district heating, and the production of biomass in the bioreactor facade. Author: Anna Simet Managing Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-751-2756

SUN SUCKER:Two exterior walls of the BIQ apartment complext in Hamburg, Germany, are made of bioreactors that capture sunlight to produce heat, and grow for algae for biogas production.

2013/08/Ther-Biomass-Algae1-0913_13770114831062.jpg

WALL ARMOR: Photobioreactors on the BIQ building are about 2 feet wide, 9 feet tall and and 3 inches thick. 



2013/08/Ther-Biomass-Algae2-0913_13770114843542.jpg

ONE OF A KIND: The unique BIQ building prototype took three years to develop from initial concept development to completion.

2013/08/Ther-Biomass-Algae3-0913_13770114856621.jpg

2013/08/September-13-BMM-25_13770115716811.jpg

The epitome of â€œgreenâ€� energy, a building in Hamburg, Germany, produces heat and power from algae.


Real Green Heat

The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and its partners recently broke ground on a new 1.4 MW biogas plant that will include a public education center at Pickett, Wis.-based Rosendale Dairy, the state&rsquo;s largest dairy farm.
 The $7 million project is funded by the UW Oshkosh Foundation and will utilize livestock waste to generate, capture and combust methane. In addition to supporting the university&rsquo;s goal in creating a carbon-neutral campus, the facility will also provide its environmental science, microbiology, sociology and other students with an off-campus laboratory to develop expertise as renewable energy and rural social scientists.
 Additional partners in the project include Milk Source, BioFerm, the Viessmann Group, Soil Net, Alliant Energy and Infinity Lawn and Garden. The Rosendale facility will produce seven times more energy than the existing UW Oshkosh dry-fermentation anaerobic biodigester, which went online in 2011. Both facilities feature technology provided by Viessmann and BioFerm.

Big on Biogas: The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and its partners break ground on an anaerobic digestion plant at Rosendale Dairy.

2013/08/Bio-Biomass-UWOshkosh-0913_13770117687342.jpg

UW Oshkosh breaks ground on new AD system 

Blue Shere Corp.&rsquo;s proposed 5.2 MW anaerobic digestion project in Charlotte, N.C., has received a signed commitment letter from Caterpillar Financial Service Corp., the financial division of Caterpillar Inc., to provide $17.785 million in debt financing. The commitment is 100 percent of the debt financing required for the project.
 Blue Sphere, along with its German-based partner Biogas Nord AG, is acting as integrator of the project though its joint venture company, Bino Sphere.
 With the debt financing commitment in place, Blue Sphere is completing all closing conditions, including investment tax credit monetization, feedstock supply and permits. The company expects to break ground on the project during the third quarter of this year, with completion expected during the third quarter of 2014.
 According to information released by Blue Sphere, it will retain a 37.5 percent ownership position in the Charlotte project. The company is also developing a 3.2 MW anaerobic digestion project in Rhode Island. That project is expected to break ground before the end of the year.

