http://www.mountainx.com/article/50340/Dogwood-Alliance-launches-campaign-against-logging-for-energy
By David Forbes on 05/29/2013 04:05 AM
From the Dogwood Alliance:
May 28, 2013 – Southern forests are being burned for electricity, and a
new campaign announced today aims to put an end to it. Dogwood Alliance
and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have launched “Our
Forests Aren’t Fuel” to raise awareness of an alarming and
rapidly-growing practice of logging forests and burning the trees as
fuel to generate electricity
At the forefront of burning trees logged from Southern forests for
electricity are some of Europe’s largest utility companies, including
Drax, Electrobel and RWE. Rising demand by these companies has resulted
in the rapid expansion of wood pellet exports from the Southern US. The
American South is now the largest exporter of wood pellets in the
world. Recent analyses indicate there are twenty-four pellet facilities
currently operating in the Southeast, and sixteen additional plants
planned for construction in the near-term. Market analysts project that
annual exports of wood pellets from the South will more than triple from
1.3 million tons in 2012 to nearly 6 million tons by 2015. All of the
South’s largest domestic utilities, including Dominion Resources and
Duke Energy, are also beginning to burn wood with plans for expansion in
the future.
“This rapidly expanding trend of burning trees for energy will both
accelerate climate change and destroy forests,” said Danna Smith,
Executive Director of Dogwood Alliance. “Southern forests not only
protect us from climate change, but protect our drinking water, provide
habitat for wildlife and contribute to our quality of life. We need
these companies to stop burning trees for electricity and embrace a
clean energy future that helps to protect, rather than destroy forests.”
“With the advancement of clean, renewable energy alternatives, the
growing practice of burning trees for electricity is a major step in the
wrong direction,” said Debbie Hammel, Senior Resource Specialist of the
Natural Resources Defense Council. “Our Forests Aren’t Fuel lets the
public know about the extent of this ecological devastation and calls on
utilities to end the practice. It’s an even dirtier form of energy
production than burning fossil fuels, it destroys valuable southern
ecosystems, and it isn’t necessary.”
Energy from burning trees – or biomass – has been widely promoted as a
form of renewable energy along with technologies like solar, wind, and
geothermal. Over the past two years, however, mounting scientific
evidence has discredited biomass from forests as a clean, renewable
fuel. Recent scientific reports document that burning whole trees to
produce electricity actually increases greenhouse gas pollution in the
near-term compared with fossil fuels and emits higher levels of multiple
air pollutants. This fact, combined with the negative impacts to
water resources and wildlife associated with industrial logging have
discredited whole trees as a clean fuel source. But current European
and U.S. renewable energy policies and subsidies encourage the burning
of trees as a “renewable” source of energy for power generation, helping
to facilitate the rapid increase in demand for trees from Southern
forests to burn in power plants.
Consequently, a new industry is spawning in the South. Companies like
Maryland-based Enviva, the South’s largest pellet manufacturer, are
grinding whole trees into wood pellets to be burned in power stations in
Europe while also supplying wood to domestic utilities like Dominion
Resources. New evidence that Enviva may be relying at least in part on
the harvesting of wetland forests has recently emerged. Georgia Biomass,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the German utility RWE Innogy, is also
manufacturing millions of tons of wood pellets annually to be burned in
European biomass facilities.
“Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” organizers reveal the scope and scale of the
growing biomass industry through a series of case studies on the
campaign website that include wood pellet manufacturers, domestic
utilities, and European utilities. Particular emphasis is placed on the
following companies:
· Enviva - one of the largest manufacturers of wood pellets in
the U.S. and Europe, with manufacturing facilities and partner
facilities in Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia. The Bethesda,
Maryland-based company has an annual production capacity of more than
590,000 tons. It also operates a deep water terminal at the Port of
Chesapeake, which has the capacity to receive and store up to three
million tons of woody biomass annually. Much of its product is sold and
shipped to European utilities, like Drax. Leftover biomass “residues,”
like tree tops and limbs, are sold to domestic utilities, like Dominion
Resources.
· Drax – major United Kingdom-based utility that recently
shifted focus from co-firing biomass in coal power plants to full
conversion of its largest plant to biomass. Drax has begun building
pellet mills directly through its wholly owned subsidiary Drax Biomass.
In December, 2012, Drax announced it will build Amite BioEnergy pellet
mill in Gloster, Mississippi, and Morehouse BioEnergy in Bastrop,
Louisiana, to supply wood pellets for use in its power plants, with
production set to begin in 2014.
· Dominion Resources – the Richmond, Virginia-based utility
recently launched several biomass operations that could well rely on
whole trees in the near future. Its 83 megawatt plant in Pittsylvania,
Virginia, is one of the largest biomass power stations on the east
coast. Dominion is also converting three existing peak power coal-fired
power stations into full-time biomass-burning facilities. The utility
currently sources much of its biomass material as “residues” from wood
pellet manufacturers like Enviva that export the bulk of its product to
European markets. Should the supply of these residuals become limited,
Dominion’s operations could increasingly rely on burning whole trees.
Full case studies for companies driving the biomass industry can be
found on the “Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” website,
http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/campaigns/bioenergy/, along with
recommended actions for those concerned about losing southern forests
for electricity, and a list of more than 70 supporting environmental
groups.
Showing posts with label biomass. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biomass. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
UK biomass plant exploded from Waycross wood pellets
http://www.l-a-k-e.org/blog/2013/05/uk-biomass-plant-exploded-from-waycross-wood-pellets.html
May 27, 2013
May 27, 2013
Explosions in Tilbury, England, explosions in Waycross:
south Georgia wood pellet dust blowing up here and there and
producing CO2 when burned there.
Why is
“the world’s largest wood pellet plant”
a better use of Georgia foresters’ resources than solar farms,
which don’t pollute and don’t explode?
Josh Schlossberg wrote for The Biomass Monitor 24 May 2013, Biomass Industry Plays With Fire, Gets Burned,
In a recent editorial (apparently not online),
Robert Farris
Executive Director of the
Georgia Forestry Commission,
wrote that Georgia has nine wood pellet plants.
He didn’t name them, but
Biomass Magazine has
a list of U.S. wood pellet plants,
including these in Georgia (I added the City column):
That’s ten; maybe another has opened lately. Biomass Magazine lists RWE Innogy as in Savannah, but according to Georgia Biomass PR of 26 May 2011,
An explosion here, and explosion there: pretty soon we might be
wondering why we want
“the world’s largest wood pellet plant”
in south Georgia.
Georgia Biomass claims it’s carbon neutral, which we know isn’t true for biomass from trees. It was our local Industrial Authority making that very claim that convinced me as a tree farmer that biomass was a bad idea.
They didn’t just try to pass off a stack of powerpoint slides as peer-reviewed research,
they also,
according to the VDT, made up a fake timeline.
Lack of carbon neutrality is one of the reasons
the VSU faculty senate voted to oppose that plant.
Fortunately, the Executive Director who tried to bring us that local biomass project is gone, and the Industrial Authority has since moved on to solar projects. But there’s still a wood pellet plant in Waycross, turning our local forests into fuel for a biomass plant in England, producing more CO2 and making climate change worse, affecting us back here that way, too.
When I paid my annual dues to the Georgia Forestry Association (GFA is a private organization not to be confused with the state agency Georgia Forestry Commission), I wondered whether Georgia tree farmers might find solar panels a better investment. I was told GFA is constantly talking to Georgia Power, so we’ll see.
Ever heard of an exploding solar panel? Me neither.
-jsq
Josh Schlossberg wrote for The Biomass Monitor 24 May 2013, Biomass Industry Plays With Fire, Gets Burned,
A massive fire raged inside wood pellet silos for RWE’s Tilbury Power Station in Essex, UK, on February 27, 2012. The biomass incinerator—the largest in the world at 750 megawatts—had just been converted from coal to woody biomass a month earlier. RWE claims no single cause can be attributed to the fire, but suspects that smoldering wood pellets triggered the dust fire.
In a recent editorial (apparently not online),
Robert Farris
Executive Director of the
Georgia Forestry Commission,
wrote that Georgia has nine wood pellet plants.
He didn’t name them, but
Biomass Magazine has
a list of U.S. wood pellet plants,
including these in Georgia (I added the City column):
| Company | Plant | City | State | Feedstock | Capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enova Energy Group – Gordon | Enova Energy | Gordon | GA | Softwood | 550,000 |
| Enova Energy Group – Gordon | Enova Energy | Warrenton | GA | Softwood | 550,000 |
| First Georgia BioEnergy | First Georgia BioEnergy | Waynesville | GA | Softwood | 38,000 |
| Fram Renewable Fuels LLC | Appling County Pellets LLC | Baxley | GA | Hardwood and Softwood | 200,000 |
| Fram Renewable Fuels LLC | Fram Renewable Fuels – Hazlehurst | Hazlehurst | GA | Softwood | 500,000 |
| Fulghum Graanul Oliver LLC | Fulghum Graanul Oliver LLC | Oliver | GA | Hardwood and Softwood | 200,000 |
| General Biofuels | General Biofuels – Georgia | Waynesville | GA | Softwood | 440,000 |
| RWE Innogy | Georgia Biomass | Waycross | GA | Hardwood and Softwood | 825,000 |
| SEGA Biofuels LLC | SEGA Biofuels LLC | Nahunta | GA | Softwood | 150,000 |
| Varn Wood Products | Varn Wood Products | Hoboken | GA | Softwood | 80,000 |
That’s ten; maybe another has opened lately. Biomass Magazine lists RWE Innogy as in Savannah, but according to Georgia Biomass PR of 26 May 2011,
The facility is a venture of major German utility RWE and its bioenergy subsidiary, RWE Innogy. According to RWE Innogy CFO Hans Bunting, the Georgia Biomass project came in two months ahead of schedule and under budget. RWE COO Leonard Birnbaum noted the almost $200 million plant is only a small part of the $8 billion a year RWE invests worldwide, but is very important to the company, which is the world’s largest biomass buyer and biomass power producer. The company operates more than 50,000 giga watts of power capacity, “But the challenge is provide more of this energy sustainably,” he added.Georgia Biomass held its official ribbon cutting ceremony in mid-May at its new operation just outside Waycross, Ga., hosting dignitaries and officials from around the world at the opening of the world’s largest wood fuel pellet plant. The facility, scheduled to be at full capacity by this fall, can produce up to 750,000 metric tons annually.
A good portion of the plant’s output may be heading to RWE’s existing coal-fired plant in Tilbury, United Kingdom, which is being converted to biomass and would become the largest biomass-fired power plant in the world.And less than a year later the Tilbury plant got fired up all right, burning and exploding using south Georgia wood. That February 2012 Tilbury explosion was after the Waycross plant exploded in June 2011. Teresa Stepzinski wrote for Jacksonville.com 21 June 2011, Explosion damages Waycross plant; no injuries reported
An explosion damaged the Georgia Biomass wood pellet processing plant near Waycross early Monday, crippling production at the factory that began operations a little more than a month ago.
No injuries were reported in the blast that occurred about 8 a.m. at the plant in the Waycross-Ware County Industrial Park about five miles west of Waycross off U.S. 82 and U.S. 1.
“It did extensive damage to the processing end. … They’ll probably be down an extended period of time,” Ware County Fire Chief Dennis Keen told the Times-Union.
An explosion here, and explosion there: pretty soon we might be
wondering why we want
“the world’s largest wood pellet plant”
in south Georgia.Georgia Biomass claims it’s carbon neutral, which we know isn’t true for biomass from trees. It was our local Industrial Authority making that very claim that convinced me as a tree farmer that biomass was a bad idea.
They didn’t just try to pass off a stack of powerpoint slides as peer-reviewed research,
they also,
according to the VDT, made up a fake timeline.
Lack of carbon neutrality is one of the reasons
the VSU faculty senate voted to oppose that plant.Fortunately, the Executive Director who tried to bring us that local biomass project is gone, and the Industrial Authority has since moved on to solar projects. But there’s still a wood pellet plant in Waycross, turning our local forests into fuel for a biomass plant in England, producing more CO2 and making climate change worse, affecting us back here that way, too.
