RISI and PFI to develop pellet manufacturing survey

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5405/risi-and-pfi-to-develop-pellet-manufacturing-survey

By RISI | March 31, 2011

• 
  RISI and PFI are collaborating on a monthly North American pellet survey of prices, production, fiber sourcing, inventories and end-use markets. RISI will collect and aggregate the information and the findings will be made available to PFI members.
  

RISI, an information provider for the global forest products industry, announced March 31 a collaboration with Pellet Fuels Institute, a promoter of energy independence through the efficient use of clean, renewable, densified biomass fuel. As part of this initiative, RISI will conduct a monthly North American pellet survey of prices, production, fiber sourcing, inventories and end-use markets. This survey will be sent to all existing PFI members. RISI will collect and aggregate the information returned as part of the survey and the findings will be made available to participating PFI members. The RISI and PFI Pellet Manufacturing Survey is the first comprehensive survey of its kind in North America.

"PFI is a natural choice for this effort," according to Ray Barbee, senior vice president and general manager of RISI's Wood Products, Timber & Bioenergy division. "Being one of the largest trade associations for the North American pellet industry, and with more than 120 member companies, PFI is the ideal association to collaborate with to produce this important and needed industry information," he said. "We couldn't be happier to be associated with them."

Don Kaiser, executive director of PFI added, "Both RISI and the PFI have long recognized that there is a need for the information that will be provided through this survey. RISI's expertise and reputation for accuracy and integrity make them the ideal partner for developing this survey. We look forward to a long and fruitful relationship with RISI."

RISI will begin surveying participants for the RISI and PFI Pellet Manufacturing Survey in April. To learn more about this survey, or to participate, contact Seth Walker, bioenergy analyst at swalker@risi.com or (781) 734.8992.

Scientists study woody poplars as biomass for biofuel

http://www.ecoseed.org/technology-article-list/article/2-technology/9370-scientists-study-woody-poplars-as-biomass-for-biofuel

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

By Katrice R. Jalbuena Scientists from the Department of Energy’s BioEnergy Research Center are testing core samples from poplar trees. Scientists from the Department of Energy’s BioEnergy Science Center are studying plant structure in order to develop the next sources of biomass for biofuel. Focusing on poplar trees, Charles Wyman of the Bourns College of Engineering’s Center for Environmental Research and Technology at the University of California, Riverside led a research team to study the composition of lignin in plant cell walls. Mr. Wyman worked with colleagues in Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Lignin, or learning how to break it down efficiently, is a roadblock in biofuel production. “The real driver for bioenergy is how to get sugar as cheaply as possible from these recalcitrant materials,” said Mr. Wyman. “We’re looking for clues as to which traits in these polar materials will lead to better sugar release.” Poplar trees, botanically known as populus, represent a leading woody crop candidate for biomass feedstocks. Using a high-throughput screening method, the researchers analyzed poplar core samples and found a correlation between a plant’s S/G ratio and increased sugar yields. The S/G ratio refers to the two main building blocks of lignin, syringyl and guaiacyl subunits. The researchers found that high S/G ratios do not negatively influence sugar yields. In fact the samples with the highest sugar yields belonged to the group with average S/G ratios. For his part, lead author Michael Studer said, “Conventional wisdom is that high lignin contents are bad for sugar release. We unexpectedly found that this statement is only valid for low S/G ratios, while at high S/G ratios lignin does not negatively influence yields.” “However, replacement of carbohydrates with lignin reduces the maximum possible sugar release, he added. Mr. Studer said samples with the highest sugar release belonged to the group with average S/G ratios and lignin contents, meaning a deeper understanding of the cell wall structure is needed before plants can be engineered for efficient biofuels production. The team’s study also pinpointed certain poplar samples that could produce high sugar yields with no pretreatment. Costly pretreatments, such as applying high temperatures, pressure and even chemicals to biomass materials jack up the price of biofuels and reducing pretreatment could make these alternative fuels more affordable. The researchers believe that understanding these traits could help determine which poplars are best suited for widespread cultivation as a biomass feedstock for biofuel production. From this work, superior poplar cultivars may soon be available for commercial testing and propagation, yielding plant materials that will contribute to reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuel based transportation fuels. The team, supported by B.E.S.C. at O.R.N.L., included co-lead Mark Davis and Robert Sykes from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Jaclyn DeMartini from U.C.R., and Brian Davison and Martin Keller from O.R.N.L. O.R.N.L. researchers, along with researchers at Virginia Tech and the University of Georgia previously worked with woody biomass to create a fuel cell that produced hydrogen gas using a mixture of enzymes, water, and wood chips. The process was said to have the highest hydrogen yield reported from cellulosic materials. Latest News-Cellulosic Biofuel Range Fuels raises $ 80 million to launch cellulosic biofuel plant Power sector helps drive jump in India carbon dioxide emissions New Tennessee plant banks on switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol Scientists create yeast to boost cellulosic biofuel production Interest in cellulosic ethanol goes global

Last update (Thursday, March 31, 2011)

Obama comes out swinging for advanced biofuels

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/03/31/obama-comes-out-swinging-for-advanced-biofuels/

 

Jim Lane | March 31, 2011

 

Obama sets US goal of cutting US oil imports one-third by 2025; outlines vision, targets, support for advanced biofuels, renewables, fossil fuel production in Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.

 

In Washington, President Obama gave an address at Georgetown University in which he called for a goal of reducing US oil imports by one-third by 2025, with increased support for technologies that can assist in that transition, including advanced biofuels.

“We meet here at a tumultuous time for the world,” the President said, noting the situation in Japan, Libya, and Syria. “One big area of concern has been the cost and security of our energy…Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank.  For Americans already struggling to get by, a hike in gas prices hurts.”

“But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before.  Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon…We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again.  The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out.  Even before we run out, the prices will be too high.”

And with that, the President turned to an unveiling of his clean energy policy, the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. It’s an ambitious 44-page outline of an ambitious program, which includes investments in smart grid electric infrastructure, highways, high-speed rail, public transit, expanded oil & gas exploration, as well as  biofuels-related measures including advanced biofuels R&D, blender pumps and increased flex-fuel car purchases.

Here’s the Blueprint in full.

Here’s the text of the President’s speech, in full.

Highlights from the Blueprint

“Continuing investments in R&D will be critical to the deployment of new technology and meeting the transportation needs of Americans. Recovery Act and prior year investments are already making progress on advanced technology vehicles through research initiatives like an ARPA-E grant with the goal of developing a battery that will go 300 miles on a single charge or cost-competitive biofuels that are direct substitutes for gasoline. The FY 2012 Budget request will significantly broaden R&D investments in advanced biofuels and batteries and electric drive technologies – including an over 30% increase in support for vehicle technology R&D and a new Energy Innovation Hub devoted to improving battery energy storage for vehicles.”

“Corn ethanol is already making a significant contribution to reducing our oil dependence, but going a lot further will depend on taking promising cellulosic and advanced biofuels technologies to scale. To help advance the commercialization process, the Administration has set a goal of breaking ground on at least four commercial-scale cellulosic or advanced bio-refineries over the next two years. In addition, the President has challenged his Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy and the Navy to investigate how they can work together to speed the development of “drop-in” biofuels substitutes for diesel and jet fuel. Competitively-priced drop-in biofuels could help meet the fuel needs of the Navy, as well as the commercial aviation and shipping sectors.”
“The United States has worked with international partners to promote the benefits of sustainable modern bioenergy. In the Western Hemisphere, the United States collaborates with Brazil to help a number of countries develop bioenergy programs that promote economic development and energy security. In the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organization, the United States has led work to identify sustainable biofuel development practices, resource potential, and employment potential. In addition, as an active member of the Global Bioenergy Partnership, the United States worked with multiple nations and UN international organizations to develop indicators that will enable developing countries can use to ensure that are developing bioenergy in a sustainable manner.

