June 2009 Ethanol Producer Magazine

JUNE 2009

INSIDE: CALIFORNIA’S LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD

WWW.ETHANOLPRODUCER.COM

EP

MJune

2009

Making the Most of Distillers Grains

Pelletizing Pure DDGSSolutions for Wet StorageExporting to New Markets

ETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE June 2009 2


Enhancing biofuel design since 1977.

Finding the right alternative energy source can be challenging. It takes more than a one-size-fits-all, Band-Aid approach. Burns & McDonnell — with more than

30 years of biofuels experience — will engineer the right energy-efficient, sustainable solution for your facility with the follow-through and support you need.

E n g i n e e r i n g , A r c h i t e c t u r e , C o n s t r u c t i o n , E n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d C o n s u l t i n g S o l u t i o n s

Atlanta • Chicago • Denver • Houston • Kansas City, Mo. • Miami • Phoenix • San Diego • St. LouisChattanooga, Tenn. • Cincinnati • Dallas-Fort Worth • Minneapolis-St. Paul • New York • O’Fallon, Ill. • San Francisco • Wallingford, Conn. • Washington, D.C. • Wichita, Kan.

For more information:Warren [email protected]

Comprehensive ServicesProject Development • Environmental Studies and Permitting • Engineering and Construction

Front-End Planning • Engineering Design-Build (EPC) • Unit Operations

Ethanol? Gas-to-Liquid? Biodiesel?

Need refueling? Build it better with Burns & McDonnell.



100

vol. 15 no. 6

44 USEThe Push for E15 Ethanol industry representatives offi cially fi led a petition with the U.S. EPA to allow the use of E15 and, while the approval process is quite lengthy, early hints of support from infl uential parties give hope to the industry. –By Erin Voegele

52 POLICYThe Road to a Low Carbon Future Th e California Air Resources Board recently passed a Low Carbon Fuel Standard that includes requirements for biofuel producers to report indirect land use change. EPM examines the standard and discusses its details with a CARB offi cial. –By Erin Voegele

60 CHPGenerating Power at the Plant: CHP Boosts Effi ciency Combined heat and power systems off er ethanol plants a way to produce electricity and steam with greater energy effi ciency, reduce carbon emissions, and lower energy input costs. –By Susanne Retka Schill

68 PROFITDoing the Math An Iowa State University sociologist has developed a tool to illustrate how corn and ethanol prices dictate the fate of the industry. –By Ryan C. Christianson

76 MARKETThe Economics of Distillers Grains Ethanol production and, as a result, distillers grains production continues to increase despite an increasing number of ethanol facilities idling operations. EPM explores the market for distillers grains and its supply and demand factors. –By Hope Deutscher

84 TECHNOLOGYPerfecting the DDGS Pellet Pelletizing 100 percent DDGS has been a challenge but one company says it has eff ectively manufactured a pellet die that will extrude a 100 percent DDGS pellet without additives or binders. –By Ryan C. Christiansen

92 STORAGEWet Storage Strategies Demand for wet distillers grains (WDG) can dip during the summer months when feedlots are less active. Proper storage techniques can allow feedlot owners to take advantage of lower summer prices while at the same time allow ethanol producers to more easily sell WDG year-round.–By Ryan C. Christiansen

100 PROFILEThe Forefront of Enzyme Production EPM visits with Novozymes, one of the world’s leading enzyme producers, to take a look at the future of enzyme production.–By Kris Bevill

106 CELLULOSECobs to Switchgrass to Gasoline Parity Partners in a venture taking shape in eastern Tennesee hope to realize the promise of cellulosic ethanol.–By Susanne Retka Schill

features

contents

You can’t put a price on peace of mind. That’s why we design every piece of equipment to

help you meet NFPA and OSHA dust explosion standards. To offer you a wide range of safe,

efficient and reliable pneumatic conveying and filtration solutions. All engineered to leave

the smallest carbon footprint in the industry. To fi nd out more, call MAC at 1-800-821-2476 or email

us at [email protected].

MAC-8265_Turnk_EthPro.indd 1 4/16/09 3:12:37 PM

ETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE June 2009

contributions

Ethanol Producer Magazine: (USPS No. 023-974) June 2009, Vol. 15, Issue 6. Ethanol Producer Magazine is published monthly. Principal Of-fi ce: 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. Periodicals Postage Paid at Grand Forks, North Dakota and additional mailing offi ces. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Ethanol Producer Magazine/Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58203. BPA Worldwide Membership Applied for October 2006

9 Advertiser Index

12 The Way I See It Cellulosic Industry has a Long Way to Go By Mike Bryan

16 Business & People

20 Commodities

22 View From the Hill The Language of Ethanol By Bob Dinneen

23 RFA Update

24 BIObytes

26 Industry News

38 Finance Open the Door to Banking Relationships By Peter Martin

40 Legal Perspectives Foreclosure Alternatives By David Meyer

42 eBIO Insider European Walls By Robert Vierhout

126 Events Calendar

128 Marketplace

departments

contents

112

119

122

7

112 ARMENIA Ethanol in ArmeniaA feasibility study to determine ethanol’s potential in Armenia found corn and Jerusalem artichoke to be viable potential feedstocks. –By Kendrick Wentzel and Areg Gharabegian

119 FINANCE Project Financing in Diffi cult Capital MarketsMany types of government assistance is available to assist future ethanol producers.–By Sue Wyka

122 SULFUR Protecting Distillers Grains from Sulfur Build-upMonitoring sulfur levels throughout the ethanol production process is necessary to prevent high levels of the nutrient from negatively aff ecting distillers grains.–By Tom Slunecka

AdIndex

368210

8108

5091

66 & 9049

11019 & 62

3096

387

806495289472

11113 & 63

98597557

125737029413146

104747167

124

24

14 & 1532

11634554389

6115114813988

10979569948

10551

1365833

1219747

117135

65120123

35547883

103102

8637

2009 Atlantic Bioenergy Conference2010 National Ethanol Conference2010 International Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo

Afton Chemical Corp.Agra Industries Corp.Angel Yeast Co. LTDAnsul - Fire SolutionsBBI International Engineering & ConsultingBetaTec Hop Products Inc.Biofuels AutomationBiomass MagazineBuckman Laboratories Inc.Buhler Inc.Burns & McDonnellCalifornia Pellet Mill / Roskamp Champion / Beta RavenCentrisys Corp.Cereal Process TechnologiesCGB Enterprises Inc.Check-All Valve Mfg. Co.Christianson & Associates PLLPClifton Gunderson LLPCloud/Sellers Cleaning SystemsCrown Iron Works Co. Inc.dbc SMARTsoftware Inc.Delta-T Corp.ethanol-jobs.comEisenmann Corp.Encore Business SolutionsETS LaboratoriesFagen Inc.FCStone LLCFermentisFlottweg Separation TechnologyFreez-it-CleenGamajet Cleaning Systems Inc.GavilonGEA Barr-Rosin Inc.Genencor International Inc.Gusmer Enterprises Inc.

Hydro-Klean Inc.ICM Inc.InbiconIndeck Power Equipment Co.Interstates Co.IntersystemsKennedy & Coe LLCLallemand Ethanol TechnologyLouis DreyfusMAC EquipmentMartrex Inc.McC Inc.Midwest Towers Inc.MOR Technology LLCNalco Co.Natwick Associates Appraisal ServicesNexen Marketing USA Inc.North American Safety ValveNovozymesPerten Instruments Inc.Peters MachinePhibroChemPoet LLCPremium Plant ServicesPrimafuelPro-EnvironmentalR&R Contracting Inc.Resonant BioSciences LLCRev Tech LCRobert-James Sales Inc.Ronning EngineeringSalco Products Inc.SGS North America Inc.Spraying Systems Co.Sulzer Process PumpsU.S. TsubakiVaperma Inc.Vogelbusch USA Inc.W. Soule & Co.Wabash Power Equipment Co.WINBCO



EDITORIAL

Kris Bevill [email protected]

Ryan C. Christiansen Assistant [email protected]

Erin Voegele Associate [email protected]

Hope Deutscher Associate [email protected]

Jan Tellmann Copy [email protected]

Megan Skauge E-Media [email protected]

ART

Jaci Satterlund Art [email protected]

Sam Melquist Graphic [email protected]

Elizabeth Slavens Graphic [email protected]

Jack Sitter Graphic [email protected]

PUBLISHING & SALES

Mike Bryan Publisher & [email protected]

Kathy Bryan Publisher & [email protected]

Joe Bryan Vice President of Media & [email protected]

Tom Bryan Vice President of Content & [email protected]

Matthew Spoor Sales [email protected]

Howard Brockhouse Sales Manager, Media & [email protected]

Clay Moore Account [email protected]

Jeremy Hanson Account [email protected]

Chip Shereck Account [email protected]

Marty Steen Account [email protected]

Bob Brown Account [email protected]

Marla DeFoe Advertising [email protected]

Jessica Beaudry Subscriptions [email protected]

Jason Smith Subscriber Aquisition [email protected]

Christie Anderson Administrative Assistant, [email protected]

HOW TO REACH US

LETTERS TO THE EDITORWe welcome letters to the editor. Send your letter to:

Ethanol Producer Magazine Letters,

4650 38th Ave. S. Suite 160, Fargo, ND 58104 or

e-mail to [email protected].

Letters should include the writer’s full name, address

and telephone number, and may be edited

for purposes of clarity and space.

SUBSCRIPTIONSEthanol Producer Magazine is now free of charge

to everyone with the exception of a shipping and handling charge of

$49.95 for any country outside the United States, Canada and Mexico.

To subscribe, visit www.EthanolProducer.com or you can send your

mailing address and payment

(checks made out to BBI International) to:

Ethanol Producer Magazine Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite

304, Grand Forks, ND 58203.

You can also fax a subscription form to (701) 746-5367.

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS

For service, please use our Web site at www.EthanolProducer.com.

You can also call (866) 746-8385, or write to:

Ethanol Producer Magazine, 308 Second Ave. N.,

Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203.

BACK ISSUES AND REPRINTSSelect back issues are available for $3.95 each, plus shipping. To place

an order, contact Subscriptions at (701) 746-8385 or subscriptions@

ethanolproducer.com. Article reprints are also available for a fee.

For more information, contact Christie Anderson at (701) 746-8385 or

[email protected].

ADVERTISINGFor advertising rates and our editorial calendar,

visit www.EthanolProducer.com or call (866) 746-8385.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 by BBI International


The Way I See It

Cellulosic Industry has a Long Way to GoI found the plant construction information in the

April issue of EPM most interesting and, despite my years in the ethanol industry, somewhat alarming. It has always been assumed that there would be a gap be-tween grain-based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. The gap appears to be growing, not shrinking.

In March, I attended a U.S. DOE-sponsored re-view of cellulose-based biofuels projects that have re-ceived DOE funding. Let me repeat myself — the gap between grain-based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol is big. But it’s certainly not for lack of effort, innovative ideas, or, in some cases, money to move forward. The fact is some basic questions still need to be addressed.

Feedstock remains a major issue. From municipal solid waste to corn stover to various forms of wood, the harvesting, collection and storage of huge quanti-ties of cellulosic feedstock is problematic. Is it unsolv-able? No, but it remains an issue that will not easily be resolved.

In addition to the physical handling of the feed-stock, I believe price is a core factor. Cellulosic feed-stocks are projected to be between $45 and $55 per ton by the proponents of the biofuels plants. A farmer who spoke at the Canadian Renewable Energy Work-shop held recently in Regina, Saskatchewan, told po-tential cellulose-based ethanol producers, “By the way, the biomass in my field is $100 per ton. Get used to it.”

Is this the prevailing attitude of the farming com-munity? It’s hard to tell at this early juncture, but we all know that price will follow demand. I could not help but wonder if the feedstock prices being used in these DOE presentations were based on what the produc-

tion facility needs to create a reasonable bottom line, or if that is actually what the farmer, forester or commu-nity will sell the feedstock for in the long term?

Finally, it seemed that with the exception of a cou-ple of presenters, none of the companies that partici-pated in the DOE meeting had secured the funding to complete pilot projects. Some have been put on hold; numerous others are still seeking funding. The DOE is sincerely trying to foster the creation of a robust cel-lulosic industry, but there are significant technical and financial hurdles that remain to be solved.

Look, I believe in the future of cellulosic biofuels, and I’m confident that we will get there. At the same time, it should be of great concern to all of us that there are those who are turning their backs on grain-based biofuels and literally burning the bridge that got us to where we are today. Grain-based ethanol works! It has worked well for the past 30 years and will con-tinue to do so for many years to come. We need to remain committed to the growth of the grain-based industry while we work out the last remaining issues of the cellulose-to-ethanol technology.

That’s the way I see it.

Mike BryanPublisher & CEO

[email protected]


FRACTIONATION • EXTRACTION • OIL PROCESSING • BIODIESEL • CO2 EXTRACTION • PILOT PLANT

Additional offices in Argentina, Brazil, China, England, Honduras, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia and Ukraine.

CROWN IRON WORKS COMPANY

2500 West County Road C • Roseville, MN 55113 • USA

Call today at 1.651.639.8900 or visit us online at www.crowniron.com

Adding Value to your Ethanol Process.

The Crown Fractionation system was designed to

give the ethanol industry means to improve plant

efficiency and provide more profitable co-products.

Crown Fractionation, Extraction and Oil Refining.

Crown's Extraction and Oil Refining technologies

convert the germ into premium products, animal

feed and edible oil.

Visit us atbooth 436

at the FEWExpo!


The New Ethanol.™

The power to make the old ethanol work.

ETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE June 2009 15www.inbicon.com

18 ETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE • June 2009

&T h e

Biotechnol -ogy Industry Organization recognized Sen. Chuck Grass-ley, D-Iowa, as a BIO Legisla-tor of the Year

during its annual Wasthington D.C. lobby trip. Grassley re-ceived the honor for his work in supporting the development of renewable fuels. BIO president and CEO Jim Greenwood said Grassley has played an instru-mental role in renewable fuels development, particularly in the area of corn-based ethanol.

National Farmers Union delegates elected North Dakota Agricul-ture Commis-sioner Roger Johnson as president of the organization dur-ing its annual convention in March. Johnson is replacing Tom Buis, who ear-lier this year accepted the CEO position of ethanol industry group Growth Energy. John-son, a third-generation North Dakota farmer, is a lifelong Farmers Union participant and said he plans to make the orga-nization’s 2009 policy positions a priority on Capitol Hill.

The U.S. EPA awarded the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission an Energy Star combined heat and power award for a combustion turbine-based system at the Poet Biorefining-Laddonia, Mo. ethanol plant. The system became operational in September 2007 and is estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 31,000 tons annually. Waste heat recovered from the turbine exhaust is used to produce up to 63,000 pounds of steam per hour to support ethanol production.

Montreal-based Enerkem Inc. plans to build and operate its

fi rst U.S. cellulosic ethanol facility in Pontotoc, Miss.. The 20 MMgy production plant will utilize locally ob-tained forest wood resi-due, MSW, construction and demolition debris and treated wood as feedstocks. Plans for the property also

include an upstream MSW recy-cling and pre-treatment center. Total costs are expected to reach $250 million.

The company currently op-erates a pilot-scale facility in Que-bec and is in the start-up phase on its fi rst commercial-scale facil-ity, also located in Quebec. Con-struction is also expected to begin soon for an additional facility in Alberta.

Dry fractionation spe-cialist Cereal Process Tech-nologies Inc. has introduced a new application to its dry milling technology that allows ethanol producers to capture up to 96 percent of corn kernel starch. The company said its adjustable MarketFlex system enables pro-ducers to capture more starch and produce more ethanol when corn oil prices are low and in-crease corn oil production when prices rise. Renew Energy was the fi rst production facility to in-stall the system and used it at its 130 MMgy Jefferson, Miss. facil-ity for more than one year.

Indiana-based bioengi-neering fi rm Xylogenics Inc. recently named two offi cers to its board of directors. Butch Mercer, CEO of biotechnology consulting fi rm BioMark, was named chairman of the board, and Nick Mathioudakis will serve as legal and business advi-sor.

The company acquired a patent in February for technol-ogy to use yeast strains to boost fermentation yields in the pro-duction of ethanol. Xylogen-ics CEO. Mike Neibler said the technology can be used by cellu-losic producers as well as tradi-tional corn ethanol producers.

Colorado-based PureVi-sion Technology Inc. is scaling up its fractionation technology

with an eye towards future col-location at ethanol production facilities. The company plans to deploy a 20-ton per day fraction-ation reactor at a research facil-ity next year and predicts it will be capable of installing a reactor at a demonstration-scale etha-nol facility in 2011. PureVision is testing various feedstocks to be used in its reactors including corn residues and wood.

Omaha, N e b . - b a s e d Green Plains R e n e w a b l e Energy Inc. has appointed Wayne Hoove-stol as its Chief Strategy Offi -cer. Hoovestal joined GPRE in 2006 as the company’s director and chairman of the board and has also served as the chief oper-ating offi cer and CEO. Current CEO Todd Becker said Hoove-stol’s experience and industry knowledge is invaluable and he will assist in driving strategic initiatives across the company. In addition to the new strategy position, Hoovestol will also re-tain his seat as chairman of the company’s board.

Nearly $6 million in eq-uity was put forth by Show Me Ethanol LLC stakeholders after the company announced it need-ed an infl ux of cash to avoid de-

Business PeopleEthanol Industry Briefs

Johnson

Grassley

Hoovestol

ETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE • June 2009 19

Sponsored by

faulting on loans. In March, the company said that with the help of necessary additional capital from stakeholders, additional cash fl ow would be suffi cient to comply with debt notes.

Cash problems likely stemmed from an extensive amount of corn supply contracts entered into last summer with the company’s sole corn sup-plier, Ray-Carroll Country Grain Growers Inc. The two compa-nies have since reorganized their supply agreement, fi xing the rate at which outstanding contracts will be honored.

Houston-based alterna-tive energy technology devel-oper Gulf Ethanol Corp. has changed its name to Gulf Alter-native Energy Corp. The com-pany said the change was made to refl ect its efforts to advance biomass processing technology beyond the ethanol industry.

The company has been de-veloping a system that processes biomass into a fi ne powder that can then be used to produce cel-lulosic ethanol.

Potential cellulosic etha-nol producer AE Biofuels Inc. has partnered with engineering fi rm Merrick & Co. to com-mercially implement AE Bio-fuels’ technology through the

design of new facilities or the conversion of existing biofuels facilities. Merrick most recently led the process design and con-struction support at NREL’s cellulosic ethanol research and development facility in Golden, Colo. AE Biofuels is working to commercialize its patent-pend-ing cellulosic ethanol technology. Its subsidiary, Universal Biofuels, owns a 50 MMgy biodiesel facil-ity in India.

Merrick & Co. has expanded its fuels and en-ergy group with the addition of two senior tech-nical specialists. Bart Carpenter was most recently employed with ConocoPhillips in Houston and has more than 25 years of engineering and management experience in the downstream petroleum indus-try. Greg Heuer has worked for 28 years in the biofuels industry. Prior to joining Merrick, Heuer served as vice president of pro-cess engineering for Cilion Inc. and was a process consultant to the ethanol industry.

Qteros, formerly Su-nEthanol Inc., has moved its headquarters from Hadley, Mass. to Marlborough, Mass. Accord-ing to company CEO Bill Frey, the company relocated to take

advantage of local industrial fa-cilities that will be required for Qteros’ expansion plans.

The company has been working to commercialize its QMicrobe technology for cel-lulosic ethanol production and plans to begin operating a pilot plant in Springfi eld, Mass. in 2010.

The South Dakota Corn Utilization Council elected its

offi cers for 2009 during a March 19 board meeting.

David Fremark was elected president of the council. He has been a SD-CUC board member since 2006 and also serves as a public policy action team member for the National Corn Growers Assoc.

Keith Alverson was elected to a second term as the council’s vice president. He also serves on the NCGA Ethanol Committee.

British Petroleum plc chief scientist Dr. Steven Koon-in has been nominated by Presi-dent Barack Obama to serve as Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. DOE. Koonin joined BP after working as professor of theoretical physics at the Califor-nia Institute of Technology for 29 years.

Cathy Zoi has been nomi-nated by the president to serve as the assistant secretary for energy effi ciency and renewable energy

at the DOE. Zoi served as chief of staff in the White House of-fi ce on environmental policy dur-ing the Clinton administration.

Massachusetts-based Ve-renium Corp. has consolidated its research and development organization. Operations will now be led by Gregory Pow-ers, executive vice president of R&D. The company said its new organizational structure pro-vides a unique set of R&D as-sets from the laboratory through its demonstration-scale facility in Jennings, La. and will allow for more effi cient development, implementation and testing of its cellulosic ethanol technologies.

In addition to the organi-zation changes, Verenium an-nounced that John Malloy, exec-utive vice president of biofuels, has left the company to pursue other opportunities.

Stabilized chlorine diox-ide manufacturer Bio-Cide In-ternational Inc. has appointed Bob Picek to be the company’s special projects manager for the ethanol industry. Picek has more than 30 years of experience de-veloping fl uid purifi cation and treatment programs and will ap-ply his experience toward assist-ing ethanol producers to increase their product yield and maintain biological control through the

Carpenter


&application of fermentation, propagation technology.

David Blume’s best-selling book, “Alcohol Can Be A Gas,” has been selected as course text for a biofuels pro-gram at Richland Community College in Decatur, Ill. The col-lege launched a new biofuels course for the spring semester as a way to retrain and supple-ment victims of recent area in-dustrial market layoffs.

Richland’s biofuels course currently consists of three lec-tures and two lab classes and provides course graduates with three credits toward their elect-ed degree program and a certifi -cation of completion.

Illinois-based biofuels technology developer Coskata Inc. plans to begin working on projects in Australia and Thai-land to utilize its fl exible feed-stock technology for the pro-duction of cellulosic ethanol. Negotiations are also pending between Coskata and Florida-based U.S. Sugar for an agree-ment which would ultimately result in a 100 MMgy cellulosic ethanol production facility in Clewiston, Fla.

Before an agreement can be reached with Coskata, U.S.

Sugar must complete a land sale and use agreement with the state of Florida. The state proposed purchasing more than 72,000 acres from the company for an Everglades restoration project.

The National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition has formed a foundation to increase aware-ness of the benefi ts of using ethanol as a form of transpor-tation fuel. The NEVC is seek-ing donations for the National Ethanol Vehicle Foundation; all contributions are tax deduct-ible and can be made through the NEVC’s website at www.e85fuel.com.

The NEVC was created in 1996 as a nonprofi t organization to serve as the nation’s primary advocacy group promoting the use of E85 as a fuel source. The coalition is comprised of indi-viduals and organizations who have pledged to ensure that E85 has a place in America’s fuel supply.

Phibro Animal Health Corp. has fi led a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Admin-istration to approve its trade-

marked brand of the antibiotic virginiamycin as an animal feed additive. Phibro’s Ethanol Per-formance Group has been mar-keting its version of virginiamy-cin, Lactrol, to ethanol producers for years but because the FDA now holds jurisdiction over the production of ethanol, petitions must be fi led for any antibiot-ics that could remain in distillers grains after ethanol is produced.

