The National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently recognized the professionals behind the lab&rsquo;s greatest achievements for the past year. Min Zhang was named distinguished innovator for her work to support the U.S. Department of Energy&rsquo;s Bioenergy Technology Program by engineering advanced microbes to further the adoption of cellulosic biofuels. Zhang has contributed 80 peer-reviewed papers, numerous meeting abstracts, and 21 issued patents. She helped transfer foundational biotechnologies to companies with three commercial licenses incorporating her innovations, including DuPont&rsquo;s cellulosic ethanol facility in Nevada, Iowa.&nbsp; Arisdyne Systems Inc. has announced that Ryan Heuer, a 15-year ethanol industry veteran, will contribute additional technical sales and business development expertise to the company and take the lead coordinating and directing current Controlled Flow Cavitation solutions for starch and corn fiber conversion initiatives to the ethanol market. Prior to joining Arisdyne Systems, Heuer worked in plant operations at the High Plains plant in Colwich, Kansas, followed by 10 years with Novozymes, with an interim three years at ICM marketing and selling large-capital, new technology equipment.&nbsp; Norfolk Southern Corp. has recognized 66 customers with its Thoroughbred Chemical Safety Award for 2014, including Abengoa Bioenergy of Illinois&rsquo; Granite City, Illinois, plant, Cargill Inc., Green Plains Renewable Energy, Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy LLC, and Valero Energy Corp.&nbsp;&nbsp; Godavari Biorefineries Ltd., an India-based manufacturer of foods, biofuels, specialty chemicals, power and related products using sugarcane as the primary feedstock, recently announced that it has raised $15 million in equity from funds managed by Mandala Capital. The investment is part of Godavari&rsquo;s strategy to enhance returns by strengthening the portfolio of higher-margin products to address the significant and growing demand for chemical products made from renewable feedstock. Funds invested by Mandala Capital will support the development of a new manufacturing plant for specialty chemicals, increased ethanol production capacity, debottlenecking of existing plants, and strengthening the company&rsquo;s utility infrastructure. It will also fund an expanded facility for research and development.&nbsp; The Renewable Fuels Association has been awarded the 2014 TRANSCAER Achievement Award. This is the third year in a row that RFA has been awarded this honor as it continues working to ensure first responders have the proper training and resources to respond to ethanol-related emergencies. The award is given to recognize the achievements of individuals, companies, and organizations which have gone beyond the normal call of duty to advocate, demonstrate and implement the principles of TRANSCAER. TRANSCAER is a volunteer coalition that works to ensure our nation&rsquo;s emergency responders are educated with the most up-to-date information to ensure they and their communities are prepared to handle hazardous material disasters. Sweden-based Taurus Energy AB and Canadian-based Lallemand have signed an agreement for collaboration with respect to the development, marketing, sale and licensing of Taurus' Gen 2 XyloFerm yeast platform on the U.S. market. Ag Growth International Inc. has announced the previously disclosed arrangement to acquire the Westeel division of Vicwest Inc. was completed in May. Headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Westeel provides grain storage solutions offering a wide range of on-farm and commercial products for the agricultural industry. Aras recently announced Poet LLC has selected the Aras PLM Solution Suite to drive product development and engineering best practices, improve processes and product tracking, and improve visibility into product-related data throughout the enterprise and extended supply chain. Poet will implement Aras as an integral part of its product development processes, tracking product and process data and ensuring visibility to all participants in the process. The USDA has announced the appointment of Seth Meyer as the World Agricultural Outlook Board chairman. Meyer previously served as senior economist with the Office of Chief Economist on assignment to WAOB. Meyer will be responsible for the monthly forecasts of the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report and the work of the Joint Agricultural Weather Facility. Meyer will also serve as Program Chairman for USDA&rsquo;s largest annual meeting, the Agricultural Outlook Forum. Meyer joined USDA&rsquo;s Office of the Chief Economist in 2013 as a senior economist for domestic agricultural policy. Prior to joining USDA, he spent the previous two years as a part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in the Global Perspectives Studies Unit. Meyer also spent 12 years as a researcher and faculty member with the University of Missouri&rsquo;s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Aventine Renewable Energy Inc. has appointed Jeff Ewing as director of risk management, marketing for the company&rsquo;s four ethanol plants, including two in Pekin, Illinois, and two in Aurora, Nebraska. Ewing began his career in commodities in 1980, and has been in the wet milling and ethanol industry as a supply chain manager and director of risk management since 2005. Most recently, Ewing served as director of trading and hedging with Abengoa Bioenergy in Chesterfield, Missouri, from 2011 to 2015. His prior involvement in the ethanol and wet milling industry also included serving as director of supply chain for Roquette America Inc. in Keokuk, Iowa, from 2006 to 2008, and as director of risk management for Hawkeye Energy in Ames, Iowa, from 2008 to 2011. Gevo Inc. has entered into an agreement with FCStone Merchant Services LLC to originate and supply corn for its plant in Luverne, Minnesota. Engaging FCStone to conduct Gevo&rsquo;s corn purchasing at Luverne is expected to free up more than $1 million of working capital, which has previously been tied up in corn inventory.&nbsp; The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials kicked off its annual General Assembly meeting with a delegation vote on the new &ldquo;Low iLUC Risk Biomass Criteria and Compliance Indicators.&rdquo; The standard was approved by consensus and will be an optional module for operations undergoing RSB certification. Bruce Jamerson has joined Ensyn Corp.&rsquo;s board of directors. He will represent Ensyn&rsquo;s Preferred A shareholders, replacing Bill Weld, who continue to serve on the board, having been elected to do so by Ensyn&rsquo;s shareholders in the last annual general meeting. Jamerson has served as chairman and CEO of Mascoma Corp. and was president and a board member of VeraSun Energy Corp. He is currently president of Conifer Investments LLC and holds board positions with Benson Hill Biosystems and Novita LLC.

2015/07/Ewing_14368130010172.jpg

2015/07/Jamerson_14368130018838.jpg

2015/07/Meyer_14368130028906.jpg

2015/07/Zhang_14368130039051.jpg

Business Briefs

On April 10, 2015, the Iowa Supreme Court found that although the state&rsquo;s excise tax on the delivery of natural gas &ldquo;does not produce uniform results for taxpayers,&rdquo; it is not unconstitutional because the legislature had &ldquo;a rational basis for writing it the way it did.&rdquo; In 1998, Iowa restructured its tax on natural gas providers. Before then, Iowa had taxed natural gas utility companies on the value of the property they owned in the area they serviced, i.e., an ad valorem property tax. The replacement taxing scheme imposes an excise tax on the delivery, consumption or use of natural gas. Under that excise tax, the state is divided into 52 geographic areas, each with its own tax rate imposed on the number of therms delivered into that geographic district. Interstate pipelines are exempt from the tax, but the tax is imposed on state regulated utilities that remove natural gas from interstate pipelines and deliver it to customers. Utilities pass the tax on through the varying rates they charge customers. The replacement tax is also imposed on consumers that directly connect and draw natural gas from interstate pipelines, treating a &ldquo;direct connect&rdquo; consumer as delivering the natural gas to itself. Ethanol plants (as well as any other plants that tap directly into interstate pipelines) pay the tax based on the amount of gas they consume using the rate prescribed for their location. Little Sioux Corn Processors, a consumer of a substantial volume of natural gas, filed a lawsuit arguing the excise taxing system was unconstitutional because: 1. The varying tax rates for different geographic areas leads to disparate results for similar plants. Little Sioux compared itself to a biorefining plant located in Emmetsburg that is directly connected to the interstate pipeline. However, because the other plant is within the Emmetsburg district, which has a replacement tax rate of zero, it does not pay any tax. (The Court observed that the tax rate could be zero in many municipal districts.) 2. Plants that receive natural gas from state regulated utilities pay less tax per therm because the utilities often allocate the tax burden among customers, so that high-volume customers pay tax at the lower rate than imposed on a customer that directly connects with the interstate pipeline. Little Sioux argues that penalizes interstate commerce. Even though the Court acknowledged that Little Sioux was paying a higher rate of tax on deliveries of natural gas than paid by other direct consumers in other districts in the state or purchasers from utilities, the Court refused to find that this amounted to unconstitutional discrimination under the United States Constitution or the Iowa Constitution, or that it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In a lengthy and strongly worded opinion, the Court found that because the intent of the replacement tax scheme was to protect individual customers from rate swings in tax bills and to provide stable revenue streams for local governments, the scheme was lawful. The Court also rejected, in short order, the second argument that the utilities&rsquo; allocation of the tax burden discriminated against interstate commerce, saying that under the tax all therms delivered into a geographic area are taxed at the same rate. This case reflects how difficult it is to bring a challenge to a taxing scheme on either state or federal equal protection grounds. For ethanol producers facing this issue, the best bet is pushing for legislative reform of a system that is clearly unfair yet surprisingly not unlawful. While the decision is bad news for Little Sioux, it certainly lays out several glaring disparities in the replacement tax scheme that could provide ammunition for arguing for legislative reform. Author: Francina Dlouhy Partner, Faegre Baker Daniels 317-237-1210 francina.dlouhy@FaegreBD.com

2015/07/Dlouhy_Francina_14368107863152_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Dlouhy_Francina_14368107863152_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Dlouhy_Francina_14368107863152.jpg

An ethanol plant that filed a lawsuit arguing Iowa's excise taxing system was unconstitutional did not prevail, writes Francina Dlouhy of Faegre Baker Daniels. Producers facing this issue would be best served by pushing for legislative reform. 

Iowa Supreme Court says “no”  to natural gas tax challenge

Ethanol plants are constantly looking for opportunities to increase efficiency. Sourcing alpha amylase enzyme directly from area corn growers and working with them to enhance grain quality is not only helping Plymouth Energy be more efficient, it&rsquo;s helping make ethanol more sustainable. In 2013, a desire to increase yield and throughput, and decrease energy usage led the Merrill, Iowa-based ethanol producer to enter into a commercial agreement with Syngenta for use of Enogen corn enzyme technology. It began with a two-month trial of Enogen corn and a baseline evaluation. &ldquo;We were excited at the potential benefits we believed Enogen could bring to our operation,&rdquo; says Eamonn Byrne, CEO of Plymouth Energy. &ldquo;Key performance indicators for us included viscosity, fermentation performance and ethanol drop concentration. The key to these plants is very simple, the more you can get through them, the more money you make, once things are profitable. Everybody is looking at ways of trying to improve efficiency. The other thing we&rsquo;d been looking at for a long time was yield enhancement. Obviously, if you can get more gallons out of the same bushel of corn, that adds to your profitability as well.&rdquo; Reduced Viscosity During the trial at Plymouth Energy, Enogen grain was metered into the cook system. Liquid alpha amylase was shut off and viscosity measured. A 40 to 50 percent decrease in viscosity was noted after only 12 hours. This viscosity reduction converted the corn mash from a consistency resembling oatmeal into one more like water, ultimately requiring less energy to pump mash through the plant, and causing less wear and tear on plant equipment. In fact, during the trial, natural gas usage decreased by 9 percent, offering the potential for significant cost savings. &ldquo;We have seen a huge difference in viscosity,&rdquo; says Nathan Hesse, plant manager. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve observed an increase in yield due to the ability to increase our solids. The plant runs a lot quieter today and we have more operational flexibility. In fact, increased flexibility and the freedom to operate between ranges is one of the benefits I appreciate the most. The viscosity break is so great and there&rsquo;s so much freedom around that. We can run without a mixer. We can run with higher solids. I can speed up or slow down fermentation. I would have a hard time going back to traditional alpha. Plus, keeping the enzyme dollars at home definitely helps the community.&rdquo; Compared to baseline data collected, Enogen showed a 2 percent increase in yield. Plymouth Energy showed an increase in production of approximately 12 percent per day in ethanol production over baseline data conditions. These results were proven even while the average beer feed rates for production remained the same between the baseline phase of the trial and the performance run phase. &ldquo;The decrease in energy usage was pretty dramatic,&rdquo; Byrne adds. &ldquo;You don&rsquo;t need as much electricity to push a less viscous product around your plant because you&rsquo;re jumping your solids from 32 to 34, or 35&mdash;an almost 10 percent increase. &ldquo;These types of improvements help make ethanol more sustainable. We saw a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from a plant that was already very efficient. It reduced them more. You&rsquo;re using less natural gas per gallon of ethanol produced, and less electricity per gallon and you&rsquo;re basically putting an extra 10 percent of product through the same fixed overhead, obviously that&rsquo;s going to make it more efficient from a greenhouse gas perspective and make the product ultimately more sustainable,&rdquo; he says. Simplifying Grain Tracking Enogen was introduced in 2011 and Syngenta estimates that, in 2015, nearly 1,000 growers will plant it on approximately 225,000 acres in 10 states. Currently, nine plants have contracted Enogen corn and now either use, or plan to use, Enogen grain to produce ethanol. Enogen growers are required to follow stewardship guidelines which include planting non-Enogen border rows around an Enogen cornfield, cleaning out planters and combines, and dedicating bin space for all Enogen grain. To simplify grain tracking, Syngenta introduced a new tool this year. The Enogen Value Tracker&mdash;a naturally derived, nongenetically modified purple tracer trait&mdash;will be included in select bags of Enogen hybrids. According to Jack Bernens, head of Enogen at Syngenta, this stewardship innovation will help reduce the chance of misdirecting Enogen grain. &ldquo;Since the introduction of Enogen corn enzyme technology in 2011, Syngenta has voluntarily implemented comprehensive stewardship protocols to mitigate potential commercial concerns about Enogen corn affecting unintended processes,&rdquo; Bernens says. &ldquo;The Enogen Value Tracker offers growers a way to help make this simple, effective protocol even easier.&rdquo; Bernens adds that it&rsquo;s important to note that the new tracker seed does not contain Enogen corn enzyme technology. Enogen seed bags containing the tracker will include a physical mixture of approximately 95 percent Enogen seed and 5 percent Enogen Value Tracker seed to aid quick and easy identification. The Enogen Value Tracker will appear as randomly dispersed purple plants across an Enogen field (inside the border rows) and will represent up to 5 percent of the plants in a given field. The grain produced from these purple plants will be comprised of both yellow and purple kernels to make for easy visual tracking of Enogen corn from harvest through storage and processing, helping to ensure this high value grain is delivered to its intended destination. The Enogen Value Tracker is part of an ongoing Syngenta commitment to providing Enogen corn enzyme technology to the market in a manner that offers benefits to growers, ethanol plants and biofuels production, while respecting the other uses of the corn crop. According to Byrne, corn growers and ethanol plants will appreciate the Enogen Value Tracker and the opportunity to simplify the grain tracking it provides. &ldquo;We have a very strong stewardship program in place,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;The Enogen Value Tracker is another step to help ensure the integrity of the process. This new tool will give everyone comfort in helping to direct the correct grain to the correct system.&rdquo; Enhancing Grain Quality Corn feedstock is the single biggest input cost for an ethanol plant, and ethanol yield per bushel is one of the biggest drivers of plant profitability. Higher grain quality means higher ethanol yield per bushel. Chris Tingle, head of Enogen marketing at Syngenta, says ethanol plants are increasingly seeking not just clean, dry corn, with little or no damage and foreign material, but also grain with quality characteristics that can help maximize ethanol production. &ldquo;A growing demand for high quality feedstock is creating opportunities for plants and growers to work together to increase grain quality,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;By supplying the quality grain that ethanol plants want&mdash;all year long&mdash;growers can maximize profitability while helping ethanol plants increase efficiency.&rdquo; To help ethanol plants gain access to higher, more consistent quality grain, Syngenta is working with Plymouth Energy and other producers to introduce the Ethanol Grain Quality Solution, a protocol designed to help increase corn yields and drive grain quality through insect control, early-season weed management, glyphosate weed resistance management and crop enhancement. The Ethanol Grain Quality Solution provides the ethanol plant and its growers more, high-quality grain, while improving grower return-on-investment. &ldquo;Growers with a contract can receive an additional 10 cents per bushel premium above the current Enogen contract premium by following protocols outlined in the Ethanol Grain Quality Solution,&rdquo; Tingle explains. &ldquo;Plus, growers who do not have an Enogen contract, can receive 10 cents per bushel for any additional bushels of corn produced under the Ethanol Grain Quality Solution protocol, provided those bushels are delivered to the ethanol plant.&rdquo; Byrne notes that Plymouth buys approximately 80 percent of its grain directly from local farmers. &ldquo;Over the past five years, the trend has definitely been from commercial elevator corn to farmer-sourced grain,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;For the most part, farmer-sourced corn will always be more pure, particularly when you know your farmer. You&rsquo;re getting a more consistent product and consistency is the name of the game in ethanol production.&rdquo; Author: Tim Tierney Head, Enogen Business Accounts, Syngenta timothy.tierney@syngenta.com 612-801-9775

Plymouth Energy has steadily increased the amount of corn bought directly from farmers, many of whom contract to raise an enzyme-containing variety.