Cat Financial to finance Blue Sphere AD project 

Early July, the U.S. DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office issued a request for information regarding waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies. The American Biogas Council was pleasantly surprised that questions included biogas, and had lots to say in response. In this month&rsquo;s column I&rsquo;ll share just the main points.
 In the biogas industry&rsquo;s eyes, we are a WTE industry. Biogas systems take valuable resources considered by most to be waste, and use a natural, biological process to turn it into energy and other valuable coproducts. To most people, however, WTE only relates to combustion, incineration or gasification of waste to create heat (for steam to make electricity) or synthesis gases. The DOE has taken a similar narrow view on other terms; their biomass program has famously only focused on liquid, direct substitutes (drop-in) for gasoline or diesel, leaving out multitudes of other biomass industry needs. As a result, taking an appropriately inclusive view of WTE was both surprising and welcome.
 Biogas systems, turning waste into energy using anaerobic digestion (AD), is proven with thousands of commercial installations around the world, predominantly outside the U.S. Even with that maturity, research and development (R&amp;D) is still needed to evolve in our rapidly changing energy world. Today, the segment of the biogas industry focused using food waste, industrial organics and municipal solid waste to feed biogas systems is just starting to grow, while the established segments, mostly farms and wastewater facilities, expand. There&rsquo;s great opportunity because there&rsquo;s a lot of waste, but globally, the WTE industry tends to mature most rapidly in markets where waste disposal and energy costs are high. In the U.S., however, the low costs of waste disposal and energy generation have stunted efforts. As an industry, we have to get more creative in the way we develop biogas systems that are competitive in this environment.
 Communities and states striving to reach landfill diversion targets of 75 percent, and in some cases zero waste, will find it impossible to do so without diverting the organic fraction of waste (often 25 percent or more) to organics recycling facilities like biogas systems. Therefore, it makes sense for government entities to invest in infrastructure and permitting improvements for biogas development as an essential public service for generating renewable energy, reducing disposal and reaching greenhouse gas and low-carbon fuel goals.
 Over many years, federal policy has failed to recognize the many benefits of biogas systems&mdash;emissions reduction, waste reduction, odor reduction, renewable energy generation, soil amendment production, nutrient separation and dozens of related economic and social benefits&mdash;which has put the U.S. in last place when it comes to biogas R&amp;D. Federal policy has focused on systems with fewer benefits overall, putting the U.S. far behind in the R&amp;D and implementation of biogas systems, a key WTE technology. In the meantime, countries including Germany, Netherlands, the U.K. and India have advanced the technology and the biogas industry with more than 20,000 installations. Here&rsquo;s where the biogas industry wants some R&amp;D:
 &bull; Biogas upgrading to biomethane and compressed vehicle fuels.
 &bull; Higher efficiency, lower-cost biogas to electricity conversion equipment.
 &bull; Enhanced pretreatment systems for unique or contaminated waste streams before they enter the digester.
 &bull; Greater container mixing effectiveness and net energy efficiency.
 &bull; Coproduct/digestate processing for nutrient sequestration and separation.
 &bull; Higher-efficiency heat exchangers and waste heat utilization.
 In the U.S., where the term &ldquo;biofuel&rdquo; usually connotes only liquid fuels, lack of R&amp;D funding puts biogas in a disadvantaged position. This has limited the number of public and private researchers with expertise in the field, and without a steady stream of technology advancements, industry growth and investment is slowed. Increased R&amp;D could lead to larger, private investments and industry growth.
 While AD biogas for transportation fuel is given credit under the EPA&rsquo;s renewable fuel standard, there are no federal policies or subsidies to encourage the use of biogas for thermal energy production, whether as a medium-Btu fuel via a dedicated pipeline or as a high-Btu fuel injected into the interstate pipeline network. This is in stark contrast to the massive support provided to geothermal and solar thermal technology.
 A steady investment over the next 10 years would build the U.S. capacity for renewable energy generation, create new products to support American agriculture, move communities and states towards zero waste, regain U.S. R&amp;D leadership and create a multitude of economic and social benefits that we can all use. Author: Patrick Serfass Executive Director, American Biogas Council <a href="http://pserfass@ttcorp.com">pserfass@ttcorp.com</a> 202-640-6595

2013/08/Bio-Biomass-Serfass-0913_13770121395175.jpg

What If We Included Biogas In Waste-to-Energy Investments?