Purdue University pro-fessor Michael Ladisch re-ceived the Charles Scott award at the 2009 Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals held in San Francisco in May. The professor of agricul-tural, biological and biomedical engineering was acknowledged for his work in the use of bio-technology to produce fuels and chemicals. Ladisch is the director of Purdue’s Laboratory of Re-newable Resources Engineering and is currently focused on the conversion of wood to ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol pro-ducer Mascoma Corp. has an-nounced plans to relocate its company headquarters from Boston to Lebanon, N.H. in August. The company currently operates a research and devel-opment facility in Lebanon and the majority of its employees are also based in Lebanon. The

company said the move will al-low R&D, engineering and com-mercial development staff to work together under one roof and will provide for the smooth transfer of technology from the lab to operating facilities.

Poet Biorefining-Pres-ton, Minn., production facil-ity has received a “Meritorious Achievement” honor from the Minnesota Safety Council for having a low injury incidence. The council grants Governor’s Safety Awards such as the meri-torious honor to businesses that have above average perfor-mance in incident rates. Award applicants are required to sub-mit injury information, which is compared with state and national data. Ongoing safety programs and activities are also considered.

As of April 16, the Pres-ton facility had gone 1,124 days without a lost time accident. EP

Business PeopleEthanol Industry Briefs Sponsored by

SHARE YOUR INDUSTRY BRIEFS To be included in Business & People, send infor-mation (including photos or illustrations if available) to: Industry Briefs, Ethanol Pro-ducer Magazine, 4650 38th Ave. S. Suite 160, Fargo, ND 58104. You may also fax information to (701) 373-0638, or e-mail it to [email protected]. Please in-clude your name and telephone number in all correspondence.

Biomass Magazine is a trade journal serving companies that use and/or produce power, fuels and chemical feedstocks derived from biomass. Collectively, these biomass utilization industries are positioned to replace nearly every product made from fossil fuels with those derived from plant or waste material. The publication covers a wide array of issues on the leading edge of biomass utilization technologies, from biorefining, dedicated energy crops and cellulosic ethanol to decentralized power, anaerobic digestion and gasification. It’s all here.

www.BiomassMagazine.com

For additional informationplease contact us at (701) 746-8385 or at [email protected]


COMMODITIES REPORT

Natural Gas Report

Corn Report

By Casey Whelan, U.S. Energy Services Inc.

By Jason Sagebiel, FCStone

April 21 - Natural gas prices have been relatively low for several months and there doesn’t appear to be any supply or demand shocks that will change the situation for some time to come. However, cli-mate change legislation currently being considered by Congress may impact natural gas prices.

There are two potential impacts on natural gas prices related to the legislation – direct and indirect. The direct cost is relatively easy to assess since the carbon content of natural gas is known (117 lbs/MMBtu). Under the bill, consumers will be required to have an “al-lowance” for each MMBtu combusted.

The indirect impacts are much more uncertain and diffi cult to measure. The indirect impacts in some cases lead to higher prices and in other cases lead to lower prices. First, natural gas demand for elec-tric generation will likely increase signifi cantly as coal costs (higher carbon content) increase dramatically. Higher demand, all else being equal, leads to higher prices. Second, on the supply side, producers will get less of the “retail price” as more dollars are directed to the govern-ment through the carbon auction. This will likely result in less supply than would be the case if more of the retail price went to natural gas producers. Less supply tends to lead to higher prices. Finally, natural gas demand may be tempered somewhat as revenues generated from the carbon auction are funneled to alternative energy technologies and

projects. To the extent these technologies fi nd replacements for natu-ral gas or result in more effi cient use of natural gas, this could lead to lower prices. While no strong conclusion can be drawn, natural gas prices will potentially increase due to indirect impacts since natural gas has a relatively low emissions profi le and is a very reliable source for electric generation. EP

Casey Whelan, vice president of strategic initiatives, can be con-tacted at [email protected].

April 20 - Corn volatility is tamer today with acres now project-ed at 84.986 million acres. While this is down 996,000 acres from a year ago, it is still higher than the trade had expected. Iowa, Min-nesota and North Dakota are expected to see a decrease in corn plantings. South Dakota, Missouri and Illinois are expected to see increases with Missouri expected to have the largest increase from a year ago. Soybean acres are expected to increase 75.718 million acres, up 306,000 acres from the previous year. Milo acres were reduced by 1.324 million acres and this could have an impact on ethanol plants within the lower Plains. As plantings have begun, weather will be the key focus going forward through the growing and pollination period, possibly boosting volatility. The other major caveat for this corn market will be any bullish news in the soybean market. The soybean market will still focus on demand from China and a lack of soybeans in the southern hemisphere – sure to keep both the grain and oilseed markets volatile this summer.

Basis levels throughout the Midwest have been rather strong versus historical basis levels up through the time of this writing. Planting season should keep corn basis levels fairly narrow; howev-

er, overall fl at price will determine the overall producer movement. This tighter basis level continues to have a negative impact on the crush margin. EP

Carbon Legislation and Natural Gas Prices

Acreage projections stabilize basis levels


COMMODITIES REPORT

DDGS Report

Ethanol Report

By Sean Broderick, CHS Inc.

By Rick Kment, DTN Biofuels Analyst

Market demand is tough to defi ne

Ethanol market holds steady

April 14 - The distillers grains market was diffi cult to defi ne until mid- to late-April. Export business out of the Gulf of Mexico has been steady, but not overwhelming. It is an odd time of the year that usually pulls prices in two distinct directions. On the one hand, animals begin to eat less with the warmer weather and cattle moves out to pasture, leading to less demand, and lower prices. The alternative is that planting is-sues can pull grain futures, and con-sequently, DDGS, higher.

This year, poor ethanol margins have led to plant slowdowns and shutdowns, which led to tightness in distillers supply and upward pres-sure on prices. But there are several

plants that are starting up, and sev-eral others that are temporarily shut down but still in “hot idle,” which speaks to the possibility of addi-tional plants running, potentially loosening supply for the summer months. The feeding sectors are still facing negative margins, but there is improving profi tability going ahead, especially in the dairy sector, which had been hit exceptionally hard in the past couple of quarters.

Worldwide demand is still ade-quate, in spite of the dollar strength. Available credit is constantly a chal-lenge, but there is hope that terms will alleviate as the summer pro-gresses. EP

April 17 - Ethanol prices have been in a holding pattern over the past couple months with overall choppy buying activity in the futures, spot and rack markets. Moves in each of these markets have remained narrow as spring progresses, with overall buying interests seemingly moving back and forth between moves in corn prices and energy markets.

Gasoline prices moved moder-ately higher from March to April. This buying support in the gasoline market is expected every summer as increased driving is expected. Overall demand for gasoline, however, is expected to remain limited by the poor economy and lack of driving as consumers con-tinue to cut back spending.

The expectations of tighter sup-plies are likely to push gasoline prices

moderately higher through the sum-mer months, but the sharp moves seen in previous years are not nearly as likely. This could keep prices trad-ing in a range-bound fashion through much of the summer.

If gasoline prices remain range bound, overall buying activity in the ethanol market is likely to remain subdued as many feel that the current production level of ethanol is enough to handle the current and expected de-mand. This may keep overall markets soft with a very limited upward po-tential, although the overall corn price currently is the main driver in ethanol future price moves.

Ethanol plant margins remain weak, which may cause additional plant and ethanol company shut downs. EP

Regional Ethanol Prices ($/gallon as of April 17)

Regional Gasoline Prices ($/gallon as of April 17)

DDGS Prices ($/ton)

Corn Futures Prices (May corn, $/bushel)

Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu)

U.S. Ethanol Production Output (barrels/day)

Cash Sorghum Prices ($/bushel)

REGION

West Coast

Midwest

East Coast

REGION

West Coast

Midwest

East Coast

LOCATIONMinnesota

California*

Chicago

Buffalo, N.Y.

Central Florida*Central Valley

DATEApril 20, 2009

March 20, 2009

April 21, 2008

NYMEX

N. Ventura

Calif. Border

January 2009

December 2008

January 2008

Superior, Neb.Beatrice, Neb.Sublette, Kan.Salina, Kan.Triangle, TexasGulf, Texas

SPOT

1.6650

1.5750

1.6600

SPOT

1.4871

1.5071

1.5046

APRIL 2009124

138

143

167

156

HIGH3.80 1/4

4.08 1/4

6.03

APRIL 20093.54

3.23

3.11

630,000

656,000

510,000

APR. 17, 20093.163.112.923.242.943.81

RACK

1.7620

1.6533

1.8256

RACK

1.6317

1.4584

1.5611

MARCH 2009120

125

140

165

155

LOW3.7

4.05 1/2

5.83

MARCH 20094.23

3.53

2.96

MAR. 31, 20093.403.373.213.593.174.15

APRIL 2008160

170

170

206

200

CLOSE3.78 3/4

4.07

5.93 3/4

APRIL 200810.58

9.76

9.73

APR. 17, 20085.465.505.495.615.566.24

SOURCE: DTN

SOURCE: DTN

SOURCE: CHS Inc.

SOURCE: FCStone

SOURCE: Sorghum Synergies

SOURCE: U.S. Energy Services Inc.

SOURCE: U.S. Energy Information Administration


VIEW FROM THE HILL

The Language of EthanolTo be successful in today’s economy, industries

must capture the imagination of the public. Your wireless network must be 3G, your iPod must be “touch,” your coal must be clean, and your renew-able fuel must be next-generation.

But what passes for next-generation? Must it be technologies that use feedstocks other than starch or sugar? What about technologies that make al-ready operational technologies more effi cient and productive?

In Washington, the focus on the direction of the nation’s renewable fuels industry is almost exclu-sively on advanced and cellulosic production tech-nologies. While that focus is important, it too often crowds out the innovation that defi nes America’s ex-isting ethanol industry.

At ethanol biorefi neries across the country, the language of ethanol technology is changing rapidly.

Fractionation is replacing grinding, separating the components of corn kernels so as to improve ethanol and distillers grains yields while reducing energy needs.

Gasifi cation and fl uidized bed reactions are tak-ing the place of boilers and natural gas in powering biorefi neries. Displacing the need for fossil fuels to power ethanol production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and improves the bottom line by removing some of the exposure to volatile energy markets.

Graywater is being substituted for groundwa-ter. Utilizing recycled water instead of drawing up groundwater further improves ethanol’s environmen-

tally sustainable profi le and reduces costs associ-ated with the purchase of water rights.

And of course, cellulose is joining corn, sorghum, and sugar cane as a feedstock for ethanol produc-tion. Technologies such as acid hydrolysis and ther-mochemical conversion are turning a wide range of feedstocks such as corn cobs, wood chips and gar-bage into a renewable alternative to petroleum.

Ethanol 2.0 or next-generation biofuels or what-ever label you wish to put on the future of American ethanol production is coming. But these technolo-gies are not likely to be the revolutionary, pie-in-the-sky stuff that are glorifi ed in science fi ction lore. Rather, these technologies are best described as evolutionary.

Converting corn cobs, switchgrass, and wood chips into ethanol is the natural next step for Ameri-can ethanol production. The technologies that will be deployed are the logical outcropping of the suc-cessful and still evolving technologies in use at near-ly 200 locations across the country.

While the names of the technologies ethanol producers are developing every day may not be as catchy as those in the cell phone business, they are no less exciting or important. Policy makers in Washington and critics of ethanol the world over would do well to learn the language of ethanol tech-nology and appreciate the rapidly innovation nature of this industry.

The next generation of ethanol technologies is already here.

Dinneen

Bob DinneenPresident and CEO

Renewable Fuels Association


RFA UPDATEwww.ethanolRFA.org

Minnesota water usage study not accurateA study from the University of Minnesota claims that

ethanol production is resulting in a dramatic increase in water use, larger than was previously thought. However, by looking at water use in isolation, the report fails to take into account numerous factors that must be part of the water use discussion.

“Expansion of America’s renewable fuels industry is occurring with the most effi cient use of natural resources like water in mind,” said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen. “Ethanol producers are invest-ing in new technologies that reduce water use, improve effi ciency, and employ feedstocks in addition to grain for ethanol production. It is important that these worst-case scenarios offered by the University of Minnesota are not allowed to overshadow the improvements being made in farming and renewable fuel technologies.”

The paper failed to note statistics from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory showing that 96 percent of all the corn used in ethanol production comes from non-irrigated acres. Less than 15 percent of the total corn crop is irrigated. The report makes much of its suggested water use for ethanol production in California. However, it fails to account for the fact that virtually all of the corn for ethanol production in California comes from the Midwest, not California. The paper also provided no comparison with respect to other fuel sources and focuses exclusively on ethanol production while ignoring the livestock feed co-product of the process.

CBO report proves ethanol does not contribute to rising food prices

A Congressional Budget Offi ce report released April 8 found that other factors, including higher energy costs, had a greater effect than ethanol on increasing food prices from April 2007 to April 2008. According to the report, etha-nol contributed “0.5 and 0.8 percentage points of the 5.1 percent increase in food prices” during that period of time.

“The impact on food prices of our nation’s push to fi nd renewable alternatives to imported oil is dwarfed by the widespread negative economic impacts of oil itself,” said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen. “While ethanol opponents may try to hold up this CBO re-port as proof of ethanol’s impact on food prices, a close and honest review of the report reveals that many other factors, especially prices for oil and energy, have greater infl uence over what Americans pay at the grocery store than does ethanol production.”

Due to the limitations and scope of the CBO report, it could not factor in the dramatic plunge in both energy and grain commodity prices following the speculation-fueled peaks seen during the summer of 2008. The CBO report also was not designed to take note of the fact that retail food prices have continued to increase or at least remain at near record levels despite these precipitous drops in grain, fuel and other input costs.


The International Energy Agency released a report exam-ining the current biofuels indus-try as well as the challenges pre-sented for the development and commercialization of second-generation biofuels. The report concluded that while the tran-sition to an integrated biofuels industry will likely take up to 20 years and require substantial government support, the indus-

try will grow at a steady rate.The agency estimated that

the fi rst commercial-scale sec-ond-generation facilities could be operating by 2012. However, before second-generation biofu-els can be commercialized, sev-eral issues must be addressed, including feedstock costs, pro-duction method technology im-provements and utilization of co-products.

IEA releases biofuels report

The U.S. Department of Energy has awarded the Uni-versity of Georgia Complex Carbohydrate Research Center a four-year $3.1 million grant. The funding will allow the facility, which houses the DOE Center for Plant and Microbial Complex Carbohydrates, to continue to serve as a national resource for

researchers studying the complex carbohydrates of plants and mi-crobes. The center contributes to carbohydrate research in a wide variety of areas, including biofuels. The CCRC’s biofuel research focuses on determining the structure of the carbohydrate that is left behind after a cellulos-ic feedstock is pretreated.

CCRC awarded U.S. DOE grant

Magellan Midstream Part-ners LP and Poet LLC continue to assess the feasibility of con-structing a dedicated pipeline to deliver ethanol from Midwest plants to distribution terminals in the Northeast region of the United States.

According to Magellan and Poet, in order for the project to move forward the U.S. DOE’s loan guarantee program must be revised. On April 4, the Re-newable Fuels Pipeline Act of

2008 was introduced in the U.S. Senate. The bill seeks to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide loan guarantees for projects to construct renewable fuels pipelines.

Magellan, Poet form pipeline partnership

BIObytes Ethanol News Briefs

Researchers from Clemson University Restoration Institute and the U.S. DOE’s Savannah River Na-tional Laboratory are furthering their part-nership to study the development and har-vesting of South Car-olina’s energy crops, including switchgrass, sweet sorghum and pine, as well as crop-processing techniques to yield viable energy and chemical products. Last fall,

the South Carolina BioEnergy Research Collaborative received a $1.2 million DOE grant to build a pilot-scale ethanol facility at the Restoration Insti-tute. Other collabora-tive partners include: South Carolina State

University’s James E. Clyburn University Transportation Cen-ter, Dyadic International (USA) Inc., Fagen Engineering LLC, and The Spinx Co. Inc.

The U.S. EPA issued a proposed fi nding in April con-fi rming that greenhouse gases (GHG) contribute to air pollu-tion that may endanger public health or welfare. The agency conducted extensive peer-reviewed scientifi c analysis of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofl uorocar-bons, perfl ourocarbons and sulfur hexafl uoride and found

that concentrations of the gases are at unprecendented levels as a result of human emissions.

In March, the EPA pro-posed a national GHG emis-sions reporting program that would affect approximately 13,000 facilities, including eth-anol production facilities. The proposed plan would take ef-fect Jan. 1, 2010.

EPA proposes GHG reporting program

Clemson University, DOE advance partnership

A proposed U.S. EPA greenhouse gas emissions reporting program would affect approximately 13,000 facilities.


The U.S. Patent and Trade-mark Offi ce has issued an allow-ance for a patent application to the Energy and Environmental Research Center Foundation in Grand Forks, N.D., for a high-pressure hydrogen production process that converts liquid fu-els, such as ethanol, methanol, and gasoline, to hydrogen at the time of fueling. The process could reduce or eliminate infra-

structure costs for nationwide hydrogen production, transpor-tation, and storage. Researchers have proven the conversion of methanol into hydrogen and are working on obtaining similar results for ethanol and hydro-carbon fuels. The fi rst demon-stration of this technology is tentatively planned for Grand Forks in 2010.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has de-veloped a Professional Science Master degree program in Bio-energy. Beginning in fall 2009, students in the College of Ag-ricultural, Consumer and Envi-ronmental Sciences will begin in-struction in the program, which combines advanced training in science and mathematics with graduate-level courses in busi-ness. The requirements include classes in accounting, econom-

ics, fi nance, marketing, man-agement/leadership, strategy, human resources and business courses that interface with sci-ence. The professional content will be delivered by the College of Business and the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations.

EERC receives patent for hydrogen system

U of I to offer master’s in bioenergy

This schematic illustrates of the Energy and Environmental Research Center’s on-demand hydrogen technology at work.

The Biofuels Center of North Carolina has awarded several grants for ethanol-re-lated research projects.

The University of North Carolina in Charlotte received $150,295 with the Catawba County Regional EcoComplex and Resource Recovery Facility in Newton, N.C., to develop technology to improve cellu-losic ethanol production from crop and lumber mill waste.

North Carolina State Uni-versity received over $700,000

for projects including work to characterize industrial sludges from papermaking processes for feedstock potential; evalu-ating sugarcane and miscan-thus performance in North Carolina; developing a sweet sorghum feedstock industry on marginal lands; and a joint project with Lignol Energy Corp. to determine the eco-nomic impact of producing ethanol from varieties of pine wood.

N.C. ethanol research projects fundedSOURCE: EERC

North Carolina researchers recently received over $800,000 in grant funding to be used for ethanol-related projects.


The U.S. EPA released its proposed rulemaking for the second stage of the re-newable fuels standard (RFS2) on May 5. The EPA’s proposed rule for the RFS2 ex-pands the scope of the program to include all transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel intended for use in highway ve-hicles and engines, as well as non-road loco-motives and marine engines. As directed by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the proposed rule requires that some renewable fuels achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions compared to the gasoline and diesel fuels they dis-place.

A fuel pathway is established for each fuel that accounts for GHG emissions pro-duced over the fuel’s full lifecycle, includ-ing emissions resulting from the production and transport of the feedstock, production, distribution, blending, use and land use. Indirect land use change effects are also included in the fuel pathways of biofuels. With the inclusion of indirect land use change emissions, the EPA estimates typi-cal corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 16 percent when compared to gasoline. Without the inclusion of indirect land use change, corn ethanol is shown to reduce these emissions by 61 percent.

Leaders in the ethanol industry have criticized EPA’s inclusion of indirect land use in the proposed rule for RFS2. Accord-

ing to the Renewable Fuels Association, the quantifi cation of land use change emissions included in the agency’s lifecycle GHG anal-ysis of ethanol is highly speculative and driv-en largely by assumptions. “We welcome an open and robust science-based discussion of the indirect impacts of all fuels,” said Bob Dinneen, RFA’s president and CEO. “The science of market-mediated, second-ary impacts is very young and needs more reliance on verifi able data, and less reliance on unproven assumptions. Done correctly, such an analysis will demonstrate a signifi -cant carbon benefi t is achieved through the use of ethanol from all sources.”

While Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis praised the EPA and Administrator Lisa Jackson for soliciting peer-reviewed science on the lifecycle analysis of biofuels for the purpose of the proposed rule, he said it is important to complete further study on the controversial theory of indirect land use change before fi nalizing the GHG emis-sions scores for biofuels. “Indirect land use change theory uses speculative models and incorrect assumptions in an attempt to blame American farmers for deforestation in Brazil,” he said. “As the European Union discovered while developing their biofuels regulations, the science on indirect land use is unsettled and the theory is not ready for regulatory usage.” In addition, Buis said that indirect land use change as currently pro-

posed doesn’t allow an accurate compari-son of fuels because it does not include the indirect effects of other fuels. “To include indirect effects in regulations without even considering the indirect effects of other fuels would unfairly bias those regulations against biofuels,” he said.

Poet LLC CEO Jeff Broin issued a statement regarding the EPA’s announce-ment in which he expressed concern re-garding an indirect land use change penalty for corn ethanol. “While many scientists have found signifi cant fl aws in the models used to calculate indirect land use change, I think the very concept is fl awed and stems from a lack of understanding of ethanol and agriculture,” he said. “Due to increas-ing effi ciencies in our production facilities and the increased corn yields from the fi elds surrounding them, we don’t need new land to meet the Renewable Fuel Standard.”

The National Corn Growers Associa-tion also weighed in on the issue. “In our conversations with the EPA, we understand a great deal of work needs to be done on modeling and a great effort needs to be put into using current and correct data regard-ing indirect land use,” NCGA president Bob Dickey said. “NCGA will be working closely with the USDA and EPA to ensure scientifi c data is used.”

—Erin Voegele

EPA issues proposed rule for RFS2

With the inclusion of indirect land use change emissions,

the EPA estimates t ypical corn ethanol reduces GHG emis-

sions by 16 percent when compared to gasoline. Without the

inclusion of indirect land use change, corn ethanol is shown

to reduce these emissions by 61 percent.


In November, the U.S. Grains Council facilitated the fi rst-ever shipment of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) to Aus-tralia. Hawkeye Gold LLC in Ames, Iowa supplied 45.7 metric tons of DDGS for the project, The DeLong Company Inc. donated trans-loading services and the USGC paid freight costs for the DDGS to be delivered to Australian feed supplier CopRice Feeds. Once there, CopRice used the DDGS to conduct feeding and milling trials on four dairy cattle farms in the South West Victoria and New South Wales regions of the coun-try.

Data gathered throughout the feeding trials suggested that DDGS can be included in dairy rations in those regions of Austra-lia with no ill-effects. Farmers who partici-pated in the trials fed cattle including DDGS at rates of between 5 and 20 percent. Milk production was overall unchanged and other parameters such as butter fat and protein did not change signifi cantly.

Milling trials offered similar results. It was noted that the U.S. DDGS when used

at 20 percent absorbed more steam than lo-cally-sourced distillers grains, but any issues caused by this during the pellitizing process were brought under control by reducing the steam feed rates.