When I paid my annual dues to the Georgia Forestry Association (GFA is a private organization not to be confused with the state agency Georgia Forestry Commission), I wondered whether Georgia tree farmers might find solar panels a better investment. I was told GFA is constantly talking to Georgia Power, so we’ll see.
Ever heard of an exploding solar panel? Me neither.
-jsq
Friday, April 19, 2013
LanzaTech CEO: Need Biofuels, Oil & All of the Above
http://domesticfuel.com/2013/04/19/lanzatech-ceo-need-biofuels-oil-all-of-the-above/
Posted by John Davis – April 19th, 2013
While some of the talk at the recent Advanced Biofuels Leadership Conference has focused on pointing fingers at the oil companies and some of the oil companies pointing back, at least one biofuel provider was saying we need them both. Jennifer Holmgren (shown holding an award for being one of the movers and shakers in the biofuel world), the CEO of LanzaTech, a company that turns carbon monoxide into ethanol, wants to take an “all-of-the-above” approach.
“It is so important for us to get as much energy and fuel into the pool that we need to have all of the solutions that can provide sustainable fuels at the table,” including natural gas, petroleum, algae, biomass, among others, she says … all providing economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Jennifer admits that is easy to say but tough to do. She says we need to look at the current state as part of a long journey to commercialize these processes. She adds that both sides need to tone down their rhetoric and recognize that oil is not going away, but it’s not enough to meet all of our energy needs.
“If you can get both sides to agree that oil doesn’t give us all the answers but is a necessary piece of the equation, I think we’ll be fine,” she says.
Jennifer is encouraged that so many oil companies attended the ABLC and are involved in the renewable energy business. She believes it’s a good start of better trust and patience between biofuels and Big Oil.
Posted by John Davis – April 19th, 2013
While some of the talk at the recent Advanced Biofuels Leadership Conference has focused on pointing fingers at the oil companies and some of the oil companies pointing back, at least one biofuel provider was saying we need them both. Jennifer Holmgren (shown holding an award for being one of the movers and shakers in the biofuel world), the CEO of LanzaTech, a company that turns carbon monoxide into ethanol, wants to take an “all-of-the-above” approach.
“It is so important for us to get as much energy and fuel into the pool that we need to have all of the solutions that can provide sustainable fuels at the table,” including natural gas, petroleum, algae, biomass, among others, she says … all providing economic, social and environmental sustainability.
Jennifer admits that is easy to say but tough to do. She says we need to look at the current state as part of a long journey to commercialize these processes. She adds that both sides need to tone down their rhetoric and recognize that oil is not going away, but it’s not enough to meet all of our energy needs.
“If you can get both sides to agree that oil doesn’t give us all the answers but is a necessary piece of the equation, I think we’ll be fine,” she says.
Jennifer is encouraged that so many oil companies attended the ABLC and are involved in the renewable energy business. She believes it’s a good start of better trust and patience between biofuels and Big Oil.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
GlobalData: BioEthanol Car Fuel of Future
http://domesticfuel.com/2013/04/18/globaldata-bioethanol-car-fuel-of-future/
Posted by Joanna Schroeder – April 18th, 2013
According to a new report by @GlobalDataEnergy, bioethanol is the car fuel of the future. The report, “Cellulosic Ethanol – Global Production, Major Trends, Regulations, and Key Country Analysis to 2020,” finds that ethanol is the most widely acclaimed alternative or additive for gasoline used for running vehicles. In addition, the U.S. ranked number one in biofuel production using natural waste feedstocks. According to the latest report, the U.S. is the global leader in cellulosic ethanol production, manufacturing 5.42 million gallons in 2012.
Bioethanol is produced through the fermentation of cellulosic feedstock such as forest and agricultural waste. The reports finds that the U.S. has an abundance of biomass feedstock, and dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus that are grown exclusively for conversion into cellulosic ethanol to help the nation’s ambition to meet fuel needs while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The U.S. is the only country currently working to promote the cellulosic ethanol market, says the report, with the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) providing grants to help companies establish a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant. As a result, several companies have set up pilot and demonstration plants and a few commercial plants are expected to be commissioned in late 2013. The report also finds that the U.S. have also mandated the addition of 10% ethanol in gasoline fuel, setting steady domestic demand for the industry, while certain recently released cars are able to run on a 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline mix.
The report finds corn stover and wheat straw are among the most freely available types of feedstock used in countries producing cellulosic ethanol, and growing ethanol demand may see these nations utilizing the residue of their corn crop for ethanol production, creating a sizable market for agricultural waste. GlobalData expects that the growing feedstock demand will create a structured market, in which biomass feedstock prices will be set based on their ethanol yield and the prevailing trading price of ethanol.
Some EU countries such as France and Italy have cellulosic ethanol production infrastructure, but a limited supply of biomass feedstock. Growth of commercial production in these countries may fuel the need to import feedstock from nearby countries or expand production to other countries with ample feedstock availability. A few producers with upcoming commercial scale plants in the U.S. have already started signing agreements to procure agricultural residue and other kinds of cellulosic feedstock.
Global cellulosic ethanol is expected to increase from 14.25m gallons in 2012 to 412.25m gallons in 2020, with commercial production anticipated to take off on a large scale in late 2013 and 2014, thanks to major players adding substantial production capacity and new companies joining the market. The report finds that the U.S. is expected to retain its market dominance until 2020.
Posted by Joanna Schroeder – April 18th, 2013
According to a new report by @GlobalDataEnergy, bioethanol is the car fuel of the future. The report, “Cellulosic Ethanol – Global Production, Major Trends, Regulations, and Key Country Analysis to 2020,” finds that ethanol is the most widely acclaimed alternative or additive for gasoline used for running vehicles. In addition, the U.S. ranked number one in biofuel production using natural waste feedstocks. According to the latest report, the U.S. is the global leader in cellulosic ethanol production, manufacturing 5.42 million gallons in 2012.
Bioethanol is produced through the fermentation of cellulosic feedstock such as forest and agricultural waste. The reports finds that the U.S. has an abundance of biomass feedstock, and dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass and miscanthus that are grown exclusively for conversion into cellulosic ethanol to help the nation’s ambition to meet fuel needs while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The U.S. is the only country currently working to promote the cellulosic ethanol market, says the report, with the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE) providing grants to help companies establish a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plant. As a result, several companies have set up pilot and demonstration plants and a few commercial plants are expected to be commissioned in late 2013. The report also finds that the U.S. have also mandated the addition of 10% ethanol in gasoline fuel, setting steady domestic demand for the industry, while certain recently released cars are able to run on a 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline mix.
The report finds corn stover and wheat straw are among the most freely available types of feedstock used in countries producing cellulosic ethanol, and growing ethanol demand may see these nations utilizing the residue of their corn crop for ethanol production, creating a sizable market for agricultural waste. GlobalData expects that the growing feedstock demand will create a structured market, in which biomass feedstock prices will be set based on their ethanol yield and the prevailing trading price of ethanol.
Some EU countries such as France and Italy have cellulosic ethanol production infrastructure, but a limited supply of biomass feedstock. Growth of commercial production in these countries may fuel the need to import feedstock from nearby countries or expand production to other countries with ample feedstock availability. A few producers with upcoming commercial scale plants in the U.S. have already started signing agreements to procure agricultural residue and other kinds of cellulosic feedstock.
Global cellulosic ethanol is expected to increase from 14.25m gallons in 2012 to 412.25m gallons in 2020, with commercial production anticipated to take off on a large scale in late 2013 and 2014, thanks to major players adding substantial production capacity and new companies joining the market. The report finds that the U.S. is expected to retain its market dominance until 2020.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Database of Woody Biomass Energy Gets Upgraded, Expanded
http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/Database-of-Woody-Biomass-Energy-Gets-Upgraded-Expanded-203303151.html
Posted By Mark Vruno | 04/16/2013 6:32:00 PM
GREENVILLE, SC – A three-year-old database of industrial and selected community-scale users of wood-to-energy facilities across North America has been updated and expanded, reports the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities (Endowment). The improved site -- www.wood2energy.org -- is a searchable database open to anyone with interest in the state of wood-to-energy conversion at a national, state/provincial or local operating level.
Through the Woody Biomass Joint Venture – a partnership between the USDA Forest Service and the Endowment – recent updates to the Wood2Energy database ensure that it serves as the most comprehensive and up-to-date source of users and processors of wood for energy, e.g., electric facilities, thermal installations, pellet mills, etc.
Partners thoughout the biomass industry as well as state and federal agencies have worked to improve the usability and accuracy of the database and recently began including thermal installations, such as schools and government offices.
Wood2Energy project manager Mladen Grbovic says it now has reviewed and updated for accuracy more than half of the existing U.S. facilities. “The systems will only get better as people share information and their experience with accessing the system," Grbovic adds.
Carlton Owen, the Endowment president, noted, “This type of information is vital to making sound planning and business decisions for expansion of wood as an energy source while protecting sustainability of North America’s rich forested estate.”
Posted By Mark Vruno | 04/16/2013 6:32:00 PM
GREENVILLE, SC – A three-year-old database of industrial and selected community-scale users of wood-to-energy facilities across North America has been updated and expanded, reports the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities (Endowment). The improved site -- www.wood2energy.org -- is a searchable database open to anyone with interest in the state of wood-to-energy conversion at a national, state/provincial or local operating level.
Through the Woody Biomass Joint Venture – a partnership between the USDA Forest Service and the Endowment – recent updates to the Wood2Energy database ensure that it serves as the most comprehensive and up-to-date source of users and processors of wood for energy, e.g., electric facilities, thermal installations, pellet mills, etc.
Partners thoughout the biomass industry as well as state and federal agencies have worked to improve the usability and accuracy of the database and recently began including thermal installations, such as schools and government offices.
Wood2Energy project manager Mladen Grbovic says it now has reviewed and updated for accuracy more than half of the existing U.S. facilities. “The systems will only get better as people share information and their experience with accessing the system," Grbovic adds.
Carlton Owen, the Endowment president, noted, “This type of information is vital to making sound planning and business decisions for expansion of wood as an energy source while protecting sustainability of North America’s rich forested estate.”
Monday, March 25, 2013
Country forestry banquet set for Tuesday
http://dailysoutherner.com/community/x1221097993/Country-forestry-banquet-set-for-Tuesday
March 25, 2013
TARBORO — Persons with an interest in the timber industry will gather Tuesday at the East Carolina Agriculture and Education Center for the annual Edgecombe County Forestry Banquet.
The meal portion of the event will get under way at 6:30 p.m. and the program will begin at 7:15
Clay Altizer, Utilization Forester for the North Carolina Forest Service, and Edward Sontag, director of fiber sourcing for Envira LP, will deliver the main presentations.
As recently as the third quarter of 2011, the forest products sector in North Carolina included 2,299 manufacturing facilities and provided 67,613 jobs and an annual payroll of $2.7 billion.
The overall economic benefit to the state was estimated at $23.8 billion with a total related work force of 178,498.
Sontag will talk about the future of palletized woody biomass.
Enviva is one of the largest manufacturers of processed biomass fuel in the form of 100 percent wood pellets in the United States and Europe.
Enviva operates a pellet facility in Ashokie capable of producing 350,000 metric tons of wood pellet annually and is scheduled to bring a 500,000 metric ton plant online in Northampton at mid-year.
Woody biomass is made up of the trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the by-products of forest management.
The National Energy Policy Act, signed into law on August 8, 2005, recognized the importance of a diverse portfolio of domestic energy. The policy outlined 13 recommendations designed to increase America’s use of renewable and alternative energy. One of these recommendations directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Energy to re-evaluate access limitations to federal lands in order to increase renewable energy production, such as biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar.
On June 18, 2003, The Departments of Energy, Interior, and Agriculture announced an initiative to encourage the use of woody biomass from forest and rangeland restoration and hazardous fuels treatment projects. The three Departments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Policy Principles for Woody Biomass Utilization for Restoration and Fuel Treatment on Forests, Woodlands, and Rangelands, supporting woody biomass utilization as a recommended option to use to reduce hazardous fuels rather than burning or employing other on-site disposal methods.