Like most of the world&rsquo;s islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands is nearly 100 percent reliant on imported fossil fuels.&nbsp; On average, homeowners are paying about 47 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, nearly 30 cents more than in New York, the highest-paying state in the contiguous U.S., and close to 40 cents higher than Washington, which boasts the lowest rates.
 In early 2012, the Hovensa oil refinery in USVI&rsquo;s St. Croix&mdash;the only one on the island and one of the largest in the world, employing about 1,200 people&mdash;closed, citing reasons of financial loss due to low prices of U.S. natural gas, and a weakened demand for petroleum products prompted by the global economic slowdown. The closure has not only affected energy costs, as the refinery provided No. 6 heavy fuel oil and No. 2 diesel fuel to generate most of the electricity on the island, but also eliminated 2,200 direct and indirect jobs associated with the refinery. This has spurred devastating ripple effects on St. Croix&rsquo;s and the USVI&rsquo;s economy, including elimination of about $60 million in annual government revenue.
 For the past few years, there&rsquo;s been a great deal of focus on renewable energy development in the country. Self-sustained, fast-tracked projects are a necessity and strong area of focus, and include wind, solar, biomass and biogas. A project in St. Croix, being developed by Tibbar Energy USVI, is strategically utilizing the island&rsquo;s year-round warm climate and frequent rainfall to grow a fast-growing, high-yielding energy crop that will be used to produce power via anaerobic digestion.
 Exploring Options
 Las Vegas-based Tibbar Construction Services owner Tania Tomyn and her brother Mark, an environmental engineer, learned of the U.S. Virgin Island&rsquo;s high energy cost situation, and how it has escalated to a serious energy crisis. Considering St. Croix a second home, the two decided to investigate the possibility of launching an energy project there, and along with the rest of the company&rsquo;s team and multiple partners, are in the midst of developing a 7 MW biogas plant. Resulting company Tibbar Energy had an initial goal of evaluating what organic feedstocks were available, and will be taking part in a fats, oils and greases and food waste joint recycling partnership with the Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority, a recycling option the island currently doesn&rsquo;t have. &ldquo;Landfill space is limited, and we didn&rsquo;t overlook this,&rdquo; Tomyn explains. &ldquo;However, those streams are small, and don&rsquo;t make up volume that creates any significant amount of energy.&rdquo;
 The company will continue to explore other organic streams in the Caribbean and on the island, but Giant King Grass&mdash;supplied by licensee company Viaspace Inc.&mdash; was selected as the feedstock of focus for a number of reasons. Partly because it is native to the tropics, but also because relatives of the grass&mdash;napier and elephant grass&mdash;have done well in the same climate.
 Viaspace CEO Carl Kukkonen says GKG has properties very similar to corn straw or stover in terms of combustion and biogas, biofuel and pellet production. What sets it apart from corn straw are its extremely high yields, which Kukkonen says are &ldquo;10 times the yield of corn straw per acre per year.
 He adds that the company is making GKG pellets every day, but electricity production via direct combustion or biogas is the simplest way to utilize the grass. &ldquo;We believe that biofuels and biochemicals will be a major opportunity in the future, but there are no real commercial opportunities today,&rdquo; he says.
 The first GKG for the St. Croix projects was planted, initially by hand, at the end of last September. &ldquo;Then we moved to a mechanized system with transplanters,&rdquo; says Tomyn, describing the process as similar to transplanting vegetables from a nursery. These initial three GKG nurseries, totaling an estimated 30 acres, are where the plants will be grown to populate the 1,500 acres needed for the project.
 Tibbar&rsquo;s farm team has spent a year in GKG trials, growing in the driest and wettest parts of the island, working with multiple agronomists who have grown some of the largest energy crop plantations in the world, according to Tomyn. &ldquo;What we have found is that GKG has performed very well with minimal irrigation and likes the tropical climate,&rdquo; she says.&nbsp;
 The GKG will be harvested like any silage crop, and transportation equipment will be similar to corn silage equipment, which will haul feedstock to the plant each day. &ldquo;We will also have silage in storage in silage packs if it is too wet to harvest,&rdquo; says Tomyn.
 Other partners in the project include Bioenergy Crops of Spain, Austria-based Entec, which will build the plant, technology provider Layne/Entec, and Denmark-based engineer/builder/operator Renew Energy a/s. Tibbar has also strategically partnered with the USVI Department of Agriculture Commissioner Louis Peterson to further develop large ponds and gutters for maximum water runoff harvesting capacity.
 Benefits and Milestones
 Since St. Croix is an environmentally sensitive ecosystem, it is imperative that a project work within those parameters, Tomyn points out. &ldquo;St. Croix has other types of renewables like wind and solar, but they don&rsquo;t provide base load power like our technology. The utility has to keep spinning reserves for those nonbase-load renewables, and our project works with the USVI Water and Power Authority to generate power to the island in the most efficient manner and at the lowest cost.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 St. Croix is similar to a small, rural community, and has the highest energy cost in the U.S., Tomyn emphasizes. &ldquo;Keeping that in mind, we needed to design a project that created value for the community and made good sense. So how do you add value? By creating jobs and agricultural opportunities, and hopefully an agricultural renaissance.&rdquo;
 Tibbar&rsquo;s project will create 30-plus permanent jobs for 25 years, and additional temporary jobs during the construction phase. The company will invest $70 million into the island within the next two years and expects it to have a very positive effect on tourism, as the focus currently is on showing the &ldquo;sustainable side&rdquo; of the island, Tomyn says.
 The most recent milestone the project achieved was the securing of a power purchase agreement (PPA) with WAPA, at the end of June. WAPA approved an interconnection agreement&mdash;the result of a study performed to determine how energy produced from Tibbar will be integrated into the grid&mdash;and signed a 25-year PPA with an option for an additional five years at the end of the contract. Per the agreement, WAPA will pay 24.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to Tibbar for the first five years, 24 cents for years 6 to 20, and 23 cents for the remainder of the contract.
 &ldquo;We are now working hard on design and farm planning and final agreements,&rdquo; Tomyn adds. &ldquo;We expect to have permitting done by late fall, then Layne/Entec starts to build the plant. We will be producing power per our June 2015 PPA schedule.&rdquo; Author: Anna Simet Managing Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-751-2756

2013/08/Bio-Biomass-StCroix-0913_13770122608162.jpg

SOUTH SHORE STAND: Tibbar Energy CEO Tania Tomyn, left, stands with USVI Sen. Judi Buckley andÂ Chris Mitchell, chief researcher at the Legislature of the Virgin Islands, in front of the South Shore Giant King Grass Nursery.