“The FY 2012 Budget also marks a ground breaking commitment to expand transit options for Americans and return transit systems to a state of good repair. The Administration supports these commitments with the aim of making public transit systems accessible to more people, and to ensure that these systems are more reliable, efficient, and safe for the millions of travelers who use them every day. These investments will ultimately provide Americans with affordable transportation options that help reduce dependence on gasoline.”

The Digest’s Take

The headline, of course, is reducing oil imports by one-third by 2025. The speech, while highly welcome in tone and outlook, was a little short on new specifics, and sounded more like a rah-rah to build support for the 2012 Budget, showcasing existing measures in support of the 2025 goal.

However, fair to say that no President has, by a long shot, done as much to design a comprehensive national energy policy. So kudos to the White House team.

The trick though, is not figuring out what to do – there have been dozens of studies and proposals from private foundations, NGOs and pressure groups.

The trick is assembling a political coalition that gets the job done. That’s what separates an FDR from a Hoover on addressing the Great Depression, or a Kennedy/Johnson from an Eisenhower on addressing space exploration, or Reagan from Carter on ending the cold war.

We don’t yet see the grand coalition forming, but we do note the evolution of the President’s vision, since 2008, to include more emphasis on energy independence and less on carbon, more emphasis on domestic fossil fuel and nuclear production than in the past. What we begin to see is supply-side energy economics, instead of simply a reform of the means of production.

The President has embraced an American “more” over a European “better”, and “more” offers the kind of opportunities that can build support in the Congress. Of course, the President’s “more” is a “better more”, because of the emphasis on clean energy.

But in the “better” vs. “more”, equation, the President has finally figured it out. To build the economy, he better have more, no matter how much better.

Quibbles?

We are left to guess whether “we’ll help entrepreneurs break ground on four next-generation biorefineries,” refers to existing commitments, or new ones. Probably the former, kind of a double dip on publicity.
We did not see commitments from the President on mandating the manufacture of flex-fuel cars, or proposed investments in ethanol pipelines. Clearly, the President’s strategy is based around growth in advanced biofuels, particularly drop-in biofuels. He’s getting behind blender pumps, but leaving other investments in infrastructure to the private sector.

Things to admire

We are impressed by the fact that the White House “gets it” that we are not experiencing volatile oil prices — we are experiencing a real ceiling to growth, as too many economies are chasing too little oil, and economic growth pushes up energy prices too fast to sustain economic expansion.

We were impressed by the President’s goal of making the US federal government auto fleet purchasing 100 percent renewables, by 2015. It can only help spur usage and acceptance of flex-fuel cars, hybrids and plug-in electrics, and reduce dependence on imported oil.

The President clearly linked an investment in electric cars to investments in wind, solar, biomass, nuclear, and clean coal (if there really is clean coal, we’re not quite sure how clean it can get on an affordable basis, though it’s a laudable goal). Electric cars without renewable power simply change the mix of fossil fuels used for transport from petroleum to, basically, coal and nuclear – domestically produced, but not carbon darlings.

Industry reaction

Comments from the Advanced Biofuels Association, the Algal Biomass Organization, 25×25, Growth Energy, Sapphire Energy, Propel Fuels and more, here.

DOE Announces $12 Million in Available Funding to Support Advanced Biofuels Development

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=509

March 30, 2011

To support the goal announced by President Obama today to reduce America’s oil imports by one-third by 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it will be accepting applications for $12 million in funding for laboratory or small pilot-scale projects that support the development of advanced biofuels. Successful projects will develop technologies that will be able to replace refinery feedstocks or directly replace gasoline, diesel, or jet fuels without requiring modifications to vehicles or fueling infrastructure. These projects will continue to accelerate innovations in the renewable biofuels industry as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to build a cleaner, safer, and more secure energy future for America that ultimately breaks our dependence on foreign oil and moves our nation toward a clean energy economy that creates jobs and boosts U.S. competitiveness.

The funding opportunity will provide up to $12 million over the next three to four years to support as many as five projects. These investments are for research and development of technologies that will support the production of gasoline, diesel, and/or jet fuels from biomass. Each selectee will utilize biomass materials such as woody biomass, and corn stover in thermochemical conversion processes known as gasification and pyrolysis. Gasification breaks down biomass using heat to produce synthesis gas, which can then be used to produce liquid fuels and chemicals. Pyrolysis also uses heat to break down biomass into liquids that may be upgraded to produce liquid fuels and chemicals. This R&D will leverage existing work and should result in commercially available technologies or processes.

A description of the solicitation, eligibility requirements, and application instructions can be found on the FedConnect website under Reference Number DE-FOA-0000467. Applications must be submitted through Grants.gov by no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on May 5, 2011.

DOE’s Biomass Program works with industry, academia, and National Laboratory partners on a balanced portfolio of research in biomass feedstocks and conversion technologies. For more information on DOE’s Biomass Program, please visit the Biomass Program website.

Southeast Virginia could host two new pellet mills

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5396/southeast-virginia-could-host-two-new-pellet-mills

 

By Lisa Gibson | March 29, 2011

 

• 
  Wood Fuel Developers is planning to develop two wood pellet mills in southeast Virginia.
  

Wood Fuel Developers LLC, an affiliate of Industrial TurnAround Corp. (ITAC), an engineering, design and construction management service, is developing two wood pellet facilities in southeast Virginia, having received multiple grants for both proposals.

The company announced its pellet mill plans for Greensville County in January of 2010, armed with more than $3.5 million in federal and state funds, and planning to invest $18.7 million itself, according to ITAC.

The company reported that the project received $1 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, along with $2.3 million from the Greensville County Industrial Development Authority for construction of the plant and site improvements and infrastructure, $175,000 from the Governors Opportunity Fund and $175,000 from Tobacco Region Opportunity Funds.

And that’s not all. In January of this year, the office of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell announced a new $8.6 million pellet mill undertaking for Wood Fuel Developers in Sussex County, with another $185,000 in state funds from the Governor’s office and Tobacco Region Opportunity Funds. Wood Bioenergy US, a Forisk Consulting report, said the company will convert a former particleboard plant in the Sussex County town of Waverly into a pellet plant.

In a January press release from the governor’s office, Wood Fuels Developers President and CEO Steve Gordon was quoted as saying the Sussex County location offered an existing facility that included site infrastructure, buildings, machinery and the purchase and installation of new equipment.

Gordon declined to release any information to Biomass Power & Thermal on either of the proposed facilities, however, saying they are both in the midst of contract negotiations.

DOE's Biomass Program to hold biennial Peer Review webinars

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5395/does-biomass-program-to-hold-biennial-peer-review-webinars

 

By Lisa Gibson | March 28, 2011

• 
  Information gleaned from the DOE’s Biomass Program Peer Reviews will be used to determine future funding and portfolio balance decisions.
  

In the coming weeks, the U.S. DOE’s Biomass Program will host a series of meetings in Annapolis, Md., associated with its biennial Peer Review of Analysis, Sustainability, Feedstocks and Algae Platforms. The meetings are open to the public and will provide industry stakeholders the opportunity to learn more about federally funded research, development and deployment activities focused on bioenergy technologies. In addition, they will be accessible live through GoToWebinar.