In North Carolina, North Carolina General Statutes 105-277.2 through 105-277.7 provide an incentive for farmers and foresters to keep agricultural and forested land in those uses through property tax deferments as part of the use value program.
In order to qualify for forestry use, there must be at least 20 acres of forested land, and you must present to the tax assessor a Forestry Management Plan, showing the forested land is under a sound management program.
For more information, contact Bob Filbrun at 641-7815.
March 25, 2013
TARBORO — Persons with an interest in the timber industry will gather Tuesday at the East Carolina Agriculture and Education Center for the annual Edgecombe County Forestry Banquet.
The meal portion of the event will get under way at 6:30 p.m. and the program will begin at 7:15
Clay Altizer, Utilization Forester for the North Carolina Forest Service, and Edward Sontag, director of fiber sourcing for Envira LP, will deliver the main presentations.
As recently as the third quarter of 2011, the forest products sector in North Carolina included 2,299 manufacturing facilities and provided 67,613 jobs and an annual payroll of $2.7 billion.
The overall economic benefit to the state was estimated at $23.8 billion with a total related work force of 178,498.
Sontag will talk about the future of palletized woody biomass.
Enviva is one of the largest manufacturers of processed biomass fuel in the form of 100 percent wood pellets in the United States and Europe.
Enviva operates a pellet facility in Ashokie capable of producing 350,000 metric tons of wood pellet annually and is scheduled to bring a 500,000 metric ton plant online in Northampton at mid-year.
Woody biomass is made up of the trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown in a forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the by-products of forest management.
The National Energy Policy Act, signed into law on August 8, 2005, recognized the importance of a diverse portfolio of domestic energy. The policy outlined 13 recommendations designed to increase America’s use of renewable and alternative energy. One of these recommendations directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Energy to re-evaluate access limitations to federal lands in order to increase renewable energy production, such as biomass, wind, geothermal, and solar.
On June 18, 2003, The Departments of Energy, Interior, and Agriculture announced an initiative to encourage the use of woody biomass from forest and rangeland restoration and hazardous fuels treatment projects. The three Departments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Policy Principles for Woody Biomass Utilization for Restoration and Fuel Treatment on Forests, Woodlands, and Rangelands, supporting woody biomass utilization as a recommended option to use to reduce hazardous fuels rather than burning or employing other on-site disposal methods.
In North Carolina, North Carolina General Statutes 105-277.2 through 105-277.7 provide an incentive for farmers and foresters to keep agricultural and forested land in those uses through property tax deferments as part of the use value program.
In order to qualify for forestry use, there must be at least 20 acres of forested land, and you must present to the tax assessor a Forestry Management Plan, showing the forested land is under a sound management program.
For more information, contact Bob Filbrun at 641-7815.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
First Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Plant in US Goes Bankrupt
http://www.energytribune.com/75180/first-commercial-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-in-us-goes-bankrupt
Ed. note: This piece was first ptublished on Robert Rapier’s R-Squared Energy Blog.
Western Biomass Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Blue Sugars Corporation (previously KL Energy) reported the major milestone of claiming the first cellulosic ethanol tax credits under the RFS2 for a 20,069 gallon batch of cellulosic ethanol produced from bagasse (sugar cane waste) in April 2012.
However, regular readers are aware that for years I have been deeply skeptical that cellulosic ethanol as envisioned by — and ultimately mandated by — the US government will be an economic and scalable fuel option. The obstacles to success are significant, and I have described them in detail on many occasions.
Nevertheless, there is the possibility that in some niche applications that modest amounts of cellulosic ethanol may be produced for sale. One of those niches is from waste biomass such as bagasse that is produced during the processing of sugarcane. But in general – despite the proclamations from promoters like Vinod Khosla – the chemistry and physics are formidable obstacles working against the success of cellulosic ethanol. I will state in no uncertain terms that I don’t believe it can ever be mass-produced more cheaply than corn ethanol, and that industry’s financial trouble are well-documented.
Now comes news that Western Biomass Energy has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. In my column in which I reported on the initial production of cellulosic ethanol from Western Biomass, I noted:
The Pasadena, Texas-based firm lost $0.28 per share during the fourth quarter, falling short of the $0.15 per share loss in Q4 2011. However, it beat the Wall Street consensus of a loss of $0.32 per share.
Fourth quarter revenue rounded out at $87,000 – the company’s first revenue since inception. This fell drastically short of the $1.62 million analysts hoped for.
Ed. note: This piece was first ptublished on Robert Rapier’s R-Squared Energy Blog.
First Qualifying Cellulosic Ethanol
Last year, to much fanfare, the first batch of qualifying cellulosic ethanol was produced (i.e., it qualified for credits under the EPA program for certifying ethanol for sales). I reported on the development at that time.
Western Biomass Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Blue Sugars Corporation (previously KL Energy) reported the major milestone of claiming the first cellulosic ethanol tax credits under the RFS2 for a 20,069 gallon batch of cellulosic ethanol produced from bagasse (sugar cane waste) in April 2012.
However, regular readers are aware that for years I have been deeply skeptical that cellulosic ethanol as envisioned by — and ultimately mandated by — the US government will be an economic and scalable fuel option. The obstacles to success are significant, and I have described them in detail on many occasions.
Nevertheless, there is the possibility that in some niche applications that modest amounts of cellulosic ethanol may be produced for sale. One of those niches is from waste biomass such as bagasse that is produced during the processing of sugarcane. But in general – despite the proclamations from promoters like Vinod Khosla – the chemistry and physics are formidable obstacles working against the success of cellulosic ethanol. I will state in no uncertain terms that I don’t believe it can ever be mass-produced more cheaply than corn ethanol, and that industry’s financial trouble are well-documented.
Another Reality Check
I was extremely skeptical that the batch of cellulosic ethanol produced by Western Biomass was anything more than a publicity stunt rather than an indication that they had actually managed to conquer the economics of the process. My skepticism was heightened when they never produced another qualifying batch for the rest of the year, and that one batch they did produce was exported to Brazil to be used at the Rio+20 Conference.
Now comes news that Western Biomass Energy has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. In my column in which I reported on the initial production of cellulosic ethanol from Western Biomass, I noted:
Cellulosic ethanol commercialization still faces a number of challenges. Capital and operating costs are expected to remain higher than for corn ethanol producers, and even they are currently struggling with low margins. The ethanol market also faces the hurdle of the blend wall, which makes it difficult to expand domestic production without increases in E15 and E85 consumption, and/or ethanol exports.It will continue to be true that as long as the US government incentivizes these ventures, companies will continue to pursue them. But I believe it is also true that every gallon of production they make will be produced at a significant per gallon loss. Mother nature simply didn’t design cellulose to be easily accessible, and extracting the cellulose, converting the cellulose into sugars, fermenting those sugars to ethanol, and finally purifying that ethanol will continue to be capital and energy-intensive operations.
Investors Should be Cautious
In addition to Western Biomass, one other company has produced qualifying cellulosic fuel. Vinod Khosla-backed KiOR announced earnings this week, while at the same time announcing that they had shipped their first batch of qualifying cellulosic diesel. This was presented as great news, and KiOR’s share price initially surged on the news. But a closer reading of their financial statement signals the kind of warning flags about KiOR that I have been waving for over a year:
The Pasadena, Texas-based firm lost $0.28 per share during the fourth quarter, falling short of the $0.15 per share loss in Q4 2011. However, it beat the Wall Street consensus of a loss of $0.32 per share.
Fourth quarter revenue rounded out at $87,000 – the company’s first revenue since inception. This fell drastically short of the $1.62 million analysts hoped for.
So, revenues were 95% less than expected. Yikes. Also the company’s cash and cash equivalents declined by $91 million over the previous year, down to $41 million. KiOR’s clock is ticking. They will likely find more investors willing to take a chance on them, but even though I have a couple of friends who work there, I am not optimistic about their long-term chances of competing in the motor fuel arena. As long as natural gas prices remain low, they will probably limp along, but their heavy dependence on cheap natural gas is a risk factor unrecognized by most investors.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Biofuels Digest’s 10-Minute Guide to Obama’s New Energy Policy
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/03/18/biofuels-digests-10-minute-guide-to-the-obama-administrations-new-energy-policy/
“You see, after years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future. We produce more oil than we have in 15 years. We import less oil than we have in 20 years…But the only way we’re going to break this cycle of spiking gas prices for good is to shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good. That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal.
“I’m proposing that we take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public, so that we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit…devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy – like advanced biofuels and natural gas – so drivers can one day go coast-to-coast without using a drop of oil.
“And in the meantime, let’s keep moving forward on an all-of-the-above energy strategy. A strategy where we produce more oil and gas here at home, but also more biofuels and fuel-efficient vehicles; more solar power and wind power. We can do this.”
A companion study released the the Department of Energy was, in its way, more ambitious and more specific: “TEF does not project that all liquid fuels will be eliminated from the future transportation sector, but rather that demand can be sufficiently reduced so that biomass can meet all liquid fuel needs.”
No. In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to create an Energy Security Trust Fund, which would free American families and business from painful spikes in gas prices. The President’s plan builds on an idea that has bipartisan support from experts including retired admirals and generals and leading CEOs, and it focuses on one goal: shifting America’s cars and trucks off oil entirely.
Over 10 years, the Energy Security Trust will provide $2 billion for critical, cutting-edge research focused on developing cost-effective transportation alternatives. The investments will support research into a range of technologies – things like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, and domestically produced natural gas. It will also help fund a small number of real-world experiments that try different transportation techniques in cities and towns around the country using advanced vehicles at scale.
No. The funding will be provided by revenues from federal oil and gas development, and will not add any additional costs to the federal budget.
They’re here.
Yep. Here you are.
It’s a new study from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory that finds the United States has the potential to reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector by more than 80% by 2050 – and proposes pathways towards that goal.
• Stopping Growth in Transportation Sector Energy Use
• Using More Biofuels
• Expanding Electric and Hydrogen Technologies
1. Challenges Americans to double renewable electricity generation again by 2020.
2. Directs the Interior Department to make energy project permitting more robust.
3. Commits to safer production and cleaner electricity from natural gas.
4. Supports a responsible nuclear waste strategy.
5. Sets a goal to cut net oil imports in half by the end of the decade.
6. Commits to partnering with the private sector to adopt natural gas and other alternative fuels in the Nation’s trucking fleet.
7. Establishes a new goal to double American energy productivity by 2030.
8. Challenges States to Cut Energy Waste and Support Energy Efficiency and Modernize the Grid.
9. Commits to build on the success of existing partnerships with the public and private sector to use energy wisely.
10. Calls for sustained investments in technologies that promote maximum productivity of energy use and reduce waste.
11. Leads efforts through the Clean Energy Ministerial and other fora to promote energy efficiency and the development and deployment of clean energy.
12. Works through the G20 and other fora toward the global phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
13. Promotes safe and responsible oil and natural gas development.
14. Updates our international capabilities to strengthen energy security.
15. Supports American nuclear exports.
Right here.
The transportation sector accounts for 71% of total U.S. petroleum consumption and 33% of U.S. total carbon emissions.
1. Deployment pathways issues including the development of, transition to, and challenges of advanced technology
2. Non-cost barriers to advanced vehicles such as range anxiety, refueling availability, technology reliability, and consumer familiarity.
3. Opportunities to improve non-light-duty vehicle efficiency for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, off-road vehicles and equipment, aircraft, marine vessels, and railways
4. Opportunities for switching modes of transporting freight, such as moving freight from trucks to rail and ships.
5. Infrastructure expansion required for deployment of low-GHG fuels, including electricity, biofuels, hydrogen, and natural gas
6. Balance of biomass resource demand and supply, including allocations for various transportation fuels, electric generation, and other applications.