2015/07/dumping-grain_14368109428939_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/dumping-grain_14368109428939_thumb.jpg

2015/07/dumping-grain_14368109428939.jpg

Purple kernels included in  bags of Syngenta's Enogen corn make it easier to visually track and segregate the enzyme-containing corn.

2015/07/Kernels_14368109438727.jpg

The 50 MMgy Plymouth Energy plant at Merrill, Iowa, worked with Syngenta to trial the Enogen corn variety that expresses alpha amylase.

2015/07/Plymouth-day_1436810944818.jpg

Plymouth Energy collaborates with corn growers to increase plant efficiency and make ethanol more sustainable. This story appears in the August issue of EPM. 

New Corn Traits Yield  Homegrown Enzymes 

The story has a familiar beginning, with $2 a bushel corn and determined farmers seeking ways to add value to their crops. For the American Coalition for Ethanol, the name Merle Anderson comes to the forefront. &ldquo;Merle and his banker traveled to Lincoln, Nebraska, to learn more about ethanol, and he came back with evangelistic passion,&rdquo; says Brian Jennings, executive vice president of ACE. &ldquo;He devoted blood, sweat, and tears to form ACE as a true coalition, a big tent for organizations and people from all walks of life who wanted to support ethanol.&rdquo; Jennings adds that while others had a hand in forming ACE, Anderson&rsquo;s tenacity, determination and passion helps define the organization today. In the early days, ACE did everything from lobbying at the state government level, working with farmers on organizing and investing in projects to build ethanol plants and sponsoring yellow dime and nickel days at gas stations where ethanol-blended fuel was sold. &ldquo;One of ACE&rsquo;s first initiatives was Operation Prairie Fire, which persuaded government fleets to use ethanol-blended fuel,&rdquo; Jennings says. &ldquo;Eventually, ACE sponsored dirt-track races and held educational seminars for mechanics.&rdquo; As the organization matured, it got involved on a federal policy level. Although the industry as a whole eventually got on board, ACE was the first to publically support the renewable fuel standard (RFS), he says. The group also developed a market development campaign and was the first to work directly with retailers, encouraging the sale of ethanol-blended fuel.&nbsp; The market development piece is currently one of ACE&rsquo;s main focuses. &ldquo;Today we&rsquo;re putting a great deal of time and money into a new way to increase ethanol demand called Flex Fuel Forward, a campaign featuring retailer-to-retailer interaction about how to succeed and profit by offering E15 and flex fuels to consumers,&rdquo; he says. While much has changed over the years, a few core things have remained constant. &ldquo;First, we&rsquo;ve always punched above our weight,&rdquo; Jennings says. &ldquo;The tenacity and passion that Merle Anderson and our founders brought to the table is alive and well today.&rdquo; And, thanks to leaders like Anderson, Orrie Swayze, Scott Parsley and others, ACE will always be a member-driven organization. &ldquo;Our most important characteristic is that we&rsquo;re grassroots,&rdquo; he says, adding that &ldquo;our members are the heart and soul of ethanol.&rdquo; Dave Sovereign represents Golden Grain Energy LLC on the ACE board of directors. Golden Grain has been a member of ACE since 2006. He considers ACE a tightly run ship with good legislative connections. &ldquo;We feel as a board that we get great value for the dollars of our membership there,&rdquo; he says, adding that Golden Grain also maintains memberships with other organizations as well. One of the things ACE does well, Sovereign says, is making sure that the national and state groups, such as the Renewable Fuels Association, Growth Energy, state ethanol production groups and the national and state corn growers groups, are all communicating with each other. Specifically, he mentioned Jennings&rsquo; skills as a &ldquo;great consensus builder.&rdquo;
Member-defined goals for 2015-&rsquo;16
1. Prioritize E15 in our retailer outreach. 2. Continue educating retailers and automakers about the benefits of flex fuels such as E85 and emerging opportunities for clean octane fuels such as E25/E30. 3. Maintain strong support for the renewable fuel standard while building momentum for other demand drivers. 4. Continue empowering people of all walks of life to be effective grassroots advocates.
Fast Facts about ACE Headquarters: Sioux Falls, South Dakota Founded: Dec. 28, 1987 Incorporated: March 25, 1988 Current staff: Six
Author: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

 In March, about 70 ACE members and supporters met with 160 congressional offices representing 43 states during the group's 2015 fly-in event. 

2015/07/Ace-flyin_14368111771419_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Ace-flyin_14368111771419_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Ace-flyin_14368111771419.jpg

Bill Couser, center, a cattleman, stands in front of the U.S. Capitol during the 2015 fly-in. 

2015/07/cowboy-ace_14368111779285.jpg

Brian Jennings, executive vice president, speaks to ACE members and supporters at the group's 2014 conference. 

2015/07/jennings-ACE-conference_14368111788801.jpg

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., far left, speaks to Jaron Anderson, American Motor Club Marketing, during the 2015 fly-in. 

2015/07/lawmaker-ace_14368111799526.jpg

Merle Anderson waves to attendees of the 2014 ACE Ethanol Conference. The 28th ACE conference is set for Aug. 19-21.

2015/07/merle-ace_14368111809393.jpg

The man who led the effort to form ACE was 67 years old when he took on the project. Today, the organization is still fighting for farmers and all people of the ethanol industry. This article appears in the August issue of EPM.  

ACE Dreams Big, Values Grassroots   

This year, one in four FEW participants&mdash;500 of the 2,000 attendees&mdash;was an ethanol producer. A total of 179 U.S. ethanol plants were represented at the conference, as well as six Canadian ethanol plants and 11 advanced ethanol plants in North America. When international attendees were added to the list, 210 conference-goers represented ethanol, advanced biofuels or biodiesel facilities. FEW started June 1, with the Ethanol 101 preconference event, where about 60 people, most new to the ethanol industry, had a chance to learn the basics.&nbsp; That evening, kicking off the full conference, Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis gave brief remarks critical of the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s proposed renewable volume (RVO) obligations announced Friday, while praising USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack&rsquo;s announcement of a new round of infrastructure grants. Ron Beemiller, CEO of WB Services, cut the ribbon to open the doors for the welcome reception. About 140 speakers gave presentations at the general and breakout sessions in four concurrent tracks on June 2 and 3, covering multiple topics on production and operations, leadership and financial management, coproducts and product diversification and cellulosic and advanced ethanol. But first, attendees gathered for the general session, where Ray Defenbaugh, president, CEO and chairman of Big River Resources LLC, was announced as the winner of the High Octane Award and John Caupert, director of the National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center, received the Award of Excellence. Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, took the stage next, giving a 13-point keynote presentation on what the U.S. EPA has gotten wrong in its proposed renewable volume obligations to implement&nbsp; the renewable fuel standard (RFS) in 2014, &rsquo;15 and &rsquo;16. Brooke Coleman, executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council, then took the stage to say that the big question, whether EPA knows it or not, is if RFS2 will be implemented or if the oil industry will win the fight to stick with RFS1. Five ethanol producers then participated in the ethanol producer roundtable, wrapping up the 2015 FEW general session. On June 4, the final day of FEW, attendees participated in a tour of Poet Biorefining-Lake Crystal before stopping at Hennen&rsquo;s Auto Service, a carrier of the Minnoco brand of midlevel ethanol blends. The 2016 FEW is set for June 20-23 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Authors: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com Susanne Retka Schill Senior Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com

Chris Standlee, Abengoa, and Dan Cummings, POET-DSM, listen while Ray Defenbaugh, Big River Resources, talks during the general session. Other companies represented include Pacific Ethanol, Guardian Energy and DuPont.

2015/07/GenSesssion1-FEW2015_14368114897967_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/GenSesssion1-FEW2015_14368114897967_thumb.jpg

2015/07/GenSesssion1-FEW2015_14368114897967.jpg

Chris Gerken of ICM Inc. asks a question after a breakout session presentation. 

2015/07/audience-FEW2015_14368114796165.jpg

Defenbaugh, center, accepts the High Octane Award from Tim Portz, left, and Mike Bryan, both of BBI International. 

2015/07/award-rayFEW2015_14368114817842.jpg

Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, gives a keynote presentation. 

2015/07/BobFEW2015_14368114827128.jpg

Brooke Coleman, executive director of the Advanced Ethanol Council, speaks about the state of the advanced ethanol industry. 

2015/07/Brooke1FEW2015_14368114837792.jpg

Sally Jorgenson, Solenis LLC, at right, speaks to Kamolttip Wongkolkitsilp of Siamex, about Solenis' antibiotic-free fermentation additives.

2015/07/expo-2-FEW2015_Tues_232_14368114847315.jpg

Biofuels Automation employees Jeff Wicker, left, and Hans Alwin discuss how the the Foxboro Level Transmitter could be used in new corn oil storage applications at ethanol plants. 

2015/07/expo3FEW2015_14368114857541.jpg

ICM Inc. employee Sarah Dalrymple stands at the company's booth at FEW.  

2015/07/Expo5-FEW2015_14368114867592.jpg

Kelly McLaughlin and Lowell Pless talk to an FEW attendee who stopped by the Tracerco booth. 

2015/07/expo7FEW15_14368114878032.jpg

Brendan Jordan, Great Plains Institute, introduces speakers, seated from left, Aaron Hawkins, Novozymes; Ray Roach, Valicor Inc.; Delayne Johnson, QCCP, and Peter Reimers, Arisdyne.

2015/07/FEW2015_14368118231615.jpg

The Sawtooth Brothers entertain FEW attendees June 3 at Nicollet Island. 

2015/07/musicFEW2015_14368114917316.jpg

John Caupert, center, accepts the Award of Excellence from Portz and Bryan. 

2015/07/award-john_14368117434485.jpg

One  breakout session included presentations by Jessica Karras-Bailey, RTP Environmental Associates; moderator Paula Emberland, ERI Solutions; Charles Hurburgh Jr., Iowa State; Will Babler, Atten Babler Risk Management, and Chip Whalen, CIH.  

2015/07/speakersFEW2015_14368114942144.jpg

Tom Bryan, president of BBI International and editor in chief of Ethanol Producer Magazine, and Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, role play before the expo grand opening and welcome reception June 1. 

2015/07/TomFEW15_14368114947007.jpg

A group of FEW attendees listens to Mike Dishman, Poetâ€™s regional vice president, during a tour of the Poet Biorefining plant in Lake Crystal, Minnesota. 

2015/07/tourFEW15_14368114957368.jpg

About 2,000 people gathered in Minneapolis June 1-4 for the annual International Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo. This story appears in the August issue of EPM.

“Promoting Innovation Connecting the Industry”   

Robert Jewell, energy systems chief at Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. has worked at the Benson, Minnesota, ethanol plant for about 13 years. He also worked at a nearby ethanol plant in Morris, Minnesota, which today goes by the name DENCO II, bringing his total time working in the ethanol industry to just short of 18 years. He has worked primarily in utility or energy centers, although, he has also operated distillation and evaporators as well as cook and fermentation lines. Currently, Jewell supervises four full-time energy system operators, as well training and cross-training employees in energy system operations. Prior to his career within the ethanol industry, Jewell worked as a facility manager of a company that manufactured flexible circuit interconnect solutions used in the computer, networking, communication, storage, consumer, medical, and electronic industries. He also worked as a foreman at a wastewater treatment plant and a maintenance technician. Jewel provided EPM with information about some of the projects he has managed, past and present. Currently, Jewell and the CVEC team are working toward installation of a new high-efficiency boiler, expected to come online later this year. Specifically, it&rsquo;s a 2,500 horsepower, 3 pass, 86,250-pound-per-hour water back, fire tube steam boiler. The project was initiated after the company installed a regenerative thermal oxidizer and repurposed the old thermal oxidizer as a waste heat boiler, he says. However, due to inefficiency, it was later repurposed into a steam generator, leading to the soon-coming instillation of the new boiler. &ldquo;This project will provide improved system reliability and improved energy efficiency,&rdquo; he says. He has also worked to identify and implement numerous other steam plant optimization measures. One benefit the company has been able to reduce boiler makeup water use by 74 percent. Specifically, in a year, CVEC is able to use about 1.7 million gallons less reverse osmosis (RO) water and about 3.6 million gallons of soft water feed to the RO. This saved the company about $15,000 in a year, by reducing natural gas use. Additional benefits include savings due to lowered chemical use as well as less wastewater discharge. Also on his radar was optimizing the plant&rsquo;s cooling systems and reducing chiller operational requirements. Jewel was able to devise and implement measures that resulted in an annual 32 percent average annual reduction in chiller operating hours in the past four consecutive years, compared to the previous five years. &ldquo;This equates to avoiding 726 hours or 30 days of operation annually,&rdquo; he says, adding that it has saved the company more than $20,000 yearly in electrical costs, resulted in improved fermentation and process cooling capabilities as well as reduced routine maintenance expenses. Another project Jewell worked on was managing installation and temporary operation of a prototype system that helped the plant displace propane use in the winter of 2012-&rsquo;13. CVEC, along with other ethanol plants, was hit hard by propane shortages and high prices, which many ethanol plants use as fuel during natural gas curtailment periods. Though a relationship with another company, CVEC was able to conduct performance testing on a proprietary liquid natural gas vaporization or re-gasification system that was still in R&amp;D. Without the backup system, the plant may have had to temporarily idle due to restricted availability of natural gas and propane fuel, he says,&nbsp; he says, adding that the ROI was less than a week. Words of Praise Vincent Copa, process engineer for CVEC, says Jewell is vital to the company&rsquo;s goal of completing infrastructure upgrades at the nearly 20-year-old ethanol plant. &ldquo;One thing that puts Bob head and shoulders above others is his ability to mediate between departments,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Engineering wants the most efficient project with the best ROI (return on investment). Operations wants something they can understand and operate intuitively.&nbsp; Maintenance wants easy access to items that require periodic maintenance or calibration. These are not mutually exclusive goals, but Bob seems to ask the right questions at the right times so that the entire staff gets on the same page.&rdquo; When asked to describe Jewell, Andrew Zurn, engineering manager said, &ldquo;In a nut shell, he&rsquo;s technically competent, detail orientated, dependable, hardworking, honest, has a knack for operating equipment and writes a dang nice report.&rdquo; In fact, Jewel&rsquo;s report-writing skills leave Zurn feeling a little envious. Jewel uses those skills to track equipment operation and documents that information in a detailed and organized manner by including photos and notes. &ldquo;This skill was particularly valuable when CVEC commissioned and eventually made sustained operating runs on the commercial scale Frontline BioEnergy gasifier here at CVEC,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Bob functioned as the chief operator of the gasifier throughout all phases of startup through sustained operation.&rdquo; CEVC&rsquo;s gasifier, which was used to generate steam and replaced pipeline natural gas, was completed in the spring of 2008, in the midst of high natural gas prices, and isn&rsquo;t operational today. Other work But Jewell&rsquo;s performance doesn&rsquo;t just shine in his work at CVEC. He&rsquo;s involved in multiple activities that benefit ethanol and the industrial sector in general,&nbsp; including serving on two advisory boards. Currently, he&rsquo;s in his sixth year as an appointed industry representative of the State of Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry Construction Codes Advisory Council. Established in 2008, the advisory council works to &ldquo;to review laws, codes, rules, standards, and licensing requirements relating to building construction,&rdquo; according to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry website. Among other things, &ldquo;it may make recommendations about ways to eliminate inconsistencies, to streamline construction regulation and construction procedures and to improve procedures within and among jurisdictions.&rdquo; He has also served for more than two years on Minnesota&rsquo;s boiler licensing advisory board, which collaborated on legislation with various representatives of government, industrial, institutional and commercial business sectors. As a result, boiler engineer licenses were reclassified in order to address the issue of licensed operator staff shortages and to more closely represent current operations across the state. In addition to the license reclassifications, the Minnesota Legislature created a provisional first-class engineer license, which allows currently licensed second-class A or B engineers to serve as shift engineers at 500-plus horsepower boiler plants, he said. This allows for on-site training and certification of second class engineers to operate site-specific systems that previously required a first class licensed operator.&nbsp; Since the inception of the provisional first-class A or B boiler licensing program in Minnesota, a total of 90 provisional licenses have been issued to employees working at 36 separate companies, including nine ethanol plants. At this time, there are 46 active individual provisional licenses for this in the state of Minnesota. &ldquo;It is not uncommon for industrial facilities to struggle with staffing challenges regarding filling and keeping people in 1A or 1B licensed operator positions,&rdquo; he explains. &ldquo;The provisional licensing program has given all sectors of industry, including ethanol, another means for addressing staffing shortages regarding those positions and complying to the state operator licensing and steam plant attendance requirements.&rdquo; Last, but not least, Jewell writes technical articles about water quality, water conservation and water sustainability for some Minnesota Rural Water Association publications and other organizations. Although the articles aren&rsquo;t written specifically for the ethanol industry, the subject matter is relevant to the ethanol industry.&nbsp; Author: Holly Jessen Managing Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4946 hjessen@bbiinternational.com

Robert Jewell says there's no shortage of things to do in his career at Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. For example, he does a lot of work on the facilityâ€™s water permits. 