Beginning April 4, the first meeting will be the Analysis Peer Review, followed by the related Sustainability Peer Review April 5-6. The agendas include topics dealing with the wide variety of biomass feedstocks, conversion technologies and integration strategies for feasible biofuels scenarios, according to the DOE’s Biomass Program. Next, the Feedstocks Peer Review will be held April 6-8 and will address the requirements of a sustainable, functional, high-quality supply of biomass feedstock. The last webinar meeting, the Algae Peer Review, will be held April 7-8, focusing of course on breaking down the various technical barriers to promote sustainable, affordable and scalable algae-based biofuels. The series also included February meetings in Denver, Colo., for thermochemical and biochemical platforms.

During the coming meetings, principal investigators will discuss their projects’ statuses, budgets, goals, accomplishments, challenges and relevance to the Biomass Program, and answer questions from expert panelists. The Peer Review is required of the Biomass Program, as well as other Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs, to obtain independent assessments of its current research and development project portfolio. The information gleaned in the meetings will be used as the program considers future funding and portfolio balance decisions, according to the DOE. The results of the Peer Review evaluations will be the basis for the overall Biomass Program Peer Review meeting June 27-28, 2011 in Washington D.C.

For more information or to register for the webinars, visit http://obpreview2011.govtools.us/.

Using federal incentives to drive biomass supply chain dynamics

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5390/using-federal-incentives-to-drive-biomass-supply-chain-dynamics

By Bryan Sims | March 24, 2011

• 
  Biomass project developers will likely lean on federal incentives such as the Biomass Crop Assistance Program to help develop their supply chain.
  

The idea of becoming an active participant in the biomass supply chain to provide feedstock for biorefineries and power plants may be difficult to grasp for many suppliers on the outside looking in.

Timothy Baye, a business development professor at the University of Wisconsin-Extension, is actively engaged in such contracts and will share his expertise at the 2011 International Biomass Conference & Expo, May 2-5 in St. Louis. Baye will discuss how relationships can work if both parties perform proper due diligence, and both are open to understanding how available federal incentives can be leveraged to gain maximum return on investment.

“It’s all about risk,” Baye said “It’s all going to be about managing the perceived risk, especially in response to the due diligence requirements of commercial debt. Commercial debt is still going to drive the process.”
“Recognize that you may have drunk the Kool-Aid,” Baye said, “but the equity and debt markets haven’t necessarily come from the same punch bowl.”

With commercial debt, in addition to equity potentially coming back as a hedge to help finance biomass projects, prospective developers will likely lean on federally driven incentives, such as the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which encourages greater volumes of biomass to enter the supply chain and increases the various types that can contribute to downstream products. Created in the 2008 Farm Bill and swiftly implemented as a pilot program, BCAP was designed to stimulate new crops for renewable energy feedstocks. The biomass industry has since seen several revisions and amendments specifically as it relates to guidance on what types of biomass qualify under the program, how suppliers and biomass conversion facilities (BCFs) are paid and other measures such as appropriate land stewardship practices for aggregating various types of feedstock.

Daniel Simon, partner with Washington, D.C.-based law firm Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP, will explain where BCAP stands in terms of how biomass suppliers and their customers can capitalize on the prescribed benefits.

“Details still need to be hammered out regarding what the guidelines are going to be on forest stewardship plans that need to be followed,” Simon said. “For matching payments or established matching payments for forest land, it has to satisfy forest stewardship guidelines. The USDA is still creating their internal guidelines about what underscores the true definition of forest stewardship.”

Simon said he’s optimistic that as matching payments continue to be forged between suppliers and BCFs that conform to BCAP guidelines, more material should begin to trickle into the supply chain, which should breed competition and lead to lower prices. “But, you can’t simply say, ‘I’m going to pay you half of what you’d sell me otherwise because you’re going to make up the difference in matching payment,’” he said.

Baye said a vibrant infrastructure exists to accommodate moving various types of biomass, and is encouraged to see more biomass suppliers enticed to provide different feedstocks to biorefineries, specifically those producing renewable chemicals.

“The market analysis tends to be a more manageable task for the biobased chemical sector,” Baye said. “There’s an expectation that if you can perform, you can get a longer-term contract. On top of that, then, if the producers are willing to assume a certain degree of risk, I’m seeing that there’s at least a fairly good opening for equity participation in some of that supply chain.”

As the BCAP continues to undergo provisional changes, Simon said he’s optimistic that the USDA has learned from the mistakes it made when the program was first implemented.

“[The USDA] appears to be determined to not repeat those mistakes,” he said. “That’s an encouraging sign.”

To learn more about the 2011 International Biomass Conference & Expo, or to register, go to http://www.biomassconference.com/.

Proposed Senate Bill S.559: Comment on the Bill from an Advanced Biofuels Perspective

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/03/24/proposed-senate-bill-s-559-comment-on-the-bill-from-an-advanced-biofuels-perspective/

Jim Lane | March 24, 2011

Proposed Senate Bill S.559: Securing America’s Future with Energy and Sustainable Technologies Act

Comment on the Bill from an Advanced Biofuels Perspective

By Robert E. Kozak (Advanced Biofuels USA)

US Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) recently introduced Senate Bill S.599, the “Securing America’s Future with Energy and Sustainable Technologies Act” or SAFESTA. This bill contains numerous amendments to existing Energy legislation and is being advertised as a comprehensive approach to increasing biofuel, wind, and solar use in the United States.

As in any piece of Congressional legislation, the old saw, “The Devil is in the Details,” applies. A review of the biofuels portion of the proposed bill, Titles I, II, and III, found that the wording of many of the draft provisions seemed to work against the goal of increasing biofuel use. This is primarily because of proposed reductions in funding, the introduction of an overly complex vehicle fuel use mandate, and ill-defined definitions.

The following review analyzes the sections that raise the most questions from an advanced biofuels standpoint. The sections are listed in chronological order for ease of review.

Section 103. International Indirect Land Use Changes.

This section proposes a moratorium on the use of International Indirect Land Use Change (IILUC) equations when calculating biofuel greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The moratorium would end when the National Academy of Sciences issues a report on IILUC calculations that says if they should be used or not. The legislation does not appropriate any money for the study, however.

While this section probably has support from many people who have been involved in the IILUC debate, there are several points to consider when legislating NAS to conduct the study.

• Funding: With NAS studies “you get what you pay for.” NAS is as expensive as a high-end consulting firm and a study should be funded accordingly. Therefore, an adequate appropriation for the NAS report should be included in the legislation. If this is not done, the budget for the report will instead come out of the discretionary budgets of DOE, USDA, and EPA. Given the cuts that have been made to their budgets, there would be very little left for the IILUC NAS report. With such a restricted budget, NAS would simply go to the Searchingers and other IILUC originators to perform cursory reviews on their work. Such a report would not be sufficient for Congress or the Administration to credibly act on the determinations made by the report.

• Public Input: Without a sufficient budget for the IILUC report, NAS will resort to their basic requirements for perfunctory public input process, i.e. one public hearing near the beginning of the process. Given that IILUC research is in the very early stage, an expanded, in-depth, and continuous public input process must be put in place.  This will enable local and national effects on crop yields, apart from multinational commodity markets, to be properly calculated. These crop yield effects can include: national land-use laws, traditional land-ownership patterns, national and local barriers to technologies, and national and local agricultural loan practices.

Section 104. Modification of Definition of Renewable Biomass.


Given the multiple changes in biomass definitions made in both Federal legislation and various agency regulations, the need for revised science-based definitions is seen by many as a useful task. However, requesting another NAS study, also without appropriated funding, within one year of enactment will most likely have the effect of making the situation worse by picking the wrong set of “winners & losers” to be eligible for Federal incentives for the following reason.