7. Opportunities to save energy and abate GHG emissions through community development and built environment strategies
8. Trip reduction through mass transit, tele-working, tele-shopping, carpooling, and improvement of vehicle performance through efficient driving
9. Freight demand patterns, including trends in operational needs and projections of future use levels.
Up to 100 percent of fuel needs, if the US hits its 2050 fuel efficiency, hydrogen fuel, and electrification goals as well. Even at the EIA baseline projected fuel demand in 2050, biofuels could supply as much as 50 percent of the jet fuel market, and 30 percent of the gasoline and diesel markets if EERE biofuel technology goals are met. Getting to the point where biomass could provide 100 percent of vehicle liquid fuels requires reducing the need for fuel through the efficiency and demand management measures described above, including deployment of electricity or hydrogen fuel alternatives.
Some. “While new fuel types require new infrastructure, the share of infrastructure cost within total fuel costs is very small (1.5-3 percent), and these costs can be made up for in fuel cost savings of more efficient advanced vehicles.”
You can start here at the TEF home page.
TEF is a collaboration between EERE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). The project benefitted from the input provided by a steering committee that included some of the nation’s foremost experts on transportation energy from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), academic researchers, and industry associations.
NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, a product of the Nixon Administration.
The President’s strategy includes requiring federal agencies, under NEPA’s authority, to include climate change impact in reviewing proposed projects. For example — leases to drill for coal, or export coal to China, or construct oil pipelines like the Keystone XL pipeline, could be reviewed not only for air pollution and water fouling, but for overall greenhouse gas impact.
Big deal. Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity told Bloomberg that the result will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews.
Generally, yes. NEPA grants a right of Federal review of proposed projects for environmental impact — and climate change certainly falls broadly within that category. The devil is going to be in the details — after all, how much specific contribution to a problem like climate change be attributed to a single project?
No. A NEPA review is, at the end of the day, aimed at producing a thorough vetting process, rather than a specific outcome. Projects go through NEPA reviews — there is a robust commentary opportunity — but regulators, in the end, make decisions on permits. NEPA does establish a forum for introducing or reviewing data that will be used in a regulator’s decision — or, in lawsuits that may be filed to reverse a ruling.
Forbes’ Houston-based energy columnist Christopher Helman writes: “This is a terrible idea — and a backdoor to the imposition of a nationwide carbon tax — that congress should not allow to pass.
“There is absolutely no reason why we need a dedicated Energy Security Trust to fund the national labs, or to fund any kind of alternative energy research. If congress wants to fund research it can pass a bill to fund research…Isn’t congressional appropriation how the federal government is supposed to pay for such stuff?
“Then consider that the Department of Energy has in recent years built up an insanely terrible record of wasting taxpayer money by directing funds to private companies, many of which have simply gone belly up (but not before paying lavish bonuses to executives).
Here’s some flavor. “This approach will only encourage more dirty energy production…[and] doesn’t create any additional cost for using fossil fuels, thus creating no incentive for firms to divert resources into safer, cleaner and more renewable sources of energy,” Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, told bizjournals.com.
Major push from Obama on energy.
From DOE: “Liquid fuels demand can be sufficiently reduced so that biomass can meet all liquid fuel needs.”
What’s up? What is an Energy Security Trust, anyway? The Digest’s 10-Minute Guide tells all.
In an address at the Argonne National Laboratories on Friday, President Obama said:
“You see, after years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future. We produce more oil than we have in 15 years. We import less oil than we have in 20 years…But the only way we’re going to break this cycle of spiking gas prices for good is to shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good. That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal.
“I’m proposing that we take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public, so that we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit…devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy – like advanced biofuels and natural gas – so drivers can one day go coast-to-coast without using a drop of oil.
“And in the meantime, let’s keep moving forward on an all-of-the-above energy strategy. A strategy where we produce more oil and gas here at home, but also more biofuels and fuel-efficient vehicles; more solar power and wind power. We can do this.”
A companion study released the the Department of Energy was, in its way, more ambitious and more specific: “TEF does not project that all liquid fuels will be eliminated from the future transportation sector, but rather that demand can be sufficiently reduced so that biomass can meet all liquid fuel needs.”
The Energy Security Trust. Is it a new idea?
No. In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to create an Energy Security Trust Fund, which would free American families and business from painful spikes in gas prices. The President’s plan builds on an idea that has bipartisan support from experts including retired admirals and generals and leading CEOs, and it focuses on one goal: shifting America’s cars and trucks off oil entirely.
How does it work?
Over 10 years, the Energy Security Trust will provide $2 billion for critical, cutting-edge research focused on developing cost-effective transportation alternatives. The investments will support research into a range of technologies – things like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, and domestically produced natural gas. It will also help fund a small number of real-world experiments that try different transportation techniques in cities and towns around the country using advanced vehicles at scale.
Does it involve new taxes?
No. The funding will be provided by revenues from federal oil and gas development, and will not add any additional costs to the federal budget.
President Obama’s complete remarks are where?
They’re here.
Does the White House’s have a short take on the Energy Security Trust?
Yep. Here you are.
What is the Transport Energy Futures (TEF) study?
It’s a new study from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory that finds the United States has the potential to reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector by more than 80% by 2050 – and proposes pathways towards that goal.
What is the strategy?
• Stopping Growth in Transportation Sector Energy Use
• Using More Biofuels
• Expanding Electric and Hydrogen Technologies
What’s the overall 15-point Obama Energy Strategy, again?
1. Challenges Americans to double renewable electricity generation again by 2020.
2. Directs the Interior Department to make energy project permitting more robust.
3. Commits to safer production and cleaner electricity from natural gas.
4. Supports a responsible nuclear waste strategy.
5. Sets a goal to cut net oil imports in half by the end of the decade.
6. Commits to partnering with the private sector to adopt natural gas and other alternative fuels in the Nation’s trucking fleet.
7. Establishes a new goal to double American energy productivity by 2030.
8. Challenges States to Cut Energy Waste and Support Energy Efficiency and Modernize the Grid.
9. Commits to build on the success of existing partnerships with the public and private sector to use energy wisely.
10. Calls for sustained investments in technologies that promote maximum productivity of energy use and reduce waste.
11. Leads efforts through the Clean Energy Ministerial and other fora to promote energy efficiency and the development and deployment of clean energy.
12. Works through the G20 and other fora toward the global phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
13. Promotes safe and responsible oil and natural gas development.
14. Updates our international capabilities to strengthen energy security.
15. Supports American nuclear exports.
Where’s the Fact Sheet on that?
Right here.
Why the transport sector, specifically?
The transportation sector accounts for 71% of total U.S. petroleum consumption and 33% of U.S. total carbon emissions.
What are the 9 Interconnected reports that make up the overall TEF study?
1. Deployment pathways issues including the development of, transition to, and challenges of advanced technology
2. Non-cost barriers to advanced vehicles such as range anxiety, refueling availability, technology reliability, and consumer familiarity.
3. Opportunities to improve non-light-duty vehicle efficiency for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, off-road vehicles and equipment, aircraft, marine vessels, and railways
4. Opportunities for switching modes of transporting freight, such as moving freight from trucks to rail and ships.
5. Infrastructure expansion required for deployment of low-GHG fuels, including electricity, biofuels, hydrogen, and natural gas
6. Balance of biomass resource demand and supply, including allocations for various transportation fuels, electric generation, and other applications.
7. Opportunities to save energy and abate GHG emissions through community development and built environment strategies
8. Trip reduction through mass transit, tele-working, tele-shopping, carpooling, and improvement of vehicle performance through efficient driving
9. Freight demand patterns, including trends in operational needs and projections of future use levels.
How much biofuels use does the TEF study anticipate?
Up to 100 percent of fuel needs, if the US hits its 2050 fuel efficiency, hydrogen fuel, and electrification goals as well. Even at the EIA baseline projected fuel demand in 2050, biofuels could supply as much as 50 percent of the jet fuel market, and 30 percent of the gasoline and diesel markets if EERE biofuel technology goals are met. Getting to the point where biomass could provide 100 percent of vehicle liquid fuels requires reducing the need for fuel through the efficiency and demand management measures described above, including deployment of electricity or hydrogen fuel alternatives.
Will this require an avalanche of infrastructure?
Some. “While new fuel types require new infrastructure, the share of infrastructure cost within total fuel costs is very small (1.5-3 percent), and these costs can be made up for in fuel cost savings of more efficient advanced vehicles.”
Where can I start to dig deeper into the overall plan and the TEF study?
You can start here at the TEF home page.
Who was responsible for TEF?
TEF is a collaboration between EERE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). The project benefitted from the input provided by a steering committee that included some of the nation’s foremost experts on transportation energy from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), academic researchers, and industry associations.
What is NEPA and what is happening there?
NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, a product of the Nixon Administration.
Er, Nixon? What’s new there?
The President’s strategy includes requiring federal agencies, under NEPA’s authority, to include climate change impact in reviewing proposed projects. For example — leases to drill for coal, or export coal to China, or construct oil pipelines like the Keystone XL pipeline, could be reviewed not only for air pollution and water fouling, but for overall greenhouse gas impact.
Are the changes in NEPA reviews ho-hum, or a big deal?
Big deal. Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity told Bloomberg that the result will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews.
Does the President have this authority under NEPA?
Generally, yes. NEPA grants a right of Federal review of proposed projects for environmental impact — and climate change certainly falls broadly within that category. The devil is going to be in the details — after all, how much specific contribution to a problem like climate change be attributed to a single project?
Is a NEPA review capable of derailing a project?
No. A NEPA review is, at the end of the day, aimed at producing a thorough vetting process, rather than a specific outcome. Projects go through NEPA reviews — there is a robust commentary opportunity — but regulators, in the end, make decisions on permits. NEPA does establish a forum for introducing or reviewing data that will be used in a regulator’s decision — or, in lawsuits that may be filed to reverse a ruling.
Overall, is there going to be opposition from the right on the Energy Security Trust?
Forbes’ Houston-based energy columnist Christopher Helman writes: “This is a terrible idea — and a backdoor to the imposition of a nationwide carbon tax — that congress should not allow to pass.
“There is absolutely no reason why we need a dedicated Energy Security Trust to fund the national labs, or to fund any kind of alternative energy research. If congress wants to fund research it can pass a bill to fund research…Isn’t congressional appropriation how the federal government is supposed to pay for such stuff?
“Then consider that the Department of Energy has in recent years built up an insanely terrible record of wasting taxpayer money by directing funds to private companies, many of which have simply gone belly up (but not before paying lavish bonuses to executives).
Why is there opposition from the left?
Here’s some flavor. “This approach will only encourage more dirty energy production…[and] doesn’t create any additional cost for using fossil fuels, thus creating no incentive for firms to divert resources into safer, cleaner and more renewable sources of energy,” Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, told bizjournals.com.
Construction on Clinton biofuel refinery could start as early as fall
http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2013/03/18/1243607?sac=fo.business
Published: 07:22 AM, Mon Mar 18, 2013
Construction on a $170 million refinery in Clinton to convert 20 million tons of grass into fuel each year could start as early as this fall.
Chemtex, an international company with offices in Wilmington, plans to build the refinery on 166 acres in Sampson County. The plant would mirror one already built in Italy. If construction begins as planned, the plant could open in 2015.
Yet hurdles remain.
"We're working very hard to try to make it a reality," said Dennis Leong, an executive vice president at Chemtex. "I'm very confident that in 2015, this plant will be open somewhere, and I should say we're still very hopeful and it's our intention to open in North Carolina. It's really making sure it's a project that's welcome in the state."
It will take at least 20,000 acres of energy crops such as miscanthus and switchgrass to feed the refinery. Chemtex has developed its own technology to extract the energy from green plants and soft woods.
The plan is to sign up farmers near the plant to grow materials on land they aren't already using to grow food.
Chemtex estimates the facility will help create more than 300 jobs in the region while helping the nation reduce its dependence on foreign oil. And that could be just the beginning. Chemtex documents say North Carolina has enough available land to support as many as 15 refineries, which could mean 5,000 new jobs and a $2 billion boost to the state's economy.
The N.C. Biofuels Center has identified 100,000 acres of spray fields in Sampson, Duplin and Wayne counties that could potentially be used for biocrops. But state environmental workers are still studying how to plant the crops in spray fields in a way that complies with waste regulations.
The ethanol produced at the plant could be sold to fuel blenders and end up in cars' gasoline tanks.