2015/07/Profile-contents_14368121621312_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Profile-contents_14368121621312_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Profile-contents_14368121621312.jpg

CVEC, a farmer-owned facility, is located near Benson, Minnesota. 

2015/07/ControlRoom_14368121574279.jpg

CVEC produces several coproducts, including distillers grains, corn oil, wet cake and syrup. 

2015/07/CornDump_14368121581242.jpg

The company also produces its trademarked Glacial Grains Spirits, which is industrial, food grade ethyl alcohol and beverage neutral spirits used in everything from food and beverages to cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. 

2015/07/plant1_14368121591548.jpg

Jewell supervises employees working as energy system operators at CVEC.  

2015/07/plant2_14368121601776.jpg

The 50 MMgy plant where Jewell works produces fuel ethanol, some of which it blends into E85.

2015/07/Plant3_14368121611543.jpg

When Ethanol Producer Magazine asked for nominations of rock star operators, the name of an industry veteran of almost two decades rose to the top. This story appears in the August issue of EPM. 

Operations Leader Optimizes Aging Plant  

Optimization efforts most often look at boosting yield, but as finely tuned and balanced as ethanol plants are, any increase in ethanol has to be matched by increases in the multiple systems that follow. Distillation and dehydration are two that often create bottlenecks. Two companies introduced systems aimed at relieving that bottleneck at the International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo in June, although many others have taken up the challenge. Whitefox Technologies Ltd. has developed a membrane technology that has been used in Europe for more than a decade, explains Stephan Blum, chief technology officer. Primarily used for potable alcohol and integrated into chemical processes for things like perfumes, the company is now introducing it to the fuel ethanol industry. &ldquo;We had to adapt our technology so that it can survive in the larger scale and rougher environment that we see in the biofuels industry,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;When the plants get larger, the technology has to become more robust.&rdquo; Whitefox has developed a bolt-on application that can treat part or all of the regen/recycle stream in the molecular sieves. &ldquo;If you take regenerate or recycle streams out, and eliminate the feedback loop into distillation, the whole system should run quite a bit more stably,&rdquo; he adds. With about 21 percent of the mole sieves&rsquo; capacity taken up by the regen/recycle stream, moving that forward through the Whitefox membrane technology could increase capacity through the sieves. During the summer, he adds, it could also address the need to slow the sieves down because of the limitations in cooling capacity due to high heat and humidity. Whitefox began commissioning its first system in June at one of Pacific Ethanol&rsquo;s facilities. Blum described it as an industrial-scale demonstration plant. &ldquo;There we will treat a portion of the regen stream in order to give them a capacity increase of roughly 7 percent or reduce energy consumption by avoiding their cooling water limitation.&rdquo; The goal is to help the company continue to reduce its energy use, and thus its greenhouse gas emissions. The skid is designed to verify the technology and, based on those results, decide the best size and integration strategy to meet the plant&rsquo;s needs. A membrane system could ultimately replace the current distillation and dehydration systems in a plant, Blum says, but Whitefox&rsquo;s approach has been to design a bolt-on that doesn&rsquo;t require major changes to a plant. &ldquo;We can treat the side streams and it doesn&rsquo;t interfere with the main product stream. It&rsquo;s easier to integrate.&rdquo; As the technology becomes better understood and known, he envisions multiple ways it can be integrated. &ldquo;The thing is, distillation in itself is not energy inefficient. Even though you add steam and evaporate, you reuse that heat somewhere else in the process so your net energy consumption is quite low. The distillation process is also a cleaning process, which helps to keep the entire process reliable. A combination with distillation is often an intelligent procedure.&rdquo; Hydroheater Application Hydro-Thermal Corp., well known in the ethanol industry for its jet cookers, has turned its experience into finding a solution to the molecular sieve bottleneck. Gary Bymers, international sales manager, described the company&rsquo;s 200 proof vapor depressurization system in a presentation at the FEW in Minneapolis. &ldquo;The idea is to debottleneck and, in the process, there are energy savings. The total amount of cooling water is reduced and the total amount of heat that&rsquo;s used in the system is also reduced.&rdquo;&nbsp; Rather than recycling vapors through the mole sieves, piping is modified, he explains. &ldquo;The piping changes the direction so the 200 proof vapors come down and are mixed with the flow in a recirculation area through our low-pressure hydroheater. You increase the total amount of product recaptured instead of recycling back through the sieves.&rdquo; The change adds approximately 2 gallons per minute (gpm) to product flow and, by adding plates to the 190 proof heat exchange, the heat recovery from the 200 proof product is used to increase the temperature of the 190 proof sieve feed from between 130 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit to about 185 degrees. The main savings come from reducing the load on the cooling water heat exchanger and condenser and increasing the temperature to the vaporizer, but the most significant benefit comes from the boosted flow rate of 200 proof product. The company has one installed at Dakota Ethanol LLC, a 50 MMgy ethanol plant in Wentworth, South Dakota, Bymers told the audience at FEW. In addition to installing Hydro-Thermal&rsquo;s depressurization vapor hydroheater skid and adding plates to the 190 heat exchanger, the system involves upsizing the existing 200 proof pump from 15 to 25 horsepower with a variable frequency drive. The bottom line benefits can be significant, Bymers adds. In a 100 MMgy plant, the steam usage can be reduced by 2.9 million Btu, which at a natural gas cost of $4 per MMBtu works out to an annual savings of approximately $126,000. The big benefit, though, is from the 2 gpm increase in product flow, which works out to about 5 percent increase in throughput. In addition, fusel oil upsets are minimized. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s a positive operational impact that&rsquo;s hard to quantify,&rdquo; he says. Other companies are working on improved distillation and dehydration technologies as well. India-based Praj Industries Ltd. spoke at FEW in Minneapolis about its patented EcoSmart technology, which could be used by corn ethanol plants interested in diversifying and adding beverage or industrial alcohol capability while lowering energy and water use. Two years ago at the FEW, California-based Membrane Technology and Research Inc., a well-established California-based company in separation technologies for refineries, hydrogen separation and gas clean-up, described its research and trials on a low-energy membrane distillation. And Zeochem AG, which says 70 percent of the plants in North America use its molecular sieve technology, is reportedly working on improvements that will be introduced in the next couple of years. In Japan, Hitachi Zosen Corp. has developed a dehydration technology using a zeolite separation membrane. Novel Distillation In addition to those looking at ways to improve existing systems and reduce the load on molecular sieves, there are a two companies developing radically different technologies. In Kansas, brothers Dick and Sam Burton have formed the startup company Distillation Technologies Inc. to commercialize their technology. The proof of concept for the trademarked Bubble Spray Distillation has been achieved at bench scale, with the help of Kansas City-based Midwest Research Institute and Aerosol Research and Engineering, says Dick Burton. They&rsquo;ve received a patent on the ethanol distillation concept and have a second patent pending on using the method for water purification. &ldquo;We take the beer and infuse air into it and saturate it and spray it through some special nozzles into a vacuum chamber, the distillation column. We replace the stripper section with our equipment,&rdquo; Burton explains. &ldquo;When the fluid is sprayed into the column,&nbsp;&nbsp; aerosol-sized droplets come out. Each of the droplets has a bubble inside. The bubble grows exponentially inside the vacuum chamber and explodes. It creates tens of thousands of very small droplets. Those nano droplets now have surface tension relieved on them and they readily vaporize at half the energy.&rdquo; Burton adds that the low-vacuum environment also relieves the azeotropic bond. &ldquo;You can make pure ethanol at one pass, without molecular sieves,&rdquo; he says. The distillation system operates at 104 degrees Fahrenheit, producing 99.5 percent alcohol in one pass with an energy savings calculated at 75.6 percent less than standard distillation. The technology can also be applied to water purification, Burton adds, and could potentially replace the evaporators in a whole stillage treatment system. The Burtons finalized an agreement with Easy Energy Systems Inc. in mid-June to build and conduct pilot scale testing on both ethanol distillation and water purification systems. Minnesota-based Easy Energy Systems has developed a modular ethanol production system targeted at waste streams. One of the limitations of many alternative waste-based feedstocks is that the alcohol concentrations are lower than in a conventional corn-ethanol plant, explains Jonathan Scarfpin, vice president of business development for Easy Energy Systems. &ldquo;That makes distillation energy costs quite high.&rdquo; Of equal interest, he adds, is the application of the technology to water purification. In Ontario, Drystill Holdings Inc. has completed testing on a pilot plant in collaboration with Fielding Chemical Technologies at Mississauga. Drystill has developed pass-through distillation technology utilizing a patented stripping absorption module that achieves separation at room temperatures. Pass-through distillation adds two steps in the middle of the basic evaporating and condensing functions of distillation. The module first absorbs the evaporated gases in a liquid medium of concentrated salts and then boils the absorbed material out in a desorption step before condensation. With the middle absorption step running at higher temperatures, the heat recovered there can be used in the evaporation step. Drystill estimates a 50 percent energy reduction when compared to a traditional system. Drystill&rsquo;s chief technology officer, Ian McGregor, says the system could be incorporated into the existing cooling circuit of a fermentation tank to continuously remove wet ethanol from the live fermentation broth. &ldquo;Because low-temperature distillation permits ethanol to be removed during fermentation,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;it opens up new opportunities for improved fermentation and hydrolysis.&rdquo; The removal of the ethanol during fermentation could shorten fermentation time and permit yeast and enzyme recycling. McGregor also envisions it being used in continuous fermentation. &ldquo;The fermentation tanks would be smaller in size than batch tanks and be equipped with some means of mixing to ensure that the broth is nearly homogeneous.&rdquo; As the broth moves from one tank to the next, a room-temperature still removes a portion of the ethanol in the broth moving between tanks. &ldquo;Product inhibition would be eliminated, the total residence time reduced to less than 20 hours, and the biocatalyst culture would remain healthy and numerically superior to unwanted species.&rdquo; First, though, Drystill&rsquo;s pass-through distillation process needs to be validated at larger scale. Company CEO Christopher Belcher reports discussions are under way with potential partners to move the process from pilot to demonstration scale.&nbsp; Innovation Challenge Working on novel technologies is not for the faint of heart. Presentations to potential ethanol industry partners were quite frustrating, Burton says, &ldquo;They laughed at us.&rdquo; Even the patent office asked for more extensive documentation to explain the science behind the novel technology, he says, adding he and his brother have worked on this for seven years. McGregor speaks of a similar experience. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve been struggling for six years to make people aware that we&rsquo;ve got something here,&rdquo; he says. Early on, an industry insider cautioned them that their initial idea to apply membrane technology to replace molecular sieves would be a hard sell. &ldquo;He said nobody really has much of an issue with incumbent technology.&rdquo; But he and several others told McGregor and his partner, if they could use membranes to separate ethanol from the live fermentation broth, it would be a real boon to second-generation ethanol. &ldquo;Yet, we&rsquo;ve accomplished this, and we can&rsquo;t seem to get the right people interested.&nbsp; Or, the people that have an interest are timid. Or they are already committed to another technology. Or. Or. Or.&rdquo; McGregor says he&rsquo;s become philosophical. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s going to take time. Be faithful. Keep on track. Do what has to be done and try to spread the word.&rdquo;&nbsp;
 Progress Report 
Whitefox Technologies Ltd. Commissioning on its industrial demonstration scale membrane technology system started in June at Pacific Ethanol Madera LLC, a 40 MMgy ethanol plant in Madera, California.&nbsp; &nbsp; Hydro-Thermal Corp. The company&rsquo;s 200 proof vapor depressurization system is installed at Dakota Ethanol LLC, a 50 MMgy ethanol plant in Wentworth, South Dakota. Distillation Technologies Inc. Proof of concept was achieved at bench scale for Bubble Spray Distillation, with an agreement reached with Easy Energy Systems Inc. in June for pilot scale testing. Drystill Holdings Inc. Pilot-scale testing has been done on the company&rsquo;s pass-through distillation technology and discussions are under way for potential demo-scale testing.
Author: Susanne Retka Schill Senior Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com

Whitefox Technologiesâ€™ membrane distillation is being tested at Pacific Ethanolâ€™s plant in Madera, California. Delivered flat on a semi-trailer, it was set up alongside distillation.

2015/07/WhiteFox-Innovation_14368123658443_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/WhiteFox-Innovation_14368123658443_thumb.jpg

2015/07/WhiteFox-Innovation_14368123658443.jpg

Drystill Holdings partnered with Fielding Chemical Technologies to build a pilot-scale system to validate its novel pass-through distillation system. 

2015/07/DrystillPilot-Innovation_1436812363775.jpg

The core invention of Drystill Holdings is a stripper absorption module, which passes distillation vapors through an absorption medium, shown here at the pilot plant built to validate the technology in Ontario.  

2015/07/DrystillpilotSAM_14368123647269.jpg

Companies aim to tweak and transform key systems to reduce energy use and resolve bottlenecks. This story appears in the August issue of EPM.  

Drilling into  Distillation, Dehydration    

The ethanol industry is known to be innovative.&nbsp; But, whether it&rsquo;s testing a new feedstock, incorporating a new enzyme, yeast or other fermentation aid, or perhaps tweaking a parameter or trying out a new piece of equipment, the innovation must be put to the test. Every new technology introduced to the ethanol industry must first prove itself at commercial scale. In practical terms, that means ethanol plants must be willing to conduct trials. But when a lost fermenter, or even an hour of downtime, can cost tens of thousands or even more than $100,000 to the bottom line, the risks involved in conducting trials are big. For companies like Novozymes and Lallemand Biofuels and Distilled Spirits, whose enzymes and yeasts form the foundation of the ethanol process, the business of conducting trials is taken very seriously. &ldquo;We have a lot of respect for the fact our customers are running a business,&rdquo; says Kevin Cox, director of technical services for bioenergy at Novozymes. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re coming in with our products and we know we need to be seamless. Our objective is to bring value to the customer process and ensure smooth operations.&rdquo; And, while it might be tempting to think of ethanol producers as guinea pigs when doing trials, Jim Miers, TransFerm product manager for Lallemand, says that isn&rsquo;t the case. &ldquo;The way we&rsquo;re looking at trials is actually to make plants better, to make them more efficient, more profitable.&rdquo; Planning for a successful trial begins with setting expectations and talking though the protocol. &ldquo;Several weeks in advance of the trial, we will sit down with the customer to review and align expectations around operational adjustments and product benefits,&rdquo; Cox says.&nbsp; Similarly, Lallemand sets up a meeting with a group from the plant that can include the general manager or CEO, plant, operations and lab managers. &ldquo;I like to have as many people involved so we can make sure, when the trial is done, there&rsquo;s not a thought in their minds that, &lsquo;We should have looked at this.&rsquo;&rdquo; Protocols can run several pages long, including a description of the plant, the trial objectives and expectations, the sponsor&rsquo;s personnel commitment, operation parameters, data collection&mdash;the specific details covering all aspects. Nondisclosure agreements have become standard as well, outlining information and trade secrets to be kept confidential. Protecting intellectual property&mdash;particularly when doing trials on precommercial products&mdash;is important for companies that invest resources into research and development. &ldquo;In general, once a concept is published or described publicly, it changes the landscape for patentability,&rdquo; Cox explains. Thus, keeping new innovations quiet is important&mdash;and for both parties. &ldquo;A lot of our customers have innovation they are developing as well,&rdquo; Cox says.&nbsp;&nbsp; Baseline Start The next step after planning is&nbsp; gathering baseline data. &ldquo;If you&rsquo;re going into a trial situation, you&rsquo;re comparing with the baseline&mdash;which was how the plant was running before,&rdquo; Cox explains. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s really important to maintain consistent operating conditions, as much as possible, between the baseline and the trial period. That allows you to do an apples-to-apples comparison.&rdquo; It can be a challenge at times, he adds, because plants to have to run their businesses, and a trial may require operational changes. &ldquo;As much as we can keep the process steady and consistent, we will get the best possible evaluation of the technology.&rdquo; When the trial itself starts, the Novozymes scientists watch the process data closely, looking for product fingerprints&mdash;measureable indicators that the products are working as expected. &ldquo;Once we see the fingerprints, we are confident the products are running correctly, then we are able to demonstrate and capture the benefits the enzymes provide.&rdquo; A high percentage of the Novozymes technical services team are trained statisticians, he adds, &ldquo;who can really dig into the data to insure adequate and fair comparisons.&rdquo; Lallemand approaches trials in much the same way. &ldquo;When we go into a trial, we want a month&rsquo;s worth of baseline data, so we can compare a month&rsquo;s worth of data from the trial,&rdquo; Miers says. The first three weeks of a trial are covered by a Lallemand tech specialist working on site, followed by remote coverage for the remainder of the trial through a daily phone call and the daily sharing of data by email. &ldquo;The first couple of weeks we focus on enzyme load and yeast to avoid different stressors and find where the plant&rsquo;s yield is best,&rdquo; Miers says. &ldquo;Yield is key in all these plants, so over the course of the five to six weeks, we&rsquo;re looking at yield and what will be the best conditions for yield&mdash;the temperatures, the pH, and so on.&rdquo; All trials are a minimum of 42 days, he continues. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a commitment on both sides. Not only are they committed to running the trial but it&rsquo;s a commitment of our resources going out and focusing on making sure that we do our very best to get them what they&rsquo;re expecting. We promise a range of expectations. We need to succeed in that.&rdquo; The protocol is much the same when running the first commercial trials of brand new technologies, both gentlemen report. New products are well tested and understood before they hit full-scale fermentations. The biggest difference is that more specialists from the companies will be involved in the first trials, generally being on site for the entire length of the trial.&nbsp; Project Payoff The obvious benefit of a new enzyme by Novozymes or a yeast from Lallemand will be yield improvement. Even a seemingly modest improvement of 1 percent brings a significant return to a 100 MMgy plant. There are other positives, however. Doing a product trial can benefit plants that may not be running as smoothly as they&rsquo;d like, Miers suggests. &ldquo;When we have a plant with some variability, we do our very best to help them stabilize it so we can run the trial sooner than later.&rdquo; He adds that the stability of plants overall has improved. &ldquo;The industry has become more educated&mdash;they take a more technical approach to running.&rdquo; &ldquo;The biggest benefit for customers from running trials is access to new technology,&rdquo; Cox says. &ldquo;There&rsquo;s lots of great technologies being developed. Trials gives them a chance to evaluate them and see how they fit in to their process.&rdquo; There are different philosophical approaches, he adds. &ldquo;Some folks want to be first movers, they want their hands on the best and brightest new technology when it first comes out. There&rsquo;s certainly an advantage to going first because you get to capitalize on the benefits in advance of everyone else.&rdquo; Others prefer to wait, letting the first movers test out new technologies and work through any issues that might arise.&nbsp; &ldquo;The industry has evolved,&rdquo; Cox continues. &ldquo;It is much more sophisticated. And complex. These plants are getting really good at refining their ability to manage and analyze their data. The products are much more complicated as well. It requires a more sophisticated trial approach&mdash;not just enzymes, but all technologies being evaluated.&rdquo; Both Novozymes and Lallemand have technical service teams that bring their experience in conducting multiple trials each year to each new plant trial. Smaller companies may not have the same resources to deploy, but Miers suggests all vendors do their best. &ldquo;Every company, every vendor, is out there to help the facility be better.&rdquo; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Small-scale Test Tanks Pinal Energy LLC, A 60 MMgy corn-ethanol plant in Maricopa, Arizona, has pint-sized fermentation tanks nestled in the middle of its fermentation tanks that are fully integrated into the plant. They were installed as part of a University of Arizona research project on sweet sorghum as an alternative feedstock. Since then, Pinal has found the system useful for other product trials, even one looking at watermelon rejects as a feedstock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Susanne Retka Schill Senior Editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine 701-738-4922 sretkaschill@bbiinternational.com