Advanced biofuel research and development is at the stage where very few feedstocks and conversion processes have been eliminated. While this is a very exciting time for researchers, this amount of uncertainty makes it virtually impossible for a limited group of NAS panel members operating on a limited budget and without access to most proprietary research to correctly predict where the advanced biofuels industry will be in five or ten years.

Section 201 Loan Guarantees for Projects to Construct Renewable Fuel Pipelines.

The purpose of this section is stated to be the establishment of a program that would be devoted to only constructing Renewable Fuel Pipelines. However, the wording in the subsection, (e) (B) (4) Rapid Deployment of Renewable Fuel, could easily open up the program to non-renewable fuel projects as well.

The proposed wording is, “Installation of sufficient infrastructure to allow for the cost-effective deployment of clean energy technologies appropriate to each region of the United States,…”

Inclusion of the terms “infrastructure” and “clean energy technology” would open this section to include funding for non-renewable energy projects such as electric vehicle power lines, electric vehicle recharging stations, and non-renewable natural gas pipelines that are considered “clean energy technology” by US legislative and regulatory definitions. Inclusion of these types of projects for funding does not seem to be the stated objective of this section.

Section 202. Open Fuel Standard (OFS) For Transportation.

This section appears to be the cornerstone of the SAFESTA legislation. Instead of providing biofuel tax credits at their present rates (see Section 301 below) to jump-start the biofuel industry, a Federal mandate would be created to require all vehicles sold in the United States in 2021 to use fuel types (biofuel, natural gas, and electric) defined by the government. (30% would be required by 2013, 50% by 2015, 80% by 2017, and 100% by 2021.)

These new vehicles envisioned by the legislation are called Fuel Choice Enabling Automobiles and would include; a new type of Flex-Fuel Vehicle (FFV), plug-in hybrids, electrics, and new [vehicles that produce]“50 percent (or 75 percent) less fossil fuel per mile than the average of vehicles,” (see Definitions below).

The idea behind this section appears be one where demand creation is substituted for direct industrial development assistance through tax credits. However, instead of relying on market driven demand creation, the selected mechanism is government regulation of the American consumer vehicle fleet.

Attempts by governments to regulate vehicle fleet mixtures are replete with failures. (Note the lack of US government’s fueling of their mandated Flex-Fuel vehicles with E85.) The attempt being made by this section would probably meet a similar result.

The US automotive market is highly competitive and highly segmented. It is also highly affected by swings in fuel prices. However, the one aspect of it that has been constant for over five years is the market penetration of hybrids which has stagnated around 3% despite new models being introduced and the US government offering substantial tax benefits. Therefore, an attempt to increase “fuel-choice-enabling automobiles” which appear to be primarily plug-in hybrids, electrics, and some new “less than 50 percent fossil fuel” technologies would force a sizeable portion of the vehicle buying public to purchase vehicles they have already turned down.

As an alternative, to increase the demand for available renewable biofuels, it would seem advantageous to work with the car industry to introduce ethanol/butanol Flex-Fuel vehicles, based on available technology, that would produce real-world E85/B_u85 mileage very similar to optimized E10 mileage and let the market take over to get them sold.

New or Amended Definitions in Section 202


The following are fuel and vehicle definitions proposed in this section.

Alcohols


The inclusion of M85 [85% Methanol] in this section, while attempting to acknowledge the existence of fuel alcohols other than ethanol, creates a serious conflict with the goal of this legislation to increase the use of renewable fuels. Specifically, virtually all methanol both currently being delivered to the United States for chemical purposes and planned for future fuel use is produced from non-renewable natural gas. Methanex, the Canadian company that has a virtual North American monopoly on methanol production, has made it very clear that an OFS with methanol would allow them to import natural gas based methanol to the United States. Is this the goal of this legislation?

In addition, bio-isobutanol (a C-4 alcohol) is now being produced by several US firms and will become a commercial renewable bio-alcohol fuel within the time frame of this legislation. Bio-isobutanol has similar combustion properties to ethanol. Therefore, it would seem logical to include bio-isobutanol, and other higher number bio-alcohols, in this and all alcohol definitions used in this legislation.

New Vehicle Categories


Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) defined in this section as Fuel Choice Enabling Autos would be required to run on M85 and well as E85 in order to use the M85 included in the alcohol definition.

This section also creates a new vehicle definition that reads, [vehicles that produce]“50 percent (or 75 percent) less fossil fuel per mile than the average of vehicles…”

While this language represents what appears to be a clear objective, a critical part of the vehicles’ definition is missing.  Specifically, by not listing the fossil fuel used to generate the electricity used by electric or plug-in-hybrids as part of the total fossil fuel used, these definitions could allow for vehicles that would in fact use much more fossil fuel than intended by the definition.  In addition, for the sake of consistency, all vehicles or fuels listed in this section should be subject to the well-to-wheel energy and emissions requirements placed on biofuels by the 2007 Energy Act and subsequent regulations.

Section 204. Blender Pump Installation.

The objective of this section is to create a tax incentive program for the installation of ethanol blender pumps. Blender pumps are generally considered to provide market driven intermediate ethanol/gasoline mixtures between E10 and E85 to be used by Flex-Fuel vehicles. However, the definition proposed for a blender pump in this legislation does not appear to meet this need.

Instead, the blender pump proposed in this section is one that can dispense at a minimum 3 different blends including; 1) gasoline, 2) E10, and 3) E85. Therefore a pump that meets the minimal requirements would not be able to dispense any intermediate mixtures.

Furthermore, given that E10 is now the de facto “regular” gasoline because of the octane enhancement and oxygenation properties of ethanol, E10 is already delivered to retail fueling installations as “regular” and does not require blending. In addition, E85 is also currently delivered to retail fueling installations and does not need pump blending either.  So if these are the only blends included in the blend pump definition, a blend pump does not seem necessary.

If, however, the purpose of this section is to implement blending pumps, i.e. provide market driven intermediate ethanol/gasoline mixtures, minimum requirements should be increased by at least two or three blends between E10 and E85.

In addition, if blend pumps are to be used for Flex-Fuel Vehicles that can run on any mixture between E10 and E85, it does not seem necessary that the intermediate blends need to be determined by the Secretary of DOE as stated in the legislation.

Section 301. Modification of Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel


Since this legislation proposes that an increased biofuel demand will be created by the Open Fuel Standard (OFS) included in Section 202, current tax credit incentives for biofuels are being significantly reduced.
The proposed 2012 level of $.20/gallon for VEETC (Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit) represents an immediate 56 percent reduction (reduced from $.45/gallon to $.20/gallon) and the VEETC would be eliminated by 2016.

There appear to be two problems with this VEETC phase-out approach. One, it doesn’t track with the proposed OFS market increase, and two, it does not seem to track with the investments required by the ethanol industry to meet Federal GHG reduction requirements.

• OFS Phase-In: Even assuming the best-case scenario for the OFS standard, less than 10 percent of the consumer fleet is replaced every year. So, while the VEETC incentive is cut by 56% in 2012 and ended by 2016, no substantial increase in the biofuel market would have occurred by that time. 3% in 2013 and 2014 (30% of 10% of total vehicles) and 5% in 2015 (50% of 10% of total vehicles) for a total of 11% increase including non-biofuel vehicles.

• Efficiency and GHG Reduction Reinvestments: This tax credit reduction has been proposed without a NAS type study on its effects on the ethanol industry. Specifically, a study should be conducted on the technology reinvestments being made by the ethanol industry to decrease green house gases (GHGs), increase ethanol yields, and produce more value-added byproducts before changes in tax credits are made.