Published: 07:22 AM, Mon Mar 18, 2013
Construction on a $170 million refinery in Clinton to convert 20 million tons of grass into fuel each year could start as early as this fall.
Chemtex, an international company with offices in Wilmington, plans to build the refinery on 166 acres in Sampson County. The plant would mirror one already built in Italy. If construction begins as planned, the plant could open in 2015.
Yet hurdles remain.
"We're working very hard to try to make it a reality," said Dennis Leong, an executive vice president at Chemtex. "I'm very confident that in 2015, this plant will be open somewhere, and I should say we're still very hopeful and it's our intention to open in North Carolina. It's really making sure it's a project that's welcome in the state."
It will take at least 20,000 acres of energy crops such as miscanthus and switchgrass to feed the refinery. Chemtex has developed its own technology to extract the energy from green plants and soft woods.
The plan is to sign up farmers near the plant to grow materials on land they aren't already using to grow food.
Chemtex estimates the facility will help create more than 300 jobs in the region while helping the nation reduce its dependence on foreign oil. And that could be just the beginning. Chemtex documents say North Carolina has enough available land to support as many as 15 refineries, which could mean 5,000 new jobs and a $2 billion boost to the state's economy.
The N.C. Biofuels Center has identified 100,000 acres of spray fields in Sampson, Duplin and Wayne counties that could potentially be used for biocrops. But state environmental workers are still studying how to plant the crops in spray fields in a way that complies with waste regulations.
The ethanol produced at the plant could be sold to fuel blenders and end up in cars' gasoline tanks.
Staff writer John Ramsey can be reached at ramseyj@fayobserver.com or 486-3574.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Southern Research Institute (NC) Wins DOE Grant to Develop Biomass Liquification Process For Transportation Fuels Production
http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/Southern_Research_Institute__NC__Wins_DOE_Grant_to_Develop_Biomass_Liquification_Process_For_Transportation_Fuels_Production-131092.html
Date Posted: March 14, 2013
Durham, NC—Southern Research Institute announced March 13 it has entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Dept. of Energy to develop a mild liquefaction process that will economically convert biomass to petroleum refinery-ready bio-oils.
The process will convert biomass to stabilized bio-oils that can be directly blended with hydrotreater and cracker input streams in a petroleum refinery for production of gasoline and diesel range hydrocarbons.
“We hope the project will advance liquefaction by demonstrating cost-effective biomass conversion to stable bio-oils at mild conditions. Other liquefaction processes either use severe conditions or expensive catalysts to achieve stability,” said Santosh K. Gangwal, Ph.D., Southern Research principal investigator.
“We will also evaluate the suitability and process economics of directly blending our bio-oils with refinery hydrotreater and cracker streams for co-production of diesel and gasoline.”
Gangwal said co-processing of bio-oil with petroleum refinery streams can help refineries comply with new renewable fuels standards (RFS-2.)
The process will be evaluated and optimized using a continuous flow lab-scale biomass liquefaction system simulating the commercial embodiment of Southern Research’s liquefaction process.
Also a lab-scale reactor will be constructed and tested for hydrotreating and cracking the bio-oils to produce gasoline and diesel range hydrocarbons.
Southern Research is seeking a refinery partner who will help to further define bio-oil quality specifications that meet requirements for direct insertion at various points in the petroleum refining process.
Based on the experimental data, a technical and economic evaluation and life-cycle assessment of the process will be carried out.
Requirements for scale-up and commercialization of the liquefaction process will be determined.
“Development and commercialization of a cost-effective biomass liquefaction process using a high impact feedstock such as wood waste to produce renewable gasoline and diesel can reduce the nation’s requirement for importing oil from foreign countries, help to stabilize the prices at the pump, and lower the emission of greenhouse gases” said Tim Hansen, director of Advanced Energy and Transportation Technologies.
For more information, call 205-337-9634.
Date Posted: March 14, 2013
Durham, NC—Southern Research Institute announced March 13 it has entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Dept. of Energy to develop a mild liquefaction process that will economically convert biomass to petroleum refinery-ready bio-oils.
The process will convert biomass to stabilized bio-oils that can be directly blended with hydrotreater and cracker input streams in a petroleum refinery for production of gasoline and diesel range hydrocarbons.
“We hope the project will advance liquefaction by demonstrating cost-effective biomass conversion to stable bio-oils at mild conditions. Other liquefaction processes either use severe conditions or expensive catalysts to achieve stability,” said Santosh K. Gangwal, Ph.D., Southern Research principal investigator.
“We will also evaluate the suitability and process economics of directly blending our bio-oils with refinery hydrotreater and cracker streams for co-production of diesel and gasoline.”
Gangwal said co-processing of bio-oil with petroleum refinery streams can help refineries comply with new renewable fuels standards (RFS-2.)
The process will be evaluated and optimized using a continuous flow lab-scale biomass liquefaction system simulating the commercial embodiment of Southern Research’s liquefaction process.
Also a lab-scale reactor will be constructed and tested for hydrotreating and cracking the bio-oils to produce gasoline and diesel range hydrocarbons.
Southern Research is seeking a refinery partner who will help to further define bio-oil quality specifications that meet requirements for direct insertion at various points in the petroleum refining process.
Based on the experimental data, a technical and economic evaluation and life-cycle assessment of the process will be carried out.
Requirements for scale-up and commercialization of the liquefaction process will be determined.
“Development and commercialization of a cost-effective biomass liquefaction process using a high impact feedstock such as wood waste to produce renewable gasoline and diesel can reduce the nation’s requirement for importing oil from foreign countries, help to stabilize the prices at the pump, and lower the emission of greenhouse gases” said Tim Hansen, director of Advanced Energy and Transportation Technologies.
For more information, call 205-337-9634.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Cellulosic Ethanol ‘to Be Cost Competitive by 2016′
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/03/12/cellulosic-ethanol-to-be-cost-competitive-by-2016/
March 12, 2013
Cellulosic ethanol is on track be cost competitive with corn-based ethanol by 2016, a development that could drive the fuel’s production, according to an industry survey conducted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The survey focused on 11 major players in the cellulosic ethanol industry, all of which use a technique known as enzymatic hydrolysis to break down and convert the complex sugars in non-food crop matter, and a fermentation stage to turn the material into ethanol, BNEF said.
Cellulosic ethanol cost 94 cents a liter to produce in 2012, about 40 percent more than ethanol made from corn, BNEF said. That price gap will close by 2016, surveyed cellulosic ethanol producers predicted.
Project capital expenditures, feedstock and enzymes used in the production process are still the largest costs of running a cellulosic ethanol plant, the respondents said in the survey. But technology has pushed operating costs lower. For example, enzyme costs for a liter of cellulosic ethanol dropped 72 percent between 2008 and 2012 due to technological improvements, BNEF said.
Cellulosic ethanol producers will shift their focus from technology enhancements to logistical planning over the next five to 10 years in an effort to rein in capital costs, suggesting the industry is maturing, said BNEF’s lead biofuel analyst Harry Boyle.
Globally, there are 14 enzymatic hydrolysis pilots, nine demonstration-stage projects and 10 semi-commercial scale plants either announced, commissioned or due online shortly, according to the survey. Five of the semi-commercial plants are in the US and more are expected to open in Brazil in the near future, BNEF said. A semi-commercial facility with a capacity of 90 million liters per year requires an initial capital outlay of about $290 million.
By 2016, when second- and third-generation plants with capacities between 90m and 125m liters will be commissioned, initial capital costs per installed liter are expected to fall from $3 to $2 due to economies of scale and a reduction in over-engineering, BNEF said.
Meanwhile, some corn-based ethanol producers are struggling to maintain profits.
Some simple corn-based ethanol plants, which can only produce ethanol and distillers grains from corn, have temporarily shut down as production costs have exceeded revenue, according to a report released by the US Energy Information Agency. As of January 2013, the number of idled plants had grown to at least 20.
Profit margins at plants that can recover other products, such as corn oil, have been 15 cents to 20 cents per gallon higher than plants without that capability, the EIA said. Margins at plants without corn oil recovery have been negative (see graph), forcing plant shutdowns in Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota.
March 12, 2013
Cellulosic ethanol is on track be cost competitive with corn-based ethanol by 2016, a development that could drive the fuel’s production, according to an industry survey conducted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The survey focused on 11 major players in the cellulosic ethanol industry, all of which use a technique known as enzymatic hydrolysis to break down and convert the complex sugars in non-food crop matter, and a fermentation stage to turn the material into ethanol, BNEF said.
Cellulosic ethanol cost 94 cents a liter to produce in 2012, about 40 percent more than ethanol made from corn, BNEF said. That price gap will close by 2016, surveyed cellulosic ethanol producers predicted.
Project capital expenditures, feedstock and enzymes used in the production process are still the largest costs of running a cellulosic ethanol plant, the respondents said in the survey. But technology has pushed operating costs lower. For example, enzyme costs for a liter of cellulosic ethanol dropped 72 percent between 2008 and 2012 due to technological improvements, BNEF said.
Cellulosic ethanol producers will shift their focus from technology enhancements to logistical planning over the next five to 10 years in an effort to rein in capital costs, suggesting the industry is maturing, said BNEF’s lead biofuel analyst Harry Boyle.
Globally, there are 14 enzymatic hydrolysis pilots, nine demonstration-stage projects and 10 semi-commercial scale plants either announced, commissioned or due online shortly, according to the survey. Five of the semi-commercial plants are in the US and more are expected to open in Brazil in the near future, BNEF said. A semi-commercial facility with a capacity of 90 million liters per year requires an initial capital outlay of about $290 million.
By 2016, when second- and third-generation plants with capacities between 90m and 125m liters will be commissioned, initial capital costs per installed liter are expected to fall from $3 to $2 due to economies of scale and a reduction in over-engineering, BNEF said.
Meanwhile, some corn-based ethanol producers are struggling to maintain profits.
Some simple corn-based ethanol plants, which can only produce ethanol and distillers grains from corn, have temporarily shut down as production costs have exceeded revenue, according to a report released by the US Energy Information Agency. As of January 2013, the number of idled plants had grown to at least 20.
Profit margins at plants that can recover other products, such as corn oil, have been 15 cents to 20 cents per gallon higher than plants without that capability, the EIA said. Margins at plants without corn oil recovery have been negative (see graph), forcing plant shutdowns in Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Is it bourgeois to worry about biofuels?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/is-it-bourgeois-to-worry-about-biofuels
07 Mar 2013, 15:00 /Robin Webster
A committee of MPs approved new subsidies for bioenergy yesterday, despite controversy over the environmental impact of the fuels. Many academics appear convinced that generating power from some biofuels like palm oil may result in emissions going up rather than down. But are concerns about the sustainability of biofuels "bourgeois" when the country faces the challenge of keeping the lights on?
Arguments over the use of fuels derived from organic matter like plants or crops for transport and in power stations has raged ever since scientific studies began emerging showing that they may have a far higher impact on greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought. Crops like palm oil and soy can compete with food crops for land, ultimately resulting in more clearance of forest and grasslands for agricultural land - driving up emissions.
The UK's former chief scientific advisor Professor David King told Radio 4's Today programme yesterday that biofuels are "pretty much a dead letter" in terms of their ability to reduce emissions.
But on the same programme, energy minister John Hayes told listeners he is "not persuaded at all" by King's argument. Hayes said it's "bourgeois" to worry about biofuels' climate impacts when the country needs to maintain energy security - and biofuels remain a part of the government's plans for meeting its EU-mandated 2020 renewables target.
Waving through
Yesterday afternoon, the obscurely-named Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee voted for new support measures for renewables. First highlighted by the BBC, the vote covered a series of amendments to the Renewables Obligation (RO) - a subsidy to renewable power, several of which relate to bioenergy.
Some of the amendments set out new incentives for power plant to burn wood or plant material for some of all of the time. The new subsidies follow a consultation from DECC on what the levels should be.
Another amendment guarantees that an energy supplier may get " no more than four per cent" of its subsidies under the RO scheme from bioliquids. Bioliquids are liquid fuels made from organic sources - often vegetable oils like rapeseed, palm oil or soy. The amendment means that some power stations burning vegetable oils can be subsidised by the RO, but sets a cap on the subsidies.