2015/07/testing-contents_14368126423496_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/testing-contents_14368126423496_thumb.jpg

2015/07/testing-contents_14368126423496.jpg

2015/07/control-rm_14368126385879.jpg

2015/07/overhead-pipes_14368126393757.jpg

2015/07/pipes-n-valves_14368126403988.jpg

2015/07/test-ferms-sidebar_14368126413895.jpg

New products undergo extensive research and collaboration before real-time testing. This story appears in the August issue of EPM.  

Trialing Innovation 

In late June, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff visited Washington, D.C., to strengthen the relationship between two of the Western Hemisphere&rsquo;s biggest nations. But as with any successful relationship, compromise is key on important issues, and Rousseff discussed several bilateral issues critical to the global ethanol trade with President Obama. The issue: The renewable fuel standard (RFS) is significant for both America and Brazil&rsquo;s ethanol industries, and was a central topic during Rousseff&rsquo;s visit. The U.S. EPA identifies sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel because it reduces emissions 61 percent compared to gasoline. Between 2012-&rsquo;14, more than 1 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol flowed from Brazil to the U.S., and while sugarcane ethanol comprised only 2 percent of all renewable fuel consumed by Americans, it provided nearly 15 percent of U.S. advanced biofuel supply. EPA&rsquo;s recent RFS proposal significantly reduced target volumes for advanced biofuels below congressionally mandated levels, but increased requirements for advanced biofuels in 2015 and 2016. Our position: Reducing RFS target volumes threatens the future of U.S. ethanol supplies. EPA should protect the RFS&rsquo; integrity by maintaining volume requirements for advanced biofuels, and should guard against using the regulatory process to impose anticompetitive requirements on foreign biofuels. The issue: Brazil and the U.S. must consider transportation sector emissions as negotiators work toward an international climate change agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, on Dec. 21. The World Energy Council reports fossil fuels currently represent 63 percent of all global emissions, with transportation fuel generating 28 percent of total U.S. emissions and 17 percent total Brazilian emissions. Transportation emissions aren&rsquo;t limited to ground transport, and biofuels must become viable alternatives to aviation fuel. The international aviation industry is committed to growing at a carbon-neutral rate until 2020 then reducing emissions 50 percent by 2050, but biofuel production and consumption must expand to achieve this goal. Preserving the environment is a key aspect of this drive. Deforestation has fallen sharply across the Amazon rainforest, and Rousseff pledged to &ldquo;restore and reforest&rdquo; 12 million hectares by 2030 during her visit. Brazil&rsquo;s sugarcane ethanol industry has also expanded innovative sustainability efforts to help slow climate change, including promoting a double-crop system in production, expanding mechanized harvesting instead of preharvesting burning techniques, and using leftover plant material for bioenergy. Our position: Ethanol is arguably the cheapest and most sustainable option available to replace fossil-based transportation fuel at large scale. Some commercial technologies can reach virtually zero emissions, and every gallon of biofuel creates long-term climate benefits and short-term public health benefits. The U.S. and Brazil must work together to develop solutions on a global scale, including incentive policies (tax or environmental) to encourage production and consumption, private sector cooperation to drive investment and innovation, and measures to protect the environment. The issue: California&rsquo;s Low Carbon Fuel Standard administers a market-based approach to reducing carbon intensity from transportation fuels 10 percent from a 1990 baseline by 2020 through the California Air Resources Board. CARB is readopting the LCFS to reflect new indirect landuse change modeling and carbon intensity life-cycle analysis, both of which confirm sugarcane ethanol as the lowest-carbon biofuel available at commercial scale today. While this is primarily a state issue, LCFS readoption will have a major impact on America&rsquo;s single largest transportation fuels market and other states launching their own LCFS policies. Our position: Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is uniquely positioned to help reduce emissions. UNICA encourages CARB to work with Brazil&rsquo;s technical representatives to capture nuances like electricity cogeneration from biomass and the double-crop production system, and encourages the federal government to support smart biofuels policy at the state level. Brazil and the U.S. show pragmatic public policy and cooperation can create economic growth and environmental benefits for both countries. Earth has an urgent need for low-carbon, sustainable transportation fuels, and as the world&rsquo;s two biggest ethanol producers and exporters, our countries have much to share in experience and technology. Brazil and the U.S. have a responsibility to collaboratively build a global biofuels market providing clean, affordable, and sustainable solutions to the planet&rsquo;s growing energy needs. Brazil&rsquo;s government and sugarcane ethanol industry are committed to not only expanding the mutually beneficial relationship with America, but to growing the international biofuels market.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Author: Leticia Phillips North American Representative, Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, UNICA 202-506-5299 leticia@unica.com.br

2015/07/Leticia-Phillips_14368131077008_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Leticia-Phillips_14368131077008_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Leticia-Phillips_14368131077008.jpg

Brazil and the U.S. have a responsibility to collaboratively build a global biofuels market, writes Leticia Phillips of UNICA, following a visit between Brazilian President and President Obama. This column appears in the August issue of EPM. 

Ethanol working to benefit Brazil, America, the world

When the U.S. EPA dumped the renewable fuel standard&rsquo;s (RFS) required volume obligation (RVO) numbers for 2014, 2015 and 2016 on the last Friday in May, I&rsquo;m sure many of you thought, &ldquo;WTF?&rdquo; Me too. I thought, &ldquo;What&rsquo;re they figuring?&rdquo; OK, I thought that other version, too&mdash;but after reading EPA&rsquo;s proposed rule, I wondered how they ended up where they did.&nbsp; Sometimes, they seem to &ldquo;get it.&rdquo; They appear to have learned RINs don&rsquo;t increase fuel prices and even seem to get why we complain about obligated parties refusing to comply with the law. But in the end, EPA seems to channel Homer Simpson when he said &ldquo;Just because I don't care doesn't mean that I don't understand.&rdquo; They get it &hellip; but they&rsquo;re doing nothing about it. But maybe they don&rsquo;t get it. EPA laments E15&rsquo;s lack of impact on ethanol volume while ignoring all the roadblocks they&rsquo;ve created themselves. They don&rsquo;t seem to realize every station that sells E15 sells more than 10 percent ethanol overall, exceeding the so-called &ldquo;blend wall.&rdquo; There is ample proof most stations could sell E15 with little equipment expense, and the absence of real-world damage from E15 should give pause to EPA&rsquo;s belief in both those ghost stories. But it hasn&rsquo;t. Instead EPA is &ldquo;figuring&rdquo; heavily on the blendwall in its proposed RVOs for 2015 and 2016. The term blendwall is used 34 times in the rule, and EPA says &ldquo;The ability to go beyond the E10 blendwall is a function of actions taken by various fuel market participants, including obligated parties, renewable fuel producers, distributors and marketers, gasoline and diesel retailers, and consumers.&rdquo; Having apparently bought in to refiners&rsquo; arguments that everyone has to pitch in to get past the blendwall, EPA seems to be ignoring the fact that everyone else already has. The only &ldquo;fuel market participants&rdquo; that have refused to take a single step to get over the blendwall are the obligated parties&mdash;who are, by definition, the only ones required by law to do so.&nbsp; Renewable fuel producers have been ready to provide the required volumes for more than two years.They applied for a waiver for E15 to provide an option motorists could use in existing vehicles, and fuel marketers could blend and sell using existing equipment. The ethanol industry has spent millions on promotional and educational programs, all the while battling oil-industry misinformation campaigns and efforts to take away every tax break or grant program that would help marketers help oil companies meet the statutory RVOs. Auto manufacturers have produced vehicles capable of using 85 percent ethanol for almost 20 years, and are going on year four of cars and light trucks that specifically approve E15 as a fuel. All in all, cars and light trucks built and warrantied for E15 outnumber &ldquo;premium only&rdquo; vehicles about three to one, and diesel cars and light trucks by five or six to one. Even if EPA doesn&rsquo;t trust its own numbers, manufacturer approved E15 vehicles are more widely available than all the premium and diesel vehicles on the road. With those numbers in mind, obligated parties still require branded stations to sell premium gasoline, and diesel fuel is widely available, while oil company supply agreements specifically prevent station owners from offering E15. Oil companies have also sued EPA every year to avoid complying with the RFS. Those are the actions taken by obligated parties to get past the blendwall. They don&rsquo;t want to. But that&rsquo;s understandable. That&rsquo;s Big Oil being Big Oil. No, the real problem with the weakening of the RFS is that the obligated parties know they aren&rsquo;t really obligated. All Big Oil has to do is read the last two proposed rules to know EPA doesn&rsquo;t want to enforce the law. They go to great lengths to redefine supply as what oil companies are comfortable selling and defend Big Oil blendwall mythology while ignoring all the roadblocks they&rsquo;ve jointly established to make sure the imaginary wall stays in place. The RFS will work if EPA remembers what their E and P stand for, and do their job. Big Oil has responded like this to every fuel regulation change in history, EPA has always held its ground, and Big Oil has always (reluctantly) complied. They would this time, too. &nbsp; Author: Ron Lamberty Senior Vice President American Coalition for Ethanol 605-334-3381 rlamberty@ethanol.org&nbsp;

2015/07/Lamberty,-Ron-2012_14368131804132_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Lamberty,-Ron-2012_14368131804132_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Lamberty,-Ron-2012_14368131804132.jpg

After reading EPA's proposed rule for the RFS RVO numbers,  Ron Lamberty of ACE thought, â€œWhat're they figuring?â€� This column appears in the August issue of EPM.

EPA'S RFS RVOs: WTF? 

Ten years ago, the renewable fuel standard (RFS) was passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. This month, we are not only commemorating the creation of our nation&rsquo;s most successful energy policy in the past 40 years. We are also celebrating a decade of job creation, clean air, innovation, and increased energy independence and consumer choice. But even as we are celebrating these victories, the U.S. EPA is deliberating the fate of the RFS. In its latest RFS proposal for 2014-&rsquo;16, EPA unfortunately chose to side with the obligated parties who have deliberately refused to live up to their obligation to provide consumers with a lower-cost, higher-performing, homegrown, renewable fuel option at the pump. Everyone in Congress, as well as all parties in the renewable fuels and oil industries, knew when this legislation was debated and passed into law that the ambitious goals of the RFS could only be met by introducing higher blends into the market. Now those obligated parties, controlled primarily by Big Oil, are being rewarded for their refusal to live up to their obligation. EPA should instead reward the hardworking men and women who embraced this promise and built ethanol plants, communities and families in towns across rural America. The RFS has been a clear success. Today, because of the RFS, there are more than 200 ethanol biorefineries across the country and dozens of projects that will make advanced or cellulosic biofuels. The renewable fuels industry supports nearly 400,000 good American jobs that will never be outsourced. The RFS is the only policy to ever have loosened the oil industry&rsquo;s stranglehold on the liquid fuels marketplace and the only policy that will help us kick our dangerous addiction to foreign oil. Since the enactment of the RFS in 2005, our dependence on foreign oil has been cut by more than half, from 60 percent to 27 percent. And, instead of sending nearly a billion dollars a day overseas, we are investing right here at home. At the same time, the RFS enables competition that benefits us all and gives consumers the sorely needed ability to choose a fuel that meets their price and performance needs. By using increasing amounts of biofuels under the RFS, greenhouse gas emissions will ultimately be reduced by 138 million metric tons&mdash;the equivalent of taking 27 million cars off the road. In 2014 alone, the 13.4 billion gallons of ethanol blended into gasoline in the United States helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 38 million metric tons, which is the equivalent of removing roughly 8 million cars from the road. EPA&rsquo;s proposal would jeopardize our ability to realize all of these important goals contained in the RFS. I hope EPA was listening when hundreds of ethanol supporters from across the country made their way to Kansas City to personally testify about the importance of renewable fuels in their lives. I hope EPA was watching when Iowa&rsquo;s Gov. Terry Branstad ignited the Rally for Rural America with the cry, &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t mess with the RFS!&rdquo; And most of all, I hope EPA carefully read the thousands upon thousands of detailed comments submitted by supporters of our industry. Just as we successfully commented on the original 2014 RVO proposal by EPA, which ultimately forced EPA to reconsider its initial flawed rule, we are confident that our comments will highlight the changes that are necessary to meet the goals of the RFS. Our message is clear&mdash;EPA should uphold the original intent of the RFS passed by Congress and provide our industry with the certainty we need to continue to succeed. &nbsp; Author: Tom Buis CEO, Growth Energy 202-545-4000 tbuis@growthenergy.org

2015/07/DRIVE-EPM-tom-1210_14368132590246_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/DRIVE-EPM-tom-1210_14368132590246_thumb.jpg

2015/07/DRIVE-EPM-tom-1210_14368132590246.jpg

Even as the ethanol industry celebrates 10 years since the RFS was made law,  the U.S. EPA is deliberating its fate, writes Tom Buis  of Growth Energy. This column appears in the August issue of EPM. 