2013/08/Bio-Biomass-Group-0913_13770122716742.jpg

Super soak: GKG stalks are cut down into pieces that include a node, and gathered to be soaked in organic root stimulant before being planted.


2013/08/Bio-Biomass-Stalks-0913_13770122746989.jpg

Biogas and other renewable projects that capitalize on existing resources may be one answer to daunting energy challenges faced by island countries.

Aiding an Energy Crisis 

In July, California&rsquo;s Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in the lawsuit filed by Poet LLC against the California Air Resource Board in regard to its implementation of the state&rsquo;s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) program.
 The court&rsquo;s decision essentially upholds the LCFS program, but requires CARB to correct certain aspects of its implementation. Under the ruling, the LCFS regulations in effect for 2013 will remain in effect until CARB completes the corrective actions specified by the court.
 Among the roughly half-dozen corrective actions named by the court is a requirement for CARB to accept public comments for a 45-day period for all issues related to the approval of several proposed LCFS regulations, including those associated with carbon intensity values attributed to land use changes. The board is also required to include four emails from consultants regarding the computer model used to calculate indirect carbon emissions in the rulemaking file. Those emails were previously left out of the file.

2013/08/September-13-BMM-34_1377012381216.jpg

Court ruling leaves California LCFS in place 

Sapphire Energy Inc. has paid of its entire $54.5 million USDA loan guarantee. The company was awarded the guarantee in late 2009 under the USDA&rsquo;s Biorefinery Assistance Program to support the construction of a fully integrated, algae-to-crude oil commercial demonstration facility in Columbus, N.M.
 The Green Crude Farm was completed on time and on budget, and is currently producing renewable crude oil on a continuous basis. According to Sapphire, the operational crude oil farm has led to additional investment in the company and commercial partnerships. Sapphire repaid the remaining loan balance in full after receiving additional equity from private investors.
 The company also recently announced that it is expanding its partnership with The Linde Group to commercialize a new industrial-scale conversion technology needed to upgrade algae biomass into crude oil. Together, the companies will refine the hydrothermal treatment process developed by Sapphire. That process sis currently operating at the pilot scale.

Sapphire pays off USDA loan guarantee early

The U.S. DOE has announced more than $22 million in new investments to help develop cost-competitive algae fuels and to streamline the biomass feedstock supply chain for advanced biofuels. Of the investment, nearly $16.5 million will be split between four algae projects; two located in California, one in Hawaii and another in New Mexico. The goal is to boost the productivity of sustainable algae while reducing capital and operating costs.
 Hawaii Bioenergy was awarded a $5 million investment to develop a photosynthetic open pond system to produce algae oil. The project will also demonstrate reprocessing technologies that reduce energy use and the overall cost of extracting lipids and producing fuel intermediates.
 Sapphire Energy was also awarded $5 million. The funding will support the development of a new process to produce algae-based fuel that is compatible with existing refineries. The project will also work on improving algae strains and increasing yield through cultivation improvements.
 An additional $5 million will go to New Mexico State University, where the investment will support research to increase the yield of microalgae. The project will also develop harvesting and cultivation processes that lower costs while supporting year-round production.
 Finally, California Polytechnic State University is receiving $1.5 million to increase the productivity of algae strains and compare two processing technologies. The project, based at a wastewater treatment plant in Delhi, Calif., includes 6 acres of algae ponds.
 The remaining $6 million will support a project led by RDC Enterprises to reduce the harvesting, handling and preprocessing costs of the biomass feedstock supply chain.