The vote is a routine part of passing through changes to legislation and the attention it attracted seems to have been a surprise to key stakeholders. A spokesperson for trade body the Renewable Energy Association (REA), which supports biofuels, told us yesterday was "flummoxed" by the BBC's report.
Palm oil
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) says the four per cent cap equates to approximately two terawatt hours of bioliquid electricity generation in 2017. The new limit on bioliquids has attracted criticism from anti biofuel campaigners - largely because of the potential that more palm oil could be imported to be burnt in UK power stations.
REA told us less than 0.1 per cent of biofuels in the transport sector are from palm oil, adding that the amount used in the power sector is probably "a similarly small figure" - so the new subsidies will not result in a rush of palm oil into UK power stations.
But anti-biofuels campaigner campaigner Kenneth Richter, from Friends of the Earth, said that the four per cent limit is "enormous" - and that guaranteed subsidies will cause a significant growth in the consumption of palm oil in power stations. Campaign group BiofuelWatch has calculated that if all of the bioliquids burnt under this cap were palm oil - admittedly rather a big if - then "up to 500,000" tonnes of bioliquid would be burnt in UK power stations as a result.
The UK and EU have both introduced sustainability standards for the biofuels in their energy mix.
But campaigners say that the sustainability criteria aren't strong enough to solve the problem. They point to studies by the European Commission showing emissions from palm oil can be worse than fossil fuels once land use change, deforestation and the draining of carbon-rich peatlands are taken into account.
MPs pointed out in yesterday's Committee meeting that Germany, France and the Netherlands have removed subsidies for bioliquids in the light of concerns about the sustainability of palm oil. John Hayes promised that his department would "look at the matter closely", but provided no further details - arguing that there is little sense to removing subsidies to all bioliquids because of problems with one of them. And with that, the new measures were voted through.
Argument over? Not likely
The argument is not all about bioliquids like palm oil. The new support measures for power stations that convert, or partially convert, to burning biomass are also attracting criticism. This means directly burning organic products like woods and crops in a power station instead of of fossil fuels.
Green campaigners argue DECC's figures show that burning whole conifer trees instead of coal would result in a 49 per cent increase in emissions over a forty year time period. But the REA says that this argument is " simply wrong" and is based on a misrepresentation of industry standards.
While this argument has attracted less attention over recent years, it seems likely to rev up in the future.
In the meantime, it looks as though biofuels' overall carbon emissions may not be top of the agenda for politicians tangling with the energy system. Pressed yesterday on whether it is really 'bourgois' to worry whether the government's so-called 'green' policies could unintentionally drive up greenhouse gas emissions, rather them down, John Hayes did not seem very concerned.
07 Mar 2013, 15:00 /Robin Webster
A committee of MPs approved new subsidies for bioenergy yesterday, despite controversy over the environmental impact of the fuels. Many academics appear convinced that generating power from some biofuels like palm oil may result in emissions going up rather than down. But are concerns about the sustainability of biofuels "bourgeois" when the country faces the challenge of keeping the lights on?
Arguments over the use of fuels derived from organic matter like plants or crops for transport and in power stations has raged ever since scientific studies began emerging showing that they may have a far higher impact on greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought. Crops like palm oil and soy can compete with food crops for land, ultimately resulting in more clearance of forest and grasslands for agricultural land - driving up emissions.
The UK's former chief scientific advisor Professor David King told Radio 4's Today programme yesterday that biofuels are "pretty much a dead letter" in terms of their ability to reduce emissions.
But on the same programme, energy minister John Hayes told listeners he is "not persuaded at all" by King's argument. Hayes said it's "bourgeois" to worry about biofuels' climate impacts when the country needs to maintain energy security - and biofuels remain a part of the government's plans for meeting its EU-mandated 2020 renewables target.
Waving through
Yesterday afternoon, the obscurely-named Eleventh Delegated Legislation Committee voted for new support measures for renewables. First highlighted by the BBC, the vote covered a series of amendments to the Renewables Obligation (RO) - a subsidy to renewable power, several of which relate to bioenergy.
Some of the amendments set out new incentives for power plant to burn wood or plant material for some of all of the time. The new subsidies follow a consultation from DECC on what the levels should be.
Another amendment guarantees that an energy supplier may get " no more than four per cent" of its subsidies under the RO scheme from bioliquids. Bioliquids are liquid fuels made from organic sources - often vegetable oils like rapeseed, palm oil or soy. The amendment means that some power stations burning vegetable oils can be subsidised by the RO, but sets a cap on the subsidies.
The vote is a routine part of passing through changes to legislation and the attention it attracted seems to have been a surprise to key stakeholders. A spokesperson for trade body the Renewable Energy Association (REA), which supports biofuels, told us yesterday was "flummoxed" by the BBC's report.
Palm oil
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) says the four per cent cap equates to approximately two terawatt hours of bioliquid electricity generation in 2017. The new limit on bioliquids has attracted criticism from anti biofuel campaigners - largely because of the potential that more palm oil could be imported to be burnt in UK power stations.
REA told us less than 0.1 per cent of biofuels in the transport sector are from palm oil, adding that the amount used in the power sector is probably "a similarly small figure" - so the new subsidies will not result in a rush of palm oil into UK power stations.
But anti-biofuels campaigner campaigner Kenneth Richter, from Friends of the Earth, said that the four per cent limit is "enormous" - and that guaranteed subsidies will cause a significant growth in the consumption of palm oil in power stations. Campaign group BiofuelWatch has calculated that if all of the bioliquids burnt under this cap were palm oil - admittedly rather a big if - then "up to 500,000" tonnes of bioliquid would be burnt in UK power stations as a result.
The UK and EU have both introduced sustainability standards for the biofuels in their energy mix.
But campaigners say that the sustainability criteria aren't strong enough to solve the problem. They point to studies by the European Commission showing emissions from palm oil can be worse than fossil fuels once land use change, deforestation and the draining of carbon-rich peatlands are taken into account.
MPs pointed out in yesterday's Committee meeting that Germany, France and the Netherlands have removed subsidies for bioliquids in the light of concerns about the sustainability of palm oil. John Hayes promised that his department would "look at the matter closely", but provided no further details - arguing that there is little sense to removing subsidies to all bioliquids because of problems with one of them. And with that, the new measures were voted through.
Argument over? Not likely
The argument is not all about bioliquids like palm oil. The new support measures for power stations that convert, or partially convert, to burning biomass are also attracting criticism. This means directly burning organic products like woods and crops in a power station instead of of fossil fuels.
Green campaigners argue DECC's figures show that burning whole conifer trees instead of coal would result in a 49 per cent increase in emissions over a forty year time period. But the REA says that this argument is " simply wrong" and is based on a misrepresentation of industry standards.
While this argument has attracted less attention over recent years, it seems likely to rev up in the future.
In the meantime, it looks as though biofuels' overall carbon emissions may not be top of the agenda for politicians tangling with the energy system. Pressed yesterday on whether it is really 'bourgois' to worry whether the government's so-called 'green' policies could unintentionally drive up greenhouse gas emissions, rather them down, John Hayes did not seem very concerned.
Monday, March 4, 2013
New U.K. Regulations Could Impact U.S. Pellet Producers
http://biomassmagazine.com/blog/article/2013/03/new-u-k-regulations-could-impact-u-s-pellet-producers
Last week the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change released a long-term plan regarding its renewable heat scheme. The plan essentially aims to make sure the program stays on budget, as there is a fixed annual amount of funding available for the RHI.
So far, the program’s launch in the non-domestic sector has resulted in more than 1,300 applications, and more than EUR 24 million ($36 million) is expected to be paid out this year. To ensure the program remains solvent, the DECC has devised a plan where the funding awarded to new applicants will gradually decline if the program proves more popular than anticipated.
As part of the announcement, the DECC published the government response to the consultation, which was originally released in July. It is titled “Non-Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive: A Government Response to ‘Providing Certainty, improving performance’ July 2012 consultation,” and is available for download from the DECC website.
In the response, the DECC addresses several topics, including biomass sustainability requirements.
The consultation asked for public comments on proposals to introduce sustainability standards into the non-domestic RHI. The standards covered two primary factors: GHG emissions savings, and land use criteria. Regarding emissions savings, the DECC drew from guidance provided by the European Commission’s 2010 “Requirements for sustainability criteria for the use of solid biomass and biogas” report. The DECC ultimately proposed requiring a 60 percent GHG savings compared with EU fossil heat average from April 2014. For wood fuel land criteria, the UK the process of producing raw feedstock corresponds to “meeting the UK procurement policy on wood and wood products, which provides rules on the purchase of wood and wood derived products.” For other biomass feedstocks, the proposal said land use criteria should correspond to those set by the EU Renewable Energy Directive for transportation biofuels and bioliquids.
According to the response document, one respondent noted a concern with the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold. That respondent was concerned that the proposed limit would significantly impact the potential transatlantic supplies of biomass, which is of particular importance to large projects. Another respondent noted a GHG calculator may need to be adapted to reflect the units in which wood chips are sold, such as weight, volume and heat.
Like most government regulations, the final rules published by the DECC are rather long and complicated. While I encourage you to read the full government document to learn the specific requirements of the program, I will attempt to summarize some of the major points, particularly those applicable to the U.S. pellet industry.
While the DECC specified that compliance regimes for the RHI and RO will be different, the department said a consistent approach will be taken to ensure RHI requirements don’t lead to burdensome double reporting for biomass suppliers.
The DECC also said it intends to link eligibility for the RHI with meeting the sustainability criteria, which needs to be notified to the EC as a technical standard. Since this can take some time, the DECC said the biomass sustainability requirements will not be included in the March 2013 regulatory changes. Rather, the goal is to have them in place by the end of the year. Starting April 1, 2014 RHI recipients will be required to demonstrate they meet GHG emissions savings to be eligible for RHI payments. Land criteria will be enforced in-line with the RO timetable, no later than April 2014 and no sooner than April 2015.
According to the DECC, the proposed 60 percent GHG savings threshold will be maintained, equating to lifecycle emissions of less than or equal to 125.28 kg CO2 equivalent per MWh of heat.
For the use of woody biomass, the DECC said it intends to follow the U.K. Public Procurement Policy for Timber and for biomass sourced from a Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade partner to be considered as meeting the land criteria. The department noted it needs to complete additional work to define what would count as meeting the criteria from a non FLEGT partner and will take an approach consistent with the RO.
According to the DECC, work is currently ongoing to develop a supplier list. That list is expected to be in place by the end of the year.
Last week the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change released a long-term plan regarding its renewable heat scheme. The plan essentially aims to make sure the program stays on budget, as there is a fixed annual amount of funding available for the RHI.
So far, the program’s launch in the non-domestic sector has resulted in more than 1,300 applications, and more than EUR 24 million ($36 million) is expected to be paid out this year. To ensure the program remains solvent, the DECC has devised a plan where the funding awarded to new applicants will gradually decline if the program proves more popular than anticipated.
As part of the announcement, the DECC published the government response to the consultation, which was originally released in July. It is titled “Non-Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive: A Government Response to ‘Providing Certainty, improving performance’ July 2012 consultation,” and is available for download from the DECC website.
In the response, the DECC addresses several topics, including biomass sustainability requirements.
The consultation asked for public comments on proposals to introduce sustainability standards into the non-domestic RHI. The standards covered two primary factors: GHG emissions savings, and land use criteria. Regarding emissions savings, the DECC drew from guidance provided by the European Commission’s 2010 “Requirements for sustainability criteria for the use of solid biomass and biogas” report. The DECC ultimately proposed requiring a 60 percent GHG savings compared with EU fossil heat average from April 2014. For wood fuel land criteria, the UK the process of producing raw feedstock corresponds to “meeting the UK procurement policy on wood and wood products, which provides rules on the purchase of wood and wood derived products.” For other biomass feedstocks, the proposal said land use criteria should correspond to those set by the EU Renewable Energy Directive for transportation biofuels and bioliquids.