If the results of that study show that the industry is using the current tax credit rate for that purpose, the rate should not be changed. Conversely, if such a study shows a lower rate will suffice, that should be the proposed rate.


New or Amended Definitions in Section 301

Alcohol

The proposed definition of alcohol includes only ethanol and methanol. Since bio-iso-butanol is now in the late stages of development and will be available for purchase within the timeframe of this legislation, it should be included.

Bio-isobutanol motor fuel has been proven in the rigorous arena of motor sports. The Dyson Mazda/Lola prototype ran the entire 2010 American Le Mans series on bio-isobutanol with no fuel related engine failures. In addition they won the Mid-Ohio race in August 2010.

Section 301 (c) Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit

This proposed section contains the following:

“This section [Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit] shall not apply to any sale or use for any period after December 31, 2016.”

This proposed cutoff date of 2016 seems to have been set without a complete analysis of the cellulosic fuel industry.

Three conditions of the cellulosic industry do not seem to have been taken into consideration: 1) cellulosic biofuels are not currently commercially available in any sizable quantities, 2) many promising advanced production technologies have not reached the pilot stage, and 3) cost-effective perennial energy grasses (which take up to three years to reach maximum harvest yields) have not yet been commercially planted.

Because of these realities, maintaining a 2016 cutoff of the Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit would have a very negative effect on the eventual sustainability of the cellulosic biofuel industry. Specifically, the early cutoff would concentrate available capital in those technologies that would return tax credits before 2016 even if they were not the most effective. Consequently, a 2016 cutoff would hamstring the industry, leaving it dependent on less than effective feedstocks and conversion technologies meaning high costs, small market share, and probably more expensive incentives to make up for the lost opportunities of the 2016 cutoff.

New or Amended Definitions in Section 301

Cellulosic Biofuels


The definition of cellulosic biofuel includes the terms, “lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic matter.” While these general terms of art are usually assumed to refer to all biofuel feedstocks, there is one important biomass component that is not specifically named in these definitions. This is pectin. Pectin is a complex carbohydrate that is crucial to plant cell wall growth and development. It may comprise between 10 and 30 percent of plant cell walls. (Caffall and Mohnen, Carbohydrate Research, 344, pp-1879-1900, 2009). Pectin can be converted to a C-6 sugar called galacturonic acid which has been shown to be an effective biofuel feedstock.

The definition of cellulosic biofuels also includes the terms, “renewable or recurring basis,”


It is hard to see what the term “recurring” adds. Renewable is a very clear biofuel concept–biomass used for biofuel is replaced by more plant or algae biomass that is grown. And since biomass and biofuel are fungible, the addition of “come up again or repeatedly” to the definition would appear to imply that the biomass used for biofuel had to be replaced by the same quantity and type of biomass grown in the same place. This seems to make the definition more complex than needed.

Special Rule for Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit

The purpose of this definition appears to limit applicability to only biofuel produced in the United States which is in keeping with the goal of the proposed legislation. However, the wording, “unless such cellulosic biofuel is produced in the United States,” leaves out where the biomass comes from. Without reworking the phrase to something like, “unless such cellulosic biofuel [and biomass used to produce the biofuel] is produced in the United States,” cellulosic biofuel produced from biomass that was grown in another country would be eligible for the cellulosic ethanol tax credit.

For comparison, without including the origin of feedstock wording, a similar petroleum based fuel definition for a tax credit program would consider all the gasoline produced in the United States with imported oil as “gasoline produced in the United States” and eligible for a tax credit. Is this the intent of this legislation?

Greenwood, Arborgen team up to grow tree farms

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5388/greenwood-arborgen-team-up-to-grow-tree-farms

 

By Anna Austin | March 23, 2011

• 
  A tree seedling producer and a company with a network of nurseries and orchards are working together to develop tree farms.
  PHOTO: ARBORGEN INC.

Biotechnology tree seedling producer Arborgen Inc. and tree farm development company GreenWood Resources Inc. have teamed up to collaborate on the growth of purpose-grown hardwood trees in the Southeastern U.S.

The companies have collaborated in the past, which helped paved the way for this new partnership that will benefit both parties, according to Hunter Brown, GreenWood chief operating officer. “Greenwood has a long history in poplar genetics—we think [poplar] will be a viable, purpose-grown tree for the bioenergy industry—but we don’t have a platform for delivering that plant material,” he said. “Arborgen does. They have a strong network of nurseries and orchards throughout the Southeast U.S., and also have a strong network of customers—they sell hundreds of millions of seedlings of pines each year to landowners throughout the region.”

Arborgen also has customer bases in New Zealand and Australia.

On the other hand, Greenwood has a large network of timber investment customers and relationships, and has developed funds for short-rotation tree farming. “The synergies and overlap are significant in both of our efforts to cost-effectively deliver plant material to bioenergy opportunities as they develop,” Hunter said. “They already have the nursery and orchard business; we already have the plant material and can be ready without spending a lot of extra capital.”

Though the partnership with Arborgen will be focused on the Southeastern U.S., Hunter said there is solid activity in the energy tree sector outside of the country, mainly because of stronger government signals. “If you look at the industry on a global level, it’s certainly developing with more stable, predictable policies and regulations, especially in Europe, South America and Chile in particular, where economic fundamentals make dedicated biomass crops economically feasible,” he said. “In the U.S., in general, the policy and regulations have been a little less certain, especially over the last year with budgetary cutbacks and policy reassessments.”

Hunter believes the fiber produced from dedicated tree farms in the U.S. will be delivered to conversion facilities outside of the U.S. in significant portions.

He added that GreenWood and Arborgen expect to begin developing dedicated tree farm plant material in 2012, as 2011 will be mostly a scale-up year in the nurseries. 

Verenium, Shorn of Biofuels Business, Returns to San Diego and its Diversa Roots

http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2011/03/22/verenium-shorn-of-biofuels-business-returns-to-san-diego-and-its-diversa-roots/?single_page=true


By Bruce V. Bigelow


March 22, 2011

It felt like something was coming to an end last July, when energy giant BP said it was paying $98.3 million to acquire the cellulosic biofuels business of Cambridge, MA-based Verenium (NASDAQ: VRNM). But as Verenium consolidates its headquarters and remaining operations in San Diego, incoming CEO James Levine told me in so many words that what happened was not the end, but perhaps the end of the beginning for the industrial biotech.

Selling the cellulosic biofuels business and giving up Verenium’s goal of building an ethanol plant “surprised a lot of people,” Levine conceded when we met. “I think it was such a focus of our story that we knew it was going to take some time to let people understand the gem that we remain.”

Levine, who became Verenium’s chief executive after serving two years as its CFO, says the company is now “at a sort of inflection point—where we are an independent company and we’re kind of getting the word out about what we are.”

Verenium was created amid great expectations in 2007 with the merger of the ethanol biofuel expertise of Cambridge, MA-based Celunol and an enormous collection of enzyme samples and expertise amassed at San Diego-based Diversa. A year later, Verenium forged a crucial partnership with BP to develop cellulosic ethanol production facilities throughout the U.S. BP later provided an additional $45 million toward construction of a cellulosic ethanol plant near Tampa, FL.

But Verenium’s plans faltered during the Great Recession as the company sought to raise the roughly $400 million needed to build the Florida ethanol plant. Federal energy loan guarantees needed to finance the project failed to materialize, and Levine says, “We had great technology, and we had a great partner. But without funding we had to sell the business and let BP build the plant.”