Celebrating a decade of success under the RFS 

The U.S. Constitution, one of the most important documents in our nation&rsquo;s history, begins with three simple, yet very powerful, words: &ldquo;We the people.&rdquo; Over the course of my career, I have been fortunate to work on behalf of the people. I have also had the pleasure of working with people who are passionate about the biofuels industry. Folks who wholeheartedly believe that renewable fuels can reduce our nation&rsquo;s dependence on foreign oil and revitalize rural economies. In August, Washington, D.C., changes character, transforming itself from a bustling city into a more sedate town. August is when members of Congress return to their home districts and states. While at home, these members often host town hall meetings where they give their constituents&mdash;their people&mdash;an update on what is happening in Congress, take questions, and listen to concerns.&nbsp; After all, as public servants, members of Congress are supposed to represent the people. But members of Congress are not the only representatives of the people. Our government institutions are also charged with looking out for the best interests of the people. In June, officials from the U.S. EPA traveled to Kansas City, Kansas, for a public hearing that gave the agency a chance to hear what the people had to say about the agency&rsquo;s implementation of the renewable fuel standard (RFS).&nbsp; People from all walks of life, from farmers in the heartland to academics in our nation&rsquo;s largest cities, attended the hearing because they wanted the EPA to hear their voices.&nbsp; And what the EPA heard was a near unanimous chorus of frustration with the way the agency is implementing the RFS. Conrad Clement of Conrad Clement Farms summed up the feeling of those in attendance when, during his testimony, he called the RFS &ldquo;America&rsquo;s most successful policy in 40 years,&rdquo; but charged that the EPA was &ldquo;tearing [the RFS] apart.&rdquo; Clement urged the EPA to &ldquo;endorse the original RFS as it was.&rdquo; I&rsquo;ve said time and time again that there is nothing wrong with the RFS that cannot be fixed by what is right with the RFS. All the EPA has to do is to implement the statute as Congress intended. But instead of setting the renewable volume requirements at the levels that Congress established, the agency is proposing to cut them by 20 percent, or a total of 11.3 billion gallons, over the course of three years. I can assure you that the oil companies will happily fill the void with gasoline and diesel fuel refined from dirtier and more costly sources of crude oil. Under the RFS, ethanol produced at current levels has virtually wiped out our nation&rsquo;s need to import finished gasoline, reducing these imports from 600,000 barrels per day a decade ago to near nothing today. Ethanol also drastically reduces greenhouse gas emissions, removing the equivalent of 8.4 million cars from the road each year. Instead of building on the success of the RFS, however, the EPA showed in its proposal that it clearly bought into Big Oil&rsquo;s false claims that ethanol has reached its saturation point at a 10 percent ethanol blend, and that higher-level ethanol blends, such as E15 and E85, are not yet available enough to justify a higher blending requirement. The EPA proposal is creating a tsunami of RINs. When EPA considers whether the supply of renewable fuel is &ldquo;adequate&rdquo; to meet statutory volumetric requirements, stocks of RIN credits must be taken into account. After all, RINs represent gallons of renewable fuels that were produced and are part of the physical fuel supply. To completely dismiss carryover RINs from the determination of available supply is not only illogical but also creates disincentives for investing in pumps and technology. The EPA needs to let the RIN market work as intended to drive investment and innovation. I commend the EPA for going to the heart of the conversation and holding the hearing in the Midwest, but the agency cannot simply discard the comments at the next convenient opportunity. The EPA must listen to the voice of the American people, who have an outspoken desire for a strong RFS, and not the oil industry. Author: Bob Dinneen President and CEO, Renewable Fuels Association 202-289-3835

2015/07/Bob-Dineen-NEW_14375049834521_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Bob-Dineen-NEW_14375049834521_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Bob-Dineen-NEW_14375049834521.jpg

The EPA must listen to the voice of the American people, who have an outspoken desire for a strong RFS, writes Bob Dinneen, of the RFA. This column appears in the August issue of EPM. 

EPA must listen to the people on RFS

The state of Queensland in Australia will be introducing legislation in Parliament that would, according to its press release, &ldquo;Provide the first step toward growing our biofuels and biomanufacturing industries.&rdquo; Currently the introduction rate would be 2 percent, however, there is strong pressure among ethanol stakeholders to set the target higher. &ldquo;By increasing the mandate over time and in a measured way, we will help to ensure sustainable growth of both supply and demand,&rdquo; said Mark Bailey, Queensland government minister of main roads, road safety and ports as well as energy and water supply. This mandate has already met stiff opposition from the oil industry in particular and has been, as one might expect, politicized by those in opposition such as raising fuel prices, engine performance, consumer acceptance, environmental concerns and more. The difference, however, with this proposed legislation is that it does have significant bipartisan support. The government has held numerous regional meetings across the state and has sought considerable input from all concerned parties. There is a bit of a twist in this proposal that sets it apart from previous proposals in that the legislation would aim to create a foundation for a broader biomanufacturing climate. The Queensland government said that this legislation, &ldquo;will provide certainty to the biofuel industry so that it can invest, innovate, grow and create jobs. While a thriving biofuels industry is highly beneficial in its own right, it will also help create the foundation for a new high-value, knowledge-based biomanufacturing industry for Queensland.&rdquo; The Liquid Fuel Supply (Biofuel Mandate) Amendment Bill 2015 prescribes a phase-in of ethanol blended fuel, with a 2 percent target to commence by July 1, 2016. While the legislation also prescribes a mandate for biodiesel, they have stated that further consultation would be required on that issue. This has raised concern from biodiesel manufactures who strongly believe the mandate for ethanol and biodiesel, should be enacted concurrently. The primary ethanol feedstock in Queensland will be from the sugarcane industry, primarily in the far north and sorghum grown mostly in the southern region of the state. Currently, there is only one grain-to-ethanol plant in the country, located in Dalby, Queensland. The largest producer in Australia is Manildra, based in the state of New South Wales, using mostly a wheat-based feedstock. In late June, when this was written, the chances of this legislation being adopted were quite good. The issues to be resolved will be the percentage, the ability of petroleum retailers to opt out based on supply, and a number of other factors such as consumer education, compliance and reporting requirements and penalties for noncompliance. It&rsquo;s a great step in the right direction for a country that has not had a great deal of environmental focus from state and federal government. It is the hope of the biofuels and biomanufacturing industry that it will attract investment and help build a clean, renewable energy future for the state and the country. That&rsquo;s the way I see it. Author: Mike Bryan Chairman, BBI International mbryan@bbiinternational.com

2015/07/MIKE2005-EPM_14368133961175_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/MIKE2005-EPM_14368133961175_thumb.jpg

2015/07/MIKE2005-EPM_14368133961175.jpg

Legislation introduced in the state of Queensland in Australia would mandate biofuels blending, starting at 2 percent, writes Mike Bryan  of BBI International. This column appears in the August issue of EPM. 

Queensland to implement biofuels mandate     

Ethanol producers who host new product trials can get perks in exchange for their accommodations. Plants willing to test out and scale-up novel things are given opportunities to be first to market with new wares, for example, and they sometimes land discounts on future product purchases and licensing fees. These rewards haven&rsquo;t always been risk-free, of course&mdash;stories of trials gone wrong exist&mdash;but sophisticated planning has made serious blunders rare. In <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12423/trialing-innovation" target="_blank">&ldquo;Trialing Innovation,&rdquo;</a> EPM Senior Editor Susanne Retka Schill reports on how today&rsquo;s ethanol industry vendors have turned product and technology trials into relatively low-risk opportunities for producers to boost throughput or make efficiency gains. The story explains that ethanol plants and their vendor partners usually take several weeks or months to plan trials, establish patent protections and gather baseline data. Vendors understand that producers will host trials only when the upside is clear and the risk is low.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Demonstration-scale testing comes up again in our feature, which takes a look at debottlenecking applications aimed at helping producers accommodate greater throughput. In <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12422/drilling-into-distillation-dehydration" target="_blank">&ldquo;Drilling into Distillation, Dehydration,&rdquo;</a> Retka Schill reports on four new technologies designed to enable ethanol plants to free up their molecular sieves, or replace them altogether, to accommodate greater flow rates and more.&nbsp; Our cover story, highlights one ethanol plant employee who has helped drive continuous change at an Upper Midwest facility. In <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12421/operations-leader-optimizes-aging-plant" target="_blank">&ldquo;Operations Leader Optimizes Aging Plant,&rdquo;</a> EPM Managing Editor Holly Jessen introduces us to Bob Jewell, the veteran energy systems chief at Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. in Benson, Minnesota. With nearly two decades of cross-disciplined ethanol plant experience under his belt, Jewell is currently overseeing the installation of a new high-efficiency boiler at CVEC. Like so many optimization projects Jewell has been a part of at CVEC, the new energy center will add yet another layer of improved reliability and efficiency to the plant&rsquo;s operations.&nbsp; With many of our readers attending the American Coalition for Ethanol&rsquo;s annual conference in Omaha, Nebraska, in mid-August, we offer a timely update on the Midwest-based ethanol trade organization. In <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12419/ace-dreams-big-values-grassroots" target="_blank">&ldquo;ACE Dreams Big, Values Grassroots,&rdquo;</a> Jessen lays out the group&rsquo;s clear-eyed vision for market growth. ACE, as they say, is good people.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Finally, I want to thank everyone who attended this year&rsquo;s International Fuel Ethanol Workshop &amp; Expo in Minneapolis. What a show! With over 2,000 people, including 500-plus producers, in attendance this year, it was the best-attended FEW since 2009. That robust turnout says a lot about the state of our industry&mdash;committed and steadfast. <a href="http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/12420/undefinedpromoting-innovation-connecting-the-industryundefined" target="_blank">Check out the photos here.</a>
Author: Tom Bryan President &amp; Editor in Chief tbryan@bbiinternational.com

2015/07/Tom-Bryan-Ethanol_1436813521708_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Tom-Bryan-Ethanol_1436813521708_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Tom-Bryan-Ethanol_1436813521708.jpg

The August issue of EPM has a plant optimization theme and contains stories about new technologies, plant trials, a profile of an energy systems chief and more, writes Tom Bryan of BBI International. 

Low risk and reward 

Moisture content in wood chips used for energy can significantly influence system performance. Consequently, equipment and methods used to dry wood chip fuel are constantly evolving, as companies strive to perfect their respective processes, meet the needs of system operators and maximize plant efficiency. Drying methods today include simple, passive drying techniques to the advanced and energy-intensive methods. Adam Sherman, executive director of the Vermont-based Biomass Energy Resource Center, says that moisture content in wood fuels is a universal problem, and over the past couple of years, the trend has been importing European boilers to help with the job. &ldquo;In order to meet the efficiency and emissions standards that get more stringent each year, fuel quality becomes more important, and moisture content is really a big deal for efficiency because of latent heat loss, and also because the moisture vapor is often times a carrier for ultrafine particulates from an emissions standpoint,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re seeing some producers of wood chips realize there is an emerging market where a drier chip is desired and has value.&rdquo; Sophia Ren, a wood pellet plant consultant for Azeus Pellet Mill,&nbsp; manufacturer of pellet machines for biomass, says drying methods can run the gamut from using forced ambient air and residual heat from electricity generation to using larger-scale dryers. &ldquo;Drying is done through various methods, including passive evaporation from airflow and from active heating,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Air drying will occur if the ambient air passing through has a lower relative humidity than the wood chips. Evaporation of water can also be achieved through heating, generally with forced hot air. Wood chip piles can also self-dry, where compacted piles reach temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) through microbial action.&rdquo; Why Dry? Drying wood increases combustion value and lowers storage costs, as wood chips have less sensitivity to natural harmful effects such as microbiological degradation.&nbsp; &ldquo;Dried wood chips will perform better,&rdquo; Ren says. &ldquo;If the chips are too wet, it may be impossible to even keep the flame lit. With dry chips, the flame burns hotter and more evenly. Also, a smaller quantity of ash is produced, reducing the cost of ash disposal.&rdquo; For wood chips with a moisture content (MC) of 45 percent, the maximum boiler efficiency with standard equipment is about 74 percent. If the same stand and equipment is burning dry wood (10 to 15 percent MC), the efficiency can be as high as 80 percent. The BioMax 15, one of the latest projects made by TMU, the USDA Forest Product Laboratory Technology Marking Unit, is a unique example of a system that uses residual heat to dry fuel. The prototype combined-heat-and-power system was developed by the Community Power Corp. and operates by feeding wood chips&nbsp; with MC up to 25 percent from a hopper to a conveyor belt. &ldquo;The conveyor belt moves the chips though a dryer, which is heated by excess heat from the internal combustion engine,&rdquo; Ren says. &ldquo;After the chips dry to 15 percent moisture content, they are fed into the gasification hopper. The chips flow downward through the gasifer (operating at 1,472 F). Airflow through the wood chips is limited, so they are combusted under starved-oxygen conditions.&rdquo; Mark Froling, president of Froling Energy, says the company dries its screened chips in a batch process utilizing a custom kiln that circulates hot air through the green wood chip pile until the moisture is removed. The company installed nearly a dozen biomass boilers capable of reaching a half million Btu or more, which have been engineered to accommodate burning either wood pellets (5 to 10 percent moisture) or PDCs (20 to 30 percent moisture). &ldquo;We can dry about 40 tons of green material from 50 percent down to 25 percent in about 48 hours,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Others utilize a continuous process with a rotary drum dryer, fluidized bed dryer or belt dryer.&rdquo; This drying process raises the net usable energy content of the material from about 8 MMBtu&nbsp; to about 12 MMBtu per ton. It also provides a longer storage life for the material as degradation comes into play&mdash;for green chips, after about four months, rot and mildew issues are concerns. &ldquo;Furthermore, removal of the water makes transportation a bit easier during cold weather, as the chips won&rsquo;t freeze as quickly to the truck body during long transport, or when trucks need to be parked overnight,&rdquo; Froling says. &ldquo;The same is true for the chip storage. The drier the chips, the less clumping will occur during chip storage (freezing of chips in uninsulated bins) and the better the fuel will flow through the material handling systems.&rdquo; In recent years, Froling says he has noticed that some of the larger boilers utilized for wood pellets are also able to burn dry wood chip materials. After exploring various ways of manufacturing these dry chips, the company settled on its current process and started production of such chips. &ldquo;The economics are in favor of the dry chips by almost 30 percent once you get to a certain scale, but in some cases, the existing infrastructure or logistics still point to using pellet boilers,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;It is very convenient that these boilers are dual fuel boilers. It gives our customers some sense of security from a supply chain standpoint.&rdquo; Going Bigger For larger-scale wood chip dryers, different from the simple and traditional ways of drying, Ren says industrial production tends to choose newer dryers that make the production process more mechanized and efficient. &ldquo;Larger-scale dryers are expensive and commonly run using waster or byproduct heat in larger installations,&rdquo; she says. &ldquo;Dryer types used in drying biomass fuels include rotary, conveyor, cascade and flash dryers.&rdquo; Rotary dryers have been used for a long time in drying biomass fuels and are the most common dryer type in the existing large-scale bioenergy plants. &ldquo;The advantages of rotary dryers are they are less sensitive to particle size and can accept the hottest flue gas of any type of dryer,&rdquo; Ren explains. &ldquo;They also have low maintenance costs and the greatest capacity of any type of dryer. However, the material moisture is hard to control in rotary dryers, due to the long lag time for material in the dryer.&rdquo; Conveyor dryers can handle a wide range of materials, making them attractive for biomass feedstocks. &ldquo;The uniformity of drying using this method is strong, due to the shallow depth of material on the belt,&rdquo; Ren says. &ldquo;The advantages are that they are better suited to take advantage of waste heat recovery opportunities, since they operate at lower temperatures than rotary dryers. The lower temperature also implies less of a fire hazard and lower emission of volatile organic compounds. Flash dryers, usually combined with a cyclone, are normally used for small particles, and its gas stream velocity must be higher than the free fall velocity, according to Ren &ldquo;For wet or sticky materials, some of the dry material can be recycled back and mixed with the incoming wet material to improve handling. Meanwhile, the recirculation of the materials can also shorten the drying time. The main advantages are that it can dry thermolabile materials, due to the short contact time and parallel flow, and that the capital and maintenance costs are low.&rdquo; Cascade or sprouted dryers are used extensively in Nordic countries. &ldquo;This method operates at intermediate temperatures between those of rotary and conveyor dryers and have a smaller coverage area,&rdquo; Ren continues. Bertil Stromberg, vice president of biofuels at Andritz Inc., which touts its belt drying system, says by reducing the biomass water content to 10 to 15 percent, its calorific value is increased from 2 kilowatt hours (kWh) per kilogram (kg) to approximately 4.5 kWh/kg. This cuts transport and storage costs and creates ideal conditions for direct firing or optimum pelletizing properties, both for industrial and high-grade wood pellets. As a result of the drying process, less fuel input is required to generate energy, which also reduces the pollutant emissions caused by the combustion system. Other examples of larger-scale dryers on the market include Saimatec&rsquo;s vertical silo type dryer, and STELA Laxhuber GmbH&rsquo;s low-temperature belt dryer. Passive Methods Sherman says that a number of U.S. firms are looking at more passive drying methods, such as letting wood sit outside and dry before it&rsquo;s chipped. Some places in Europe use a grapple head and pincher, so as the wood is loaded off a truck, it&rsquo;s split lengthwise so there&rsquo;s more surface for drying. While this method can be used in the western U.S. and in states like Montana where sitting outdoors for a month or two is no problem, it doesn&rsquo;t work in the Northeast. Charles A. Levesque, president of Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC in Antrim, New Hampshire, says the company did research for a number of years on the best drying solutions and determined that the cost of some of the high-tech rotary and conveyor dryers couldn&rsquo;t be justified, so they are now air-drying feedstock before its chipped. &ldquo;We have researched the best stacking methods and species to understand what it takes to get something down to the moisture content we are looking for&mdash;which is sub-30 percent,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We do thousands of tons and it takes a lot of preplanning, but it can be done, and done well. We know if we ever get to the point of working with tens of thousands of tons, we will need some conventional drying, but this helps us reduce cost per unit of wood on a Btu basis.&rdquo; Sherman says there&rsquo;s also been an increase in demand around kiln-dried firewood, especially in the Northeast U.S. Going Solar Austrian company Cona-Solar is being championed for a low-tech method of predrying chips, Sherman notes. It works by blowing warm air to the Trocknungsbox, where the wood chips are dried on pitched and flat grates that have a drying capacity approximately 10,000 cubic meters. Through the construction of an underground heat storage stone, solar energy can also be used when the sun is not shining. Cona-Solar&rsquo;s solar method currently have 49 chip-drying systems in Austria, with a total solar area of 4000m&sup2; and can dry approximately 80,000 cubic meters of wood chips per year, removing nearly 14 million liters of water from wood chips. &ldquo;They have installations all around the world (in 17 countries), none in the U.S., but it&rsquo;s a simple solution that people could deploy here,&rdquo; Sherman says. He adds that the years ahead should bring out plenty more wood drying innovation for the wood chip and pellet industry. Author: Keith Loria Freelance writer, Biomass Magazine freelancekeith@gmail.com

MAXIMIZING EFFICIENCY: Wood chip rotary drum dryers have typically low maintenance costs and high capacity.  