According to the response document, one respondent noted a concern with the 60 percent GHG reduction threshold. That respondent was concerned that the proposed limit would significantly impact the potential transatlantic supplies of biomass, which is of particular importance to large projects. Another respondent noted a GHG calculator may need to be adapted to reflect the units in which wood chips are sold, such as weight, volume and heat.
Like most government regulations, the final rules published by the DECC are rather long and complicated. While I encourage you to read the full government document to learn the specific requirements of the program, I will attempt to summarize some of the major points, particularly those applicable to the U.S. pellet industry.
While the DECC specified that compliance regimes for the RHI and RO will be different, the department said a consistent approach will be taken to ensure RHI requirements don’t lead to burdensome double reporting for biomass suppliers.
The DECC also said it intends to link eligibility for the RHI with meeting the sustainability criteria, which needs to be notified to the EC as a technical standard. Since this can take some time, the DECC said the biomass sustainability requirements will not be included in the March 2013 regulatory changes. Rather, the goal is to have them in place by the end of the year. Starting April 1, 2014 RHI recipients will be required to demonstrate they meet GHG emissions savings to be eligible for RHI payments. Land criteria will be enforced in-line with the RO timetable, no later than April 2014 and no sooner than April 2015.
According to the DECC, the proposed 60 percent GHG savings threshold will be maintained, equating to lifecycle emissions of less than or equal to 125.28 kg CO2 equivalent per MWh of heat.
For the use of woody biomass, the DECC said it intends to follow the U.K. Public Procurement Policy for Timber and for biomass sourced from a Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade partner to be considered as meeting the land criteria. The department noted it needs to complete additional work to define what would count as meeting the criteria from a non FLEGT partner and will take an approach consistent with the RO.
According to the DECC, work is currently ongoing to develop a supplier list. That list is expected to be in place by the end of the year.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The Compression Spread
You’ve heard about the crack spread, and the crush spread — as means to value oil refining and crop refining.
Let’s think about biomass densification and compression, and in that context, a little about KiOR.
You might have heard a little or a lot about KiOR — which is currently commissioning its first commercial-scale (11 million gallon) biofuels plant in Columbus, Mississippi.Now, the oil industry might, via the American Petroleum Institute, be currently talking down the validity of the Renewable Fuel Standard — but it is not entirely clear that KIOR would have found the financing that it did without the EISA Act galvanizing investors into action.
KiOR’s secret sauce
Now, it is getting more clear — among all the glittering pieces of technology that the biofuels industry has developed — that the oil refining and marketing sector would really, really like to have invented KiOR’s BFCC unit — KiOR’s secret sauce.
What is a BFCC? It is a fluidized-bed catalytic cracker that works with biomass (in KiOR’s case, they are working now with southern yellow pine they expect to obtain at $72 per bone-dry ton).
Why is it coveted? It takes biomass, which has low density, and liquifies it into an intermediate with very high energy density — and does so at a transformatively low cost. That intermediate can be hydrotreated into an in-spec drop-in fuel — either in the gasoline range, or diesel, or even jet.
Why is that important? Because it is expected to be available at a lower cost than the marginal cost of oil production — when taken to an appropriate scale.
Equally importantly — because it is produced from renewable biomass — it can help de-carbonize an atmosphere that is producing increasingly wacky weather.
The marginal cost of producing oil
In a world where oil prices are highly volatile, one statistic for price prediction has held true for a long time — and that it is averaged cost of marginal production of oil for the world’s 50 largest public oil companies.
What exactly does ” the marginal cost of production” mean? It is the cost of exploring and capturing the last barrel of oil needed to meet overall global demand.
Bernstein Research circulated a note last year estimating that the marginal cost of production (for the top 50 public companies — note that some national oilcos have very different cost structures) increased by 229 percent between 2001 and 2010. Meanwhile, oil prices increased by 228%. Eureka — a driver of long-term oil prices.
It stands to reason. If the oil price falls below the marginal cost of production – production stalls until the price rises. That’s simple economics.
All that lovely Bakken crude
Further, it is not as easy as many suppose to disrupt that price with, for example, an explosion of oil production in the Bakken oilfields of North Dakota or the tar sands of western Canada. Bakken crude sells at a very deep discount, already, to Brent Crude — the spread has exceeded $30 per barrel at times.
That’s because of the lack of pipeline and railcar capacity to move it to international markets.
Which brings us back to KiOR — and the possibility that, long-term, the future of the company may focus less on building complete field–to-wheels fuel capacity via hydrotreating intermediates onsite, at its own facilities.
It has a future — perhaps a very big one— not so much as a supplier of finished fuels to its own customer base of fuel buyers, but as a supplier of crude-equivalent feedstocks to existing refinery infrastructure.
That’s where that $92 a barrel becomes important — not the $100-$115 retail value of the barrel, but the production cost of that barrel.
Recovering prehistoric algae as an energy business
You see, at the end of the day what you get from punching holes in the ground (i.e. oil exploration) is a well tapping into some prehistoric algae which — over 60 million years or so — has been transformed by Nature into crude petroleum and natural gas.
Nature made the biomass for free — via its own cocktails of carbon dioxide, water, and trace nutrients. Then, Nature conveniently densified the biomass for free, too. What we pay for is the harvest — it’s the energy equivalent of hunter-gatherer.
With a barrel of oil, you get around 5.8 million BTUs. That’s around $15.86 per million BTUs for the marginal cost of production.
In the case of KiOR, you have to pay for the biomass — the aforementioned $72 for each bone-dry ton. In that ton, you start with 14-20 million BTUs. So, you are paying $3.60-$5.14 per million BTUs for the wood.
The problem is, you can’t burn wood in a car engine — and even if you could, you think range anxiety for battery-electric vehicles is bad. Sheesh!
So, here’s the challenge, and here’s the prize, and a caveat.
Challenge? Densify the wood biomass into a crude-equivalent refinery feedstock for less than $12.72 per ton of biomass, including your operating and capital costs and your cost of capital.
Prize? Well, the International Energy Agency expects that energy demand will rise some 50 percent over the next 25 years — rising demand that you can serve.
Caveat? Lowest-cost producer wins. No one is likely to buy your $92 per barrel intermediate if there’s a $90 barrel available.
Catalytic fast pyrolysis
Where does this all lead us? In the case of making crude-equivalent intermediates — catalytic fast pyrolysis has emerged, of late, as the lowest-cost path towards answering that challenge. It is not entirely clear this class of technologies will actually reach scale — and reach the targeted costs — and find boatloads of affordable capital any time soon. But the signs are quite encouraging.
Catalytic fast pyrolysis — that’s what KiOR does. That’s why so many people watch their development with such attention. Why there is such an intense interest in their progress that media have been snooping around the plants, trying to get information on production prior to the company’s quarterly earnings call (earnings are expected to be reported March 25, according to NASDAQ).
Other paths to biofuels heaven
Nor is it entirely certain that crude-equivalent intermediates are the only viable path to market. For instance — there is the entire class of alcohol fuels, which are controversial in the US and the EU because of infrastructure issues, but are well-established in Brazil.
Crude-equivalent intermediates certainly are attractive — if one of your goals is to avoid finding out how much the oil & gas industry is willing to spend to send you to the devil, if you come up with a technological path to affordable meeting transportation fuel demand that doesn’t pass through oil refineries.
The oil industry’s anguish over alcohols is as profound as the Prohibition Party’s anguish used to be.
Back to KiOR
So — that brings us back to KiOR, and its prospects. We’ll know quite a lot more on the next earnings call. For now, they are in the business of making finished fuels and earning revenues from RINs and fuel sales.
For sure, right now they are proving the validity of their process to investors. One might speculate that they are also surrounding their IP — their secret sauce — with a complete path to market so that never become the captive of a refiner & marketer who can form a barrier to entry between their crude and the downstream gas station. With ethanol producers we have seen, ahem, where that can lead.
Long-term — we don’t see a process that can turn that much southern yellow pine (and other biomass, down the line) into sub-$92 crude-equivalent intermediates having a market cap of $584 million, as KiOR has today. If the technology does not work out — well, it’s not very valuable, is it? But if it does work out – as sports broadcaster Keith Jackson used to say “Whoa, Nelly!”.
Why? Looked at it as a technology that converts resources into proved reserves (valued at, say, $20 per barrel, or the spread between Brent crude and the marginal cost of production) – KiOR is valued at around 29 million barrels of oil. That’s the volume of oil you get from converting 400,000 tons of wood into oil refining intermediates.
But there’s a lot more wood out there.
The above-ground oil field a/k/a the US wood basket
The US Department of Energy, in their Billion Ton update study in 2011, estimated that there would be 120 million tons of wood biomass available, per year, at $80 per ton, that could be sustainably used for bioenergy. The figure declines to around 85 million tons at $40 per ton.
That’s a big spread.
So — in all things biofuel – keep that cost of densification very much in your mind.
The Compression Spread
In traditional oil and agricultural economics, we think about the the cost of liberating a known molecule. In the new bioenergy — getting biomass sufficiently densified, via technology instead of Nature — may open the door to ultra low-cost feedstocks and some amazing upside value for the liberators and their inventions.
That’s the compression spread.
Monday, January 28, 2013
LSU AgCenter Commissions Advanced Biofuels Pilot Plant
http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/info/bf_articles.html?ID=129936
Date Posted: January 28, 2013
Date Posted: January 28, 2013
St. Gabriel, LA—The fledgling biofuels and bioprocessing
industry in the South took a step forward Friday, Jan. 25, with the
formal commissioning of a pilot plant at the LSU AgCenter Audubon Sugar Institute.
This indicates success in several areas, said LSU AgCenter Vice Chancellor John Russin.
The infusion of federal funding will benefit the state and the sugar industry as well as the biofuels and bioprocessing industry and the rural economy, Russin said.
“This is an amalgam of a true team effort.”
The pilot plant is part of a larger project funded by a five-year, $17.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture through its agriculture and food research initiative, said William Goldner, national program leader for sustainable bioenergy in the USDA Institute of Bioenergy, Climate and Environment.
The grant came as a result of a competitive peer review of proposals to create regional systems for sustainable production of biofuels and biobased products, Goldner said.
“We want to enhance existing agriculture and improve opportunities for rural communities.”
Dedicated to producing biofuels and biochemicals from agricultural crops and byproducts, the pilot plant is the centerpiece of the AgCenter’s Sustainable Bioproducts Initiative, said AgCenter project director Vadim Kochergin.
It will focus on processing sweet sorghum, energy cane and other grassy feedstocks into convertible sugars, fiber and bioproducts for further refining into butanol, gasoline, isoprene and biochemicals, he said.
The pilot plant is a scaled-down version of a typical sugar mill, said Juan Miguel Bueno, president and CEO of Manufacturera 3M, S.A. de C.V. in Cordoba, Mexico.
Bueno’s company fabricates sugar mills used in Louisiana, so his challenge was to design and produce the pilot plant.
“It’s exactly the same as a big mill but on a smaller scale,” Bueno said of the project that took about five months to engineer and manufacture.
“By developing new things, we can produce new energy and new resources,” he said.
The pilot plant is seen as a milestone for the project that Kochergin described as a “work in progress.”
“The facility can be scaled up to any capacity,” Kochergin said. “The focus is on primary processing of sweet sorghum, energy cane and other grassy feedstocks.
"We can facilitate projects targeting evaluation and validation of technologies as well as training of research and operating personnel.”
“This is a tremendous opportunity to identify potential feedstocks, not only for Louisiana but all of the South,” said Carrie Castille, associate commissioner for government affairs and science advisor in the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
“This project will provide long-term, lifecycle assessment for continued crop production with respect to weather,” Castille said.
Louisiana is in a unique position for feedstock production, and lifecycle assessment will provide information on how various crops perform during different weather patterns, such as drought.
“The benefits this facility will give to Louisiana landowners is forward thinking,” said Klein Kirby, chairman of A. Wilbert’s Sons, LLC, a leading Louisiana land development company.
“This is a huge tool for the Louisiana sugar industry, for the processors and for the landowners,” Kirby said.
For more information, call 225-578-5839.
This indicates success in several areas, said LSU AgCenter Vice Chancellor John Russin.
The infusion of federal funding will benefit the state and the sugar industry as well as the biofuels and bioprocessing industry and the rural economy, Russin said.