Upon the conclusion of the milling and feeding trials, CopRice determined that U.S. DDGS is a tangible alternative for the com-pany, as long as it is price competitive.

USGC Southeast Asia Director Adel Yusupov said the successful feeding trials gives momentum to the long-term utilization of U.S. DDGS in Australia. “If DDGS prove to be price competitive, I predict Australian end-users will incorporate the coproduct into feed formulations,” he said, adding that shipping costs will be a signifi cant factor in the price of the product.

Price will also be the determining fac-tor in the expansion of DDGS use in Chile, according to Reid Jensen, USGC Rest of the World advisory team member. Jensen recently traveled throughout Chile with several USGC representatives to conduct face-to-face meetings with local dairy farm-

ers to present the results of positive Chilean DDGS dairy feeding trials. Jensen said the feeding trials proved that DDGS can coin-cide with the extensive grazing system cur-rently employed by local farmers. Price will determine how much DDGS local dairy pro-ducers are willing to use, but Jensen predict-ed that lower corn prices will result in greater price competitiveness for DDGS.

“Chile’s dairy industry consists of ap-proximately 470,000 head,” said USGC in-ternational operations senior director Chris Corry. “If these farms were to use an 8 per-cent DDGS inclusion rate and limit feeding during the lactation period, approximately 295 days per year, the potential demand for DDGS equates to 233,000 metric tons per year.” According to the USGC, Chile cur-rently imports up to 100,000 tons of DDGS annually, but most of the product is used to feed poultry and swine.

—Kris Bevill

USGC expands distillers grains markets to Australia, Chile

The U.S. Grains Council organized the fi rst-ever shipment of U.S. distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) to Australia in November 2008. After several months of feeding and milling trials, data has shown Australia could be an important DDGS export market for the United States.


In an April 8 statement announcing its Chapter 11 bankruptcy fi ling, Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings Inc. stated that operat-ing margins, high gasoline prices and excess RINs all have negative-ly affected the ethanol industry. According to Aventine, “Ethanol demand has also been negatively affected by refi ners and blenders using excess renewable identifi cation numbers (RINs) to help meet their renewable fuels standard obligations instead of purchasing ac-tual gallons of ethanol.” Aventine was unavailable for further com-ment on the role of RINs in its bankruptcy.

Hunt Stookey, managing director of management consulting fi rm HighQuest Partners LLC, said he doesn’t believe excess RINs

have played a signifi cant role in the bankruptcy of ethanol plants. Instead, he said those plants aren’t able to produce more ethanol because there is not enough corn in the market and many produc-ers are going bankrupt because they bought long corn.

Stookey’s fi rm is using a unique model to project how the etha-nol industry will be affected by the corn and RIN markets over the next several years that assumes that the ethanol fl eet does the de-mand rationing in the corn market. This means that the purchasing behavior of those buying corn for use in the food, feed and export markets are not responsive to price increases. The ethanol fl eet, how-ever, is. Ethanol producers tend to use the balance of the corn supply that is not utilized in these other markets.

While there currently are excess RINs in the market, Stookey said those excess RINs that are carried over year to year will be needed to help obligated parties meet the requirements of the RFS in 2009 and 2010. In 2011 Stookey projects those obligated parties will start bidding up the price of ethanol to meet their requirements, which will also bring up the price of corn.

Aventine blames excess RINs for bankruptcy

SPEC IT AND FORGET IT.

www.checkall.comS i n c e 1 9 5 8

West Des Moines, Iowa USA

Check-All Valve is your

one-stop supplier for the

check valves you need in the

materials you require. Better

yet, every valve includes the

experience, engineering, and

application know-how you need

for “spec-it-and-forget-it” reliability.

After all, you have better things to

do, and check valves are all we do.

Call us at 515-224-2301 or e-mail us at [email protected].

Ethanol demand has been negatively affected by refi ners and blenders using excess RINs to meet renewable fuels standard obligations instead of purchasing actual gallons of ethanol.


Clayton McMartin, president of Clean Fuels Clearinghouse, which owns and operates the Renewable Fuels Registry RINSTAR, said Aventine’s claim regarding RINs may be true, but not for the reason Aventine claims. McMartin said excess RINs are not due to overproduction, but instead due to the presence of invalid or dupli-cated RINs. There are undoubtedly fraudulent RINs on the market, he said.

According to McMartin the issue of greater importance is how ethanol producers deal with the RINs they produce. Although one RIN is generated with each gallon of renewable fuel that is produced, each gallon of renewable fuel can be assigned up to 2.5 RINs, he said. This means that a producer making 1 million gallons of ethanol must generate 1 million RINs, however that producer does not have to assign one RIN to each gallon. Instead, the producer could as-sign two RINs to each gallon of a 500,000 gallon batch, charge for those RINs, and sell the remaining 500,000 gallons of ethanol with no RINs attached.

Instead of simply giving away a RIN with each gallon of ethanol that is produced, a business model focused on supplying RINs to the entities that need them could allow ethanol producers to realize an additional revenue stream. In fact, McMartin estimates that many producers may see more margin in their RINs than in the ethanol they produce.

As part of Aventine’s bankruptcy fi ling, the company and certain holders of its 10.0 percent senior unsecured notes agreed to a fi rst priority secured debtor-in-possession (DIP) term loan totaling $30 million. The DIP loan, which will enable the company to continue to satisfy customary obligations associated with ongoing operations, was given interim approval by the Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware on April 16. The interim approval allowed Aventine im-mediate access to the fi rst $15 million of its DIP fi nancing. The sec-ond $15 million of the DIP fi nancing package was scheduled to be considered at a Bankruptcy Court hearing on May 5.

——Erin Voegele


VeraSun asset sale shakes up industry

During a bankruptcy court-approved auction sale in March, the assets of VeraSun Energy Corp. were acquired by San Anto-nio, Texas-based oil refi ner and marketer Valero Energy Corp., a group of lenders represented by AgStar Financial Services ACA of Mankato, Minn., German fi nancial giant WestLB AG, and Minne-apolis-based investment banker Dougherty Funding LLC.

One of the newest ethanol producers in the U.S., Valero is also suddenly one of the largest. But as of press time, the Texas oil refi ner was not a member of the organizations that typically rep-resent ethanol producer interests, such as the American Coalition for Ethanol, Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association, and the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition, all of whom formally peti-

Buckman will excel in providing measurable, cost-ef fective improvements in output and quality for our customers by delivering customer-specificservices and products, and the creative application of knowledge. International Headquarters at 1256 North McLean Blvd., Memphis, TN 38108 U.S.A.(901) 278-0330 /Fax (901) 276-5343 or call 1 800 BUCKMAN in the U.S.A. www.buckman.com / [email protected] ©2009, Buckman Laboratories International, Inc.

When you need experience, you need Buckman. For over 60 years, we have beensolving water-related problems for our customers. We are committed to deliveringsolutions that are uniquely designed to help you increase productivity, improvequality, and give you a return on your investment. Other suppliers have chemicals....only Buckman adds experience and knowledge for a total system approach.

When it comes to treating your water problems.. .we don’t kid around.

BECAUSE IT’S NOT JUST CHEMICALS YOU WANT – IT’S RESULTS.

PHOTO: G. BIGALOW

Communities across the Corn Belt this spring anxiously awaited the fi nal outcome of the sale of assets from bankrupt ethanol producer VeraSun Energy Corp.


tioned the U.S. EPA to allow the use of up to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline for motor vehicles.

Instead, Valero continues to retain membership in the Na-tional Petrochemical & Refi ners Association, a lobbying group that testifi ed before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety earlier this year that ethanol should not be blended into gasoline at levels higher than 10 percent, suggesting that levels above 10 percent have not been suffi ciently tested for their safety.

“We recognize that ethanol is going to be an important part of the fuel mix in this country and the renewable fuels standard isn’t going anywhere,” said Bill Day, director of media relations for Valero, “as long as we’re required to buy ethanol, we might as well make it. That’s why we’re in the business.

“The amount of capacity that Valero purchased makes us the third leading ethanol producer in the country but, for us, it’s actu-ally a very, very small part of our operations and a small part of our bottom line,” Day continued. “We’re still overwhelmingly a petro-leum refi ner and not an ethanol producer. “

While Valero’s acquisition of VeraSun’s plants means a loss in members for some ethanol industry organizations, those who de-pend on ethanol for their livelihood are looking forward to seeing the plants operating again.

“We want it humming,” said Albion, Neb., Mayor James Jar-ecki. “Everybody in the community is anxious to see it get going—and stay going—to retain jobs, retain revenue, and retain the tax base.”

Jarecki said personally, he is pleased that the plant was acquired by a petroleum refi ner and marketer, which must acquire ethanol for blending. “If the federal government mandates 10 percent (eth-anol) being mixed—if [Valero] can own it—they probably have a competitive edge and so it can be a huge advantage, also. It would more or less be eliminating a wholesaler, in my eyes, and that would be good. It would make [the ethanol plant] competitive.

“It’s still a win-win deal all the way around and it helps the farmer, too,” Jarecki continued. “There are a lot of things that you can put in your town that really doesn’t maybe help the ag commu-nity much; but this is one thing that does help.”

“The communities where we bought the plants are very excited about a company like Valero coming in and keeping the plants in operation and keeping the employees on the job,” Day said.

—Ryan C. Christiansen

33


While the ethanol industry relies heavily on rail transport to ship its product to various destinations, ethanol has traditionally ac-counted for a very small portion of the commodities shipped by rail throughout the United States. However, 2008 proved to be a lucrative year for several railroad companies as related to ethanol, and produc-ers are being recognized for adding to their bottom line as well as for their safety standards.

In 2008, Norfolk Southern Corp., which operates approximately 21,000 route miles in 22 states and the District of Columbia, assisted in the location of 19 ethanol and biodiesel production and distribu-tion facilities across 10 states. “Renewable energy projects led the way across our service area in 2008,” said Newell Baker, assistant vice president for the company’s industrial development. In total, Norfolk

Railroad companies profi t from ethanol

PHOTO: ELIZABETH SLAVENS, BBI INTERNATIONAL

Several railroad companies recently recognized ethanol producers and shippers for their commitment to safe loading practices, railcar safety and maintenance and reducing the number of non-accident releases of hazard-ous chemicals.


Southern helped locate 80 new industries and assisted in the expan-sion of 35 existing industries along its rail lines.

Also in 2008, Providence and Worcester Railroad Co. reported a profi t of $166,000, compared to a net loss of $652,000 in 2007. P&W said chemicals and plastics, including ethanol, as well as con-struction aggregates, were the two largest commodity groups trans-ported constituting 36 and 13 percent, respectively, of conventional carload freight revenues in 2008. P&W customers last year included Aventine Renewable Energy Inc., Cargill Inc., The Dow Chemical Co., and Exxon Mobil Corp. The railroad company is a class II re-gional freight railroad that operates 516 miles of track in Massachu-setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York.

Ethanol producers and refi ners were among the 40 companies recently recognized by Union Pacifi c Railroad for their safe-loading techniques, securement of the shipments and non-accident releases. According to the company, since 1994 non-accident releases of haz-ardous material have declined 57 percent on Union Pacifi c. Reduc-tions can be credited in part to increased inspections by the railroad’s chemical transportation safety fi eld personnel as well as to the Pin-nacle Award criteria established by the rail company. The 2009 Union Pacifi c Railroad Pinnacle Award winners included: Valero Marketing & Supply Co. and Poet LLC biorefi ning facilities in Jewell, Ashton, and Emmetsburg, Iowa, and Hudson, S.D. Non-accident releases

make up the largest portion of Union Pacifi c hazardous materials incidents. The award program is open to all chemical shippers.

CSX Transportation, a subsidiary of Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corp., recently announced the winners of its annual Chemical Safety Excellence Award that refl ects a winning company’s commit-ment to rail car maintenance and safety, as well as continuous safe tank car loading. Sixty-four companies that shipped 600 or more rail-cars on CSXT rails without any accidental releases were recognized by CSXT.

“Throughout the challenging economic environment, these CSEA winners have remained focused on the safe loading and un-loading of their fl eet, and maintaining their fl eet in safe working con-dition.

Among the shippers honored were: Abengoa Bioenergy Opera-tions, CHS Inc. Renewable Fuels Marketing, Hawkeye Renewables and Hawkeye Growth, Lansing Ethanol Services LLC, Methanex Methanol Co., Valero Marketing and Supply, Inc., and VeraSun Mar-keting LLC.

CSX provides rail, intermodal and rail-to-truck transload ser-vices through an approximately 21,000 mile rail network that serves 23 eastern states and the District of Columbia.

—Hope Deutscher


Production, imports up as Europe increases ethanol requirements

The European Union Council of Ministers adopted a European Commission legislative package in April that increases the amount of ethanol to be blended with petroleum gasoline in the EU, establishes sustainability criteria for the fuel, and requires petroleum fuel suppli-ers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for their fuel. The EU plans to increase the share of renewable energy it consumes in the transport sector to 10 percent by 2020. The measures were fi rst proposed by the Commission in January 2008 and were amended by the European Parliament in December. EU member states must now adopt national plans by June 2010 and enact national laws by the end of that year.

For ethanol to be counted in the mandate, the fuel must meet sustainability criteria relating to biodiversity, the protection of spe-cies and ecosystems, and GHG emission savings, beginning in 2011. Petroleum suppliers are required to decrease GHG emissions over the entire lifecycles of their fuels by 6 percent by 2020, which can be achieved by blending ethanol. Beginning in 2011, fueling stations can

begin offering E10, but E5 must remain available until 2013 for use in older vehicles.

The push for more ethanol comes at a time when European production and imports are increasing. Plants in Europe produced 56 percent more ethanol in 2008 than in 2007, a steep increase over the 11 percent boost the industry experienced in 2007 compared to 2006, according to the European Bioethanol Fuel Association (eBIO). EU producers made 2.8 billion liters (740 MMgy) of ethanol in 2008, up from 1.8 billion liters (476 MMgy) in 2007. The increase is due in large part to growth in French production, which nearly doubled in 2008 to 1 billion liters (264 MMgy), up from 539 million liters (142 MMgy) in 2007. Meanwhile, Germany expanded its output by more than 32 percent to 569 million liters (150 MMgy). Spain was the third-largest producer with 317 million liters (84 MMgy). The increase occurred despite declining production in some producing member states. Bel-gium produced its fi rst ethanol in 2008 while Austria completed its fi rst full year of production. Finland resumed production last year.


Europe increased its imports of ethanol by an estimated 400 million liters (106 million gallons) in 2008 to an estimated 1.9 bil-lion liters (502 million gallons), with most of the ethanol (between 1.4 and 1.5 billion liters, or between 370 and 396 million gallons) coming from Brazil.

Increased production and imports of ethanol and biodiesel are a priority for the EU, according to Andris Piebalgs, a member of the European Commission responsible for Energy. Piebalgs ad-dressed the 1st European Bioethanol Fuel Conference, sponsored by eBIO, in April.

“Transport [in the EU] depends on oil for 98 percent of its fuel,” said Piebalgs. “That degree of dependence would be a worry, whatever the fuel. It is of double concern given that the fuel in question is oil.

“We need to pursue many solutions to this problem; but today, biofuels are just about the only large-scale option currently available to diversify fuel sources in the transport sector,” Piebalgs said.

In Germany, Vereinigte BioEnergie AG reported that for 2008, its ethanol plants produced 270,000 metric tons running at 51.3 percent capacity. The company’s ethanol export business declined 9.8 percent to 19,400 metric tons compared to 2007.

U.K.-based Pursuit Dynamics PLC reported in March that it remains confi dent that its strategy of focusing on the renewable fuels market will produce the best results for the company. During the fi rst quarter of 2009, the company installed its PDX Ethanol Reactor Tower technology at the 40 MMgy Iroquois Bio-Energy Company LLC ethanol plant in Rensselaer, Ind. Also this year, Pur-suit Dynamics shifted its research and development focus to im-proving pretreatment processes for cellulosic ethanol feedstocks.

—Ryan C. Christiansen


Canada makes further investments in biofuels Ethanol facilities and research projects re-

cently received a boost from a number of fed-eral and provincial funding sources in Canada, all aimed at accelerating renewable fuel production.

British Columbia has pledged more than $32.6 million to commercialize approximately $200 million in provincial renewable energy technology projects. The Innovative Clean En-ergy Fund has awarded more than $22.6 million to 19 projects and another $10 million in provin-cial funding will support eight projects to develop cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and biofuel technologies that demonstrate low greenhouse gas emissions. The province has mandated that by 2010 gasoline and diesel used in British Columbia must contain a minimum of 5 per-cent renewable fuel.

One of the projects receiving funding was Lignol Innovations Ltd. in Burnaby, British Columbia, which was awarded $3.4 million to produce cellulosic ethanol and other products utilizing forestry resi-dues indigenous to the province. The company will use the funds to

support production runs at its industrial-scale biorefi nery pilot plant using forest resources, which will lead to the creation of an engineer-ing design package for a commercial biorefi n-ery within the province. The company also has received $1.82 million from Sustainable Devel-

opment Technology Canada, a non-profi t foun-dation that fi nances and supports clean technol-ogy developments.

Other companies receiving funding includ-ed: Northwind Ethanol in Prince George, British Columbia, which received $1.24 million to build a 500,000 gallon woody biomass-to-ethanol demonstration-scale facility; and Pure Power Global Ltd. in Quesnel, British Columbia, which received $880,000 to design and build a biorefi nery in Quesnel that will convert 10 metric tons per day of woody biomass into cellulosic ethanol, lignins and xylose.

Canada’s ecoENERGY for Biofuels program, which supports the production of renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel, re-cently awarded Permolex Ltd.’s Red Deer, Alberta, ethanol produc-

www.atlanticbioenergy.ca

September 21-23, 2009Hosted at Delta Beauséjour • Moncton, NB

For more information about the2009 Atlantic Bioenergy Conference visit:www.atlanticbioenergy.caor call 1-888-501-0224(519) 576-4500

September 21-23, 2009


tion facility up to $23.2 million. The facility uses feed grade wheat in its initial stages of production and is designed to integrate three traditionally independent manufacturing processes – a fl our mill, a gluten plant and an ethanol plant.

“I’m very pleased to express our thanks to the government of Canada for its partnership in making this state-of-the-art facility pos-sible, and helping to make sure Permolex remains a part of this com-munity for many years to come,” said Doug MacKenzie, CEO and president of Permolex.

Canada’s Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Agricultural Bio-products Innovation Program is investing $12 million in the Canadian Triticale Biorefi nery Initiative research network. Triticale, a hybrid of wheat and rye, contains high yielding potential with disease and envi-ronmental tolerance. It is mainly grown for animal feed or forage. CTBI is developing new uses for triticale as an ethanol production feedstock and biomaterials manufacturing source. The network involves 90 sci-entists from a number of entities working on 30 projects.

One of the projects involves Canada’s largest ethanol producer, GreenField Ethanol Inc. and the National Research Council Bio-

technology Research Institute. The two have partnered to improve pentose-fermenting yeast for the production of cellulosic ethanol from triticale and other forms of biomass. The research will occur at GreenField Ethanol’s Center of Excellence pilot-scale cellulosic biorefi nery and laboratory in Chatham, Ontario.

Canada Foundation for Innovation recently distributed $26.7 million to 116 projects at 29 Canadian institutions. Dr. David Levin and Dr. Nazim Cicek, University of Manitoba biosystems engineer-ing professors, received $400,000 to study improving effi ciencies of ethanol and hydrogen synthesis from agriculture and forestry waste. The funding will specifi cally support a laboratory that will develop a renewable cellulose-based fermentation system for biofuel produc-tion. According to the university, the lab will provide a unique op-portunity to research alternative fuels in Canada. The CFI is an in-dependent corporation created by the Canadian government to fund research infrastructure.

——Hope Deutscher


here has never been a better time to have a posi-tive relationship with your lender.

As an ethanol plant manager, you know where you’ve borrowed money but do you have a one-on-one relationship with your banker? Have

you met their approver? Consider this relationship from the lender’s perspective. Once the bank approves a loan, they become your business partner and should be in the loop on the ups – and downs – of your operation.

From a lending perspective, the ethanol industry might not be the easiest to understand. It is an industry that has caught a bad rap in the past year due to high commodity prices and media reports of bankruptcies and foreclosures. Lenders are skittish about giving money to an industry that is publicly struggling and fi nancing is possibly the single biggest hurdle for ethanol projects at the present time. For these reasons, a personal relationship with your banker is critical. If a loan offi cer has a misunderstanding about etha-nol, they might be bearish about getting involved. However, if you engage them and educate them the odds begin to lean in your favor. Prove that your business can be prof-itable if managed correctly. Don’t allow your operation to be grouped into a negative aspect of the industry. Inquire about changes in the lenders credit policy and lending au-thority and how those changes will affect your operation. Ask the same questions of any participating banks.

Now is absolutely the worst time to surprise your lend-er. Be sure to communicate with them about your fi nancial situation. Since most credit facilities are structured by loan covenants including minimum net worth and debt service coverage ratio, you need to fully understand these ratios and their impact on your plant. This is not a time to violate

covenants with a lender, especially if they don’t see it com-ing. Keeping the communication lines open lets the lender see you are doing everything you agreed to at the inception of the loan.

As with any other business partner, keep your bank-ing partner in the loop and don’t be afraid to discuss your books. Raise red fl ags early so the bank can provide help and discuss options for the future. Remember that your lender has money on the line too and will be willing to help if given the opportunity. However, if challenges are not pre-sented early on it might be too late to offer assistance by the time your lender becomes involved and they will be left with few choices.

The bottom line is that people do business with people they like and trust. Your lender needs to have confi dence in you and your operation and the best way to do that is to open your doors and bring your banker to visit the plant. Take your loan offi cer, credit approvers and loan commit-tee members on a ground-fl oor tour. Introduce them to your employees. Allow them to see you in a management role. All of these things will earn confi dence points with your fi -nancial institution and give the approvers some buy-in to your operation.

There are fi nancial consultants available that can uti-lize their lender experience, knowledge and contacts to as-sist borrowers in achieving their end goal. If you are inter-ested in reviewing your existing lending package it could be worth your time to reach out to these types of businesses for assistance.

Peter Martin is a fi nance consultant at Kennedy & Coe LLC. Reach him at [email protected] or (970) 506-2419.

Open the Door to Banking RelationshipsBy Peter Martin

FINANCE

T

Martin


Foreclosure AlternativesBy David Meyer

e have all read about the increased level of fore-closure activity among ethanol producers across the country. However, foreclosure is not the only option for producers who have fallen on hard times. One of the less-frequently discussed al-

ternatives consists of transactions wherein borrowers voluntarily transfer title to their property to their lenders by deed. These vol-untary conveyances are commonly referred to as “deed in lieu” transactions.

Benefi ts of a Deed in Lieu AgreementWhen a borrower defaults on its obligations to a lender, the

lender often ends up foreclosing on the property that secures the loan. Because the foreclosure process can be time consuming and expensive, it may make sense for a lender to accept a deed from the borrower in lieu of foreclosure as satisfaction of the debt. If a lender is willing to accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the lender takes title to the property immediately and eliminates the redemption period. By gaining immediate control of the prop-erty, the lender can direct its operation, obtain all of its income (if any) and put the property on the market much more quickly. If tenants are operating businesses out of the property, an orderly transfer of title may maintain the value of those tenancies and the businesses. Another advantage to the lender is avoiding the risks associated with litigation.