DOE invests in algae, biomass supply chain 

In Washington, the renewable fuel standard (RFS) remains a lively topic of debate. On July 23-24, the House Energy and Commerce Committee hosted two panels that included 15 stakeholder groups to explore the current impacts of the RFS. These panels brought together representatives serving the interests of biofuels, oil, automotive, agriculture and the environment.&nbsp;
 I represented the Advanced Biofuels Association on the first panel, alongside Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of Renewable Fuels Association; Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute; Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel &amp; Petrochemical Manufacturers; and Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientist. Our panel was peppered with questions for nearly three hours. In what could fairly be described as a charged environment, no less than six members of Congress addressed this first panel and explained that the Committee was neither likely to repeal the RFS nor leave the program untouched.&nbsp;
 Both Gerard and Drevna took the position that the RFS was broken and beyond fixing, and therefore should be repealed. However, Dineen and I were able to illustrate that the blend wall issues being discussed represented less than two-tenths of one percent of the entire fuels pool projected in 2013 for America. I also informed the Committee that the private sector has invested $14.7 billion over the last six years in an effort to stand up the advanced and cellulosic sector called for under the RFS, according to Bloomberg Energy.&nbsp;
 In more targeted questioning, members of the committee probed into the progress of the advanced and cellulosic sectors. Although the oil industry representatives continued to complain that there are no cellulosic gallons available and that they are being taxed, I was able to highlight the opening of a number of cellulosic facilities currently making gallons. Additionally, I reminded the committee of the recent district court case, which vacated the 2011 and 2012 cellulosic standards and returned their funds. Problems addressed and remedied.
 Of particular interest were the bipartisan natures expressed and the interest from both sides of the aisle to continue support for the advanced and cellulosic industries. For example, at one point during the panel, Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas, told Mr. Gerard that if he had spent $15 billion, he would not be asking the committee to ignore the progress and investment.
 At the end of the ABFA statement, I suggested the committee draft a letter inquiring as to EPA&rsquo;s authority to deal with any of the short-term blend wall issues. I also advised that the EPA not only has sufficient authority to address these issues in an expeditious fashion, but also that Congress should encourage EPA to release a framework for both 2014 and 2015 to send a clear signal as to how they plan to set the future Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO).&nbsp;
 I am delighted to write that on Aug. 6, EPA released its 2013 final RVO numbers, which once again lowered the cellulosic pool in line with the court directive to six million gallons for 2013. In a major victory for the ABFA and National Biodiesel Board, the EPA denied the request from Growth Energy and RFA to lower the advanced pool and maintained the number at 2.75 billion gallons. This is a great accomplishment for the advanced biofuels industry in just three short years. In addition, EPA stated their plan to release 2014 RVO numbers for comment in late September. In its statement, EPA suggested it has the necessary authority to address current concerns with the blend wall and will evaluate what the appropriate numbers will be for 2014.&nbsp;
 These latest actions have set about a dual track to address blend wall concerns between the regulatory process, led by EPA, and the legislative process, led at this time by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. As such, we can expect an extremely active and eventful fall for the RFS. So, stay tuned and stay engaged, as I expect everyone reading this column has an interest in the outcome of this debate. Author: Michael McAdams President, Advanced Biofuel Association (202) 469-5140 <a href="mailto:Michael.McAdams@hklaw.com">Michael.McAdams@hklaw.com</a>