“This is an amalgam of a true team effort.”
The pilot plant is part of a larger project funded by a five-year, $17.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture through its agriculture and food research initiative, said William Goldner, national program leader for sustainable bioenergy in the USDA Institute of Bioenergy, Climate and Environment.
The grant came as a result of a competitive peer review of proposals to create regional systems for sustainable production of biofuels and biobased products, Goldner said.
“We want to enhance existing agriculture and improve opportunities for rural communities.”
Dedicated to producing biofuels and biochemicals from agricultural crops and byproducts, the pilot plant is the centerpiece of the AgCenter’s Sustainable Bioproducts Initiative, said AgCenter project director Vadim Kochergin.
It will focus on processing sweet sorghum, energy cane and other grassy feedstocks into convertible sugars, fiber and bioproducts for further refining into butanol, gasoline, isoprene and biochemicals, he said.
The pilot plant is a scaled-down version of a typical sugar mill, said Juan Miguel Bueno, president and CEO of Manufacturera 3M, S.A. de C.V. in Cordoba, Mexico.
Bueno’s company fabricates sugar mills used in Louisiana, so his challenge was to design and produce the pilot plant.
“It’s exactly the same as a big mill but on a smaller scale,” Bueno said of the project that took about five months to engineer and manufacture.
“By developing new things, we can produce new energy and new resources,” he said.
The pilot plant is seen as a milestone for the project that Kochergin described as a “work in progress.”
“The facility can be scaled up to any capacity,” Kochergin said. “The focus is on primary processing of sweet sorghum, energy cane and other grassy feedstocks.
"We can facilitate projects targeting evaluation and validation of technologies as well as training of research and operating personnel.”
“This is a tremendous opportunity to identify potential feedstocks, not only for Louisiana but all of the South,” said Carrie Castille, associate commissioner for government affairs and science advisor in the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
“This project will provide long-term, lifecycle assessment for continued crop production with respect to weather,” Castille said.
Louisiana is in a unique position for feedstock production, and lifecycle assessment will provide information on how various crops perform during different weather patterns, such as drought.
“The benefits this facility will give to Louisiana landowners is forward thinking,” said Klein Kirby, chairman of A. Wilbert’s Sons, LLC, a leading Louisiana land development company.
“This is a huge tool for the Louisiana sugar industry, for the processors and for the landowners,” Kirby said.
For more information, call 225-578-5839.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Sundrop Fuels to buy Cowboy Town for $2.5 million
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20130103/NEWS01/301030310/Sundrop-Fuels-buy-Cowboy-Town-2-5-million?nclick_check=1
3:15 PM,
Jan 3, 2013
|
Sundrop Fuels Inc. is reportedly buying the former Cowboy Town
property in Boyce. Sundrop plans to build a biofuel plant on land
adjacent to the former entertainment venue. / Tia
Owens-Powers/towens@thetowntalk.com
After years of uncertainty, Cowboy Town finally may have a long-term owner.
The
former entertainment venue off Interstate 49 is being purchased by
Sundrop Fuels, which plans to invest nearly half a billion dollars to
develop a pilot plant for biofuel on adjacent land in the Rapides
Station area.
The
Cowboy Town property in Boyce includes nearly 28 acres and a building of
approximately 200,000 square feet. The Rapides Parish Clerk of Court
Office did not have a record of the transaction, but local real estate
professional Rod Noles reported a sale price of $2.5 million on his
radio show Wednesday.
Cowboy
Town's most recent owner was Yahweh LLC, a venture by local businessmen
James Greer and Richard Kyle. They purchased the property in March for
$1.5 million, though there were significant additional costs involved,
including liens.
Greer
confirmed the sale but referred comment to Steven Silvers, director of
corporate communications for Sundrop Fuels, who could not be reached
Wednesday.
Before Yahweh bought the property, it was the subject of almost constant speculation, most of which turned out to be only that.
Cowboy
Town opened in 2001 as a 4,000-seat venue for events such as rodeos and
concerts. Its original announced value was $5 million. It lasted only a
few months, though, before closing for financial reasons.
After
talk of turning it into a training center for USA Boxing failed to
materialize, it was purchased by businessman Ken Moran at a bankruptcy
auction for $2.9 million in September 2004.
Under
Moran's ownership, there was more talk about what Cowboy Town would or
could be, but little action. Among the speculation was that a local
institution of higher education would purchase the property, or that the
parish would buy it was a replacement for the Rapides Coliseum.
The
former Donahue Family Church in Pineville agreed to purchase the
property for $4.85 million in 2007 and made an $800,000 down payment.
That deal fell through, though, after a split in the church.
In
2011, a real estate agent representing Moran confirmed that an
agreement to sell the venue was in place, but that, too, fell through.
Sundrop
Fuels, a Colorado-based startup, announced plans in 2011 to build the
first production facility of its vehicle-ready "green gasoline" in the
Alexandria area. The fuel is produced from woody biomass and natural
gas.
The $450 million plant will sit on more than 1,200 acres that surround the former Cowboy Town property.
Sundrop Fuels Inc. is reportedly buying the former Cowboy Town
property in Boyce. Sundrop plans to build a biofuel plant on land
adjacent to the former entertainment venue. / Tia
Owens-Powers/towens@thetowntalk.com
The
former entertainment venue off Interstate 49 is being purchased by
Sundrop Fuels, which plans to invest nearly half a billion dollars to
develop a pilot plant for biofuel on adjacent land in the Rapides
Station area.
The
Cowboy Town property in Boyce includes nearly 28 acres and a building of
approximately 200,000 square feet. The Rapides Parish Clerk of Court
Office did not have a record of the transaction, but local real estate
professional Rod Noles reported a sale price of $2.5 million on his
radio show Wednesday.
Cowboy
Town's most recent owner was Yahweh LLC, a venture by local businessmen
James Greer and Richard Kyle. They purchased the property in March for
$1.5 million, though there were significant additional costs involved,
including liens.
Greer
confirmed the sale but referred comment to Steven Silvers, director of
corporate communications for Sundrop Fuels, who could not be reached
Wednesday.
Before Yahweh bought the property, it was the subject of almost constant speculation, most of which turned out to be only that.
Cowboy
Town opened in 2001 as a 4,000-seat venue for events such as rodeos and
concerts. Its original announced value was $5 million. It lasted only a
few months, though, before closing for financial reasons.
After
talk of turning it into a training center for USA Boxing failed to
materialize, it was purchased by businessman Ken Moran at a bankruptcy
auction for $2.9 million in September 2004.
Under
Moran's ownership, there was more talk about what Cowboy Town would or
could be, but little action. Among the speculation was that a local
institution of higher education would purchase the property, or that the
parish would buy it was a replacement for the Rapides Coliseum.
The
former Donahue Family Church in Pineville agreed to purchase the
property for $4.85 million in 2007 and made an $800,000 down payment.
That deal fell through, though, after a split in the church.
In
2011, a real estate agent representing Moran confirmed that an
agreement to sell the venue was in place, but that, too, fell through.
Sundrop
Fuels, a Colorado-based startup, announced plans in 2011 to build the
first production facility of its vehicle-ready "green gasoline" in the
Alexandria area. The fuel is produced from woody biomass and natural
gas.
Friday, December 21, 2012
USDA funds MSU biofuel study
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20121222/BIZ/312220019/USDA-funds-MSU-biofuel-study?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
All three researchers are affiliated with MSU’s Sustainable Energy Research Center, which researches and develops environmentally and economically sustainable energy technologies that promote the growth of sustainable energy industries in Mississippi and the Southeast, according to an MSU news release.
The USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture awarded the $273,120 grant through its Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.
10:16 PM, Dec 21, 2012
A team of Mississippi State University agricultural economists recently received U.S. Department of Agriculture funding to study policies impacting biofuel supply chains.
Keith Coble is the principal investigator for a project to develop a model to assess how state or federal policies might affect the development of the Southeastern biofuels industry. Coble will work with fellow MSU agricultural economists Daniel Petrolia and J. Corey Miller. Their work will evaluate the effects of risk, incentives and environmental policy on economic sustainability.All three researchers are affiliated with MSU’s Sustainable Energy Research Center, which researches and develops environmentally and economically sustainable energy technologies that promote the growth of sustainable energy industries in Mississippi and the Southeast, according to an MSU news release.
The USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture awarded the $273,120 grant through its Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Enova announces Port Agreement with Colonial Group
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/10/5044635/enova-announces-port-agreement.html
Published: Monday, Dec. 10, 2012 - 1:18 pm
ATLANTA, Dec. 10, 2012 -- /PRNewswire/ -- Enova Wood Pellet Group, LLC, a subsidiary of Enova Energy Group, LLC, has entered into a long term port agreement with Georgia Kaolin Terminals, Inc. (GKT) a subsidiary of Colonial Group, Inc.
The agreement provides Enova sufficient port capacity to export up to
1.35 million metric tons per year of wood pellets through Colonial's GKT
facility in Savannah, Georgia. Enova is currently developing a network
of three wood pellet production plants in Georgia and South Carolina to deliver wood pellets to GKT via rail.
"This is a tremendous milestone for Enova to partner with a world class terminal operator such as Colonial Group, because it will enable Enova to export the largest quantity of wood pellets through a single port facility in the Southeast," according to Mark Newhart, VP of Logistics and Transportation for Enova. "The terminal will provide a steady source of income and add new jobs to the community," he added.
GKT was previously used for the export of kaolin clay for the paper industry and is being converted for new opportunities in the biomass market. Pratt Summers, Assistant Vice President of Operations for Colonial said, "We look forward to this long-term partnership with Enova for the storage and handling of their wood products and the diversification that it adds to our dry bulk terminals."
About Enova Energy Group, LLC.
Enova Energy Group, LLC (www.enovaenergygroup.com) is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia with an additional office in New York City. Enova Energy Group was founded in 2009 with the goal of becoming a leader in the development and operations of renewable energy facilities in the United States. Enova's inaugural project is a 37.5MW biomass to electricity project being built in Plainfield, Connecticut of which Enova is the majority owner. This project will be operational in 2013 and was financed with over $225M in debt and equity arranged and sourced by Enova.
About Colonial Group, Inc.
Colonial Group, Inc. (www.colonialgroupinc.com) is a Savannah, Georgia based group of companies with a focus on energy and port-related activities. Georgia Kaolin Terminal is a sixty acre bulk marine terminal with twenty-six silos and two shiploaders capable of loading Panamax vessels at 1,000 metric tons per hour.
Contact: Ben Easterlin, 1-770-821-6351
SOURCE Enova Energy Group, LLC
"This is a tremendous milestone for Enova to partner with a world class terminal operator such as Colonial Group, because it will enable Enova to export the largest quantity of wood pellets through a single port facility in the Southeast," according to Mark Newhart, VP of Logistics and Transportation for Enova. "The terminal will provide a steady source of income and add new jobs to the community," he added.
GKT was previously used for the export of kaolin clay for the paper industry and is being converted for new opportunities in the biomass market. Pratt Summers, Assistant Vice President of Operations for Colonial said, "We look forward to this long-term partnership with Enova for the storage and handling of their wood products and the diversification that it adds to our dry bulk terminals."
About Enova Energy Group, LLC.
Enova Energy Group, LLC (www.enovaenergygroup.com) is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia with an additional office in New York City. Enova Energy Group was founded in 2009 with the goal of becoming a leader in the development and operations of renewable energy facilities in the United States. Enova's inaugural project is a 37.5MW biomass to electricity project being built in Plainfield, Connecticut of which Enova is the majority owner. This project will be operational in 2013 and was financed with over $225M in debt and equity arranged and sourced by Enova.
About Colonial Group, Inc.
Colonial Group, Inc. (www.colonialgroupinc.com) is a Savannah, Georgia based group of companies with a focus on energy and port-related activities. Georgia Kaolin Terminal is a sixty acre bulk marine terminal with twenty-six silos and two shiploaders capable of loading Panamax vessels at 1,000 metric tons per hour.
Contact: Ben Easterlin, 1-770-821-6351
SOURCE Enova Energy Group, LLC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)