Today Verenium has about 90 employees at its San Diego facility, which will become the company’s official headquarters on June 1, after Levine moves his family here from Boston. As a reorganized public company, Verenium has outgrown the role of a technology-developing startup that incurs regular losses. But it isn’t exactly a robust operating company, either. Verenium posted a $13.5 million operating loss in 2010, and has almost $75 million in debt. It also has nearly $88 million in cash left from its deal with BP.

“We’re in this spot where there is really only one way to go,” Levine says. “We have to go forward to profitability.”

For the coming year, Levine has set a number of goals: broaden and diversify the company’s line of industrial enzyme products, sign two new corporate partnerships, improve Verenium’s manufacturing through limited investments, control expenses, get at least two new products submitted for regulatory approval, and continue to address the company’s outstanding debt.

Levine’s prime directive is to refocus Verenium on “the incredible enzyme technology that Diversa created, and to make money from it.”

Diversa, which was founded in San Diego in 1994, has amassed billions of industrial enzymes, created by mining the genomes of organisms collected from deep sea thermal vents, Arctic tundra, soda lakes, and other far-flung corners of the world. Such enzymes are typically used as catalysts that act in highly specific ways to make certain biochemical reactions and processes possible.

Diversa had begun to develop a broad industrial enzyme business at the time of its 2007 merger with Cambridge, MA-based Celunol. But the enzymes Diversa had developed for breaking down cellulosic biomass were considered the crucial part of the deal, and they still are. Levine says BP got rights to the cellulosic enzymes—along with a copy of the entire Verenium enzyme library as part of its $98.3 million buyout of Verenium’s biofuels business.

So what’s the difference between Verenium in 2011 and Diversa in 2006?

“Diversa had a business model that aspired to be a products business,” Levine said. “But when you look at their revenue streams, it was largely from contract research.”

Today, Levine says Verenium is generating 90 to 95 percent of its revenue from nine products, industrial enzymes developed for target markets in animal health and nutrition, grain processing (into biofuels or beverage alcohols), and oil seed processing for edible oils. Such sales amounted to $50.3 million in 2010—double the $25 million that Verenium generated from product sales in 2007.

Levine, a former Goldman Sachs banker, is taking a pragmatic approach that recognizes Verenium’s technology and vast enzyme library has enormous potential value—but it can only be realized by building a commercial operating business that targets existing markets for industrial enzymes. Though last year’s deal with BP did not preclude Verenium from moving back into the cellulosic biofuels business, “I’d rather come up with the next big thing in animal health and nutrition, where it’s a $400 million or $500 million market,” Levine says. “I can double, triple, quadruple our revenue without having to touch markets [such as cellulosic ethanol] that don’t exist today a whole lot faster and with a whole lot more certainty.”

So it’s back to the future for Verenium, which has returned to its original focus on developing industrial enzymes. When we talk about our technology, we still say it’s very much about enzyme discovery in nature,” Levine said. “It’s very much about using the libraries that Diversa went out and created, and we continue to create libraries. But we no longer have the luxury of talking about ourselves as a platform technology developer, even though we are. We cannot move backwards. We have to move forward to being a profitable and sustainable enzyme seller.”

Do You Have Control Over NIMBYism?

http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/5384/do-you-have-control-over-nimbyism

What steps can you take when your biomass project faces opposition?

By Al Maiorino | March 22, 2011

• 
  
  
• 
  HEAD OFF NIMBYS: Project developers need to get out ahead of any potential opposition and present the facts about their project right away.
  PHOTO: PUBLIC STRATEGY GROUP INC.

Picture this. The chief executive officer of a large biomass corporation wants to pursue a new development. The economic difficulties haven’t slowed his company so he decides to build a new plant near a small town in Massachusetts.

The company’s management team constructs the business plan, collects the proper paperwork and gets ready for the approval process. All of a sudden the zoning commission holds off on granting their permit. Why? Residents of the towns near the proposed site created an opposition group to fight the project.

Despite the fact that the new plant would generate clean energy to power up several towns, increase the tax revenue and improve the local economy, the community doesn’t seem to understand these benefits. The residents say the new facility would be too close to their homes and may be potentially hazardous to their health. They say it would create too much noise, pollution, and traffic, and would obstruct their views. This is when the chief executive officer realizes that opposition is indeed a roadblock that may halt or even destroy his project. So what does he do now?

The problem that this company is faced with is not so uncommon. It is called the “not in my backyard syndrome” or NIMBYism. It consists of strong opposition by one person or a group of people to a new project or development in their community. NIMBYs, as they are commonly referred to, are likely to organize quickly to communicate their opposition to a local project in an effort to curb development.

The origins of NIMBYism are somewhat vague. Some scholars believe the concept originated as early as the 1950s. However, the practice of communal opposition to development blossomed in the 1980s.

During that time, community concerns were reasonable and justified in most cases. First of all, the biomass industry was so new that people simply feared it as the unknown. In addition, with the technology available during that period, building a biomass plant in a neighborhood could mean noise, traffic, and pollution. While those days are gone, the sentiment of opposition remains, as does the stigma of a biomass development near one’s home. With the use of modern technology and strict government regulations, the inconvenience caused by any sort of development is usually reduced to the minimum.

The NIMBYs, however, always find a reason to oppose development. It seems that often they are simply “in it to win it.” They oppose just for the sake of making a statement. The size of the “backyard” has grown so vastly that nowadays NIMBYism affects companies all over the world. From New York to Tokyo, businesses in the biomass industry are looking for ways to win the NIMBY battle.

Fight Misinformation

If your firm finds itself involved in a NIMBY fight, take the steps necessary to ensure the proper message is getting out to the public. Very often the opposition stems from misinformation and poor communication between project representatives and the community. In this case, it is better to play on the offensive. Instead of waiting for the opposition to grow, present the facts up front.

It is necessary to look for local support and build allies in order to form a supporter coalition. First and foremost, identify and create a database of local residents who are in favor, against or undecided about the project. A good way to begin is by conducting a poll or establishing a phone bank, asking local residents about their view of the renewable energy industry in general, and about your development plan in particular. The results of the surveys may then be published to showcase the positive attitude in the community toward your venture.

Once the database is created, it has to be maintained and updated frequently for the campaign management to be aware of any changes in the local opinion. One way to do this is through a targeted direct mail and/or advertising campaign. A strong social media campaign may also work as a modern tool to spread your message, reach out to the community and provide supporters with a communication outlet. Although many campaigns use modern technology to deliver a message, most grassroots campaigns mainly rely on direct face-to-face interaction between the developers and local communities.


Reach Out to Supporters

Now that you have distinguished supporters from opposition, the next step is to reach out to third-party groups that support your development. These could be anything from small businesses to a local decision maker. Those companies or groups with whom you have had a positive relationship or will benefit from your project should be encouraged to participate in the campaign.

Residents should express their support through writing letters to their elected officials or newspapers. Those who are looking to support further can attend public hearings where they can speak about the benefits of your project. Most likely, an independent pro-group would have emerged by now and will actively participate in all aspects of the campaign.

You may choose to fight NIMBY on your own. Experience shows, however, that hiring a specialized firm will provide you with the necessary tactics to ensure support for your development. More often than not, the public relations firm you are looking to employ may not be equipped with the necessary tools and experience to tackle the NIMBY issue. Public relations specialists may help you develop your brand, create your image, and give your company the publicity it needs. Those benefits may be useful in some instances, but experience in grassroots campaigns is necessary to properly assess your project and analyze your NIMBY issues. Your best bet is to consult a public affairs organization. Professionals, trained in grassroots, will make sure that the correct message from your company is being distributed to the community and the silent majority is heard. The way you approach the situation will make all the difference.