2013/08/AdBio-Biomass-McAdams-0913_13770125148806.jpg

A Charged But Successful RFS Debate

When Zeachem was scouting a location for the company&rsquo;s 250,000-gallon-per-year demonstration-scale biorefinery, locating next to a pre-existing, 28,000-acre hybrid poplar plantation in Boardman, Ore., was a no-brainer.
 As Zeachem&rsquo;s primary partner, Forest Stewardship Council-certified GreenWood Tree Farm Fund is under contract to harvest, chip and transport poplar feedstock to the biorefinery, which consumes 10 bone dry tons (BDT) per day and is located just five miles away. The company will continue to supply Zeachem with hybrid poplar when it completes its first commercial plant.
 Poplar trees and some other types of dedicated energy crops offer a distinct advantage over biomass residuals&mdash;much more feedstock per acre, says Carrie Atiyeh of Zeachem. &ldquo;If you look at the volume of biomass you&rsquo;re able to produce per acre from poplar trees, it&rsquo;s in the range of about 10 to 15 bone dry tons (BDT) per acre, so it has a very high density,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Biomass residuals, depending on type and location, amount to about 2 to 3 tons per acre. Poplar allows for a much smaller footprint in terms of the number of acres needed, and that cuts down on managing and transportation costs, and emissions profiles.&rdquo;
 Poplar trees mature in 3 years and regenerate after being cut at the stem, only needing to be replanted after five harvests, or 15 years, Atiyeh says. &ldquo;We call it our &lsquo;storage-on-the-stump&rsquo; strategy, part of which is co-locating our refineries with our feedstock source, as it really minimizes the logistical costs of our biofuel and biochemical production.&rdquo;
 Wheat straw, abundant in the region, is also used at the plant. Atiyeh describes the company&rsquo;s feedstock strategy as utilizing 60 to 70 percent from a dedicated energy crop, and ag residue for the remainder. 
Technology and the Future 
 In a nutshell, Zeachem&rsquo;s technology platform uses hydrolysis to break down biomass into sugars, which are fermented to produce acetic acid. The acetic acid may be purified into an intermediate chemical used in the production of paint or inks&mdash;a $16 billion annual global market&mdash;or be sent through a recovery and conversion process to produce ethyl acetate. The ethyl acetate can be sold into the coating and adhesive market, or reacted with hydrogen to produce cellulosic ethanol.
 Right now, Zeachem is continuing to optimize production at its demo unit to collect all data needed to bring on line its first commercial plant. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re operating on what we call &lsquo;campaign mode,&rdquo; which means the plant is running for a certain amount of time to meet specific performance target in terms of production and efficiency, making sure all individual process units are optimized,&rdquo; Atiyeh says. Chemicals produced at the demonstration plant are being used for internal testing purposes, but Atiyeh says as larger quantities are produced, Zeachem intends to sell them into the chemical and consumer markets.
 The commercial facility, a 25 MMgy facility currently under development, will also be located in Boardman, adjacent to the demo plant. &ldquo;A benefit here is the really tight logistics, Atiyeh reiterates. The further it is to transport feedstock, the more impacts on the economics. That&rsquo;s why we liked the Boardman area&mdash;access to existing resources.&nbsp; &ldquo;That&rsquo;s a strategy we&rsquo;re procuring as we move forward into commercial production.&rdquo; Author: Anna Simet Managing Editor, Biomass Magazine <a href="mailto:asimet@bbiinternational.com">asimet@bbiinternational.com</a> 701-751-2756

2013/08/AdBio-Biomass-Zeachem-0913_13770131262119.jpg

2013/08/AdBio-Biomass-ZeaChem-aerial-0913_13770131341752.jpg

Zeachem Inc.'s use of dedicated hybrid poplar trees means more feedstock at a lower cost.