There are a number of reasons why a borrower may be will-ing to convey title by deed in lieu of foreclosure including to avoid the cost and stress involved in a foreclosure action or to avoid the negative publicity that may be associated with foreclosure. One of the primary reasons a borrower may give a deed, how-ever, is to avoid a personal judgment against the borrower. In exchange for the deed, a lender will generally agree to release the borrower from any further obligations under the mortgage or deed of trust and other loan documents. Similarly, if the loan was

guaranteed, a lender may agree to release the guarantor from any further liability under his or her guaranty.

Typical Provisions in a Deed in Lieu AgreementThe actual contract that is executed by the parties is referred

to by many different names, including a Deed in Lieu Agreement, an Agreement in Lieu of Foreclosure, or a Settlement Agreement. It is important to note that there is no standard form of Deed in Lieu Agreement. The substance of the agreement will depend on the specifi c type of property being conveyed and the relative bargaining strength of each of the parties.

Lenders generally approach a deed in lieu transaction much like any other purchaser of real estate, including conducting the appropriate due diligence, which may include, for example, title review, environmental testing, surveys, and confi rmation of com-pliance with local zoning ordinances. If the property is improved, the lender may require that the borrower convey not only the real estate, but also any equipment, fi xtures and other personal prop-erty that is used in the operation or maintenance of the real prop-erty. Similarly, if any portion of the property is leased, a lender may require that the leases be assigned to the lender at closing on the deed in lieu transaction.

While it may initially seem that a deed in lieu transaction is a relatively simple process for a willing borrower and lender to transfer title to property to avoid a foreclosure, there are risks as-sociated with the transaction that must be carefully assessed by both parties. Also, because there is no standard form of agree-ment, it is important for borrowers and lenders to consult with their attorneys and other advisors when considering entering a Deed in Lieu Agreement.

David Meyer is a partner in Lindquist & Vennum’s Real Estate practice. He can be reached at [email protected] or (612) 371-3531.

W

Meyer

LEGAL PERSPECTIVES

ETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE • June 2009 43For more information, visit www.fermentis.com or email [email protected]

Our fermentationexperts offer cus-

tom made recom-mendations to adapt

to your process, yourneeds & your economics.

From the selection of the yeaststrain to the definition of its format

up to onsite training of your staff, Fermentis offers yourethanol plant a global fermentation approach to maximizeyour efficiency & profitability.

Grap

hic

desi

gn ss

Mar

ie R

IO


European Wallshe new European requirement to achieve a minimum renewable fuels usage of 10 percent by 2020 as part of the Renewable Energy Directive motivates the oil and car industry to imagine future fuel mix scenarios. Both sectors would like to know how much biofuel will be

needed by then as well as how much fuel will be domestically produced and how much will be imported. Car companies are also faced with having to determine how to adjust technology to handle new fuel mixtures.

The European fuel quality standard that took effect this month will now allow higher blends of ethanol in fossil fuel. The ceiling has been raised from 5 percent to 10 percent by volume. That is not high enough if one would need to comply with the 10 percent target in the Renewable Energy Directive and regulators will most likely propose a higher biofuel standard ceiling within a few years.

Interestingly, the new blending opportunity has already ma-terialized in France, where ethanol producers were desperately awaiting a new blending standard. France fi nalized its national E10 standard following the political acceptance of the European fuel standard in December. BP was the fi rst to enter the French E10 market, announcing just before April that it would sell E10 at 3 cents per liter lower than its super unleaded 95 petrol. By the end of April, almost all of its 422 service stations in France were set to sell SP95-E10.

We will soon see similar moves from E5 to E10 in Sweden, where the E5 market is already saturated, as well as possibly Bel-gium and Germany. Sweden will return to using E10, as it had prior to joining the European Union. All the other countries will follow over time. Last year in Germany a huge debate on E10 use took place between the government and the automotive and oil industries. The German minister of the environment wanted to push ahead with E10. Oil companies reluctantly agreed to deploy

an E10 fi lling network guaranteeing enough pumps for the older cars that could not “digest” E10. The German car industry had calculated that about 300,000 cars were not suited for E10. The importers of French and Italian cars had not submitted any data so it seemed defendable to go ahead. In the end the whole scheme collapsed. Why? Because just before the German E10 draft law was to be approved and implemented the car importers (of mainly French and Italian cars) said that 10 times more cars would be unable to use E10. The minister decided to annul the law, knowing that 3 million potentially unsatisfi ed car drivers would be a political liability.

The EU car industry, excluding the fl exible fuel vehicle (FFV) producers such as GM and Ford, has always been very much against going over the E5 threshold. It was only in December that the European Automobile Manufacturers Association announced a commitment that from 2010 all new gasoline vehicles would be compatible with E10. Why only from 2010? European mod-els such as Volkswagen, Volvo and Jaguar are sold in the United States and are able to digest E10. Those same models are sold in Europe with no manufacturing adjustments.

I witnessed how diffi cult it is for car manufacturers to think outside the box when we recently discussed fuel scenarios with one of the world’s largest automobile producers. I suggested that for gasoline cars, the solution is as simple as building FFVs to re-place gasoline-only models. Manufacturers could simply start do-ing what all car manufacturers do in Brazil and begin offering fl ex technology to the consumer. The question, “What’s next beyond E10?” would then be solved. The car people stared at me as if I had made an indecent proposal. Maybe I had.

Robert Vierhout is the secretary-general of eBIO, the European Bioethanol Fuel Association. Reach him at [email protected].

T

Vierhout

eBIO INSIDER

USE


The Push for

E15Growth Energy and other ethanol industry groups made the decision in March to offi cially fi le a fuel waiver request for E15 with the U.S. EPA, setting in motion the much-anticipated process to attempt to move the ethanol blend wall. The process is lengthy, but early hints of support from infl uential parties provide optimism for the industry.

By Erin Voegele


USE

In an effort to address the E10 blend wall, Growth Energy and 52 ethanol manufacturers and other supportive parties submitted a fuel waiver request

to the U.S. EPA on March 6. The waiver re-quest was fi led in accordance with section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act and seeks to increase the base fuel blend from 10 percent to 15 percent ethanol.

On February 19, Underwriters Laborato-ries announced it would support the use of up to 15 percent ethanol in certain legacy fuel pumps currently in use. One day later, Susan M. Cischke, Ford Motor Co.’s group vice pres-ident of sustainability, environment and safety engineering, wrote a letter to Poet LLC’s Chief Executive Offi cer Jeff Broin, voicing Ford’s endorsement of efforts to increase base level fuel blend up to E15.

The timing of these events has led some to speculate that the announcements made by UL and Ford prompted Growth Energy to submit the fuel waiver request. However Growth Energy Chief Executive Offi cer Tom Buis says this isn’t so. While the announce-ments from UL and Ford do help, Buis says

the timing of the waiver request was not dependent on them. “The timing was based more on the fact that ethanol producers have run up against that arbitrary regulatory cap of only 10 percent ethanol into our nation’s gasoline,” he says. “[We] need government to raise it in order to let us move forward in clean green energy.”

The LetterAlthough Growth Energy’s

fuel waiver request may not have been directly impacted by these actions, Cis-chke’s letter did spark a fl urry of activity within the ethanol industry. In the letter, Cis-chke thanked Broin for meeting with Ford to discuss renewable energy. “As we discussed, biofuels continue to be a part of Ford’s over-all strategy to address energy security and cli-mate change by increasing fuel economy and reducing emissions through the migration of advanced technology that is affordable and accessible for millions of our customers,” she says in the letter.

Ford and Poet share a com-mon vision to accelerate renew-able fuels use, she continues, and Ford endorses efforts to increase base level blends up to E15. A document attached to the let-ter further highlighted some key points Ford would like to review with EPA regarding the support of appropriate use of renewable fuel, including the need to expand next generation ethanol produc-tion technologies.

Jennifer Moore, Ford’s cor-porate news manager, clarifi es that the letter expressed support for E15, but not endorse-ment at this point. “It would be premature to say we are endorsing a move now to higher blends of ethanol,” she says. “What we endorse is collaborative efforts with key stakeholders to address concerns with the use of E15 in our legacy fl eet. We need to overcome challenges related to higher levels of ethanol blends for all vehicles because…the auto industry designed vehicles around an E10 blend…We are responsible for those

USE


Sue Cischke,group vice president of sustainability, environment and safety engineering, Ford Motor Co.

USE

Nonprofi t product safety organization Underwriters Laboratories Inc. recently announced it supports the use of fuel blends containing up to 15 percent ethanol in certain legacy fuel dispensers. Those dispensers, listed to UL 87, previously were rated for use with gasoline-ethanol blends up to E10.

UL Consumers Safety Director John Drengenberg emphasizes two points related to the organization’s en-dorsement of 15 percent ethanol use in legacy pumps:

UL’s endorsement supports the use of up to 15 percent ethanol—not E15. The ethanol content of E10, he says, has been known to vary from 7 percent to 13 percent. “Our research focused on 15 percent,” he says. “And, we are comfortable with that.”

UL does not approve the use of equipment, but rather supplies Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) with relevant safety information to aid in the decision

making process. AHJs are the au-thoritative body in their respective jurisdictions and make the fi nal call on what fuels are allowable for use in dispensers.

UL also has a safety standard in place that is used to evaluate new dispensers for use with fuels containing up to 85 percent ethanol. That standard, UL 87A, was developed two years ago. Drengenberg says UL has no immediate plans to evaluate the use of higher ethanol blends, such as E20, in legacy fuel dispensers listed to UL 87. It is something the organization would consider in the future, he says, but isn’t likely unless federal laws change to allow the use of a higher percentage of etha-nol in the base fuel blend.

A Step in the Right Direction

warranties. How to deal with that is certainly still on the table.” Cischke was not available to comment further on her letter to Poet.

According to the supporting document sent by Cischke to Broin, there are several main points Ford is focused on with regards to higher base blends of ethanol in the U.S. sector, including continuing support for the expansion of cellulosic ethanol and reinforc-ing a vision of ethanol becoming an alterna-tive to gasoline – rather than being limited to a gasoline additive.

The document also endorses efforts to increase base level blends up to E15 and to

collaborate with key stakeholders to address concerns regarding use of the fuel in the legacy fl eet, while enabling the ethanol indus-try to expand production and distribution in order to meet energy security and economic goals.

According to the document, Ford also recommends establishing a fi rm planning horizon to support higher level base ethanol blends beyond E15. The automaker says this is necessary to provide adequate lead-time to design, develop and introduce vehicles that are compatible with higher base blends.

The WaiverBuis says a move to E15 is necessary

because it would create jobs, reduce our dependence on imported oil, help the en-vironment and spur development of sec-ond generation technologies. “We think it would have tremendous impact,” he con-tinues. “Going from corn ethanol to cellu-losic ethanol is a transformation process. It would create the gap necessary to have a marketplace for cellulosic ethanol.”

“Going to 15 percent would cre-ate 130,000 new green collar jobs, provide about $25 billion into the U.S. economy and dis-place 7 billion gal-lons of imported gasoline each year,” Buis says. It would also reduce green-house gas emissions by 20 million tons each year, he continues, which is equiva-lent to removing approximately 3.5 mil-lion vehicles from the road.

According to Growth Energy, the United States needs to move to higher ethanol blends in order to keep pace with the Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates the use of 36 gallons of renew-able fuel by 2022. A cover letter accompa-nying the waiver request signed by Broin and Growth Energy Co-chairman Gen. Wesley Clark states that for all practical purposes, we have already reached the E10 blend wall. The letter further states that a saturated E10 market is a primary reason for the U.S. ethanol industry’s current fi -nancial condition, and that delaying action in removing the blend barrier would hin-der the viability of current ethanol plants and set back the development of viable second-generation fuels.

Buis emphasizes that the waiver ap-plication does not seek to mandate the use of E15. Rather, it seeks to remove barri-ers to its use. Broin and Clark’s letter also states that E15 is simply a fi rst step that would solve the blend wall problem in

USE

You know how to get every drop of ethanol from your materials ...

... we’ll help make it more profitable

SPECIALISTS IN QUALITY CONTROL OF GRAIN, FLOUR, FOOD AND FEED

www.perten.com

6 second analysis from the DA 7200 will increase your profitability, efficiency & ethanol production. With HPLC type results available in 6 seconds, you can perform real-time monitoring of the fermentation process. Analyze corn fractionation products, wet cake, syrups, and DDGs on the same instrument. The ease-of-use allows for 24 hour operation. Run your plant with knowledge based upon fast and accurate results.

To calculate how much you can save, please contact Perten Instruments at www.perten.com


Tom Buis,chief executive offi cer, Growth Energy

ing infrastructure, such as new pump label-ing requirements.

Growth Energy’s waiver application in-cludes a wide variety of research designed to address the issues EPA must consider. According to Buis, EPA could use that re-search to approve the use of a lower blend of ethanol, such as E12 or E13, while the agency considers the E15 waiver request.

“I am confi dent that the ethanol indus-try will be part of a long-term energy so-lution and key to our independence,” Buis

says. “The technological gains that we are making both in cellulose and in reducing energy costs to produce ethanol and the gains in the reduction of carbon emissions will certainly help us make our case to keep moving forward.” EP

Erin Voegele is an Ethanol Producer Magazine associate editor. Reach her at [email protected] or (701) 373-8040.

the short term. A path allowing for E15 now, E20 by 2015 and E30 by 2019 would solve the immediate need to overcome the blend wall, while allowing time for appro-priate studies and technological develop-ments to occur prior to the introduction of higher level blends.

EPA’s Potential PathwaysThe EPA is required to take action

on the waiver request within 270 days of its receipt. Statutes require the agency to establish a public docket for the petition that was submitted for Growth Energy and issue a Federal Register notice to take comments on the waiver application.

On April 1, EPA’s Director of the Offi ce of Air and Radiation Margo T. Oge submitted a written statement to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety regarding the fuel waiver request. In her statement, Oge described three potential pathways EPA believes can be taken in order to meet the RFS.

One option cited by Oge is through the increased use of fl ex-fuel vehicles and increased availability of E85 across the nation. A second option would be through the use of non-ethanol renew-able fuels that do not face the same blending limitations as ethanol. The third option would be to approve the use of a midlevel ethanol blend for use in conven-tional vehicles.

In considering Growth Energy’s waiver request, EPA must determine that a move to higher level blends will not cause or contribute to the failure of any vehicle or engine emissions control system or device. The agency must also evaluate the impact of E15 on drivability and durability. The long-term impacts of E15 must also be considered.

In her statement, Oge says that one key issue regarding the E15 waiver is whether the waiver should be granted in whole in a conditional manner. This means EPA could restrict use of E15 to a subset of gasoline vehicles or engines, which may result in the need to alter fuel-

USE

With IsoStabTM naturally derived antimicrobial

Pump more profit per bushel…naturallyIsoStabTM is derived from natural acids found in hops. It’s the natural way to effectively control gram-positive bacteria in fermentation.

Eliminate antibiotics and harsh chemicals. Forget problems with resistant bacteria. Add value to your co-products with antibiotic-free DDGS. Plus, many have experienced yield increases using this natural, thermally stable, pH tolerant antibiotic alternative.

Drive your plant to higher productivity with IsoStabTM. You’ll find your map to increased profits at: www.bthp.info

5185 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300Washington, DC 20016-3341202-777-4827Fax: 202-777-4893


Sooner or later, you’ll have to deal with bacterial contamination

in your fermentation tanks. You can wait – suffer the lost production

– and treat the problem. Or you can simply help prevent it, today.

Either way, LACTROL® is the proven solution for optimum yields

and higher productivity.

LACTROL controls the bacteria most damaging to your alcohol

production. And it’s the only antimicrobial that has an FDA letter

of “no objection” for co-products, when used as recommended.

A little LACTROL today will prevent most contamination from

ever happening. Try it. Or wait – and discover why LACTROL is also

the leading remedy. The choice is yours. For detai ls, cal l

800-223-0434, or visit www.lactrol.com.

If you’re not using it today, you’re going to need it tomorrow.

© 2009 Phibro Animal Health CorporationLactrol is a registered trademark of Phibro Animal Health Corporation and its affiliates.

ttoo dedealal wwitithh babactctereriaiall cocontntamamininatatioionn

cacann wawaitit – ssufuffeferr ththee lolostst pproroduductctioionn

uu cacann sisimpmplyly hhelelpp prprevevenentt itit, totodadayy.

proven s lol tutiion ffor optitimum iyi leldds

eria most damaging to your alcohol

ntimicrobial that has an FDA letter

cts,, when used as recommended.

prprevevenentt momostst cconontatamiminanatitionon ffroromm

ananddd dididiscscovoverer wwhhyhy LLLACACACTRTRTROLOLOL iiiss lalalsoso

oioicece iiss yoyoururss. FForor ddetetaia i lsls, cacal ll l

cttr lol.com.

Animal Health Corporation and its affiliates.

POLICY


The California Air Resources Board voted in April to adopt a low carbon fuel standard designed to lower the carbon content of transportation fuels used within the state. As biofuel producers continue to mount an effort to exclude indirect land use changes from the regulation, EPM examines the proposal and speaks with a representative of CARB to learn how ethanol producers may be affected.

By Erin Voegele


POLICY

California’s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) is one component of the state’s overarching plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

within the state to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In addition to lowering the carbon content of transportation fuels used within the state, the regulation also seeks to reduce California’s de-pendence on petroleum, create a lasting market for clean transportation technology, and stimu-late the production and use of alternative fuels.

The California Air Resources Board pub-lished the proposed regulation on March 5. Eth-anol advocates have criticized CARB’s decision to unilaterally assign indirect land use change (ILUC) carbon values to crop-based biofuels, while other fuel sources are evaluated on the basis of direct effects only. Following a formal 45-day commentary period and a fi nal day-long hearing to consider the LCFS, CARB members voted 9-1 in favor of the regulation. The vote in-cluded an agreement to convene an expert work group to assist CARB in refi ning and improving the metric used to measure ILUC.

Although some may object to the metric used to measure carbon intensity values, Dean Simeroth, chief of CARB’s Criteria Pollutants Branch, says it’s important to remember that the regulation aims to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. “It sort of gets lost in the concerns about how different parts [of the regulation] are going to affect people, but the real intent of the regulation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline and diesel,” he says. “And to do

that through the use of alternative biofuels and other alternative fuels – such as biogas or elec-tricity. Our real hope is that we get the biofuels we need to reduce the carbon intensity of the petroleum derived fuels.”

How the LCFS WorksThe LCFS is designed to provide a frame-

work that uses market mechanisms to spur the introduction of lower carbon fuels. To do this, the framework establishes a performance-based standard that fuel producers must meet each year, beginning in 2011. The regulation contains two standards―one for gasoline and its alterna-tive fuels and another for diesel and its replace-ments.

The standards are back-loaded, meaning fewer reductions are required during the fi rst years of the regulation. A back-loaded schedule helps allow for the development of more ad-vanced fuels and technologies and allows CARB some leeway in addressing unforeseen obstacles. The regulation also requires that a mandatory review of the LCFS implementation be com-pleted by the end of 2011.

Simeroth says the mandatory review and back-loaded nature of the regulation is impor-tant because they will allow the board to fi x any problems that are encountered as the LCFS is implemented. “If we have missed something, or something takes a different turn than we expect, we can catch it before it gets very far,” he says.

Corn-based E10 and low sulfur diesel rep-resent the LCFS’s baseline fuels. The carbon in-

tensity value of other fuels are measured on a life cycle basis and compared to these baseline fuels. Each year the carbon intensity of any alterna-tive replacement fuel is compared to the LCFS standard for that year. Fuels that have carbon intensity values below that standard generate credits, while fuels with higher carbon intensity values generate defi cits. In order to comply with the LCFS for a given year, a regulated party must show that its credits are equal to or exceed the defi cits they have incurred that year.

The regulation defi nes regulated parties for gasoline, diesel and liquid blendstocks – which includes ethanol – as the producer or importer of the fuel or blendstock. “An ethanol facility in the Midwest who exports ethanol thinking somebody is going to buy it when it gets here could be the regulated party,” Simeroth says. “As soon as somebody buys [that fuel] from them, then the responsibility goes to the purchaser. It is meant to let us know what is coming into the state and the quality that is coming in. Our real focus is on the providers of those fuels within California.”

One benefi t of the LCFS is that it does not limit the carbon intensity of individual batches or types of fuel; rather it requires regulated par-ties to comply with an annual standard for the total amount of fuel they supply. In other words, not all the fuel a regulated party supplies has to meet a particular year’s carbon standard. Instead, the average of all the fuels supplied by that regu-lated party must meet the standard.

POLICY

Direct and Indirect EmissionsThe LCFS assigns direct carbon emission

levels to all fuels. Direct emissions represent all

the GHG emissions that result from the pro-duction, transportation and use of the fuel. For corn-based ethanol these components would

include farming practices, crop yields, harvest-ing, collection and transportation of the crop, the fuel used in the ethanol production process,

POLICY

Creating biofuels is a complicated process. But managing

the business end can be just as confusing. At Kennedy and

Coe, we have years of biofuels industry experience that

can help you make the most of your operation’s potential.

Our professionals can help you make sense of the confusing

details and identify opportunities that can signifi cantly

impact your cash fl ow. So you can stop spinning your

wheels and start moving forward.

Call Jesse McCurry at 800-303-3241 or visit us at www.kcoe.com.

Not your average accountants.SM

IN AN EVER-CHANGING BIOFUELS INDUSTRY, IT’S EASY TO FEEL LIKE YOU’RE GETTING NOWHERE.