2015/07/RotaryDrum-AugBMM070815_14370834211701_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/RotaryDrum-AugBMM070815_14370834211701_thumb.jpg

2015/07/RotaryDrum-AugBMM070815_14370834211701.jpg

DISSECTING AIR-DRYING: Innovative Natural Resource Solutionsâ€™s researched different stacking methods to determine effects on drying. Pictured is a softwood stack.  

2015/07/DissectingAirDrying-AugBMM070915_14370834201291.jpg

Adequately drying wood chip fuel is an important component of maximizing heat and power production, and techniques vary widely. 

Watching Wood Dry

At restaurants, people often order food based on how hungry they feel. The eyes are often larger than the stomach, so to get the biggest bang per buck, leftovers are boxed up and brought home for later consumption. While that takeout box serves as the buffer between overeating and a loss on already purchased food, the same concept applies to biogas storage options, which help balance the amount of gas generated versus used. &ldquo;In the biogas plant industry, if you&rsquo;re trying to generate electricity, you often need to equalize the biogas flow to the generating system,&rdquo; says Darin Evans, vice president of product management with Geomembrane Technologies Inc. &ldquo;They need to keep the engines running at a constant speed, so if there are variances in the digestion and creation of biogas, they need a way to attenuate the flow because the generator wants a steady, constant feed of biogas.&rdquo; Biogas is mainly stored for later on-site usage, or stored before or after transport to off-site distribution points or systems. Still, in practice, biogas is used as it is produced, making the need for biogas storage&mdash;like leftovers&mdash;usually temporary, at times when production exceeds consumption or during maintenance of digester equipment. &ldquo;Long-term biogas storage from a biogas plant is just not realistic,&rdquo; says Pat Howell, global business development director of bioenergy with CST Industries Inc. &ldquo;You want to move that gas as fast as you can, because it will go bad. You also want to move it to receive the revenues. It&rsquo;s really, produce it, move it on and get paid for what you produce.&rdquo; The added storage component at biogas plants can save producers, in the case of operational flux. &ldquo;Gas storage tanks are designed to compensate for fluctuations in production and consumption&mdash;for volume changes due to varying temperatures and, for example, stagnating consumption,&rdquo; says Patrick Johnson, business development manager for Sattler AG. &ldquo;For example, if the gas motor was not pulling as much gas as it would be under full power, then you need to store the extra gas that is being produced, rather than flaring it off. All of this money would just be burned up and turned into CO2 in the air, if the gas was flared. Whereas, when you have a variable-volume gasholder, you are able to store this extra gas and use it in the future when there is not as much being produced.&rdquo; Capacity to compensate for generation inconsistencies can make a significant contribution to the efficiency and safety of an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant&rsquo;s operation. Biogas storage options&mdash;whether integrated onto the digester itself or as a standalone unit&mdash;are making their way onto biogas project blueprints in North America. Suppliers of equipment, such as biogas holders, roofs and covers, made for biogas storage or to compensate for some storage, are working with project developers across the globe to help manage production and consumption variability. Dually Loaded Ideal gas storage volume varies based on each biogas installation design, substrate mixture and plant management. AD storage equipment design was transformed in the early 1980s with the invention of the dual-membrane concept. Austrian-based Sattler AG began developing the double-membrane gas storage (DMGS) tank in the form of a three-quarter sphere over 30 years ago. Sattler teamed up with its sister company Ceno Tec, a textile structure builder, to provide storage for biogas, substrates and fermentation residue. &ldquo;Over the years, we developed the concept from the three-quarter sphere type of layout into several different types of products,&rdquo; Johnson says. The traditional stand-alone, external biogas storage system Sattler provides is the DMGS tank. The general concept the company invented over 30 years ago is still the design standard used today, according to Johnson. &ldquo;It has an outer membrane, which is basically the protection against the elements,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Inside this external air-inflated shell, there is an inner membrane: and a bottom membrane. These two components are combined to form the gas space of the gasholder.&rdquo; Johnson adds that the same concept is carried on to the tank-mounted option with the exception of the bottom membrane. &ldquo;Tank-mounted units allow the gas to come off the substrate directly, and to be collected by the inner membrane on top of the tank itself,&rdquo; he says. Each of the membranes are anchored to the crown or to the outer wall of the steel or concrete tank using clamping rails. Both storage system configurations are air-supported. There is a supporting air blower that is constantly running, which keeps the outer membrane in shape to allow it to be resistant to wind and snow loading,&rdquo; he says. At the same time, the supporting air blower keeps the gas contained in the inner membrane under constant pressure, called the operating pressure, which serves to recirculate the biogas stored in the plant. GTI, another company in the biogas storage space, is now an exclusive supplier of dual-membrane systems provided by VSO Biogas Technologies of France. The company supplies floating gas-collection covers to recover biogas from lagoons and tanks, and inflated cover systems, both single- and dual-membrane. If storage is the goal, dual-membrane applications work best. &ldquo;The floating style covers are used over areas too large for dual-membrane systems,&rdquo; Evans says. &ldquo;They lay on the water surface and operate under a negative pressure. Therefore, there is no storage. Inflated single-membrane covers rely on stored biogas to remain stable, which means the biogas is not available to attenuate flows like the dual-membrane systems.&rdquo; The dual membrane cover&rsquo;s initial purpose is to regulate the pressure of the digester, Evans adds, and it also has the ability to store some volume of biogas based on a customer&rsquo;s needs. CST is a third storage solution company that supplies aluminum domes, coated-steel roofs, membrane covers, storage tanks and more. Howell says in the past few years, the company has keyed in on large projects, like one with Harvest Power near Disney World and another at the University of California Davis. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s where our business has been, and that has really been driven by the market, not by our choice,&rdquo; he says. Tank-mounted roofs and covers, and standalone biogas holders and tanks available for storage at small- and large-scale plants, can vary in how long they store gas. Sattler has received inquiries requiring stored gas for eight to 10 hours. &ldquo;I think that is mainly because plant operators need to have a certain amount of time for maintenance, for example, on a boiler or CHP combined-heat-and-power to change oil and things like this,&rdquo; Johnson says. He adds that Sattler has seen some plant designs requiring storage for the whole weekend because no gas-consuming equipment will be running. Johnson says some producers will also want to store gas during low feed-in tariff (FIT) times and supply electricity or upgraded renewable natural gas to the grid during peak-FIT times. Evans considers the ability to accumulate a volume of biogas for&nbsp; burning at times of peak energy demand a storage advantage, but not all plants benefit from peak energy generation; it depends on the rate agreement with the power utility. Storage also provides an assurance in meeting offtake agreements with electricity providers. Howell says long-term biogas storage, maybe four or five days at the max, may be needed.&nbsp; &ldquo;Long-term is more of an insurance policy, in case they are down and need to do some repairs,&rdquo; he says. State of Storage Whereas dual-membrane designs are inflated, offering a variable amount of gas storage, single-layer biogas roofs have only a static volume of gas available inside, Johnson says. Operational pressure is available for dual-membrane roofs because an air-supported system is added. Gas bags have no operational pressure inside, and although they can have variable volume, they will most likely need to be emptied via gas-suction pumps. Johnson adds that single-layer gas roofs and gas bags can serve as a buffer or means to collect gas, but they&nbsp; do not provide operational pressure. The operational pressure of the gas-holder can be adjusted to meet wind and snow-loading requirements, according to Johnson. &ldquo;Let&rsquo;s just say, for example, there is a higher wind load requirement for a project that is on an island, then you need to have higher pressures to operate at to resist the wind loading,&rdquo; he says. Sattler operates at pressures up to 50 millibar (mbar). CST&rsquo;s roof and membrane options range from 10 mbar for tank-mounted, dual-membrane foil covers to 60 mbar for its pressure dome and external-supported-fixed&nbsp; roof. &ldquo;Whether you&rsquo;re doing storage on top of a tank or on a ground-mounted storage system, whether it&rsquo;s a dual membrane or a tank just storing methane, the most economical design for anybody&rsquo;s tank or storage system will always be the lower-pressure range just from a structural-design standpoint,&rdquo; Howell says. Biogas storage systems can store biogas in its raw state. Another way to store biogas, especially in larger volumes at higher pressures, is to treat the gas by cleaning and compressing it. Low-pressure systems, usually below 2 pounds per square inch (psi), can store raw biogas, and tend to be the least expensive and easiest to use for intermediate storage and later on-site applications. Medium- (2 to 200 psi) and high-pressure storage systems, usually stored as compressed biomethane (CBM) or liquefied biomethane (LBM) (2,000 to 5,000 psi) require some treatment of the biogas, making them costly and high-maintenance options for noncommercial use. In some instances, to prevent corrosion of the tank components and to ensure safe operation, the biogas must first be cleaned by removing hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and then slightly compressed prior to storage. &ldquo;Storage is problematic unless you get all of the water and all of the H2S and, if possible, all of the CO2 out of the biogas before you compress it,&rdquo; says Bernard Sheff, chairman of the board of the American Biogas Council. Biogas that has been upgraded to biomethane by removing the H2S, moisture and CO2 can be used as transportation fuel. This fuel typically exceeds immediate on-site demand, so it must be stored, in most cases, as CBM or LBM. LBM can be transported relatively easily and dispensed to either liquefied natural gas or compressed natural gas vehicles. Biomethane can be stored as CBM to save space, stored in steel cylinders. In the case of the stand-alone, foundation-mounted units, the removal of H2S is typically done before the gasholder, Johnson says. &ldquo;We have built into the design of our tank-mounted units some supporting belts,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;On top of these belts, we call it a sulphur net that can be installed. What happens is that hydrogen-sulfide-consuming bacteria grow in colonies. Basically, it looks like a fish net; these hydrogen-sulfide-consuming bacteria grow there on the net, and they substantially lower the amount of H2S in the biogas.&rdquo; While Howell believes the H2S level is something to carefully monitor, he says storing raw biogas is usually not an issue. &ldquo;Whether on top of a tank or on the ground, you design the coatings of the materials that you build the storage structure out of to handle that H2S level or that methane gas mix level,&rdquo; he says. Secret is in the Sauce Nearly 75 percent of digesters built worldwide are sectional-bolted tanks either in an epoxy, stainless steel or glass coating, Howell says. He attributes this to speed of construction. To Howell, one of the most important details for a tank manufacturer or a membrane or gas holder supplier is selecting the right coating. &ldquo;What I have seen in biogas plants that have had tank or membrane failures, is really attributed to whoever sold it to them originally didn&rsquo;t select the right material, the right coating, to give them the longevity that they should get out of that piece of equipment,&rdquo; Howell says. CST offers glass, stainless steel, epoxy, aluminum and PVC-coated polyester coating materials for its biogas roofs. The company has manufacturing plants in Illinois and Kansas that together create the panels in all options. &nbsp;Sattler&rsquo;s membranes are produced in-house. &ldquo;We start by weaving the individual threads into a foundation fabric and determine the best type of coating to put on the fabric-base mat, and then apply the various specialized layers of coatings, so it has the qualities that we need in order to resist biogas effects and have good UV protection/resistance, flexibility and things like this,&rdquo; Johnson says. &ldquo;The secret is in the sauce with all of the components that make up the membrane.&rdquo; If the right coating is chosen as a storage solution, suppliers agree minimal maintenance is needed and longevity will remain. &ldquo;The longest one we&rsquo;ve had in service is 23 years on the original membranes itself,&rdquo; Johnson says. &ldquo;Different gases have different effects on gasholders, so some aggressive gases can cause a shortened life span and some very inert gases can cause a very long life span on the gas holder.&rdquo; GTI, CST, Sattler and others team up with project developers to seek the best biogas storage solution for the unique array of AD installations. &ldquo;Our standard for going into the biogas market is to build a relationship with the process companies, the engineers who are actually developing the project and the customer, and help them size and choose tank roofs, whether they want a dual membrane for biogas storage or a fixed cover to put mixers in,&rdquo; Howell says. &ldquo;We want to help them find the most economical tank design that will give them the longevity they want out of their biogas plant.&rdquo; Evans believes that, ultimately, it is better to not rely on storage and try to size the generating system to match the amount of gas produced. &ldquo;That is really the first step, in my mind, for any developer, to try to match the two systems&mdash;the amount you are going to generate versus the amount you are going to consume&mdash;and that these products are just meant to make the operation of the system a bit smoother.&rdquo; In the end, equipment used for biogas storage is in place to improve a plant&rsquo;s efficiency, and the ultimate goal for equipment providers is to help the customer make sure their baseload is covered. Johnson says, &ldquo;It&rsquo;s nice to have a gas buffer in place to ensure that a constant supply of gas is available to run the engine at a constant speed all of the time, while simultaneously having the capacity to store extra gas instead of flaring it.&rdquo; Author: Katie Fletcher Associate Editor, Biomass Magazine 701-738-4920 kfletcher@bbiinternational.com

Dual Membrane: VSO Biogas Technologiesâ€™ double-membrane gas holders consist of a polyester composite and a PVC coating. The inner 
membrane has chemical resistance to biogas elements, and the outer has mechanical characteristics resistant to climat

2015/07/DualMembrane-AugBMM15_14370829103456_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/DualMembrane-AugBMM15_14370829103456_thumb.jpg

2015/07/DualMembrane-AugBMM15_14370829103456.jpg

Beer to Biogas: Makers of the amber ale Fat Tire, New Belgium Brewing Co. in Fort Collins, 
Colorado, process all of the brewery production wastewater through a series of aerobic and anaerobic basins. As part of this system, JDV Equipment supplied tw

2015/07/BeerToBiogas-AugBMM15_14370829094044.jpg

GROUND-MOUNTED: Commonly used in conjunction with other storage vessels to store and regulate gas from the process, these gasholders have a PVC-coated membrane for methane gas storage that can hold up to 15,000 cubic meters of gas.   

2015/07/GroundMounted-AugBMM15_14370829113915.jpg

TANK-MOUNTED: This gasholder is mounted right on the tank and has a PVC-coated dual membrane for methane gas storage at Harvest Powerâ€™s biogas facility in Orlando, Florida, which accepts 250 tons of organic waste per day from Disney World and other

2015/07/TankMounted-BMMAug15_14370829124323.jpg

Storage at biogas plants, although usually short-term, can ensure generating systems receive a steady gas flow at desired volume and pressure.