More for Less

Project Alpha in North Carolina is going to commercially test a broad range of purpose-grown energy crops. Chemtex International Inc. received a $99 million conditional loan guarantee from the USDA a year ago, along with a $3.9 million grant from the USDA through the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, to support the establishment of more than 4,000 acres of miscanthus and switchgrass across 11 counties in North Carolina to help supply the new facility. &ldquo;The Chemtex project in Clinton, N.C., will use a multifeedstock strategy including switchgrass, high biomass sorghum and arundo donax, as well as select hardwood tree species, miscanthus and Bermuda grass residuals,&rdquo; says Mark Conlon, vice president of sector development for the Biofuels Center of North Carolina.
 Chemtex&rsquo;s planned 20 MMgy cellulosic ethanol facility will require between 20,000 and 30,000 acres of energy crops. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s considerably less than the corn acres that would be required for a facility of that size,&rdquo; Conlon points out. A corresponding 20 MMgy corn ethanol plant based on Iowa average corn yield would need more than 54,000 acres, he says, and in the South, where yields can run half that of prime Corn Belt corn crops, considerably more.
 Chemtex will be the first cellulosic ethanol plant to rely on a mixture of purpose-grown energy crops. Most plants in various stages of development are planning to use nondedicated feedstocks, or a combination of the two. For example, two plants under construction in Iowa, one by the Poet/DSM partnership in Emmetsburg and the other by DuPont in Nevada, are planning to use corn stover.
Abengoa Bioenergy&rsquo;s plant in Hugoton, Kan., will use mixed feedstocks including straw, corn stover and purpose-grown switchgrass. Enerkem Inc.&rsquo;s nearly complete plant in Alberta is using municipal solid waste (MSW), as are several others in earlier development stages. Zeachem in Oregon is utilizing hybrid poplar and wheat straw, and Ineos New Planet BioEnergy LLC, located next to a landfill, is using mixed vegetative and wood waste at startup, with plans to include MSW in the future.
 &ldquo;The Chemtex biomass mixed-feedstock, supply-chain strategy is unique,&rdquo; Conlon says. &ldquo;It provides a greater level of flexibility in dealing with unpredictable supply chain iterations and reduces overall inventory costs, in that harvest can be spread out over a greater number of months. It&rsquo;s a very well-thought-out, cost-efficient strategy where eastern North Carolina farmers gain profitable market options with the new Chemtex demand for energy crops.&rdquo;
 Creating a 30,000-acre supply chain to supply a biorefinery that hasn&rsquo;t begun construction yet&mdash;using a brand new conversion technology&mdash;is no small task when using crops that have never been grown before. But as Chemtex and others are showing, the new technologies work, and North Carolina is providing an example of how the farmer side can be developed.
 Travis Hedrick, director of operations for Repreve Renewables LLC, says BCAP is a very important part of signing up farmers to try miscanthus. &ldquo;BCAP is absolutely helping with the cost and it&rsquo;s a useful program&mdash;it shows support from the USDA.&rdquo;
 Due to budget wranglings in Washington, the final go-ahead for the BCAP project came late in the season, shortening the available time for grower meetings. &ldquo;We had a two-month signup period where we were able to sign up 200 acres,&rdquo; Hedrick says. The results from the fall plantings have been good, he adds. &ldquo;The farmers that signed up are excited with their stands.&rdquo; Getting a good stand with a high-density plant population is critical to getting good yields, and that&rsquo;s something Hedrick&rsquo;s company has focused on while developing its proprietary system and equipment for growing the vegetatively propagated, high-yielding perennial grass.
 Advanced Pathways
 When Chemtex first announced Project Alpha, it named switchgrass and miscanthus&mdash;both feedstocks that already had approved pathways with the U.S. EPA for use as advanced biofuel feedstocks. Chemtex petitioned EPA for a pathway for arundo donax (giant reed), one of the multiple feedstocks used at its first-of-its-kind cellulosic ethanol plant that completed its commissioning process early this summer in Crescentino, Italy.
 EPA announced its final rule in June, adding giant reed and napier grass as approved pathways for advanced biofuels. Since they are the first feedstocks to be approved that are considered potentially invasive, the EPA included new requirements for addressing potential invasiveness (see sidebar). &ldquo;The EPA-approved pathway for arundo donax and napier grass is welcome, appreciated and very much doable,&rdquo; Conlon says. North Carolina did a thorough assessment of the perennial grass that is widely used as a landscaping plant, he adds, ultimately deciding that it did not need to be declared a noxious weed. Biomass supply agreements in North Carolina are going to include most of the EPA requirements regardless, as they must meet state requirements for best management practices for energy crops, as well as the terms of the USDA loan guarantee that Chemtex received. The protocols will include such things as new farm/producer orientation to discuss production and best management practices, setbacks and buffer requirements, monitoring programs, annual producer reporting and eradication protocols.
 A big part of the equation in North Carolina is providing alternative crops for the fields used for swine lagoon and poultry litter disposal. The state regulates how much waste can be applied to fields depending upon the soil type and the ability of the crop to take up nutrients with the goal of minimizing leaching. Coastal Bermuda grass is one of the most commonly used crops, Conlon says, resulting in a surplus of hay in the state. That surplus can be utilized by Project Alpha, he says, and farmers are very interested in the prospect of better-returning alternatives. Murphy-Brown LLC, the livestock production subsidiary of Smithfield Foods Inc., signed a long-term agreement for the supply of purpose-grown feedstocks for Project Alpha to be grown on approximately 6,000 acres&mdash;land not typically used for grain production.
 Having a range of feedstocks to select from will be an advantage, Conlon adds. Farmers will like the ability to make choices, particularly with the option of the annual high-biomass sorghum. For the biorefinery, a range of crops should mean harvest and collection can be spread over a larger time frame. &ldquo;Unique to Chemtex, supply contracts with farmers are being established based on stumpage prices&mdash;crops standing in the field,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Chemtex can and will arrange for direct chop harvest and delivery to its facilities as needed. Limited baling and storage are required and to this extent, supply chain infrastructure is complete and ready to go. In the shorter term,&rdquo; he adds, &ldquo;feedstock supply from mixed hardwood stands abundant in eastern North Carolina will fill the supply chain while purpose-grown energy crop acreage develops and matures to peak yield expectations.&rdquo; Author: Susanne Retka Schill Senior Editor, Biomass Magazine 701-738-4922 <a href="mailto:sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com">sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com</a>
&nbsp;
Managing Invasiveness Risk 
 When napier grass and giant reed joined the list of feedstocks approved by the U.S. EPA as pathways for advanced biofuels, the ruling came with a new set of requirements addressing the potential invasiveness of the energy crops. The EPA is asking that the biofuel producer &ldquo;submit a letter from the appropriate USDA office with its registration materials, stating USDA&rsquo;s opinions regarding the likelihood of the feedstock spreading beyond the planting area, and the sufficiency of the risk mitigation plan.&rdquo;
 The risk management plan (RMP) outlined in the rule is comprehensive, including: &bull; A hazard analysis of critical control points.
 &bull; Best management practices that include strategies to minimize escape and eradication protocols. &bull; A site decommissioning plan.
 &bull; A plan for ongoing monitoring and reporting, both during production and for a sufficient period after the site is no longer in use to ensure the crop didn&rsquo;t spread.
 &bull; A communication plan for notifying federal, state and local authorities if the feedstock is detected outside the intended area.
 &bull; Documents showing the biofuel producer has agreements in place with growers and any intermediaries responsible for the harvesting, transport and storage of the feedstocks.
 Annual third party audits are required to verify the RMP is being adhered to, with the possibility of more frequent monitoring for new growers in the first growing cycle. The provisions go on, covering other documentation and reporting requirements. The EPA stresses that none of its rules supersede any local, state or federal authority to restrict these feedstocks.
 The handling of invasiveness risk is going to vary greatly. While North Carolina doesn&rsquo;t anticipate giant reed will become a problem, California and Texas have declared it a noxious weed as it has spread since being introduced more than a 100 years ago to stabilize stream banks. Bill Anderson, an energy crop researcher wtih the USDA Agriculture Research Service, explains that while giant reed doesn&rsquo;t produce seeds, it does form secondary shoots along the upper nodes of the plant which can break off and float along in a river or a flood event to propagate elsewhere. Eradication can be a problem since it requires multiple applications of glyphosate to kill and produces large rhizomes that can be a challenge to deal with.
 Napier grass presents other issues. In more tropical climates, it sets seed and will spread, and is thus a concern in southern Florida, although one since-discontinued project did get permitted to use the crop, Anderson adds. Further north it won&rsquo;t set seed due to killing frosts and must be propagated vegetatively. With potential yields of 15 dry tons a year, or higher with good fertility, napier grass shows promise as a biomass crop along the southern coastal states and east Texas, Anderson says.