KAC.10862_EPM_Cir_7.5x3.375.indd 1 3/19/09 11:24:17 AMETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE June 2009 55

Pathway DescriptionCARBOB - based on the average crude oil delivered to California refi neries and average California refi nery effi cienciesCaRFG-CARBOB and a blend of 100% average Midwestern corn ethanol to meet a 3.5% oxygen content by weight (approximately 10% ethanol)CaRFG-CARBOB and a blend of an 80% Midwestern corn ethanol and 20% California corn ethanol to meet a 3.5% oxygen content by weight blend (approximately 10% ethanol)CaRFG-CARBOB and a blend of an 80% Midwestern corn ethanol and 20% California corn ethanol to meet a 3.5% oxygen content by weight blend (approximately 10% ethanol)California; Dry Mill; Wet DGS; NGCalifornia average; 80% Midwest Average; 20% California; Dry Mill; Wet DGS; NGMidwest; Dry Mill; Dry DGSMidwest; Wet MillMidwest; Dry Mill; Wet DGSCalifornia; Dry Mill; Dry DGS, NGMidwest; Dry Mill; Dry DGS; 80% NG; 20% BiomassMidwest; Dry Mill; Wet DGS; 80% NG; 20% BiomassCalifornia; Dry Mill; Dry DGS; 80% NG; 20% BiomassCalifornia; Dry Mill; Wet DGS; 80% NG; 20% BiomassBrazilian sugarcane using average production processesCalifornia average electricity mixCalifornia marginal electricity mix of natural gas and renewable energyCompressed H2 from central reforming of NGLiquid H2 from central reforming of NG Compressed H2 from on-site reforming of NGSB 1505 Scenario; Compressed H2 from on-site reforming with renewable feedstocks

Direct Emissions 95.86

96.09

95.85

69.4

50.765.66

68.475.160.158.963.656.854.2

47.4427.4

124.1104.7142.213398.376.1

Fuel

Gasoline

Ethanol from Corn

Ethanol from SugarcaneElectricity

Hydrogen

Land Use or Other Effect0

-

-

30

3030

303030303030303046000000

Total95.86

96.09 (1)

95.85 (1)

99.4

80.795.66

98.4105.190.188.993.686.884.277.473.4

41.37 (2)34.90 (2)61.83 (3)57.83 (3)42.74 (3)33.09 (3)

Adjusted Carbon Intensity Values for Gasoline Fuels and Fuels that Substitute for GasolineCarbon Intensity Values (gCO2e/MJ)

SOURCE: PAGE ES-20 OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR RESOURCES BOARD PROPOSED REGULATION TO IMPLEMENT THE LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD, VOLUME 1, ,STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

(1) Calculated value; land use part of the value; (2) Adjusted by an EER factor of 3.0 to account for power train effi ciency improvements over gasoline engines; (3) Adjusted by an EER factor of 2.3 to account for power train effi ciency improvements over gasoline engines

POLICY

Legislation Supporting the LCFS

April 2006Executive Order S-06-06This executive order specifi ed that 40 percent of the biofuels used within the state should be produced within the state by 2020. The proposed LCFS supports this goal by requiring the use of and stimulating the innovation of low carbon alternative fuels.

September 2006Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)AB 32, also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established a comprehensive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the bill, the state Air Resources Board was assigned responsibility for monitoring and reducing those emis-sions and was required to adopt dis-crete early actions in 2007 and approve a scoping plan in 2008.

January 2007Executive Order S-01-07This executive order established the goal of developing a LCFS to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by a minimum of 10 percent by 2020. It also identifi ed that the LCFS would be measured on a full fuels cy-cle basis and be met through market-based methods.

June 2007AB 32 Discrete Early Action MeasuresThe California Air Resources Board approved the LCFS as a discrete early action measure. The LCFS is one of nine discrete early actions measures adopted by the bill.

November 2007State Alternatives Fuel PlanThe California Energy Commission and Air Resources Board approve the plan, which presents strategies and actions that the state of California must take in order to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum-based fuels. The pro-posed LCFS was an anticipated part of this plan.

December 2008AB 32 Scoping PlanThe Scoping Plan identifi es how emis-sions reductions will be achieved through regulations, market mecha-nisms and other actions. The proposed LCFS is listed as one of the Scoping Plan’s key measures.

March 2009Proposed LCFSThe California Air Resources Board publishes its proposed regulation for the LCFS.

the energy effi ciency of the production process, the value of coproducts such as distillers grains, transportation and distribution of the fuel, and combustion during use.

The mode used by CARB to defi ne these direct emissions is a modifi ed version of the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation model that was developed by Argonne National Laboratory. This model, modifi ed for use in California, is known as CA-GREET.

Indirect carbon emissions are defi ned as any other effects that are caused by the change in land use or other market-mediated effects. So far, indirect carbon emissions are set to be as-signed only to crop-based biofuels. According to the regulation, ILUC impacts are triggered when an increased demand for crop-based fuels drives up feedstock prices. The price increases cause farmers to grow more of that particular crop. Supplies of these displaced food and feed commodities decline, leading to higher prices. In response, farmers bring nonagricultural land into production in order to take advantage of higher commodity prices. This conversion of land re-sults in carbon emissions.

The Global Trade Analysis Project model is used to measure these indirect land use effects under the LCFS. GTAP was developed by re-searchers at Purdue University, and has histori-cally been used to model complex international economic effects. The model provides an esti-mate for the amount of global land that is con-verted to agricultural land as a result of demand for biofuels. To calculate the GHG emissions that result, a set of emission factors are applied to the data. These factors provide an average value for emissions from carbon stored in the ground, above the ground, and the annual amount of carbon sequestered by the native vegetation.

Those in the biofuels industry argue that carbon values resulting from ILUC should be ex-cluded from the LCFS until better techniques to estimate the phenomena are available. However, CARB maintains that doing this would delay the development of truly low carbon fuels.

It is possible that CARB would consider replacing the GTAP model as more accurate methods to measure ILUC become available. “The basic answer is we’d consider that,” says Simeroth. “Those types of changes in other regulations have happened as better models, test methods, etc., have become available. The nice thing is that it is actually easier for the state of

California to change a regulation than it is for the U.S. EPA because we’ve got a different basis process.”

The Many Fuel Paths to EthanolThe LCFS uses fuel pathways to estimate

the amount of carbon contained within trans-portation fuels. The regulation currently lists 11 specifi c pathways for corn ethanol, and one pathway for sugarcane ethanol. CARB is also working to establish three more pathways for cellulosic ethanol and two additional pathways for sugarcane ethanol.

“[The additional pathways] are being worked on right now,” Simeroth says. “Our ex-pectation is by December – assuming that we’ve done everything and [the LCFS] is adopted into law – we will have a number of new pathways.” A regulated party can simply choose to use one of these default pathways from the regulation’s Lookup Table to calculate credits and defi cits, or can work to establish a new fuel pathway that more accurately gauges the carbon value of a particular fuel.

Fuel paths can be added in one of two ways. Under specifi ed conditions, a regulated party can obtain approval from CARB’s executive offi cer to modify the CA-GREET model inputs to refl ect their specifi c process. This is referred to as Method 2A. A regulated party can also work with CARB to develop a completely new fuel path using the CA-GREET under Method 2B. Both methods require public review under the proposal.

“Our hope is that those [new technologies] develop and people come to us with the infor-mation and we keep adding pathways to the Lookup Table – not only modifi cation of exist-ing pathways, but also new pathways,” Simeroth says.

Although CARB has seen some pushback regarding the LCFS, Simeroth says that is not out of the ordinary. “To me it is what we’d ex-pect on a new regulation this sweeping,” he says. “Everyone is going to have concerns, everybody is going to be worried about how it is going to impact their concerns, but I think [the LCFS] is designed to allow us fl exibility in moving forward and refl ects what is going to be an evolving situ-ation.” EP

Erin Voegele is an Ethanol Producer Magazine associate editor. Reach her at [email protected] or (701) 373-8040.

POLICY

Continuous Emissions ComplianceEnergy ConservationReliabilityProven SuccessGlobal ExpertiseLow Carbon Solutions

815.455.4100www.eisenmann.com/results

demandRESULTS

demand

Environmental Systems


CHP


Generating Power at the Plant:CHP Boosts Efficiency

Next to corn, energy is the second most costly input for ethanol production. By using a combined heat and power system, an ethanol plant can produce electricity and steam with greater energy effi ciency and reduce its carbon footprint.

By Susanne Retka Schill


CHP

Electrical power generation has long been recognized as highly ineffi cient. Two-thirds of the energy fueling the process is

wasted as unused heat after high pressure, high temperature steam does its work. When the typical effi ciency of electrical generation is added to the typical effi ciency of a boiler system providing process heat to an ethanol plant, the combined effi ciency is roughly 49 percent. Bringing the power generation to the ethanol plant and making use of the electrical generation’s waste heat in a com-bined heat and power (CHP) system, boosts that effi ciency to 75 percent. Increasing the effi ciency of power and steam generation, in turn, reduces carbon emissions.

The round-the-clock plant operations and steady steam and power load in ethanol plants make the industry a prime candidate for CHP systems. Bringing the power plant to the user means that the waste heat from electrical generation can be recovered for process heat. The system effi ciencies and reductions in carbon emissions are impres-sive, and depending on a plant’s fuel cost and

electrical rates, can also provide cost savings to the ethanol plant.

The U.S. DOE published a CHP analy-sis last winter that says if 20 percent of the nation’s electrical generation came from CHP systems, the resulting reduction in car-bon emissions would be the equivalent of removing 154 million cars from the road—more than half the U.S. vehicle fl eet. The pa-per, “Combined Heat and Power: Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future,” published December 2008 by the Oakridge National Laboratory, recommends the U.S. boost its CHP use from the current 9 percent of generating capacity to 20 percent over the next 20 years. The paper argues increasing CHP capacity is a cost effective means of reducing electricity’s carbon footprint using a well-established technology that would be relatively quick to deploy.

A Good Fit

CHP systems have been around for a century and are used in large industrial settings such as paper mills, refi neries, and chemical and metal manufacturing. In the

mid-1990s, the DOE and U.S. EPA realized there could be real benefi ts if those large CHP systems were downsized for com-mercial applications such as hospitals, cam-puses, hotels and medium-sized industrial users. In 1993, the EPA began its outreach to the ethanol industry as a prime candidate for CHP. In addition to promoting the CHP concept, the EPA provides technical assis-tance such as preliminary system evaluation and permitting assistance.

CHP is a good fi t for ethanol plants be-cause energy is the second highest cost after corn. A typical 50 MMgy dry mill will have steam loads of 100,000 to 150,000 pounds per hour and power demands of 4 to 6 megawatts (MW), depending on its vintage and mix of operations.

The most common CHP technology used in the dozen or so ethanol plants with installed CHP systems consists of a gas turbine electric generator placed in tandem with a waste heat boiler (heat recovery steam generator or HRSG). Natural gas produces steam to drive the turbine that provides electricity for the facility and the turbine ex-

CHP


TO LEARN MORE VISIT WWW.CROWNIRON.COM OR CALL (651) 639-8900

FRACTIONATION | EXTRACTION | OIL REFINING | DEMO FACILITY

The Crown Fractionation system increases ethanol plant capacity

and is the first step to creating value added co-products.

Crown's Extraction and Oil Refining technologies convert germ into

animal feed and edible oil, both high value premium products.

EDIBLE OIL(Food Grade)

OIL REFINING

ANIMAL FEED

OILGERM OIL EXTRACTIONBRAN

STARCH TO ETHANOL

CORN CLEANING

CORNFRACTIONATION

Visit us atbooth 436

at the FEWExpo!

haust is used in the waste heat boiler to pro-duce steam for the ethanol process. Interest in biomass- and coal-fi red CHP is growing for ethanol plants located near feedstock sources. Central Minnesota Ethanol Co-op at Little Falls, Minn., has a wood-based bio-mass CHP system, and Riverland Biofuels LLC at Canton, Ill., has a coal-based system. Coal or biomass systems generally include fl uidized-bed gasifi ers or boilers that can be confi gured so the exhaust from the driers is routed to become the combustion air in the boilers, effectively controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and eliminating the need for thermal oxidizers.

According to the EPA, CHP can be combined with VOC destruction in other confi gurations. The thermal oxidizer can be integrated with a waste-heat boiler to produce steam from the thermal oxidizer exhaust. High-pressure steam from the waste-heat boiler is then used in a steam turbine-generator unit to produce electric-ity, and low-pressure steam from the back end of the turbine is used to meet process heat requirements. Another approach for

VOC destruction is to integrate the dryer exhaust into the gas turbine waste heat gen-erator, then use a secondary supplemental burner to oxidize the VOCs and effi ciently generate additional steam for the plant.

There are two strategies for sizing CHP units in ethanol plants. One is to use all of the electrical power generated on site because the economics for selling excess generation to the grid are generally not as favorable as utilizing it on site. When siz-ing the CHP system based on steam re-quirements, an ethanol plant will generally produce three or four times more electrical power than the plant uses, making a utility partnership attractive.

Utility partnerships are involved in CHP systems installed at two Poet LLC ethanol plants in Missouri. The city of Ma-con, Mo., partnered with Poet Biorefi ning-Macon to install a 10 MW CHP system. The utility owns the natural gas turbine, while the ethanol plant is responsible for the HRSG. “HRSG’s are a little unique in the setup, but from an operational standpoint they’re like a boiler,” says Rod Pierson, director of plant

operations for Poet Plant Management. “The HRSG is not a lot of extra work, and the goal is to recover as much heat as pos-sible.” The HRSG at Macon recycles waste heat from the turbine into approximately 51,000 pounds per hour of steam to satisfy up to 70 percent of the plant’s process heat. The 45 MMgy ethanol plant also has two natural gas boilers to supplement whatev-er level of thermal energy is not provided from the CHP. In normal operation, the power from the CHP is fed into the grid. With an electric substation installed on the site, the ethanol plant can disconnect from the local grid should the grid experience an outage and continue operating.

Eighty miles southeast of Macon at Laddonia, Mo., Poet Biorefi ning-Laddonia has partnered with the Missouri Joint Mu-nicipal Electric Utility Commission in a 14.4 MW CHP system. The ethanol plant uses approximately 7 MW of power and 75,000 pounds per hour of steam for process heat for the 45 MMgy plant. The utility owns and is responsible for the gas turbine, while the ethanol plant owns and is responsible

CHP

for the heat recovery boiler and steam system. The ethanol plant and the city formed a unique agreement with each entity paying half the cost of the turbine natural gas consumption. In turn, the ethanol plant recovers the entire waste heat load, resulting in an overall 20 per-cent annual savings in natural gas costs by the ethanol plant. The city of Macon is decreasing its fuel cost for the generated capacity by 50 percent and, along with the credits it receives for providing the added electric capacity to the local power pool, it has estimated a payback on its invest-ment in the CHP system to be 13 years. In April, the EPA gave the utility com-mission an Energy Star CHP award for its efforts.

In Iowa, the Poet Biorefi ning-Ash-ton 55 MMgy ethanol plant has a natural-gas-fueled CHP system that supplies 75 percent of the plant’s steam requirements and 7 MW of electrical power. In south-ern Minnesota, the CHP system at Poet Biorefi ning-Lake Crystal generates 1 MW of electrical power for the 56 MMgy eth-anol plant. Essentially, the ethanol plants use standard boilers to generate steam at a higher pressure than a conventional ethanol plant’s boiler to produce electric-ity. Once that work is accomplished, the lower pressure steam is used for process heat.

Like Poet’s Lake Crystal plant, East Kansas Agri-Energy LLC in Garrett, Kan., generates 1 MW of electricity from a natural gas turbine. The natural gas boiler produces high pressure steam to generate about one-third of the 35 MMgy plant’s electrical needs, then the lower pressure steam goes on to supply the plant’s process heat. “We save $15,000 a month in electrical bills,” says Doug Sommer, EKAE plant manager. The EPA fi gures the heat and electricity sup-plied to the plant requires approximately 23 percent less fuel than typical separate onsite thermal generation and purchased electricity. That in turn reduces carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 14,500 tons per year, which is equal to removing the annual emissions from 2,400 cars and planting 3,000 acres of forest.

Separate power and heat systems typically use 154 units of fuels to produce 30 units of electricity and 45 units of steam at an overall effi ciency of 49 percent. With combined heat and power (CHP), one system could provide the same amount of electricity and steam using only 100 units of fuel, offering an overall effi ciency of 75 percent. Because the CHP system uses nearly 35 percent less fuel, it produces lower emissions than the conventional system. EPA estimates a CHP system produces about half the carbon emissions of conventional separate heat and power systems. The emissions reductions can be even greater when replacing aging conventional systems with CHP.SOURCE: EPA CHP PARTNERSHIP

CHP

Can fractionation keep ethanol profitable when corn prices go up and ethanol

prices go down?

CPT says yes with MarketFlex™, a new way of fractioning that

gives you the power to “dial in” the stream fractions the market values most…at any given time.

Fractionation for ethanol just got better. Choose the process with the

greatest flexibility. Choose CPT’s MarketFlex™


the future, CHP-generated power is likely to increase in value as utilities become required to build clean power portfolios and reduce their carbon emissions. Currently, utilities in 34 states are faced with state-level renew-able power standards (RPS) and a national RPS is being considered by the U.S. Con-gress. Fourteen of the existing state RPS’s qualify CHP using renewable fuels, but only two include CHP using gas turbines, Hed-man says.

Other new policies have been passed that may tip the balance in favor of CHP. A 10 percent investment tax credit and ac-celerated depreciation for CHP systems are included in the Energy Independence & Se-curity Act of 2007. The economic stimulus package also contained money for unfunded CHP incentives outlined in the 2007 EISA.

Pierson and Sommer say both of their companies are watching the development of carbon markets and legislation. “I don’t see

the point in spending money on infrastruc-ture or even measuring carbon until there is concrete legislation,” Sommer says. As soon as there is, EKAE will be looking for op-portunities to participate. Pierson adds that Poet has a team evaluating the potential for participating in carbon markets. Pleased with the performance of CHP, Poet con-tinues to evaluate its potential use at other facilities. “It all depends on local utilities and their need for electrical generation,” Pierson says. ”But as we go east in the Corn Belt, the cost of electricity goes up.” EP

Susanne Retka Schill is an assistant editor at BBI International Reach her at [email protected] or (701) 738-4922.

Calculating Payback Period The capital cost for installing a CHP

system is quite substantial, and the pay-back period depends upon the energy cost for fuel powering the system and electrical rates. The DOE’s Midwest CHP Application Center published a study in 2007, “Research Investigation for the Potential Use of Combined Heat and Power at Natural Gas and Coal Fired Dry Ethanol Plants,” that delved into the de-tails of installation and energy costs for a CHP system in a 100 MMgy plant. The study concentrated on energy costs in the eight Midwestern states that comprise 80 percent of the nation’s ethanol capac-ity. It found relatively attractive paybacks for natural-gas-fi red ethanol plants rang-ing from three years in Wisconsin to six years in South Dakota. Coal-fi red ethanol plants were even more attractive in the analysis ranging from a one-year payback in Wisconsin to 1.5 years in Nebraska (to access the DOE and EPA’s papers and other information about CHP visit: www.epa.gov/chp/markets/ethanol.html).

The best time to install a CHP system is when the plant is being built, although retrofi ts can be attractive as well, accord-ing to Bruce Hedman, vice president of energy systems for the consulting fi rm Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. The fi rm has worked with the EPA and DOE in promoting CHP. Hedman says that even though installing CHP when building a plant makes the most sense, in the heyday of the ethanol plant construc-tion boom, the added time for permitting and additional engineering and construc-tion demands made incorporating a CHP system a tough sell. “When times are tight and plants are trying to be low-cost producers, it may be time to look at CHP again,” he adds.

A More Effi cient Future“Everyone in the CHP industry is

pretty optimistic that even though times are tough, carbon reduction is not go-ing away, and effi ciency is key,” Hedman says. “You get enormous effi ciency and carbon dioxide reductions from CHP.” In

CHP


Construction

BBI InternationalEngineering & Consulting

300 Union Blvd, Suite 325 Lakewood, CO 80228, (303) 526-565530 Duke St.W., Suite 701, Kitchener, Ontario N2H 3W5 CANADA, (519) 576-4500

Why hire a project coordinator when you can hire a team of expertsto develop your ethanol or biodiesel project?

Let BBI guide you down the project development path:

Concept to

Feasibility study

Organize your business

Develop the business plan

Select the right design/builder for your project

Select the best site

Negotiate utility and product offtake agreements

Develop feedstock and risk management plans

Develop a project financing strategy

Develop prospectus and offering documents

Conduct an equity drive

Secure project debt financing

Financial close and begin construction!

Together we canbuild a low-carbon economy where business and future generations thrive.

Genencor® and you—a partnership of possibilities

At Genencor®, we help our customers explore the limitless potential of industrial biotechnology. We apply our expertise in enzyme technology and systems biology to the challenges of the diverse industries we serve. Our ability to deliver innovative and sustainable customer solutions creates value while minimizing environmental impact. Join us in building a better future.

www.genencor.com

© 2008 Danisco US Inc.Genencor® is a registered trademark of Danisco US Inc. or its affiliates in the United States and/or other countries.

PROFIT


Doing the MathAn Iowa State University sociologist has developed a tool to help rural communities and policymakers understand how volatile corn and ethanol prices might affect the fate of the ethanol industry.

By Ryan C. Christiansen


PROFIT

High corn prices and low ethanol prices are bad for the U.S. ethanol industry. For ethanol producers, this

recipe for disaster is a no-brainer. How-ever, not everyone outside the industry understands the gravity of this simple math. Even some industry insiders are surprised when they actually put pencil to paper.

Take David Peters, for example. He’s an assistant professor of sociology in the College of Agriculture and Life Sci-ences at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa. During the summer of 2007, while working as a community economics specialist in the Department of Agri-cultural Economics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for the university’s ex-tension service, Peters assisted commu-nities and local governments with assess-ing the long-term viability of proposed ethanol plants. “We had a lot of local governments—cities and counties—that had ethanol companies coming to them asking for them to provide infrastructure revenue bonds or property tax abate-ments and to extend roads, rail lines, and water, sewer and electric lines,” which were expensive propositions for small towns with as little as 500 people, he says. “The question was: ‘If we bond out the infrastructure for 15 to 20 years, what is

the long-term viability of the ethanol plant? Will we have a stable, long-term revenue stream?’ I did some research and put together this calcula-tor where they can input the parameters and assumptions and look forward in time to determine profits. The goal was to give the communities a tool that can help them to make public policy decisions.”

That was when corn prices were low and ethanol prices were high. Peters’ calculator hasn’t changed, but prices have. Peters can easily show you how high-priced inputs and low-priced outputs mean losses instead of profits, but even he is surprised at how far things have gone up and down. “The main thing that surprised me was how sensi-tive the bottom line is toward changes in corn and ethanol prices. Obviously, it’s intuitive that it would work that way, but what surprised me is how relatively mi-nor changes either way can lead to profits or losses in sizeable amounts. At $3.50

per bushel for corn, the price of ethanol would only have to tick up another dime to change the entire economics of an ethanol plant.”

Deciphering the DataPeters calculates that a

typical 100 MMgy ethanol plant with a typical amount of debt breaks even when corn is at $3.75 per bushel and etha-nol is at $1.85 per gallon. With

$4 corn the break-even ethanol price is $1.90. For every $.25-cent increase in the price of a bushel of corn, the price

of ethanol only needs to go up approxi-mately 5 cents per gallon for the plant to break even. If the price of ethanol goes up an additional 10 cents, the ethanol plant realizes profits in the millions of dollars.

PROFIT

David Peters,Iowa State University assistant professor of sociology

Peters’ calculator allows anyone to input their own data to estimate what the prices of corn and ethanol would have to be for an ethanol plant to be profi table.

“It’s important for people to under-stand that the ethanol industry runs pret-ty lean,” Peters says. “There’s not much fat to trim out of the industry. Corn is the big cost component and most of your revenue comes from ethanol. If ei-ther of those changes, there isn’t much you can cut. Distillers grains help, but you’re not in the business of making dis-tillers grains, you’re primarily producing ethanol.”