Biogas Buffer

When a landfill owner who had recently installed a landfill gas-to-energy system was not getting the volume of gas he initially expected, he asked MIT graduate student Melinda Sims to help him solve the problem. After hatching the idea of automated wellheads in 2012, Sims and fellow graduate student Andy Campanella found themselves launching a startup company, that, in just a few years, has been able to prototype, raise adequate seed money, hire on engineers and additional staff and complete two pilot installations. The future looks bright for Loci Controls, which believes that its technology appeals to not only those collecting and utilizing the gas for a variety of purposes, but landfill owners, as well. Sean Bamforth, director of business development, explains that the continuous monitoring WellWatcher device is mounted onto the gas-collection wellhead, and monitors collected gas for temperature, flow rate, and pressure, as well as methane content, carbon dioxide content and oxygen content, all parameters typical for landfill gas measurement devices on the market today. What differentiates the device, however, is that the automatic control WellWatcher has a remotely actuated valve along with those measurement capabilities. &ldquo;The valves control the extraction pressure on an individual well,&rdquo; Bamforth explains. &ldquo;The idea is to adjust extraction pressure to maximize the energy content of the gas being produced from the well. We use distributed feedback loops from the WellWatchers, and are able to make frequent changes to the collection system to match the landfill-gas collection rate with the rate at which it is being produced.&rdquo; This allows a gas collector to increase collection efficiency and get more gas by taking more frequent readings and making adjustments. &nbsp; How It Works Under current practices, a landfill technician uses a handheld meter to test every well on-site once or twice a month. Reasons for testing include ensuring a negative pressure in each well, making sure oxygen doesn&rsquo;t go above a certain percent&mdash;typically 4 or 5 percent&mdash;and that the temperature isn&rsquo;t over a certain threshold. Elevated temperatures can indicate a fire, and higher oxygen is undesired, as it fuels the fire and can stifle methane generation. &nbsp;Typically, a technician analyzes data and makes changes to, or &ldquo;tunes&rdquo; the well field, in hopes of increasing output.&nbsp; &ldquo;However, wells are highly correlated and whenever a change is made to one well, the entire system changes,&rdquo; Bamforth says. &ldquo;When you suck harder from an individual well, more methane isn&rsquo;t being generated&mdash;it&rsquo;s the same volume of gas produced, which is the function of environmental conditions, the waste in landfill, how much moisture and water are in the landfills, lots of things we have no control over&mdash;but rather, the goal is to try to exactly match the collection rate with generation rate.&rdquo; &nbsp;If a technician measures one well and makes a change, and then measures another and makes a change, the latter change could undo the previous change. &ldquo;So when a technician pulls harder on one well, it changes the dynamic of the entire landfill, and it might be a detriment to other wells,&rdquo; Bamforth says. With Loci Controls&rsquo; technology, a series of changes can be made and evaluated in real time. &ldquo;We can continue doing that until we find an optimized state that a technician might happen upon, but would be impossible with only one or two meters going at the same time,&rdquo; Bamsforth says. He compares the automated system as possessing the same capabilities as 20 technicians on-site, taking readings every hour and communicating with each other to maximize output. &ldquo;We do this by running the measurements taken on site through a custom control algorithm that is designed to maximize energy output,&rdquo; he says. While meters, or handheld valves, aren&rsquo;t placed on all of the wells&mdash;it is currently cost-prohibitive&mdash;Loci takes advantage of a phenomenon commonly seen in landfills: the 80-20 rule. &ldquo;That means 80 percent of the gas comes from 20 percent of the wells,&rdquo; Bamforth says. &ldquo;Wells collapse over time, get flooded out and aren&rsquo;t as effective, so a certain small percentage produce the majority of the gas, and those are the wells we want to be on.&rdquo; The company&rsquo;s first installation was at the Crapo Hill Landfill in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, which was funded by a grant from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. More Gas, More Power Crapo&rsquo;s landfill gas-to-energy system is equipped with four 0.8-MW gensets, but the landfill operators were only getting enough gas to run three of them. &ldquo;Essentially, they had a multimillion dollar engine going unused,&rdquo; Bamforth says. &ldquo;We installed, and they were able to turn on the fourth engine because of the additional gas we were able to get them.&rdquo; Gas production at Crapo was increased by 25 percent, resulting in a 10 percent increase in electricity sales. Bamsforth notes that the gas is 50 percent methane, so although gas flow went up 25 percent, the energy content only rose 12.5 percent. &ldquo;Due to some efficiency losses in the engines, the result was a 10 percent increase in power production, but that was significant for them. With all four running at 80 percent capacity, they&rsquo;re a little less efficient&mdash;at full capacity is where they&rsquo;re the most efficient. It could have been as been as much as a 14 percent increase in additional electricity sales, it just so happens we got the short end of the stick with the efficiency curve.&rdquo; Most power plants are oversized and have excess capacity, and Bamforth says the technology will help them utilize that capacity, increasing revenues and lessening payback time on equipment. In addition, at Crapo, the system cut fugitive gases by 25 percent. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s what causes odors&mdash;and odor complaints, Bamforth says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s something landfill owners care about, so even if with unused capacity it can still be a benefit. Because we&rsquo;re checking every hour versus once a month, we can find out if there is one or more flooded wells right away. They can send a worker to pump out plugged wells so they can produce gas again. If three wells are plugged and it goes on for three weeks, you&rsquo;ll get some local emissions in that area, whereas if you identify that issue immediately, you can avoid it. The No. 1 reason landfills are shut down early is because citizens band together because they&rsquo;re annoyed with the odors.&rdquo; A second installation at Pine Tree Landfill in Maine was recently completed, and other sites are interested in trying out the technology, but haven&rsquo;t yet signed up, according to Bamforth. &ldquo;We recently revised our pricing to basically breakeven to help incentivize people to use our service,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Our biggest challenge right now is getting people to be an early adaptor of our technology.&rdquo; Bamforth says he is unaware of any others in the world with a technology exactly like Loci Controls.&rsquo;&nbsp; &ldquo;There are companies that make monitoring devices that can measure all the same things we can, but they are either handheld and must be charged on a daily basis, or they must be hardwired into the electrical system. Our units are fully wireless, they work off a battery, and are charged via solar. Each unit also has its own cellular modem, and these last two points are really what differentiates our product.&rdquo; The technology might also appeal to high-Btu projects&mdash;in particular, the monitoring component. &ldquo;For them, there&rsquo;s a very high cost to remove nitrogen, for example,&rdquo; Bamforth says. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re more excited about using the monitoring unit to discover where the better gas is coming from&mdash;the purer gas with less ambient air and less nitrogen. For them, it&rsquo;s more of a quality thing. Our current algorithm, which we designed at Crapo, is designed to maximize energy, which is a function of methane content and gas flow rate. There&rsquo;s a peak we&rsquo;re trying to find for the entire landfill. The problem is, particularly for nitrogen, you can&rsquo;t measure with an optical sensor like you can carbon dioxide, methane or oxygen, and it&rsquo;s very expensive to take those readings.&rdquo; Bamforth adds that Loci Controls&rsquo; units won&rsquo;t possess those capabilities in the near future, but that the company has no reason to believe it won&rsquo;t be able to provide a solution for people looking for better gas quality. &ldquo;The information, the data, there&rsquo;s been no way to get that, and we&rsquo;ve built a tool that can.&rdquo; Authors: Anna Simet Managing Editor, Biomass Magazine asimet@bbiinternational.com 701-738-4961

MEASURING METHANE: Loci Controlsâ€™ WellWatcher device is mounted onto gas collection wellheads to monitor gas for everything from temperature and flow rate to oxygen content.

2015/07/MeasuringMethane-AugBMM15_14370830757426_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/MeasuringMethane-AugBMM15_14370830757426_thumb.jpg

2015/07/MeasuringMethane-AugBMM15_14370830757426.jpg

Optimizing gas collection at landfills is the core component of Loci Controls' new technology.

Getting More Gas

Successful biomass-based projects, including biogas projects, require several project pieces to come together and hold, with some adjustments over the operational life of a project.&nbsp; Some of those pieces include project financing, public policy, feedstock supply, logistics, infrastructure, permitting and end-use markets.&nbsp; At both state and federal levels, public policy is a crucial piece of project puzzle and helps enable initial project success and long-term viability.&nbsp; Public policy can help bring new production processes and technology to market, foster long-term innovation through public-private research and development efforts, ensure streamlined regulatory methods without sacrificing needed oversight, and provide long-term certainty. Achieving all of these desired outcomes from public policy at the state or federal level can be a challenge. Currently, the biomass industry, including biogas projects, is facing several critical policy junctures. Implementation of the U.S. EPA&rsquo;s proposed Clean Power Plan could have significant impacts on biomass-based electricity projects. Biomass utilization to help meet state carbon reduction goals will be dependent on an evaluation framework for biogenic carbon emissions and the sustainable sourcing of agricultural and forestry feedstocks.&nbsp; EPA is expected to issue the final rule for the Clean Power Plan later this summer. In May, EPA proposed volumetric obligations for the renewable fuel standard (RFS) covering calendar years 2014, 2015 and 2016. The proposed volumes are a significant reduction from the volumes required by law. When originally passed by Congress, the RFS was designed to give the biomass-based renewable fuels industry long-term market certainty through an increasing obligation for blending renewable fuels into our existing fuel supply. RFS implementation, which has reduced volumetric requirements, has eroded the certainty originally provided for in law. The draft EPA RFS volumetric requirements are disappointing, and, ironically, come at a time when biogas-based gallons of renewable fuel are increasing. About a year ago, EPA modified the RFS rules to allow biogas generated from landfill, wastewater, or agricultural feedstocks to certify cellulosic renewable information numbers (RINs). The slight modification in regulatory compliance was successful, and in 2014, over 32 million cellulosic RINs were generated, nearly all from biogas-based sources. As of May, over 9 million cellulosic RINs have been reported, again nearly all from biogas-based sources. In most instances, biogas-based fuel is replacing fossil fuel in the heavy-duty vehicle market, a market that doesn&rsquo;t have many low-carbon or renewable options. The EPA proposal for renewable fuel volume obligations may also have an impact on state and local policies aiming to help commercialize advanced and cellulosic fuels. As I wrote in February, the Minnesota legislature was considering establishing a production incentive program for the commercial deployment of advanced biofuel, renewable chemical, and biomass heat using Minnesota agricultural and forestry feedstocks. I am pleased to report that the new bioeconomy production incentive program became law on July 1, and over the next three years, $2 million will be appropriated to the program. Projects have until 2025 to come online in Minnesota, and once a project begins operating, it is eligible for an annual payment&mdash; based on production volumes&mdash;for 10 years. The statutory language allows up to 18 projects to receive financing assistance. As the program grows and more projects are commercialized, the Minnesota legislature may need to designate more money for the program. The definition of an advanced biofuel in the Minnesota program is based on the EPA determination of advanced and cellulosic fuels under the RFS program. Biogas-based transportation fuel projects built in Minnesota and receiving RFS credit would also qualify for the new incentive program.&nbsp; The newly authorized program in Minnesota sends a strong signal that the state wants to continue leading in the development of a strong biofuels industry, while also capturing new biomass-based project opportunities, like biobased chemicals, to utilize the abundant agricultural and forestry feedstock supply. In order to ensure that Minnesota is able to take full advantage of the advanced and cellulosic renewable fuel opportunity, EPA RFS program certainty will be critical. Project investors and developers in Minnesota and around the country will continue to utilize state and federal programs and other public policies to put their project pieces together to build new technology and bring low-carbon cellulosic fuels to market. Authors: Amanda Bilek Government Affairs Manager, Great Plains Institute 612-278-7118 abilek@gpisd.net

2015/07/Amanda-Bilek,-biogas_14370831829282_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Amanda-Bilek,-biogas_14370831829282_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Amanda-Bilek,-biogas_14370831829282.jpg

Project investors and developers in Minnesota and around the country will continue to utilize state and federal programs and other public policies to put project pieces together to build new technology and bring low-carbon cellulosic fuels to market.

Public Policy Helps, Hinders Projects

NREL recognizes researcher The National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently recognized the professionals behind the lab&rsquo;s greatest achievements for the past year. Min Zhang was named distinguished innovator for her work to support the U.S. Department of Energy&rsquo;s Bioenergy Technology Program by engineering advanced microbes to further the adoption of cellulosic biofuels. Zhang has contributed 80 peer-reviewed papers, numerous meeting abstracts, and 21 issued patents. She helped transfer foundational biotechnologies to companies with three commercial licenses incorporating her innovations, including DuPont&rsquo;s cellulosic ethanol facility in Nevada, Iowa.&nbsp; Corbion Purac&rsquo;s PLA resin awarded certification Corbion Purac&rsquo;s PLA resin has been certified as compostable by Vincotte of Vilvoorde, Belgium. The PLA resins have been awarded the OK Compost logo and the European Bioplastics Association&rsquo;s Seedling logo. CH2M adds team member SCH2M has added David Parry, an anaerobic digestion (AD), codigestion and thermal hydrolysis process specialist, to its wastewater and residuals resource recovery team. In his new role, Parry will primarily serve as a senior technology consultant and project manager on projects that include AD, codigestion, cogeneration, and thermal hydrolysis technologies. He has more than 35 years of experience in planning and design experience providing program management, and construction and operational assistance for wastewater treatment, solids processing and energy projects. He also brings expertise in effluent heat recovery, pyrolysis, gasification and combustion to CH2M&rsquo;s consulting services. Most recently, Parry served as senior vice president and technical strategy leader at CDM Smith, where he was responsible for the company&rsquo;s biosolids and energy recovery practice. Neste Oil announces name change Effective June 1, Neste Oil has changed its name to Neste Oyj in Finnish, Neste Abp in Swedish and Neste Corp. in English. The decision to drop Oil from the name reflects the company&rsquo;s transformation from a traditional oil refiner to a global pioneer in renewable fuels. The name change will not concern the company&rsquo;s service stations at this time. The decision on the schedule of changing the name of the station chain will be made at a later date so that it can be scheduled and implemented reasonably and cost-efficiently. Amyris adds board member, executives&nbsp; Amryis Inc. has announced the planned resignation of Nam-Hai Chua and the designation of Bram Klaeijsen to serve as a member of the company&rsquo;s board of directors. Klaeijsen is a business leader from Cargill Inc. and has served in various roles with affiliates of Temasek Holding. The company has also announced the appointments of Caroline Hadfield as senior vice president of personal care and Cynthia Bryant as senior vice president of corporate development and collaborations. Hadfield previously served as global product director for Bodyshop International and as senior vice president at Sephora. Bryant previously served as senior director of marketing and business development for Novozymes, where she developed and managed the company&rsquo;s global household care business. LanzaTech adds team member LanzaTech has announced the appointment of Jean Paul Michel as executive vice president of strategy, finance and operations. Michel will lead a new team that will coordinate all core support functions of the company as it enters the commercialization phase, including safety, finance, human resources, information technology and procurement. Michel previously served as global chief operating officer and group head of operations at OSRAM for its traditional lighting business unit. RSB approves low ILUC risk standard The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials kicked off its annual General Assembly meeting with a delegation vote on the new &ldquo;Low ILUC Risk Biomass Criteria and Compliance Indicators.&rdquo; The standard was approved by consensus and will be an optional module for operations undergoing RSB certification. Waste to Wisdom project launches new website Waste to Wisdom (W2W) has launched a new website that highlights the three-year effort and its objective to make better use of forest residues from timber harvests and thinning. W2W is funded by the $5.88 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and is led by Humboldt State University with assistance from 15 regional partners. The grant is part of the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, a collaborative effort between the DOE and the USDA that supports renewable energy research in the rural U.S. Solegear announces management, board changes Solegear Bioplastic Technologies Inc. has announced the resignation of Toby Reid, the company&rsquo;s CEO and member of the board. Paul Antoniadis, director of the company, has been appointed to serve as interim CEO. As a Solegear director, investor and advisor to the management team, Antoniadis has played an integral role in building the company&rsquo;s commercial activities, strategic partnerships and supply chain capabilities. He is a former CEO of Best Buy Europe, a joint venture between U.S.-based Best Buy and FTSE 100 The Carphone Warehouse. Reverdia appoints business manager for Europe Reverdia, a joint venture between Royal DSM and Roquette Fr&egrave;res, has appointed Pascal Moritz as new business development manager for Europe. Moritz previously served as business manager at the biobased polymers division of Roquette Fr&egrave;res.&nbsp; Jamerson joins Ensyn&rsquo;s board of directors Bruce Jamerson has joined Ensyn Corp.&rsquo;s board of directors. He will represent Ensyn&rsquo;s Preferred A shareholders, replacing Bill Weld, who will continue to serve on the board, having been elected to do so by Ensyn&rsquo;s shareholders in the last annual general meeting. Jamerson has served as chairman and CEO of Mascoma Corp. and was president and a board member of VeraSun Energy Corp. He is currently president of Conifer Investments LLC and holds board positions with Benson Hill Biosystems and Novita LLC.