When it came down to it the chief executive officer of that biomass corporation had a decision to make. He could choose to ignore the NIMBY fight, avoid communicating with the local community and take the situation to an unnecessary level of tension. Instead the company’s management team hired a specialized firm that developed a strategy, engaged in conversation with the community and encouraged the proponents of the project to voice their support. Soon after the conflict was put to rest, the permit was granted and the company went on to build the plant.

Author: Al Maiorino
President, Public Strategy Group Inc.
http://www.publicstrategygroup.com/
(617) 859-3006

MACT Madness

http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/5381/mact-madness

 

The U.S. EPA has released an overhauled final version of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology rules, and the biggest changes will affect biomass boilers.

 

By Lisa Gibson | March 22, 2011

 

When the proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology rules were released last April, a flurry of worry and borderline disgust engulfed the biomass power industry―concerned that it would soon be spending millions of dollars to install emission controls for hazardous air pollutants in existing units. It seemed the U.S. EPA’s proposals would mean that, or shutting down. Similarly, some developers feared they would have to scrap their plans, as the proposal made them uneconomical and burdensome.

The nearly 5,000 comments submitted to the EPA during the public comment period pointed out what some believed to be flaw after flaw in the proposal. Biomass industry proponents worked to convince the agency that the rules were duds and did not reflect the realistic environment surrounding the biomass power industry, among others. Overwhelmed with the number of comments containing vital information, the EPA asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant it an extension of either six or 15 months past its Jan. 16 final rule deadline, to allow more time to review the comments and incorporate any needed changes. The latter was the preferred option, as it would accommodate a complete reproposal of the rules, along with another comment period. After a short, five-day extension for the court to mull over the request, it was denied and instead the EPA was granted only one month to craft the final rule, which it promised would differ significantly from the proposal.

So with the biomass power industry on the edge of its seat anxiously awaiting a rule that could potentially devastate development, the EPA released its final rules on Feb. 23, cautioning up front that they were completely rewritten and compliance would cost about $1.8 billion less than projections for the proposed rules, a reduction of about half.

“We received more than 4,800 comments that shed new light on a number of key issues,” says Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. “Based on this feedback, EPA revised the draft standards and found we could reduce emissions at a lower cost and still achieve the health benefits required under the law.” The rules are realistic, achievable and reasonable, she adds.

The EPA expected it would not be granted its extension, McCarthy discloses, and thus began overhauling the rule immediately, shifting away from simply massaging the original proposal to rewriting it completely. “So while we would have preferred to have done it in a different process, we’re pretty comfortable with the rule that’s gone out,” she says. “We think it’s well-thought-out.”

Boiler Breakdown

The actions released Feb. 23 encompass standards for four source categories—major source industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters; area source industrial, commercial and institutional boilers; commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI); and sewage sludge incinerators—as well as an updated definition of solid waste, crucial in determining which rules a technology will fall under.

The biggest change to the final rules that will save the most money in comparison with the proposal comes in the section dedicated to boilers at major source polluter locations. Major sources are categorized by the release of more than 10 tons per year of any single air toxic or 25 tons per year of any combination of air toxics. Based on the data received in comments, the major source rule—divided into 15 subcategories of units burning natural gas, biomass, coal and other fuels—combines coal and biomass boilers into one solid fuel category. That closes the loophole for other solid fuel that may be burned, such as tires, and provides biomass boilers more flexibility. “As a result, the standards make it clear that many existing large biomass boilers no longer have to install scrubbers to control acid gases or lower mercury, because the data tells us that most of them don’t emit those pollutants to any great extent,” McCarthy says. The major source rule establishes emission standards for mercury (Hg), carbon monoxide (CO), dioxin/furans, hydrogen chloride (HCl), and particulate matter (PM).

The rolling together of the two categories means higher and more easily achieved emission limits for PM, HCl and Hg in all existing biomass units. It also results in higher emission limits for three existing subcategories of biomass boilers for dioxin/furans. For CO, however, emission limits were decreased in two subcategories of existing units. And for new biomass units, emission standards for mercury and dioxin/furans were increased in all subcategories, but PM and HCl standards were decreased. CO standards were increased for two biomass subcategories and decreased for two.

“By combining the coal and the biomass boiler categories for those three pollutants (PM, HCl and Hg), it has resulted in higher emission limits for the [existing] biomass units that will likely lead to them not having to install very expensive pollution control equipment that the original proposal would have required,” says Deanna Duram, managing consultant with Trinity Consultants, headquartered in Dallas. But while the improvements for existing biomass units are a positive, the decreased standards for PM and HCl in new units will be challenging, she adds.

Another important change also comes in the boiler categories. “We learned during the comment period that both new and existing small boilers are designed in a way that does not accommodate monitoring for specific pollutants,” McCarthy says. “That’s true whether you’re a major or area source.”

In light of that realization, the EPA created a subcategory for small boilers—classified by a heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour—requiring only tune-ups every two years, in lieu of compliance with numeric emission standards. Limited-use boilers are also only required to conduct the tune-ups as well as all existing area source biomass boilers, and new area source biomass boilers with heat input capacity of 10 MMBtu per hour or greater are only required to meet PM limits. “It makes sense because these units are not a big piece of the pie in terms of toxic emissions and if we get them tuned up, they run more efficiently, more cleanly; they save money for the facilities and they keep emissions as low as they can get,” McCarthy says.

Existing units falling under the boiler and process heater categories must comply with the rules by 2014, and new ones must comply upon start-up.

Incinerator Issues

Both CISWI and sewage sludge incinerator rules control the five pollutants addressed in the boiler rules, as well as lead, cadmium, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. A major point of contention with the proposed rules in the biomass industry was the definition of solid waste, key to determining which rules a technology will fall under and subsequently how much money it will cost to comply. The deadline for compliance with CISWI rules is three years after the EPA approves a state plan to implement the standards, or 2016, whichever is earlier.

Generally, to classify as a fuel instead of solid waste, a material must not be discarded initially; must remain in control of the generator; must be managed as a valuable commodity; have meaningful heating value and be burned in units that recover energy; and contain contaminants that are comparable to or lower than that of traditional fuel products. A petition process is also included for material that does not remain in control of the generator but has not been discarded and meets the legitimacy criteria above.

Perhaps one of the most meaningful changes in the final definition for the biomass industry is the classification of resinated wood residuals as a nonsolid waste whether combusted in or out of the generator’s control, provided it meets the legitimacy criteria. That means forest products companies selling their board trim, panel trim, sander dust and other materials can consider them fuel. “The benefit in this change is basically the rule as proposed said once it goes off-site, it’s a solid waste,” Duram explains, adding that the material has always been considered a valuable fuel in the forest products industry. “They still have to meet legitimacy criteria, but this was, for a lot of my clients, a very important change in the final rule.”

As in the proposed rule, materials such as forest residuals, ag biomass and other clean cellulosic resources still qualify as fuels, but are now given the title of “alternative” traditional fuels.

Had the biomass materials not qualified as fuels and instead solid waste, the operations burning them would be subject to stricter emission limits. As they are, the limits will require emission reductions at 85 of the 88 currently operating CISWI, according to the EPA. The rule requires stack testing, monitoring, and additional monitoring for new sources. Annual inspections of emission control devices are also required, as well as annual visible emissions tests of ash handling operations, and owners and operators must follow certain procedures for test data submittal.

The sewage sludge incinerator rule includes multiple hearth and fluidized bed technologies and may require control device installations at about 196 of the 218 existing units, according to the EPA. The rules require provisions for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and operator training. They were not included in the April 2010 MACT draft.

For more information on the rules, visit www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion.