Peters’ calculator allows anyone to in-put their own data to estimate what the prices of corn and ethanol would have to be for an ethanol plant to be profi table. The calculator, a spreadsheet, models the data for a typical 100 MMgy ethanol plant built in Iowa or Nebraska in 2005. The plant is assumed to operate at 100 percent capacity with an ethanol yield of 2.9 gal-lons, a distillers dried grains with solubles yield of 19 pounds, and a carbon dioxide yield of 17.5 pounds per bushel of corn. Inputs include 7 gallons of water per bush-el of corn and also 1.1 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 35,000 British thermal units of natural gas per gallon of ethanol. The capital costs for construction and equip-ment are assumed at $160 million with 60 percent fi nanced at 8 percent and 40 per-cent equity returned to investors at 15 per-cent. The calculations include labor costs for 45 workers with an average salary of

$47,750 per year with 13 percent tacked on for benefi ts and 10 percent added for other labor and management costs. The model assumes straight-line depreciation over 20 years with a salvage value equal-ing 25 percent of investment costs. Other

inputs include the cost of enzymes, de-naturants, yeasts, chemicals for process-ing and cooling, various antibiotics, waste management, maintenance, transportation costs, miscellaneous administrative costs, property taxes and sales taxes.

PROFIT

GEA Barr-Rosin92 Boulevard Prevost Boisbriand, Quebec J7G 2S2 Canada Tel 450-437-5252 Fax 450-437-6740255 38th Avenue, Suite G St. Charles, IL 60174 USA Tel 630-659-3980 Fax 630-584-4406 E-mail [email protected] Website www.barr-rosin.com

Our commitment to product quality, energyefficiency and reduced emissions has madeGEA Barr-Rosin the partner of choice for thermal drying technology.

Add value to your Ethanol Co-Products•Ring Dryers•Superheated Steam Dryers•Site Surveys and Audits•Biomass Combustion•Rotary Dryers•Energy Integration•Retro-Fits•Fractionated Co-Products

Don’t let your market dry up


Breaking Even

With debt, the hypothetical 100 MMgy ethanol plant breaks even when:

Corn is $3.75 per bushel and ethanol is $1.85 per gallon

Corn is $4 per bushel and ethanol is $1.90 per gallon

Corn is $4.25 per bushel and ethanol is $2 per gallon


Without debt, the hypothetical 100 MMgy ethanol plant breaks even when:


Corn is $4 per bushel and ethanol is $1.80 per gallon



Source: David Peters, assistant professor of sociology in the College of

Agriculture and Life Sciences at Iowa State University in Ames.

“In general, it’s the price of corn and the price of ethanol that really drive profits,” Peters says. “The only other inputs that might have a [variable] impact on pro-duction costs would be electricity, natural gas and water, but those are secondary inputs. Transportation costs are an issue, but they are a relatively small component, be-cause most of the ethanol is shipped by rail, which is relatively inexpensive per ton-mile.”

Besides corn and ethanol prices, another key variable in the ethanol profitability equation is debt. “Timing is everything, as they say,” Peters says. “Plants that maybe broke ground in 2004 or 2005 and went into operation in 2006 are in a better position. We’ve learned about inves-tors getting back double their investments. It was wildly profitable when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 went into effect and the price of ethanol shot up to $2.60 per gallon with corn at almost $2 per bushel. “(However) a lot of plants... are struggling now,” he continues. “They made money, but not enough to retire their debt. Or if they gambled and did a risk analysis and thought the revenue outlook was positive—and paid off their initial capital and wanted to expand—then they are in the same situation with a high debt payment.”

In the past few years, when ethanol prices were high and corn low, many plants made enough money to retire their debt early. These plants with no capital debt are now roughly breaking even or losing a few cents on ev-ery gallon, according to Peters.

“No one has a crystal ball to see the future, but this (spreadsheet) can give people an idea of where prices need to be,” he says.

However, corn and ethanol prices haven’t been where they should be. “Things really turned the corner last summer (2008),” Peters says. “I think most plants were buying short-term contracts and were kind of banking that the price of corn wouldn’t go up as much as it did. I think a lot of plants didn’t lock in cheap corn a year or two ahead of time and they were forced to lock

PROFIT

WE CAN HELP YOUR BUS INESS GROW

Clifton Gunderson was founded in the heart of the Midwestand many of our partners and professional staff were raisedin rural communities. Even though we have grown to becomeone of the largest CPA firms in the country, we continue tohave a natural interest in and understanding of agribusiness.

In fact, many of our specialized tax consulting services benefit the ethanol industry by providing immediate cashflow benefits. Our fixed asset and cost segregation studiesalone have uncovered additional current year tax deductionsfor numerous ethanol facilities of over $100 million.

In addition, we can provide solutions in the areas of –

• Audit & Accounting Services• RINs Attestation Engagements• RINs Consulting• Tax Consulting & Compliance • Estate Planning• State & Local Tax• Technology Applications

When you count on Clifton Gunderson to help yield the bestresults from your agribusiness, you can count on insight.Contact Mark Colvin at 309-495-8754 for a no-charge assessment of your ethanol or biodiesel plants tax savingspotential.

Agribusiness Services

301 SW Adams, Suite 900 • Peoria, Illinois 61602

www.cliftoncpa.com


Ethanol producers are making strides to become more effi cient and to squeeze out more ethanol, but this country needs to determine whether it is a national priority. This model can help to give policymakers a rough estimate of what that gap is and what we would need to cover.

in contracts at $5.50 and $5.75. But no matter what contracts they had, the price of ethanol kept falling. The most important advice I have for eth-anol producers is to be sure they have a good grain marketer on staff.”

Peters says the ethanol industry is partially a victim of its own success. “We were given the [renewable fuels standard] in 2005 and within a couple of years, the industry responded to meet it,” he says. “Then prices began to back off. How can you fault them? They saw the demand and met the challenge.”

However, a lot of what has hap-pened is not the fault of the indus-try, Peters says. “Last year, investors started to look for inflation hedges and started dumping into commodi-ties,” he says. “When the prices were overbid, people pulled back, and we had an economic downturn. Things began to unravel and oil fell. Every-one got caught up in it.”

There is a misperception amongst the general public that the ethanol industry is heavily subsidized, Peters says, “but this industry isn’t really that reliant on direct subsidies,” because the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit—also known as the “blender’s credit”—is already factored into the price of ethanol, he says.

More than MoneyWhat his profitability calculator

doesn’t include, Peters says, are the more intangible profits from produc-ing ethanol: clean air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “The ben-efits for people in larger cities burn-ing ethanol blends and having cleaner air—while not a benefit to the etha-nol producer itself—is a benefit to the communities and to government, and to lowering health care costs. People wouldn’t miss as much work and workers would be more produc-tive. We need to look at the benefits of ethanol on a macroeconomic and social scale. It’s hard to quantify.”

Peters says policymakers need to consider price supports for ethanol. “If ethanol is deemed to be a nation-al priority,” he says, “then instead of having a blender’s credit, one of the sanest ideas I’ve heard is to subsidize losses to help smooth out these fluc-tuations. You need to try to smooth that out because we need to preserve the industry, our rural development, our clean air, and our energy indepen-dence. Ethanol producers are making strides to become more efficient and to squeeze out more ethanol, but this country needs to determine whether it is a national priority. This model can help to give policymakers a rough estimate of what that gap is and what we would need to cover. You could boost that up to a point to where at least the plants [are making some profit]. No one is expecting that the government should make the indus-try profitable, but it should at least ensure there is some guarantee to break even.”

The ethanol profitability calcula-tor is just one piece of a much larger set of calculations used to help com-munities and their chambers of com-merce to model the impact of an eth-anol plant on their local economies, Peters says, to identify where new job opportunities might materialize and how getting an ethanol producer to agree to buy locally might increase its impact on the community.

“From a rural development per-spective, this is something that rural communities see that they can invest in,” Peters says. “Ethanol has had a positive impact on rural develop-ment, that’s all true. For many towns it was the biggest thing to ever hap-pen, as far as industry. People need to better understand how the prices of corn and ethanol really impact the bottom line.” EP

Ryan C. Christiansen is the assistant edi-tor of Ethanol Producer Magazine. Reach him at [email protected] or (701) 373-8042.

PROFIT

ETS Scorpions™

Diagnostic Kits

provide rapid

identification of

contamination

microorganisms

E T S

LABORATORIES�

DxDeliveringPharmacogenomicsETS Laboratories

899 Adams St. Suite ASt. Helena CA 94574

707 • 963 • [email protected]

ReduceFermentationLosses due toMicrobialContamination


M A R K E T I N G

R I S K M A N A G E M E N T

P R O C U R E M E N T

L O G I S T I C A L M A N A G E M E N T

T R A N S P O R TAT I O N & S T O R A G E

As an industry,

renewable fuels is volatile. Your risk management and marketing provider should be anything but.

www.Gav i lon . com 402.889.4069|

With the right risk management and marketing provider, you’ve got the

support you need to navigate today’s volatile markets. As leading experts in

the renewable fuels industry, Gavilon offers a unique niche in scale, scope

and capability. This gives us the capacity to handle logistics while watching

margins. And we’re backed by a global network and a dedicated team of

industry analysts with their fi ngers on the pulse of the markets. What this

means for our customers is the competitive advantage you need to minimize

your risk and maximize your opportunities.

GAV-1032_RenFuelsTEMPLATE.indd 1 4/17/09 2:45:59 PM

MARKET


The Economics of Distillers GrainsFor the past decade, as ethanol production has steadily increased so has the production of distillers grains. Now, despite some ethanol plants idling operations, the industry continues to see ethanol and distillers grains production increase.

By Hope Deutscher


MARKET

The production and demand for distillers grains continues to grow despite several dozen ethanol plants shutting down

and/or reducing production capacity. Simla Tokgöz, international grains and ethanol analyst with the Food and Ag-ricultural Policy Research Institute (FA-PRI) at Iowa State University, says re-cent research conducted by the institute shows that in 2008, 27.7 million tons of distillers grains were produced, up from approximately 23 million tons in 2007. In 2009, that figure is expected to increase to 31.5 million tons.

“We have higher ethanol production this marketing year and therefore higher distillers grains production,” Tokgöz says. “It’s the same for domestic use of distillers grains and net exports of dis-tillers grains. In the U.S., domestic dis-tillers grains production has increased this year and the net exports of distillers grains to the world from the U.S. have increased as well.”

According to the U.S. Grains Council,

one bushel (56 pounds) of corn used in the dry mill ethanol process yields about 17 pounds of distillers dried grains with soluble (DDGS) for global livestock and poultry industries. One gallon of ethanol equals about seven pounds of DDGS. The Council has been working to estab-lish overseas markets since 2002, and last year's total DDGS exports totaled 4.5 million tons.

FAPRI’s 2009 Agricultural Outlook shows distillers grains production con-tinuing to grow as ethanol production in-creases to meet renewable fuels standard

mandates over the next several years. As well, Tokgöz says domestic and overseas demand from livestock producers who include distillers grains in their feed ra-tions for livestock, such as beef and dairy cattle, hogs, and poultry, will continue to increase. According to the outlook re-port, U.S. distillers grains exports will increase more than 46 percent over the next 10 years, reaching 6.6 million metric tons in the 2018-’19 marketing year. Top destinations include Mexico, Canada, and Asia, including Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan.

MARKET

FAPRI’s 2009 Agricultural Outlook shows distillers grains production continuing to grow as ethanol production increases to meet renewable fuels standard mandates over the next several years.

The Ethanol Industry’s Leading Supplier of Denaturant.

We recognize the value of reliable supplyand ensure that your plant will never run out of denaturant.

Our logistics professionals manage every aspect of the transportation – from the pipeline movements to the cargo ships to the trucks and railcars.

We Deliver!

www.nexeninc.com

Mike Corbus 620.245.0005 USA Supply

Simon Di Marzo 403.215.7455 Canadian Supply

M A R K E T I N G

However, because distillers grains is a protein substitute for other feed prod-ucts, such as corn and soybean meal, the demand among livestock producers will depend on prices. “We looked at the his-torical data when the first substitutions

started and historically distillers grains really follows the corn price a lot because they substitute for each other,” Tok-göz says. “After the ethanol production boom, this relationship has not changed. Distillers grain prices still follow corn

prices really, really closely. Corn prices lead, of course, distillers grains prices just followed and that is because of the substitution of these two types of prod-ucts.”

According to the FAPRI 2009 Ag-ricultural Outlook, growing demand for biofuels, livestock, and dairy will strengthen prices and sustain them at historic highs across all commodities over the next decade. Lower petroleum prices encouraged slower growth in U.S. ethanol production and lower livestock and poultry production contributed to a sharp decline in feed use.

Supply and DemandTen years ago, before ethanol pro-

duction really took off, the supply of distillers grains was relatively small and it was used primarily as a substitute for protein because of its high protein value, says John Lawrence, director of the Iowa Beef Center. With the price of distillers grains tracking fairly close to corn and soybean meal, he says the current distill-

MARKET


SOURCE: JOHN LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR, IOWA BEEF CENTER

ers grains market is simply supply and demand econom-ics. “And so yes, we’ve had fewer plants or we’ve had some plants shut down, and the supply of distillers grains has declined but as those plants shuts down, it’s kind of a chicken and egg – they shut down in part because of high grain prices and low fuel prices but as they shut down, more corn is put on the mar-ket so farmers didn’t have to buy distill-ers grains, they could buy corn.”

Formed in 1996 through a legisla-tive mandate, the Iowa Beef Center at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, serves as the university’s extension pro-gram to cattle producers providing the latest in research-based information to improve the profitability and vitality of Iowa’s beef industry.

Lawrence, who tracks the use of distillers grains by the livestock industry, says the question of whether distillers grains will run out is frequently asked. According to Lawrence the answer is simply no. If a local ethanol plant shuts down or reduces its capacity, livestock producers switch to using more corn than distillers grains in their feed ra-tions. “Many of them (livestock pro-

ducers) like distillers grains, but I don’t know very many who would not rather feed corn, not because of quality issues, just because of price. If plants shut down, the price of grains comes back down and it’s more profitable for the livestock producers.”

When, and if, an ethanol plant returns to production and begins outputting more distillers grains, Lawrence is

confident that local producers will re-turn to using distillers grains. “What we’re hearing on cattle has been an in-teresting evolution. You go back three or four years ago, I had farmers saying ‘this ethanol plant just opened up in my area and they’re trying to give me wet distillers grains for free if I’ll pay the trucking, should I accept it?’ And a year later they are coming back and say-ing ‘I’ve been feeding this stuff all year from these guys and now they want me to sign a contract for a year to take it. Should I do that?’ And then they come back a year later, saying ‘I want to sign a contract for a year longer to lock in the price and they don’t want to do that. They won’t guarantee me a sup-ply.’ And now you talk to them and they say, ‘well, some plants are drying it and

selling it overseas, I can’t get anything locally. I’m switching back to corn.’”

In 2005, Lawrence says out of 100 Iowa cattle feeders, more than 70 percent who had at least 500 head of cattle were feeding distillers grains. “I would guess it was probably 80 percent in 2008; early 2009, probably more. It might be 100 percent. We are the heart of ethanol, we are the heart of hogs and I think there are a lot of them (produc-ers) using it.” Lawrence says the excep-tion would be the independent farmer who raises his own corn and mixes his animals’ feed.

Beef producers will slowly change the percentage of distillers grains ration in their feed, according to Lawrence. “I think what our guys will do is maybe gear up to feed 40 percent, pushing the limits, and get comfortable with that and then as it gets more expensive or they can’t get as much as they wanted, they may not go back to zero, they may say ‘I’ll put 25 percent in the ration. If I get enough and as price sets up, I can cut it back to there.’ Because what hap-pens in cattle is that it has a very high value relative to corn. I’ve heard as high as a 140 percent for the first 10 percent in the ration. Then you go to 20 percent and its worth 120 percent of corn and you get 30 percent in there, maybe it’s

MARKET


John Lawrence,director, Iowa Beef Center

worth a 105 percent of the corn. You get up to 50 percent, it’s about equal to corn. Depending on how it’s priced, so if the price of it goes up, they can cut back to 20 percent of the ration, it’s still a good deal for them. But if the price comes down they can push that up to 30 percent, 40 percent or whatever.”

Because the renewable fuels stan-dard calls for 10.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be produced in 2009 and the majority of that renewable fuel is corn-based ethanol, Lawrence says the supply of distillers grains will continue to increase. However, there is currently lower domestic feed demand from the livestock sector. Lawrence says there are a number of reasons: cattle feedlots have had record losses; dairy prices have dropped; pork pro-ducers sustained their largest losses last winter since 1998; last summer’s grain prices hit the poultry industry; and peo-ple have changed their eating habits as a result of the current recession. “Peo-ple are more cautious about what they buy,” he says. “They still eat but they don’t eat out at restaurants. They don’t spend as much - they’ll have hamburger instead of steak, they’ll eat chicken in-stead of meatloaf - and they’re trying to value shop. So there’s some demand things going on in the economy that’s

hitting the livestock producers as well.” The response by animal agriculture has been to cut back on production. Feed-lot cattle, which are the biggest users of distillers grains rations, will continue to be lower in 2010, 2011 and 2012, ac-cording to Lawrence.

Historically a Volatile Market There’s been quite a bit of volatility

in the distillers grain market, Lawrence says. “On a pound for pound basis, you look at dried distillers grains relative to the price of corn – that has declined over time. We used to be at 115 to 120 percent the price of corn back in 2000 and into 2002, now we’re down under 90 to 94 percent,” Lawrence says. “The volatility has increased a little bit rela-tively speaking…and that’s the reason why we see farmers will feed it some-times and other times it’s priced out of the diet, so they’ll wait until it comes back in.”

Lawrence says the distillers grains market has been historically volatile for several reasons. “Think about the growth of the distillers grains supply over the past five or six years— it was one of those where supply was kind of outpacing demand. New plants would come on; there would be a good supply so we had to convince more livestock

producers to look at that product.” In Iowa, he adds, cattle producers have been feeding distillers grains to their livestock for more than 20 years. “And there was no problem getting adoption here among cattle but it was suddenly, can we justify feeding to hogs? Well, once we figured out we could, then there were a lot of hogs in Iowa…so suddenly, boom, there’s a big demand for it. Then we bring more plants on and have more supply, well, then it’s what about poultry, well we’ve nev-er tried it before. They start trying it and boom, the poultry comes on and suddenly it uses up that supply.” The domestic success of feeding distillers grains kept growing and led to export-ing it to other countries.

“I don’t know if we’ve saturated all those markets,” Lawrence continues, “...or if there’s still untapped markets out there…it’s just whether it works today or doesn’t work, it ebbs and flows.” EP

Hope Deutscher is an associate editor of Ethanol Producer Magzine. Reach her at [email protected] or (701) 373-8046.

MARKET

Midwest Towers has the Right Cooling Tower for Your Ethanol Plant

PO Box 1465 • Chickasha, OK 73023Tel 405.224.4622 • Fax 405.224.4625

www.midwesttowers.comSales Offices in New Jersey, Florida, Missouri, Texas & California.

Rep Offices throughout the country.

• Wood and FRP structures• Crossflow and counterflow designs• Many fill options to fit your application• Cost-effective pre-engineered solutions• Custom designs for any application• Custom cell sizes to fit existing basins• New, reconstruction, thermal upgrade, parts

Our experienced engineering and design team of employee owners offers you the best value cooling tower option for your ethanol plant project.Oy

Call today and discover why more ethanol plants have chosen Midwest Towers over any other cooling tower manufacturer.


TECHNOLOGY

Perfecting the

DDGS PelletPelletizing distillers dried grains with solubles can be more art than science. Past attempts at pelletizing 100 percent DDGS have fallen short. Rising to the challenge, Ag Fuel & Feed LLC says it has manufactured a pellet die that will extrude a 100 percent DDGS pellet without additives or binders. By Ryan C. Christiansen

PHOTO: TODD EHLERSPHOTO: JULIE M. HOUCK FINE ART



TECHNOLOGY

Gary Wobler was frustrated. The owner of Ag Pel-let Energy LLC of Car-mel, Ind., had worked

for months to come up with a way to pelletize distillers dried grains with sol-ubles, (DDGS); but he always came up just short of producing the perfect pel-let— one that would be durable enough to withstand bulk transport, yet pure enough to feed to livestock without hesitation.

After consulting with scientists at a few agricultural universities, Wobler was given a list of companies that pel-letize agricultural products for feed. At the top of the list was Ft. Worth, Texas-based Landers Machine Co.

“Gary just happened to call me fi rst and asked if I thought it could be done,” says Scott Landers, president of Landers Machine. “I said we have quite a background in [pelletizing] and I’ll talk it over with some of my engineers and we’ll see if we can do it.

“We started kicking some things around and decided that we would go ahead and give it a shot,” he says, “and so we started our research to try to de-velop this process and, after probably four months of testing, we had a pret-ty good feeling that we would achieve something. At that point, we decided that [Landers Machine and Ag Pellet Energy] would form Ag Fuel & Feed.”

Landers says Ag Fuel & Feed LLC has overcome the technical challenges associated with pelletizing 100 percent DDGS without using additives or bind-ers. The key to their engineering suc-cess has been to design a pellet mill die that has been specifi cally engineered for pelletizing DDGS. “(After forming Ag Fuel & Feed), it took us probably an-other nine months of research and then testing and modifi cations until we actu-ally came up with the process,” Landers said. The production process was de-veloped and test-runs were completed at the Waterloo Mills Co. in Waterloo, Iowa, funded in part by a $49,380 Grow Iowa Values Fund grant through Iowa State University.

ChallengesOne of the baseline measurements

for determining the quality of a pellet is the pellet durability index (PDI), which is determined by tumbling pellets for a period of time to fi nd the volume of fi nes produced. “We like to see a pel-let with a pellet durability index of 92 percent or better,” says Alan Doering, associate scientist of co-products at the Agricultural Utilization Research In-stitute offi ce in Waseca, Minn., which has been testing to see how U.S. energy crops can be made into pellets for com-bustion. “You can make pellets that are 99 percent durable,” he says, “but then you typically sacrifi ce throughput in terms of tons per hour.”

Achieving a durable pellet using DDGS is diffi cult. Comparing fi gures provided by animal scientists at Ohio State University with information from Encyclopedia Britannica, DDGS has four to nine times less lignin content than varieties of wood. In general, the lower lignin content of non-woody biomass gives it less tensile and com-pressive strength, according to French agronomist Olivier Pastré in a report for the European Biomass Industry As-sociation.

“In the past, you might get [DDGS] to produce a pellet,” Landers says, “but it would have no hardness or a very low PDI and, in handling, they would just completely fall apart, even going from the pellet mill to the cooler.”

Landers says DDGS has been suc-cessfully used as an additive for feed pellets, “but you’re talking somewhere between 25 and 45 percent addition there,” he says. “Anytime they get any higher than that, they just can’t main-tain the pellet.”

After months of work, however, Landers says he and his engineers have mastered pelletizing 100 percent DDGS to produce a pellet with a high PDI. The Ag Fuel & Feed pellet has a PDI of 94 percent, he says, compared to a 72 percent average using traditional pel-letizing technologies. Wood pelletizes at a 96 percent average PDI.

TECHNOLOGY


••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

BOILERSSELL•RENT•LEASE

IMMEDIATE DELIVERYCALL:800-704-2002

24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE

wabash444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090

POWEREQUIPMENT CO.