2015/07/Jamerson_14371396592524.jpg

2015/07/Klaeijsen_14371396602613.jpg

2015/07/Antoniadis_14371396585522.jpg

2015/07/Michel_14371396612717.jpg

2015/07/Moritz_1437139662325.jpg

2015/07/Parry_14371396632417.jpg

2015/07/Zhang_14371396642766.jpg

Whether through open ponds, raceways or closed photobioreactors (PBR), growing algae is both a science and an art. Just as there are numerous ways to grow algae, its uses are exponentially varied: high-end nutraceuticals, cosmetics, pharma ingredients, fine chemicals, food ingredients, proteins for livestock and aquaculture, and biofuels. In the biofuels category alone, some companies focus on lipids to manufacture biodiesel and renewable diesel, others target sugars to ferment into ethanol, and still others concentrate on general biomass production to produce bio-oil or green crude. While open ponds may be right for some applications, Miguel Olaizola, director of production science with Heliae Development LLC, says PBRs have certain advantages over open systems. PBRs can, for example, offer some protection from contamination, but they can&rsquo;t eliminate it completely. &ldquo;This means that the costs associated with taking down a culture, cleaning the system and reinoculating can be lower since the frequency of culture crashes is expectedly lower,&rdquo; Olaizola tells Biomass Magazine. &ldquo;PBRs can also be more efficient at utilizing the carbon dioxide provided to phototrophic cultures, again lowering costs.&rdquo; He says PBRs can also save on water usage since evaporation is better controlled, noting that in warmer locales this may lead to higher cooling costs. &ldquo;In places where windblown sand and dust persist, PBRs can keep the ash content of the crop low,&rdquo; Olaizola adds. &ldquo;Finally, cultures in PBRs can be more effective at harvesting sunlight while minimizing photo-inhibition, resulting in a higher photosynthetic efficiency.&rdquo; The No. 1 reason closed PBRs may be better than open ponds for growing algae is light distribution, says Paul Woods, founder and CEO of Algenol LLC. &ldquo;Getting a little light to the maximum number of cells is the key, and there is ample evidence now that vertical beats horizontal by at least two to one,&rdquo; Woods says. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s also important to be able to manage passively or actively factors such as temperature, pH, salinity, oxygen, nutrient levels and contaminants.&rdquo; Woods says the closed system allows for better passive, systematic and automated controls of the conditions necessary for optimum growth. &ldquo;Our system also allows the entire culture to have sun exposure and doesn&rsquo;t require expensive mixing,&rdquo; he says.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ultimately, closed PBRs may be better than ponds for certain products but not for others, according to Olaizola. &ldquo;Also, they may be better for some parts of the process, such as seed or inoculum production, but not for others, like very large-scale units,&rdquo; he says, adding that in the end, one should judge a specific growth system on a very simple metric: money spent (capital expenses plus operating expenses) per ton of final product generated of a certain quality. Algae Systems Last August, Algae Systems LLC announced successful completion of a unique algae demonstration unit with Japan&rsquo;s IHI Corp. located at a wastewater treatment plant in Daphne, Alabama. The PBRs take up about a half-acre of space but instead of using up precious land, they float in Mobile Bay. The setup is unique; not only is algae grown for biofuel conversion, but in doing so, Algae Systems provides a service to Daphne Utilities by treating 40,000 to 60,000 gallons of wastewater per day. &ldquo;We&rsquo;re connected to their sewer line, so we take dirty water from them and give clean water back to them,&rdquo; says Eric Sundstrom, principal research engineer with Algae Systems. &ldquo;The wastewater supplies all the nutrients the algae need, and a vast majority of the carbon.&rdquo; The continuous batch system is totally enclosed, so nothing is taken from or dumped into the bay. Gravity feeds the wastewater into the PBRs and once algae blossom through photosynthesis while consuming nutrients and carbon, the raw, aqueous algae is pumped into the plant where it is dewatered. The treated water is then discharged through regular, permitted channels. Algae Systems grows entirely natural, ecological polycultured strains. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t actively control what we grow,&rdquo; Sundstrom says. &ldquo;What happens is, different strains dominate at different times of the year due to environmental conditions and ecology predation. If one strain is taken out by a predator, many other strains are present to fill that need. It&rsquo;s a stable system, and we need that because we cannot have crop failure. If we do, wastewater treatment goes down. We don&rsquo;t have culture crash, just variation in the dominant strain.&rdquo; Mobile Bay is home to 24 of these floating bags. They are made of flexible plastic and are 150 feet long by 6 feet wide. They are durable too. Mobile Bay has alligators, and on occasion they like to get atop the PBRs and soak up the sun. The company is on its second-generation of PBRs. &ldquo;We did a complete redesign,&rdquo; Sundstrom says. &ldquo;We corrected everything we learned from the first generation.&rdquo; For starters, the whole system is automated via PLC controls, so it can be easily run without anyone attending it. Durability was also improved. &ldquo;We streamlined it and eliminated failure points,&rdquo; Sundstrom says. Algae Systems works with famed shoe company Nike on the plastic material. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s a better UV-stabilized material,&rdquo; he says. The second-gen units are also twice as big as their predecessors. &ldquo;We try to keep costs low because you can&rsquo;t get much cheaper than two layers of plastic, flexible film,&rdquo; Sundstrom says, &ldquo;so we&rsquo;re trying to drive the cost of plastic down, for which we pay a small premium now.&rdquo; Another unique design component is the cooling and mixing effects of the water on which the PBRs float. &ldquo;We can make use of any body of water for cultivation requiring no infrastructure and no leveled land,&rdquo; Sundstrom says. &ldquo;Also, our design can run a system with no added carbon dioxide&mdash;the wastewater provides ample organic carbon, it&rsquo;s a very nice gas exchange. The algae produce oxygen as they grow, and there&rsquo;s enough carbon in most wastewater to get full wastewater treatment in our system with no added carbon dioxide.&rdquo; He says while there are some benefits to adding carbon dioxide to the PBRs, it&rsquo;s not necessary. Algae Systems&rsquo; conversion approach, in partnership with Auburn University, is a hydrothermal liquefaction process that utilizes wet algae, saving time and money on drying. Hydrothermal liquefaction can also extract oil from nonlipid portions of algae biomass. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s important because we&rsquo;re not growing pure, high-lipid strains in our system,&rdquo; Sundstrom says. The end result is bio-oil suitable as-is for bunker fuel or further hydrotreating into renewable diesel or biojet fuel. Sundstrom says Algae Systems will continue refining its PBR system. &ldquo;At this stage, it&rsquo;s no longer about proof of concept, but mechanical reliability, performance and scale-up,&rdquo; he tells Biomass Magazine. Algenol Algenol&rsquo;s Direct-to-Ethanol technology is a unique, two-step process that produces ethanol directly from the algae. Algenol then converts the spent algae biomass to biodiesel, green gasoline and biojet fuel. The company currently has two demonstration facilities, one in Ft. Myers, Florida, and another in India near Reliance Industries Ltd.&rsquo;s oil refinery, the largest in the world. &ldquo;We have approximately 7,000 [PBR] units in Florida at our demonstration facility, and a smaller unit in India,&rdquo; says Woods. &ldquo;We are currently planning for the same size unit in India as in Florida.&rdquo; Algenol&rsquo;s 100-liter PBRs are constructed of a flexible plastic film with a proprietary design that best facilitates ethanol production and biomass collection. &ldquo;The plastic used for PBR construction has been specifically engineered and enhanced to optimize a variety of performance metrics,&rdquo; Woods says. &ldquo;Each individual PBR consists of ports for ethanol and biomass collection and the introduction of carbon dioxide.&rdquo; He says Algenol&rsquo;s PBRs are designed to maximize light exposure to all cells, to evenly dispense carbon dioxide throughout the culture, and to last many years in the field. &ldquo;Once the PBRs are deployed, it&rsquo;s important for everything to be automated to save time and money,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;Nutrient and carbon dioxide levels are monitored and adjusted in an automated fashion to allow for the most optimal growth conditions. After a batch of algae is harvested, the bag is cleaned in place and reinoculated with the next batch.&rdquo; Annually, Algenol&rsquo;s PBRs produce 8,000 gallons of liquid fuels per acre. A majority of the liquid fuel is ethanol, with about 1,000 gallons of gasoline, jet, and diesel fuel refined from the green crude. &ldquo;This compares favorably to corn at 420 gallons per acre per year,&rdquo; Woods says. &ldquo;We use 5 percent of the land that corn ethanol uses to make the same amount of fuel, so our land use is much more efficient than other biofuels. In addition, we don&rsquo;t need farmland&mdash;we need marginal land. We also use saltwater, not freshwater, in our process.&rdquo; Through the years, Algenol has experimented with several different plastics, orientations, sizes and spacing, and found that its current PBRs produce the best yields. &ldquo;We&rsquo;ve evolved from horizontal to vertical design, from smaller sizes to larger sizes,&rdquo; Woods says. &ldquo;Perhaps most significantly, we now manufacture our own PBRs, which allows us greater control over the product.&rdquo; He says outdoor testing has proven Algenol PBRs are durable, lasting up to three years. &ldquo;Weather-ometer testing simulates eight years,&rdquo; Woods says. &ldquo;So far, we target six years in the field.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp; Woods says the state of PBR art today is varied, and often changed to best suit the product being produced and its value. &ldquo;We will always continue to do R&amp;D to further drive yield and reduce cap-ex,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;While we are happy with our ability now to produce fuel for $1.30 a gallon and to produce 8,000 gallons per acre per year, we are always seeking to do even better. Future improvements will come from enhancement to our PBRs and to our algae strain itself.&rdquo; He adds that it&rsquo;s important to emphasize PBRs&rsquo; ability to concentrate carbon dioxide uptake. &ldquo;One metric ton of carbon dioxide fed into the Algenol process produces around 144 gallons of fuels,&rdquo; he notes, adding that algae technologies such as Algenol&rsquo;s are the only solution to mitigating climate change while monetizing carbon dioxide through utilization. &ldquo;This drastically alters the current paradigm by turning an environmental and economic liability into a revenue-generating asset,&rdquo; he says. Heliae Development Heliae Development manufactures a whole array of programmable PBRs of different sizes and capacities, depending on the purpose of a specific culture, Olaizola says. &ldquo;Our PBRs are designed to provide optimal growth conditions for specific crops,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;They&rsquo;re designed to adjust, in real time, growth conditions such as pH, nutrient concentrations, temperature and more.&rdquo; He explains that the effectiveness of control of growth parameters is, itself, dependent on a good understanding of turbulence within the reactor. &ldquo;Depending on the unit, the PBRs may have a photic zone, a zone for gas exchange, a zone for temperature control, shade control,&rdquo; he says. Different probes provide signals that are communicated to a PLC programmed to respond to those signals by adjusting, for example, valves that permit carbon dioxide to be bubbled into the culture or add nutrient components on demand. &ldquo;This approach offers us the flexibility to use the same PBR for very different crops,&rdquo; he says. The smallest-scale PBRs Heliae uses are standard lab units&mdash;flasks and carboys&mdash;up to 20 liters. The next step in scaling up includes the use of proprietary plastic PBRs with capacities of up to 400 liters. &ldquo;Depending on the crop, we also use glass tubular reactors up to 550 liters,&rdquo; Olaizola says. The smaller units have two functions&mdash;product development and production of inoculum, or seed, for larger production units. The larger units consist of open-channel reactors protected by a greenhouse-type structure that provides the benefits of closed PBRs at a very large scale. &ldquo;Our newest PBR has a capacity of 600,000 liters over a 4,000-square-meter footprint,&rdquo; Olaizola says. &ldquo;We use some of the smaller units in mixotrophic mode&mdash;the algae receive both sunlight and fixed carbon (e.g., acetate), which results in productivities of 1 to 1.5 grams per liter per day equivalent, in our system, to 1 to 1.5 kilograms per square meter per day.&rdquo; Olaizola says what makes Heliae&rsquo;s PBRs unique is harnessing not only phototrophic growth platforms, but also mixotrophic. &ldquo;This is accomplished by combining the right vessel with the specific production mode,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We have PBRs from lab-scale to 130,000-liter capacity that can be used in mixotrophic mode. The ability to shift a culture between purely phototrophic and mixotrophic production modes sets us apart. It gives us the ability to modulate the production of certain cellular components, which results in a more valuable crop.&rdquo; The company has two dozen PBRs of different designs and scale at its facilities in Gilbert, Arizona, along with one system at Arizona State University (also in Gilbert), and six systems in Japan. &ldquo;We recently conducted a six-month demonstration test using some of our units colocated at an incinerator plant in the city of Saga in southwest Japan,&rdquo; Olaizola says. The project in Japan [with Sincere Corp.] has now moved into the construction phase of a commercial facility using our proprietary technology and reactors.&rdquo; Commissioning is expected early next year. Some of Heliae&rsquo;s reactors have been in operation for several years, but proper preventive maintenance has maintained the systems, which Olaizola says have run nearly continuously. &ldquo;Perhaps the most common repair needed every few months is a bad pH probe,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;On occasion, high winds have produced tears in our large PBR greenhouse covers.&rdquo; This happened twice in the past year.&nbsp;
 Two drivers guide Heliae&rsquo;s PBR development efforts: increasing the flexibility of each system for different products and species, and lowering the cost of the unit itself and its operation. &ldquo;In general, we have developed PBRs that permit better control of parameters such as pH, temperature, gas exchange and turbulence,&rdquo; Olaizola says. The company is currently working on two aspects of PBR development, one of which is exploration of different construction materials that can lower the cost of larger units. &ldquo;Some of these materials will be cheaper to purchase&mdash;think polymer versus glass tubes, for example&mdash;and also cheaper to maintain,&rdquo; Olaizola says. This allows greater longevity and easier cleaning. &ldquo;Second, we are pushing automation of functions so that manpower costs can also be reduced,&rdquo; Olaizola says. &ldquo;Heliae has always been big on automation. Now we are pushing that functionality even further.&rdquo; Heliae is in collaboration with several partners to continually improve not only its PBRs, but also other aspects of the production cycle. It&rsquo;s working with Evodos on downstream processing, specifically using its separation equipment. &ldquo;And more specifically, pertaining to the PBRs themselves, we&rsquo;ve been working with Schott, testing their new oval glass tubes in our Helix platform, a tubular PBR,&rdquo; Olaizola says. Schott also collaborates with Algatechnologies Ltd. The two signed an R&amp;D agreement following a successful one-year study of new glass tubes at Algatechnologies&rsquo; production facility in Israel. Schott&rsquo;s thin-walled Duran glass tubes significantly improved cultivation efficiency in the yields of Algatech&rsquo;s AstaPure natural astaxanthin, an antioxidant. The two firms partnered in 2013 to produce nearly 10 miles of thin-walled Duran glass tubes for testing in Algatech&rsquo;s PBR systems in Israel. In addition to Evodos and Schott, Heliae is also working with Philips Lighting for indoor and outdoor work, using newly developed LED units to decrease the heat load in indoor PBRs, and to augment natural sunlight in outdoor systems, Olaizola says. &ldquo;And considering that strain development is an intrinsic part of success in our field, we are working with Triton Health and Nutrition to scale up the indoor and outdoor cultivation of algae designed to produce high-value therapeutic proteins.&rdquo; Olaizola says the algae industry is &ldquo;far from where we need to be&rdquo; regarding state of the art. He says algae can generate many products such as nutrition, energy and materials, along with services such as water reclamation, carbon capture and heavy metal remediation, but at a high cost. &ldquo;A large part of the current cost relates to the cost of the growth units themselves,&rdquo; he says. &ldquo;We need to make those units a lot cheaper. Alternatively, we will limit ourselves to produce high-value products like astaxanthin or specialty proteins. But those markets are small.&rdquo; He says to manufacture algae-derived products at a more competitive price, the emphasis should not only be on PBR designs, but also the protocols developed to optimize their operation, including ancillary support systems from the inoculum to downstream processing platforms. Author: Ron Kotrba Senior Editor, Biomass Magazine 218-745-8347 rkotrba@bbiinternational.com

SECOND-GEN: Algae Systemsâ€™ half-acre PBR system in Daphne, Alabama, floats in Mobile Bay. The 150-foot by 6-foot units are connected to the Daphne Utilities wastewater treatment plant. 

2015/07/Second-GenBMM_070815_14370825948372_largethumb.jpg

2015/07/Second-GenBMM_070815_14370825948372_thumb.jpg

2015/07/Second-GenBMM_070815_14370825948372.jpg

DESERT OASIS: Algatechnologies partnered with Schott in 2013 to construct a PBR system consisting of 10 miles of Duran thin-walled glass tubing for the Israel-based algae company.   

2015/07/Desert-OasisBMM_070815_14370825925825.jpg

DIRECT-TO-ETHANOL: Algenolâ€™s 100-liter PBRs are plastic with a proprietary design that facilitates ethanol production and biomass collection.  

2015/07/Direct-to-ethanolBMM_070815_14370825935882.jpg

Photobioreactor manufacturers detail their latest designs and performance metrics and provide project updates from around the globe. 

August 2015

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Business Briefs

Columns

Iowa Supreme Court says “no” to natural gas tax challenge

Ethanol working to benefit Brazil, America, the world

EPA'S RFS RVOs: WTF?

Celebrating a decade of success under the RFS

EPA must listen to the people on RFS

Queensland to implement biofuels mandate

Low risk and reward

Public Policy Helps, Hinders Projects

The Real Bioeconomy Builders

Wood Waste Recycling Program Benefits

Debunking So-Called Wood Pellet Facts

Opportunity to Showcase Bioenergy

Well-Equipped

Featured

ACE Dreams Big, Values Grassroots

“Promoting Innovation Connecting the Industry”

Operations Leader Optimizes Aging Plant

Drilling into Distillation, Dehydration

Trialing Innovation

Watching Wood Dry

Biogas Buffer

State-of-the-Art Algae PBRs

Densifying Dynamos

Contributions

New Corn Traits Yield Homegrown Enzymes

Departments

Getting More Gas

Advancing Alongside Ag

August 2015.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

Iowa Supreme Court says “no” to natural gas tax challenge

Ethanol working to benefit Brazil, America, the world

EPA'S RFS RVOs: WTF?

Celebrating a decade of success under the RFS

EPA must listen to the people on RFS

Queensland to implement biofuels mandate

Low risk and reward

Public Policy Helps, Hinders Projects

The Real Bioeconomy Builders

Wood Waste Recycling Program Benefits

Debunking So-Called Wood Pellet Facts

Opportunity to Showcase Bioenergy

Well-Equipped

Featured

ACE Dreams Big, Values Grassroots

“Promoting Innovation Connecting the Industry”

Operations Leader Optimizes Aging Plant

Drilling into Distillation, Dehydration

Trialing Innovation

Watching Wood Dry

Biogas Buffer

State-of-the-Art Algae PBRs

Densifying Dynamos

Contributions

New Corn Traits Yield Homegrown Enzymes

Departments

Getting More Gas

Advancing Alongside Ag

August 2015