PROJECT PARTNERS: Paolo Carollo, executive vice president of Chemtex, and Mark Conlon, vice president of the Biofuels Center of North Carolina, stand in front of a second-year Arundo donax plantation.  While the center lost its state funding this sum

2013/08/AdBio-Biomass-Front-0913_1377013480064.jpg

2013/08/AdBio-Biomass-Chart1-0913_13770135024936.jpg

2013/08/AdBio-Biomass-Chart2-0913_13770135046202.jpg

Chemtex's Project Alpha targets multiple energy crops

September 2013

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Crystal Ball: Predicting 2015 Health Care Reform

Spread the Word About the Land-Grab Hoax

Crystal Ball: Predicting 2015 Health Care Reform

Crystal Ball: Predicting 2015 Health Care Reform

Remarkably Innovative, Vigorously Responsible

Pioneers Get the Arrows, Settlers Get the Gold

RINs are Free

Batter Up: Step Up to the Plate for the RFS

RINsane About Repealing the RFS

Fiber Supply Critical to Pellet Project Success

A Grower Community Musters

Setting Record Straight on Tailoring Rule Decision

Reinventing the Wood Stove: Vital to Wood Heat's Future

What If We Included Biogas In Waste-to-Energy Investments?

Featured

When Spills Happen

Seconds to React

Emphasis on Details, Documentation

Harnessing Corn Oil Power

On Board with Energy Crops

Aiding an Energy Crisis

Dedicated Feedstock Forerunner

Departments

Casting a Wider Feedstock Net

Real Green Heat

More for Less

September 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

Crystal Ball: Predicting 2015 Health Care Reform

Spread the Word About the Land-Grab Hoax

Crystal Ball: Predicting 2015 Health Care Reform

Crystal Ball: Predicting 2015 Health Care Reform

Remarkably Innovative, Vigorously Responsible

Pioneers Get the Arrows, Settlers Get the Gold

RINs are Free

Batter Up: Step Up to the Plate for the RFS

RINsane About Repealing the RFS

Fiber Supply Critical to Pellet Project Success

A Grower Community Musters

Setting Record Straight on Tailoring Rule Decision

Reinventing the Wood Stove: Vital to Wood Heat's Future

What If We Included Biogas In Waste-to-Energy Investments?

Featured

When Spills Happen

Seconds to React

Emphasis on Details, Documentation

Harnessing Corn Oil Power

On Board with Energy Crops

Aiding an Energy Crisis

Dedicated Feedstock Forerunner

Departments

Casting a Wider Feedstock Net

Real Green Heat

More for Less

September 2013