10HP TO 250,000#/hr250,000#/hr Nebraska 750 psig 750OTTF

150,000#/hr Nebraska 1025 psig 900OTTF


150,000#/hr Nebraska 350 psig



80,000#/hr Erie City 2000 psig 800OTTF





20,000#/hr Erie City 200 psig

10-1000HP Firetube 15-600 psig

ALL PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURECOMBINATIONS SUPERHEATED

AND SATURATED

RENTAL FLEET OF MOBILETRAILER-MOUNTED BOILERS

75,000#/hr. Nebraska 350 psig

75,000#/hr. Optimus 750 psig 750°TTF





75-300HP Firetube 15-600 psig

ALL BOILERS ARE COMBINATION GAS/OIL

ENGINEERING • START-UP

FULL LINE OF BOILER AUXILIARYSUPPORT EQUIPMENT.

Electric Generators:• 50KW-30,000KW

WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com847-541-5600 • FAX: 847-541-1279

E-mail: [email protected]

86

“The biggest challenge that has to be overcome is the oil content,” Land-ers says. “With about eight percent oil still remaining in the granular DDGS, it poses a signifi cant problem to conven-tional [pelletizing] operations. That’s just too much oil to keep bound in a pellet, even a small pellet.

“The product is too slippery, too moist, and the oil works against the ac-tual process of holding and compacting the pellet together and then having it stay together,” he continues. “The oil lubricates it so that the granules won’t stay together. In our patent-pending process, we have taken measures to overcome having that amount of oil and, in a way, use it to our advantage to actually help us to make the pellet.”

Lower ExpensesThe market for DDGS is global and

plants typically sell two-thirds of distill-ers grains dried, but the drying process can consume about 30 percent of the plant’s operating budget. Meanwhile, shipping DDGS to international mar-kets using a combination of rail, con-

tainers and barge has led to transpor-tation costs becoming the third-highest expense for ethanol producers after feedstock and energy costs, according to Frank Dooley, an agronomist at Pur-due University in West Lafayette, Ind., and Bobby Martens, a logistician at Iowa State University.

Meanwhile, the industry continues to address DDGS fl owability issues. Dooley and Martens note that DDGS that has moisture content higher than 10 percent can solidify during ship-ment, forcing load operators to ham-mer the sides and bottoms of hoppers to induce fl ow. This has led railroads to require DDGS to be shipped in hop-per cars owned or leased by the shipper. (There was a 25,000-unit increase in de-mand for jumbo hoppers between 2005 and 2007, Dooley and Martens say.)

Dooley and Martens published their observations in an electronic book titled "Using Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Livestock and Poultry Industries" published by the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center at ISU.

TECHNOLOGY

If you’re transporting DDG asmeal, you’re losing profits everyday. Put that money back in yourpocket with a CPM pellet mill.Get increased energy savings,flowability and dust control withless cleanup from the only pelletmill with a gear drive train.Durable, energy efficient andtrouble-free with parts made andwarehoused in the USA to serveyou faster. Call for your FREEcost analysis today.

FROM PROBLEMS TOPELLETS TO PROFITS

800-428-0846 | 765-362-2600 WWW.CPMROSKAMP.COM

CRAWFORDSVILLE, INDIANA


Ag Fuel & Feed has been working with power companies to test burn DDGS pellets with coal. A mixture of 10 percent DDGS pellets was co-fi red with coal at Corn Belt Power Cooperative’s Wisdom Station power plant near Spencer, Iowa. Burning a mixture of pellets at 8,400 British thermal units per pound with bituminous coal averaging 10,500 Btu, the test resulted in visually clearer smoke from the plant’s stack.

PH

OTO

: CO

RN

BE

LT P

OW

ER

CO

OP

ER

ATIV

E.

If ethanol producers were to pel-letize DDGS before shipping them, the increased bulk density of the pelletized DDGS would result in transportation cost savings and would alleviate DDGS fl owability issues. Landers says Ag Fuel & Feed can produce a pellet with a bulk density of 40.6 pounds-per-cubic-foot, 28 percent more dense than un-pellet-ized DDGS, and the pellets fl ow “like corn," he says, better than unpelletized DDGS. Pelletized DDGS might help to open export markets where custom-ers are having diffi culty unloading and transporting bulk products, especially DDGS, Landers says. “[Pelletizing] fa-cilitates handling problems,” he says, “because [the pellets] fl ow much better in screw conveyers and bucket elevators and they would be able to unload rail cars much more easily.

“If [ethanol producers] would take a hard look at what savings could be achieved in transportation and han-dling, I think that our product starts to look better and better,” Landers says.

John Fox, an agronomist at Kan-sas State University in Manhattan and a contributor to the MATRIC publica-tion, says that to expand export markets, the ethanol industry needs to address product variability issues. One way to do that is to sell DDGS as a branded product. An individual ethanol pro-ducer might also consider pelletizing its DDGS to differentiate the co-product from others.

Landers says cattle producers might see more value in pelletized DDGS. “Pellets in a feedlot are going to be eas-

ier for the cows to consume and to con-sume fully than when they are dealing with mash,” Landers says. “When they are having mash thrown in those trays, then they slop a lot of it around. Pellets are just easier to consume.”

DDGS Pellets for FuelAs more U.S. states and Canadian

provinces adopt or increase renewable portfolio standards for electrical utili-ties, more power companies are look-ing at burning biomass pellets in coal-fi red boilers. AURI has seen a continual growth in interest from industries for pelletizing non-woody biomass over the past six years, spurred in part by spo-radic increases in wood prices, Doering says. “[They are] looking at pellet fuels to displace natural gas,” he says, “or looking at densifi ed solid fuels to co-fi re with coal. We’re working with some utilities, investigating that potential.”

Pastré notes that the fl uidized bed combustion technology used at power plants is inherently fl exible and can burn fuels with a wide range of calorif-ic values, ash and moisture content and they have successfully been used to co-fi re wood, biomass and waste materials, in addition to coal.

Ag Fuel & Feed has been work-ing with power companies to test burn DDGS pellets with coal. A mixture of 10 percent DDGS pellets was co-fi red with coal at Corn Belt Power Coopera-tive’s Wisdom Station power plant near Spencer, Iowa. Burning a mixture of pellets at 8,400 British thermal units per pound with bituminous coal averaging

TECHNOLOGY

Environmental Sustainability,

Process

• 3D TRASAR® technology – Detect conditions, Determine action,

• Cooling water

• Boiler

• Fermentation

• Fuel additive

• UNISOLV™ Water and Energy Audit

• Pretreatment Equipment

• Wastewater Solutions

You know Ethanol.We know Water.

™

Nalco, the logo and the tagline, 3D TRASAR and UNISOLV are registered trademarks of Nalco Company

®

The “e” mark and the “stylized e” are registered service marks of the Ethanol


If ethanol producers were to pelletize DDGS before shipping them, the increased bulk density of the pelletized DDGS would result in transportation cost savings and would alleviate DDGS fl owability issues. Ag Fuel & Feed can produce a pellet with a bulk density of 40.6 pounds-per-cubic-foot, 28 percent more dense than un-pelletized DDGS, and the pellets fl ow “like corn”, according to company president Scott Landers.

10,500 Btu, the test resulted in visually clearer smoke from the plant’s stack. “They visually saw an improvement in the opacity of the emissions from the stack,” Landers says, “and that is what was most interesting and signifi cant to them.”

Before power companies can use biomass pellets on a regular basis, they must address emissions issues. Pastré notes that compared with wood, agricultural residues typically have higher nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine and potassium content due to increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in agriculture. He says agro-pellets should primarily be used in large-scale combustion plants equipped with sophisticated combustion control and fl ue gas cleaning systems. In a re-port for Pellets Atlas, dubbed pellets@las, an Intelligent En-ergy Europe-funded project for the European Union, Martin Junginger, a researcher at Utrecht University in The Nether-lands, notes that unknown emissions from biomass pellets is one of the major factors preventing the development of a larger, non-woody biomass pellet market.

Landers says while emissions from burning DDGS pel-lets alone have been quantifi ed, further tests are planned to check the emissions levels when DDGS pellets are co-fi red with coal.

“Right now, we are working with several different co-operatives in trying to get some more testing (completed) and to get the EPA involved to actually get some tangible fi gures on the emissions,” Landers says. “If we can get some hard facts, then that would give us some more ammunition to go out to other cooperative generating plants to say that by blending this product, you will see X amount in carbon dioxide emissions.”

Landers says Ag Fuel & Feed hired a consultant to quan-tify the lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions from burning DDGS pellets as fuel to generate electricity. The report de-termined burning DDGS pellets contributes 38 to 77 times less carbon dioxide than coal on a per-unit basis, even with-out factoring in the additional carbon dioxide generated from mining and transporting coal to the power plant.

The test burn at Wisdom Station also resulted in slightly less power generation, which was expected. “They ran a two-hour test and they did see some drop in effi ciency at the plant,” Landers says, “just because the coal they were using had about 10,500 Btu per pound, but that was expected, giv-en our Btus.” Landers says the 8,400 Btu measurement is on the low end of the varying Btu amounts DDGS pellets might produce. “We got several different Btu contents from several different batches,” he said, “and I’d rather under-promise and overachieve.” EP

Ryan C. Christiansen is the assistant editor of Ethanol Producer Magazine. Reach him at [email protected] or (701) 373-8042.

TECHNOLOGY


WE KNOW CELLULOSE TO ETHANOL

With over 40 years of combined “hands-on” experience in conversion of lignocellulosic

biomass to ethanol at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, BBI is your best resource for

cellulosic project evaluation and development. Our experts understand the critical technical

and economic issues related to feedstock collection and storage, biological and thermo-

chemical conversion technologies and downstream processing. Our direct experience

includes the design and engineering of concentrated acid hydrolysis, dilute acid pretreatment,

enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation processes for converting a broad range of feedstocks

to ethanol. Whether it’s a feasibility study, feedstock assessment, due diligence, process design

or complete project development, BBI is the definitive source of answers for your cellulose-to-

ethanol questions.

BBI International Engineering & Consulting

300 Union Blvd., Suite 325 Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: 303-526-5655 www.bbiinternational.com

Alternative thinking—focused on people, property, and the environment—can

change theworld. Your ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen, or low-sulfur diesel improves

lives. Ansul’s revolutionary fire suppression systems protect them.

For the unique challenges you face, rely on like-minded thinkers who are uniquely

qualified to suppress alternative fuels fires—Ansul.

wwe

like you

www.ansulinfo.com/pep2

Visit FEW Booth #449

STORAGE

WetDemand for wet distillers grains can dip during summer months when feedlots are less active, which allows feedlot owners to take advantage of lower wet coproducts prices. Proper storage techniques can help feedlots to stock up on WDGS and modifi ed WDGS.

By Ryan C. Christiansen

PHOTO: TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION


Storage Strategies


STORAGE

Before blending solubles with distillers grains, an ethanol producer can add a preserva-tive to the solubles to inhibit

yeast and mold growth, thereby extending the shelf life of wet distillers grains with solubles (WDGS) and modified WDGS for both the ethanol producer and the lo-cal feedlot and dairy operations.

WDGS is typically 30 to 35 percent dry matter and MWDGS is typically 42 to 50 percent dry matter. In other words, WDGS can have up to 70 percent mois-ture content and MWDGS up to 58 per-cent. Exposed to air, the surfaces of piles of these wet co-products will begin to spoil within three to 14 days, depending on the ambient temperature, according to researchers in the Agricultural Research Division at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The university collab-orated with the Nebraska Corn Board to produce the May 2008 publication "Stor-age of Wet Corn Co-Products."

Ethanol producers typically use pre-servatives during summer months, which increases input costs for WDGS. At the same time, demand for WDGS can dip during summer months when feedlots are less active.

“Typically, the number of cattle

in feedlots is lower during the summer and so the demand for WDGS is lower. That can lead to lower prices,” said Bowe Wingerd, manager of Feedlot Biofuel LLC, a Wichita, Kan., company that has developed a low-volume ethanol plant design for cattle feedlots.

However, diminished summer feed-lot activity is not the only factor limiting WDGS purchases for feedlots. The UNL researchers also noted that while ethanol producers might prefer to deliver 25- to 30-ton semi-load quantities of wet co-products to livestock producers, cattle operations with fewer than 1,000 head often find it difficult to use up that much WDGS or MWDGS before spoilage oc-curs.

Researchers in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue Uni-

versity, who published "Distillers Grain Handbook: A Guide for Indiana Produc-ers to Using DDGS for Animal Feed" in December 2008, point out that if the daily consumption of WDGS per cow is eight pounds, a truckload of the wet co-product would last six days for a herd of 1,000 cows. Other classes of livestock that consume less would need to be in much larger herds to prevent WDGS spoilage.

Meanwhile, some operations, partic-ularly cow-calf producers, might need to use wet co-products on a seasonal basis.

Seasonal demand for WDGS and MWDGS allows livestock producers to take advantage of lower wet co-products prices. Proper storage techniques can help feedlots to stock up on WDGS and modified WDGS while saving the etha-

STORAGE


Proper storage techniques can help feedlots to stock up on WDGS and modifi ed WDGS while saving the ethanol producer from having to use more natural gas to dry the product to produce distillers dried grains with solubles.

nol producer from having to use more natural gas to dry the product to produce distillers dried grains with solubles.

“Hot summer temperatures cause rapid spoilage of WDGS exposed to air, and so it makes economic sense to have viable storage methods,” Wingerd said.

Oxygen is the EnemyHow quickly wet co-products de-

velop noticeable spoilage depends upon heat and humidity. WDGS can spoil in weather above 50 degrees Fahrenheit in just a few days. The key to longer stor-age is to exclude the oxygen, according to researchers at the Iowa Beef Center at Iowa State University, which serves as the university’s extension program to cattle producers. The program publishes the newsletter "Ethanol Feeds: Feeding Distillers Grains to Beef Cattle".

The methods for storing wet co-products are not much different than the methods for ensiling corn silage or high-moisture corn. The UNL researchers said excluding air is key because WDGS are acidic (with a typical pH of 4 to 4.5) and fermentation is unlikely to occur in an anaerobic environment.

The main issue with storage is that it is difficult to pile or compact high-mois-ture co-products. WDGS tends to flow

and spread into wide piles. However, MWDGS does pile adequately and WDG (without solubles) also piles more easily, the UNL researchers said.

Dry forages must be added to WDGS to increase bulk for piling. Mixing forage

with WDGS can be difficult because in many cases, the forage will need to be ground first so that it will mix well. Ac-cording to Pedro Nogueira, a ruminant nutritionist for Kenpal Farm Products Inc. in Centralia, Ontario, one advantage

STORAGE

If the daily consumption of WDGS per cow is eight pounds, a truckload of the wet co-product would last six days for a herd of 1,000 cows. Other classes of livestock that consume less would need to be in much larger herds to prevent WDGS spoilage unless it has been stored.

PH

OTO

: US

DA

NAT

UR

AL

RE

SO

UR

CE

S C

ON

SE

RVA

TIO

N S

ER

VIC

E

of storing WDGS mixed with forage is that the blend is easier to break during winter months. Kenpal Farm Products published Nogueira’s article “Storage of Wet Corn Distillers Grains” in its January 2009 issue of “Dairy Briefs.”

Bagging Wet CoproductsMWDGS can be stored in silo bags

under pressure. However, wetter WDGS without added forage stored in silo bags under pressure (300 psi or greater) can result in split bags, which usually occurs

within a few days of bagging, according to UNL researchers. Alternatively, WDGS can be stored in silo bags under no pres-sure, but the method requires more stor-age area and might result in air pockets within the bags.

The weight of WDGS tends to settle bags to a low height with an expanded width. Because the height of a silo bag is a determining factor for storability, add-ing forage to WDGS helps to improve bag shape, as noted in “Using Distillers Grains in the U.S. and International Live-

stock and Poultry Industries," pub-lished by the Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center at the Center for Agricul-tural and Rural Development at Iowa State University.

The MATRIC publication says recommended levels of forage for bagging with WDGS are 15 per-cent grass hay, 22.5 percent alfalfa hay or 12.5 percent wheat straw on a dry matter basis. The corre-sponding as-is percentages of the mix for the added forages are 6.3, 10.5, and 5.1, respectively. If too much forage is added, the mixture may become too dry and will not compact well inside the bag and some air may become trapped.

WDGS has also been stored in silo bags mixed with DDGS, wet corn gluten feed, soy hulls, corn silage, and beet pulp.

The UNL researchers note that forages will need to be ground before mixing and that higher-fiber forages are the best choices for adding bulk and allow for bagging WDGS under pressure. Therefore, forages such as wheat straw and corn stalks work better than for-ages that are more digestible.

The Iowa Beef Center notes that MWDGS can be stored in silo bags for 60 to 200 days. The MAT-RIC publication cites research that says WDGS can be stored in silo bags for six months to a year.

BunkersCattle producers who wish to

purchase and store larger quantities of WDGS might have or choose to use bunkers. Once again, the UNL researchers note that while MWDGS appears to pile well in earthen or concrete bunkers, some forage will need to be added to WDGS to increase its bulk so that it can be compacted to exclude air. With either co-product, the bunker should be covered to prevent sur-face spoilage.

STORAGE

The solution behind the solution.

Tomorrow today will be yesterday. In order to be successful tomorrow, ethanol producers must maximize value creation from corn today. Buhler has the equipment and process know-how to produce food, feed and fuel from the same bushel of corn. This makes you more profitable today and more environmentally friendly tomorrow. A full line of equipment, combined with in-house process engineering and unrivaled after sale support, equals customized solutions without limits.

Buhler Inc., 13105 12th Ave N., Plymouth, MN 55441, T 763-847-9900 [email protected], www.buhlergroup.com/bioenergy


WDGS with plastic covers is important due to concerns about the dangers of feeding moldy corn grain to livestock. The researchers say samples of stored WDGS have been tested for the presence of various mycotoxins—including afla-toxins, ochratoxins, vomitoxin, zeralenol, zearalenone, T-2 toxin and fumonisin—and only fumonisin was found in any of the samples, but at a low level. It was not clear whether the fumonisins were pro-duced during storage or whether they were present in the corn grain before it

entered the ethanol plant. According to the Iowa Beef Center researchers, spe-cies of bacteria can produce mycotoxins on corn and when the grain is processed into ethanol, the mycotoxins are not de-stroyed, but become concentrated in the co-products. EP

Ryan C. Christiansen is the assistant editor of Ethanol Producer Magazine. Reach him at [email protected] or (701) 373-8042.

In a bunker, WDGS mixed with 40 percent grass or 29 per-cent corn stalks on a dry matter basis, for example, allows for ad-equate compaction and to hold the weight of a pay loader.

Nogueira notes that it is best to pile wet co products on a firm surface, such as concrete, to avoid contamination from the soil and to prevent nutrients from leaching and percolating into the ground. He notes that covering the bun-kered co products not only pre-vents spoilage, but protects the co products from rain, the accu-mulation of which might result in runoff or a change in the moisture content of the mix. “Even during the winter, covering them is im-portant,” he notes, because WDGS that arrives fresh from the ethanol plant can exceed temperatures of 150 degrees Fahrenheit. “If [warm co-products] are snowed on, this high temperature will melt the snow, resulting in greater effluent losses and increased moisture,” he says.

Shrink and SpoilageTo determine how much wet

co product might be lost due to shrinkage, the cattle producer might assume between three and six percent for silo bags and be-tween 10 and 14 percent for cov-ered bunkers, similar to silage storage, the UNL researchers said. The Iowa Beef Center notes stud-ies that say WDGS stored in silo bags with 20 percent hay shrink by 7.2 percent after bagging, com-pared to 14 percent for corn silage and 9.7 percent for haylage stored in bags.

The amount of mold and odor stored wet co products will produce appears to be directly re-lated to the amount of air the co products are exposed to, the UNL researchers said. Bagging WDGS or covering bunkered, compacted

STORAGE


WHEEL OF FORTUNE

Do you want to be

a frontrunner in the

cellulosic bioethanol

industry?Then it’s time

we start working

together.

Get the odds in your favorCellulosic bioethanol is key to optimizing the world’s future energy mix.

Novozymes is leading the way in marketing cellulosic ethanol a commercial

reality by 2010. And Novozymes’ Cellic™ products are just what you need

to be a leader in the race to cellulosic bioethanol. So let’s start creating the

future today. Together we can make cellulosic bioethanol a winning solution.

Find out more at www.bioenergy.novozymes.com

Novozymes is the world leader in bioinnovation. Together with customers across a broad array of industries we create tomorrow’s industrial biosolutions, improving our customers’ business and the use of our planet’s resources.

PROFILE

The Forefront of Enzyme Production

As important as enzymes are to the production of ethanol, only a handful of companies specialize in their production. EPM visits with Novozymes, one of the world’s leading enzyme producers, to take a look at the future of enzyme production.

By Kris Bevill



PROFILE

It’s hard to believe that the future of cellulosic ethanol relies on a microscopic enzyme. But don't be fooled by the enzyme’s benign ap-

pearance. These miniscule bits of mat-ter have Herculean appetites for change and are capable of setting in motion any number of biological reactions, including the conversion of biomass to ethanol. However, while Mother Nature clearly intended enzymes to be a vital part of life and biological reactions, she left it up to us to figure out the exact recipes for success.

In the scientific equivalent of test kitchens, Novozymes scientists in labo-ratories around the world are constantly cooking up new variations on success. The company became involved in en-zyme work related to cellulosic ethanol at the beginning of this decade and received its first U.S. DOE grant in 2000. Since then, the company has made a name for itself globally as a provider of enzymes, and it continues to build on that repu-tation. Christopher Veit, Novozymes se-nior marketing manager of biomass, says they began with a very limited amount of research and development commit-ted to developing enzymes for cellulosic ethanol production. “Now it’s the single largest R&D project in the company,” he says. “We have eight years of experience

to fall back on and build upon when it comes to the training of our scientists, understand-ing the substrates, the enzyme interactions and so on. There’s a lot of momentum that goes into our current efforts, mo-mentum that comes from the experience that we’ve built over the past nine-plus years.”

Dedication to the produc-tion of enzymes for ethanol production appears to be work-ing well for the company. Earlier this year, Novozymes introduced a new enzyme product family for use in the production of cellulosic ethanol. According to Novozymes global biomass business development manager Cynthia Bryant, the Cellic prod-uct family of enzymes will lead to the availability of commer-cially viable enzymes that will help make commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol production a reality. “We actually have been testing these enzymes for a year with some of our partners be-cause we wanted to make sure that our products could make a difference for the industry and act as a catalyst for the industry for further devel-opment and progress for cellulosic etha-

nol,” she says. “Looking at the results from our partners, we’ve decided that these products can help others with progressing their research and developmen-tal activities.”

Production partners that have been testing these enzymes include potential cellulosic lead-ers such as Poet LLC, ICM Inc., KL Energy Corp., and BBI BioVentures LLC. The variety of producers testing the Cellic

product family means that the enzymes have already been tested on a wide array of feedstocks. Corn stover, corn fi ber,

sugarcane bagasse and wood pulp are some of the substrates that have been tested, and the enzymes have proven to work with this line of enzymes. Work continues with other feedstocks as well. The research and devel-opment pipeline at Novozymes is a long one, but Bryant is confi dent that Novozymes will deliver on its 2010 promise of delivering a commercially viable enzyme that will enable its part-ners’ processes and deliver even

higher performing enzymes in the future. “Our partners have faith in Novozymes’ capability,” she says.