Moving Forward

As a result of the significant changes in the final rules, the EPA announced a 60-day reconsideration period for certain aspects of the boiler and process heater portions, as well as for CISWI. The process will essentially replace the public comment period that would have been allowed with a 15-month extension.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is obligated to regulate hazardous air pollutants from these sources and initially finalized a rule in 2004. It was vacated by the court in 2007, however, on the grounds that it did not properly distinguish “industrial boilers” from “solid waste incinerators,” which must be regulated separately, as per the CAA. The relevant definition of solid waste is not in the CAA, but rather the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The EPA, however, was tasked to determine which nonhazardous secondary materials are, and are not, solid waste as it relates to the CAA and MACT rules.   

The EPA fully expects petitions during the reconsideration period, McCarthy says, and promises to assess them fully, making further changes to the rules if necessary. “The rules we finalized [Feb. 23] are based on best scientific data,” she says. “They will lead to significant achievable reduction. They’ll promote tremendous public health benefits, and as we move forward with the next steps in the reconsideration process, we’ll make sure that these standards remain practical to implement and that American families can see the health benefits as soon as possible.”

McCarthy also promised that the EPA will work with the U.S. departments of agriculture and energy to make compliance as easy and as inexpensive as possible for effected operations. The rules do, she adds, encourage the use of cleaner technologies by the dirtiest polluters: coal-fired boilers. “I think the final rule does provide some good incentives for coal to look at cofiring with biomass as part of a less-expensive compliance strategy.”

Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, acknowledges the final rule is a large improvement, especially in the elimination of numeric emission standards for certain small biomass boilers, but doesn’t include the sweeping changes the BPA had hoped for. “Despite the best efforts by the administration and EPA, what we are left with is a rule that, in spirit, is a very positive development,” he says. “I think a number of important changes were made, but I think it remains problematic.” The solid waste definition continues to worry the biomass power industry, as it can still include materials such as urban wood waste in California. “We are not incinerators,” Cleaves emphasizes. During the reconsideration process, the BPA plans to petition for a facility-by-facility basis for the rule, rather than the current pollutant-by-pollutant structure.

While the new solid fuel subcategory of the major source rule increases some pollutant limits, the biomass power industry is still concerned about meeting the limits for mercury and dioxins, Cleaves says. He adds, though, that the subcategory does ease concerns considerably, and McCarthy agrees. “The move to solid fuel category really provided flexibility for some of the biomass units and I think it was appropriate because it allowed them to target their controls to the actual emissions that they most contribute,” she says.

Although Cleaves still has some complaints about the final rules, he is appreciative of the fact that the EPA attempted to better understand the biomass power industry and how those rules would affect it. “There’s no question that the EPA had a substantial learning curve in the past 12 months,” he says.

Author: Lisa Gibson
Associate Editor, Biomass Power & Thermal
 (701) 738-4952
lgibson@bbiinternational.com

Pine Tree Potential

http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/5376/pine-tree-potential

Researchers are investigating the use of pine trees for bioenergy.

By Anna Austin | March 21, 2011

• 
  PINEY PROSPECTS: A University of Georgia study will focus on improving growth methods for pine trees and the environmental impacts on soil and water quality and carbon sequestration.
  

Researchers at the University of Georgia are using an $880,000 USDA grant to experiment with pine tree plantations for potential use for electricity and biofuel production.

The project will not examine the economics of using trees for bioenergy, but will instead focus on quality growth methods and environmental impacts on soil and water quality and carbon sequestration.

Each of the four team members, researchers at the UGA Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, has a different role. Associate Professor Daniel Markewitz will study the amount of carbon stored underground by the trees and what happens to it when they are harvested. Associate Professor Michael Kane will focus on aboveground tree components including tree dimensions such as height, diameter and branching, as well as biofuel and timber biomass. Professor Robert Teskey will research the biology of tree growth, what happens physiologically to pine trees when planted closer together and how efficiently they capture energy from the sun. And, Assistant Research Scientist Dehai Zhao will provide an integrative life-cycle carbon analysis, modeling above- and below-ground carbon accumulation and losses of carbon due to forest management activities, identifying the benefits of pine biofuels for reducing carbon loss to the atmosphere.

Markewitz says the project is already underway, and the team is currently recruiting students to work on the project and selecting specific project sites. Field work will begin this summer.

The researchers are focusing on pine trees for many reasons, Markewitz says.  “First, we—in the collective sense including forest industry, timber management organizations, nonindustrial private forest landowners, public landowners, universities, etc.—are very good at growing pine,” he says. “This is amply demonstrated by the timber resources growing in the Southeast, so there is already a lot of growing stock on the ground and a great deal of available infrastructure to grow and harvest this feedstock.”

Additionally, most of the planted southern pines are native to the region, Markewitz says. “As such, we are trying to improve on many decades of existing knowledge and investment. Finally, the USDA was specifically interested in a number of feedstocks, which included southern pine.”

The researchers believe that incorporating bioenergy feedstock production into existing systems of timber production could be beneficial to regional landowners and to national energy security.

—Anna Austin

Woody biomass: Demand and use in the U.S. and Europe

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5359/woody-biomass-demand-and-use-in-the-u-s-and-europe

 

By Anna Austin | March 18, 2011

• 
  Eviva LP CEO John Keppler will speak about woody biomass demand and use in the U.S. and Europe at the International Biomass Conference & Expo in St. Louis, May 2-5.
  

One of the biggest hurdles for biomass cofiring across the globe is the lack of credit-worthy biomass supply chains capable of providing predictable and reliable deliveries of adequate biomass to support power generators investment into converting existing coal-fired assets to co-fired or dedicated biomass-to-energy facilities.

That’s the perspective of John Keppler, CEO of Enviva LP. “Success hinges on the right kind of quality feedstock delivered safely, reliably, and most importantly, sustainably,” he says. Enviva’s portfolio of operating plants in the wood biomass supply chain total more than 300,000 metric tons per year of combined capacity, with an additional 2.5 million tons of production in various stages of construction, permitting, and development.

The company’s customer base is mainly utility and industrial customers throughout Europe—it recently acquired a deep-water port terminal in Chesapeake, Va., for its export activities— but the company projects significant growth in the U.S. as well. “The potential for biomass in the U.S. is tremendous,” Keppler says. “Even a one percent coal displacement would be approximately 17 million metric tons of wood biomass per year.”

At the International Biomass Conference & Trade Show in St. Louis, May 2-5, Keppler will draw on his experience in renewable biomass energy, serving both European and U.S. customer bases, to discuss the benefits and challenges of the various forms of wood biomass combusted in large-scale applications.

 “Currently, many utilities and large industries cofire wood chips, which are relatively inexpensive,” he says. “This type of processed wood is typically sourced from stems, tops, limbs, branches, and foliage of mixed hardwood and softwood trees, and the size and diversity of this feedstock can limit usage. Wood pellets are a more reliable feedstock due to their uniform shape, high bulk density and high calorific value. Moreover, they have a much lower moisture content due to the processing procedure and therefore are ideal for transporting to domestic or international customers.”

Keppler will discuss the issues facing the wood biomass industry, growing feedstock demands in the U.S. and internationally, as well as primary drivers of market growth, during the conference panel titled Global Perspectives on Biomass-Based Energy Opportunities.

Keppler will be joined by fellow panelists Rob Toker, vice president of partnerships and market research at Glycos Biotechnologies Inc.; Bengt-Erik Löfgren, CEO of ÄFAB Älvdalens Fastbränsle AB; Jean-Paul Crouzoulon, senior president of operations at Areva Renewables North America, and panel moderator Richard Weiner, Vice President of Fredrikson & Byron P.A.