PROFILE


Christopher Veit,Novozymes senior marketing manager of biomass

Cynthia Bryant,Novozymes global biomass business development manager

While the Cellic enzymes are avail-able industry-wide under the product names Cellic CTec and Cellic HTec, Bry-ant stresses that the Cellic enzyme fam-ily is not intended to be commercialized. “To us the definition of a commercial enzyme is something that is commercial-ly-viable. These enzymes are definitely a significant step in the right direction to-ward getting to our 2010 promise of pro-viding commercially-viable enzymes, but they’re not there yet.”

Cost is KeyCost is one of the main focuses in

the production of enzymes. Bryant says the Cellic family has the best cost/per-formance ratio on the market today with an average cost of use of $1 per gallon of ethanol. But costs still need to be cut in half before anyone can use the en-zymes to produce fuel on a commercial scale. Novozymes’ researchers are con-fident they’re on the right track. “One thing we have learned is that we need to look at enzyme costs as the total enzyme cost window and not as the enzyme price per kilogram,” says Bryant. “Until very recently, enzyme costs have always been a gray area. No one’s really fully under-stood what is in the range of getting into that commercially-viable enzyme cost window.” Novozymes plans to reduce

enzyme costs per gallon to $.50 by next year.

The cost window for enzymes Bryant refers to varies greatly and is dependent upon many factors, including pretreat-ment processes, fermentation processes and feedstocks. Bryant says that through

its research, Novozymes is trying to pro-vide a little clarity for producers on these issues and offer a better estimate of what it will take to produce at a commercial level while at the same time perfecting its own production process. According to Veit, “It’s all about efficiency—develop-

PROFILE

VOGELBUSCHThe Bioprocess Company

Designing state-of-the-art ethanol plants in the U.S. for over 30 yearsWe Make Biotechnology Work

Vogelbusch USA, Inc. • 1810 Snake River Road • Katy, TX 77449 • (713) 461-7374 • [email protected]


SOURCE: NOVOZYMES

ing a cost-effective process and at the same time developing better enzymes for less.”

Of course, all of this cost analysis research also costs money. The financial requirements necessary to conduct enzyme research and development are significant and No-vozymes has secured several federal grants to assist in fund-ing enzyme discovery and modification. In February 2008, the U.S. DOE awarded several companies, including No-vozymes, millions of dollars in aid for a project aptly named DECREASE – the Development of a Commercial-Ready Enzyme Application System for Ethanol. Novozymes has its own researchers in California, North Carolina, Denmark and China working on the project as well as outside partners at Cornell University, Pacific Northwest National Labora-tory, the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory and France’s national scientific research center. This research will directly affect the availability of $.50 per gallon enzymes in the near future.

Novozymes’ Next ChapterDetermining the enzyme cost window and continuing

research and development of technologies are vital parts of the enzyme production recipe, but another vital component is defining the right production model. For Novozymes, that model has become a hub production facility. Accord-ing to Veit, the idea of a hub model is to centrally locate a large enzyme production facility and enable the facility to

PROFILE


Denmark based-Novozymes’ North American headquarters is located in North Carolina. The company also recently broke ground on a $200 million enzyme production facility in Nebraska.

PH

OTO

: NO

VO

ZYM

ES

be incorporate constant improve-ments in technology as they come about. In late March, the company broke ground on its first enzyme hub in Blair, Neb., and plans to have it operational in 2011. The $200 mil-lion facility will encompass 30 acres of property approximately 25 miles north of Omaha—right near the heart of the Midwest ethanol indus-try. “We want to build as close to the industry as we possibly can to mini-mize our transport costs and some of the costs that go into producing enzymes but at the same time real-ize all of the benefits that can come from producing on a large-scale and incorporating the new technology that’s being constantly developed,” Veit says. By comparison, the on-site enzyme production model would be hindered by limited resources and would have difficulties incorporate continuous improvements to their processes. Veit adds that having multiple small facilities spread across many locations would lead to con-sistency issues. “One of the things Novozymes takes pride in is that no matter where our enzymes are pro-duced, you’re going to get the same product,” he says. “We want to make sure that continues going forward.”

In addition to the expansions being made on U.S. soil, Novozymes North American President Lars Hansen noted in his March stake-holder letter that the company and its Chinese partner, China National Cereals, Oil & Foodstuff Corpora-tion, brought the world’s largest en-

zyme facility online earlier this year in Jiangsu, China. Shortly after, the two companies signed an agreement with Chinese oil and energy com-pany Sinopec to develop second-generation ethanol from agricultural waste. Hansen told stakeholders in his letter that U.S. and Chinese car owners will be the first to fuel their cars with second-generation ethanol, due in part to the enzyme work be-ing conducted at Novozymes. Con-fident in the company’s timeline for commercial-scale ready enzymes by 2010, Hansen encourages deci-sion makers to create policies with clear targets for the development of second-generation biofuels. “This is not only the most efficient way to support continued investment in large-scale production, but also con-tinued innovation and improvement of second-generation biofuels,” his letter states.

While enzymes are not the only component necessary for cellulosic ethanol producers to scale-up their product, it is an extremely necessary one. Costs may be an issue across the board when considering com-mercial-scale production, but getting enzyme costs to within a window of possibility will pave the way for other cost issues to be resolved. And for producers who have already been waiting so long, one more year is not much more to wait. EP

Kris Bevill is the editor of Ethanol Pro-ducer Magazine. Reach her at [email protected] or (701)373-8044.

PROFILE


'We want to build as close to the industry as we possibly can to minimize our transport costs and someof the costs that go into producing enzymes but at the same time realize all of the benefi ts that can comefrom producing on a large-scale and incorporating the new technology that’s being constantly developed.'

Christopher Veit, Novozymes senior marketing manager of biomass

CELLULOSE

Cobs to Switchgrass to Gasoline ParityPartners in a venture taking shape in eastern Tennessee hope to realize the promise of cellulosic ethanol.

By Susanne Retka Schill



CELLULOSE

Reports from a spring U.S. DOE meeting of cellulosic ethanol grant recipients indicate the em-bryonic industry is bogged down

by a diffi cult fi nancing environment and the challenge of creating a feedstock supply chain from scratch. While a few projects are under construction, others are still working to put the fi nal package together and many DOE-funded projects are struggling to build momentum. In eastern Tennessee, a corpo-rate/state partnership is forging ahead with its vision despite industry-wide problems and has begun the construction of a dem-onstration cellulosic ethanol facility while its second round of switchgrass seedlings are emerging.

The University of Tennessee has been laying the groundwork for this project for several years, conducting a full range of ag-ronomic research on switchgrass varieties, establishment and management and poten-tial conversion technologies and uses. Ten-nessee’s vision began taking shape as part of the SunGrant Research Initiative, created by Congress in 2003 to establish fi ve regional efforts in biobased energy and product tech-nologies. Several departments in the Uni-versity of Tennessee, along with the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory explored feedstock and conversion options. In the fall of 2007, the university’s groundwork seemed to have come to a fruitful juncture when a partnership was announced with cellulosic ethanol developer Mascoma Corp. to build a 5 MMgy cellulosic ethanol plant at Vonore, Tenn. The project, designed to demonstrate cellulosic ethanol technology at one-tenth commercial scale, landed a $26 million DOE grant and the state of Tennessee committed $40 million to the project. But just a year later, in July of 2008, UT announced it had ended that partnership and would be working with the joint venture Dupont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC.

Shifting DirectionsWith the shift in direction for industry

partners in Tennessee, it appears the project is picking up momentum. DDCE’s plans are to build a 250,000 gallon demonstration fa-cility with corn cobs as the initial feedstock at the site near Vonore, Tenn., chosen by the Tennessee Bioenergy Initiative. Meanwhile, the University of Tennessee continues to

sign up farmers in a state-funded incentive program to stimulate switchgrass establish-ment, and is now looking to get a pelleting plant established as an alternative user of switchgrass production while the biorefi nery project develops.

A ceremonial groundbreaking was held in October at Niles Ferry near Vonore for DDCE’s demonstration plant. The plant is a joint venture with Genera Energy LLC, the corporation formed by the University of Tennessee Research Foundation to manage the collaboration. Construction began in ear-nest in December on the 250,000 gallon per year facility. “We’re calling it a demonstration instead of pilot plant,” says Georg Anderl, DDCE vice president of engineering. “Be-cause of the strengths that the parent com-panies have going into this joint venture, at this scale we can go directly to commercial scale without intermediate steps.” By the end of the year DDCE expects to be running cob through the facility, producing the data for the parallel engineering of the fi rst com-mercial facility targeted to be operational by late 2012.

While DDCE is planning to build and operate several commercial plants using its technology, it is not planning to become a major provider of cellulosic ethanol, says Joe Skurla, president and CEO. “We will be entering the market globally as a provider of cellulosic ethanol technology. That will mean licensing, royalties, providing proprietary equipment, maintenance contracts and sup-port.” DDCE has a team already looking for a location for the fi rst corn cob-based com-mercial facility, likely to be co-located with a corn ethanol plant to make use of existing infrastructure. Once the cob-based process is underway, DDCE will turn to switchgrass, with the fi rst commercial facility to be built in Tennessee. “It’s important to put your money where your mouth is,” Skurla says, “and that makes your mouth more cred-ible.” The commercial facilities are aimed at demonstrating the viability of DDCE’s technology platform and the Vonore facility under construction now will become an ap-plications laboratory for optimizing DDCE’s process for multiple agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops.

Unlike many cellulosic ethanol ven-tures under development, the money back-ing DDCE is coming entirely from the joint

CELLULOSE


venture partners. Each entity is contribut-ing $70 million as well as technology and key personnel. Skurla and Stuart Thomas, DDCE technology director, joined the joint venture from Dupont, while Georg Anderl, vice president of engineering, and Jack Hutt-ner, vice president commercial and public affairs, came from Genencor, a division of Danisco AS. The joint venture is built upon previous collaborations. The Dupont-Tate & Layle BioProducts Joint Venture tapped into Genencor’s enzyme expertise as they devel-oped and built a plant at Loudon, Tenn., to manufacture bio propanediol from corn starch. DuPont sells the bio-based polymer and also uses it in several product lines in-cluding fi bers, de-icers and detergents.

Anderl says DDCE goes beyond the typical joint venture. “We’re not taking tech-nology and throwing it over the wall to a partner,” he says. “We’re developing the tech-nology in an integrated fashion in one tech-nology shop. The coupling of the types of enzymes with the substrate and the pretreat-ment technology and how we’re processing downstream are not seen as individual opera-tions but an integrated process that we can quickly iterate through to an optimal design. I don’t think that truly exists with anybody else. In its fi nal form, the commercial facil-

ity will have everything it needs, including the enzyme production on site. It’s truly a way to get at this in a rapid way with the best pos-sible answer.” The joint venture is structured to draw from the parent companies, Huttner says, “while being deliberate about changing the culture of the two companies to make the joint venture the kind of lean, decision-oriented, action-oriented, good collabora-tor that we want to be.” For Skurla, a main advantage of the joint venture is being fully funded. “It frees me up to focus on the tech-nology and the business development rather than focusing on fundraising.”

Skurla adds DDCE is planning to roll out its technology quickly. “Once we have the data from our demonstration facility, we would expect we would get funding for our commercial facility, we also expect to be in a position to work with early adaptors to provide them with customized licenses to do their own commercial facilities. This is to take advantage of subsidies and early loan guarantees. We view this deployment as start-ing to occur next year, rather than three or fi ve years down the road.” DDCE plans an ongoing relationship with licensees to share process improvements as the technology de-velops.

CELLULOSE

1-800-279-4757

Call us for a free, no-obligationconsulation today.

Natwick Associates Appraisal Services1205 4th Ave. S., Fargo, ND 58103

[email protected]

The Specialistin Biofuels Plant

Appraisals• Valuation for financing

• Establishing an asking price

• Expert witness testimony

• Partial interest valuation

Few certified appraisers in the United States specialize in ethanol plant and relatedbiofuels properties. The firm of Natwick Associates offers more than 50 years of worldwide experience. Your appraisal will be completed by a certified general appraiser and conformto all state and federal appraisal standards.


DDCE’s executive team and board members attended the ceremonial groundbreaking last October in Vonore, Tenn. From left, Philippe Lavielle, board member; Joe Skurla, CEO; Tjerk de Ruiter, board member; John Ranieri, board member; Jack Huttner, vice president; Nick Fanandakis, board member; Vonnie Estes, vice president; Georg Anderl, vice president.

PH

OTO

: BO

B L

ON

GM

IRE

, U

T O

FFIC

E O

F B

IOE

NE

RG

Y P

RO

GR

AM

S

Process DetailsCareful not to divulge too many details,

the management team provides an overview to EPM of the DDCE process. Dupont has contributed the thermochemical pretreat-ment process it has been working on for fi ve years based on a dilute alkaline process. The enzymatic hydrolysis to convert the cellulose and hemicellulose into fermentable sugars is based on the Accellerase enzyme platform developed by Genencor, although DDCE is customizing the enzyme cocktail to inte-grate it with preprocessing and fermentation environments. The proprietary ethanalogen used in fermentation was developed through a Dupont collaboration with DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratories, based on NREL’s work with Zymomonas mobilis. “It’s a chemical approach that is very energy effi cient and also byproduct effi cient,” Thomas says. “We’ve taken the path of extensive chemical recycling to minimize the environmental foot-print. From a feedstock perspective it is fairly fl exible.”

“Cob will be fi rst,” Skurla explains, “be-cause it is where we’ve done our work and it has the existing infrastructure. But cob is a fi nite opportunity. The real development will be in the area of dedicated energy crops, which brings us to switchgrass and that brings us to why we’re doing work with Tennessee.” Skurla sees a potential for dedicated energy

crops to change economics in rural areas and possibly change the dynamics of the ethanol market as cellulosic ethanol production devel-ops outside the Corn Belt.

Targeting Marginal LandThere is little corn in east Tennessee

where DDCE is building its facility. The most common crops are hay, soybeans and wheat. To diversify and strengthen the agricultural economy, the state is backing the develop-ment of dedicated energy crops in the region through an $8 million investment in a farmer incentive program. Most of the 750 acres signed up in the fi rst round of farmer con-tracts last year were cropland since there was little time for fi eld preparation. Also, the num-ber of acres was limited by seed availability. “We had very good success with the fi rst year switchgrass production we harvested begin-ning in November,” says Kelly Tiller, co-di-rector of UT’s Offi ce of Bioenergy Programs and president and CEO of Genera Energy. “We had almost a 90 percent success rate in establishment which is higher than we ex-pected,” she says. “The fi rst year average was a little over two tons per acre.” UT agrono-mists researching switchgrass production had projected the fi rst year yields would average between 1 and 2 tons per acre, between 5 to 6 tons per acre in the second year and 8 to 10 tons in the third and subsequent years.

CELLULOSE


DDCE is developing an integrated, energy effi cient process with onsite enzyme and ethanologen production.

When it’s not designed

for your needs, performance suffers.

Overextending components catches up to you fast. BioFuels Automation offers optimization solutions to make sure your plant uses the right parts for the right job.

888-870-FUEL(3835)www.BioFuelsAutomation.com

A Swanson Flo-Systems Company

integrated into the economics throughout the value chain. On top of that you have to im-pose the life cycle analysis as well to ensure you are managing the carbon molecule to its optimal advantage.”

Skurla says the DDCE vision is to reach gasoline parity. “We’ve done the modeling in terms of expected crude oil prices, expected biomass prices, expected costs of conversion. Our focus is not to be competitive with starch ethanol, although we will be. Our focus is not to become a desirable biofuel, although we

will be. Our focus is to become an alternative for the consumer to make the choice of what they will put in their vehicles. With oil at about $80 a barrel and technology development of the path where we anticipate it to be – this is a learning curve, of course – sometime within the next decade, this industry will be at gaso-line parity.” EP

Susanne Retka Schill is an assistant editor at BBI International. Reach her at [email protected] or (701) 738-4922.

The fi rst year production has been baled and moved to a central location where it has been covered with tarps for storage.

The success from the fi rst year of the program led to 3,500 acres being of-fered for enrollment in the second year, of which 1,950 were selected, all within a 50-mile radius of Vonore. “One thing we are trying to do in this program is get a good cross section of a lot of different conditions,” Tiller says. “We’re looking not only at soil productivity and soil types, but slope, previous cropping history and weed pressure – also managerial expertise and equipment available. We have used all of those in our selection criteria for participa-tion in the program to try to give us as a broad of an experience as we can with all of these factors.” The smallest acreage al-lowed is 15 acres per farm, although that can be broken into smaller fi elds. Based on economic analysis done in earlier research, UT established a price of $450 per acre, which amortizes the cost of switchgrass establishment over the three years of the contract. It is an attractive, yet risky option for farmers, Tiller says, as there is no guar-antee of a market when the contract ends after three years.

As UT extension service works with farmers in planting and establishing the switchgrass, agronomic studies continue along with work on storage issues, with equipment manufacturers on harvesting and handling, and preprocessing issues. “We’re putting together the engineering systems to get the quantity and quality you need at a price you can afford,” Tiller ex-plains. The goal is to get the switchgrass to the bioenergy user at $60 per dry ton. “We’re not there right now, but we do see where there is lots of room for improve-ment in reducing those costs.”

Gasoline Parity“We need to look at the entire value

chain and understand how you can squeeze the most capital and cost out, and increase the wealth created,” Skurla says. “The citing of the plant, the treatment of the biomass whether it’s chopped up fi nely or coarsely, whether it’s compacted or not, has to be

CELLULOSE



Ethanol in ArmeniaThe Renewable Resources and Energy Effi ciency Fund of Armenia recently commissioned a feasibility study to determine the possibility of producing ethanol in Armenia. The study, fi nanced by World Bank as a grant from the Global Environment Facility, was conducted by Enertech International Inc. and BBI International in cooperation with DHD Contact LLC of Armenia.

The claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily refl ect the views of Ethanol Producer Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).

ARMENIA. BY KENDRICK WENTZEL AND AREG GHARABEGIAN

Contribution

s a land-locked country without any signifi cant de-posits of crude oil,

Armenia is 100 percent depen-dent upon fuel imports to meet a growing demand for gasoline. Increases in world crude oil prices are being passed on to and refl ected at retail gasoline outlets, and prices for gasoline in Armenia are expected to in-crease at an even more rapid rate in the future, as long-term import contracts lapse and are renegotiated at higher market

prices. Natural gas prices from Russia are expected to increase making compressed natural gas (CNG) more expensive and

causing upward pressure on gas-oline prices as well. Such trends will make alternative motor transport fuels such as ethanol

more competitive in the market. Finally, ethanol for blending as a motor transport fuel has the potential to reduce imports of gasoline through displacement, reduce foreign exchange drains, increase energy security of sup-ply in a traditionally unstable re-gion of the world, create value from domestically grown etha-nol feedstocks on surplus lands, create jobs in depressed rural ar-eas, and improve local air quality particularly in congested urban areas.

One of the key factors for determining the overall success of a biofuels program is the availability of appropriate feedstocks at attractive prices. Corn and sugarcane serve as the major feedstocks for current ethanol production throughout most of the world, but virtually any feedstock with high sugar or starch content can be utilized for ethanol production.

A


FeedstocksOne of the key factors for

determining the overall suc-cess of a biofuels program is the availability of appropriate feedstocks at attractive prices. Corn and sugarcane serve as the major feedstocks for current ethanol production throughout most of the world, but virtu-ally any feedstock with high sugar or starch content can be utilized for ethanol production. Armenia’s climatic conditions are not suitable for sugarcane production; however, there are several alternative crops suitable to Armenia’s climate for culti-vation on available agricultural land that is not intended for the production of food crops. In particular, Jerusalem artichoke has been identifi ed as a crop with great potential as a feed-stock for ethanol production in Armenia in the near to mid-term future. It can be cultivated on land that is currently fallow and it possesses relatively high carbohydrate content, especially in its root tuber, thereby making it extremely suitable for ethanol production. Farmers grow Jeru-salem artichoke for their own use, but there is no large scale production due to the small market for it.

Similarly, feed corn for live-stock and poultry is a suitable crop for the soils and micro cli-mates found in several parts of the country. Utilizing a dry mill corn fractionation process, feed corn can be processed in such a manner as to extract all of the starches contained in the feed-stock corn for conversion into ethanol while at the same time producing important animal feed co-products. The byproduct

Table 1 – Forecast of Ethanol Production Required to Achieve Selected Blending Levels (in thousands of metric tons per year)

172 189 208 229 252 277 305 335 369 406 446 468

8.6 9.5 10.4 11.4 12.6 13.9 15.2 16.8 18.4 20.3 22.3 24.5

Year

Indicator

Gasoline

Ethanol

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

will have a higher percentage of protein, fats and carbohydrates than that found in unprocessed dry corn, which is currently the principal animal feed used by livestock and poultry producers in Armenia. Similar byproducts can also be produced using Je-rusalem artichoke.

Presently there is no large scale feed corn production in Armenia, but the Ministry of Agriculture has developed a program of increasing produc-tion to reduce the import and to develop a local market for feed-ing livestock. The goal is to have 14,826 acres of corn production in Tavush Marz in northern Ar-menia. The program has seen limited success. Where farmers use good techniques, the yields have been satisfactory, but in many cases the yields have been far below what would have been expected.

The preliminary feasibility study suggested developing two very different types of ethanol plants: one based on an inulin extraction process for Jerusa-lem artichoke to be situated in Syunik Marz; and a second plant

based on a dry milling process with fractionation utilizing feed corn grown in Tavush Marz. These two regions have high rural unemployment rates and microclimates suitable for the production of the identifi ed feedstocks.

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages that should be recognized from the outset when considering a decision on whether or not to implement a nationwide ethanol program. With respect to advan-tages, ethanol can be produced from domestic renewable feed-stock sources, helps to stimu-late agricultural employment in depressed rural areas, and can provide farmers and ethanol processing plant owners with a dependable revenue stream. In addition, ethanol can lower air emissions in major metropoli-tan areas when combusted as a motor transport fuel, can reduce overall greenhouse gas emis-sions, and can reduce foreign ex-change drains on the Armenian economy.

On the other hand, a na-tionwide ethanol program could

face several hurdles and chal-lenges. Ethanol has a lower en-ergy content value compared to gasoline and could face an initial public acceptance hurdle. In ad-dition, ethanol blends greater than 10 percent are not compat-ible with existing non-fl exible fuel vehicles, pipeline infrastruc-ture, distribution systems, or tanks and pumps at retail out-lets. If the imported gasoline is not of a high quality or contains moisture, there will be perfor-mance and maintenance prob-lems with automobiles that are operated on fuels mixed with ethanol, and the program will in all likelihood be perceived as a failure by the consumer public. In addition, no markets current-ly exist in Armenia for useful animal feed by-products from ethanol conversion processes.

Potential Ethanol Market Size

Table 1 (shown above) forecasts the ethanol produc-tion needed annually to achieve the 5 percent blending levels, by volume, with gasoline.

These projections formed

SOURCE: AREG GHARABEGIAN


the basis of the decision to de-velop 14,000 metric tons per year of ethanol production ca-pacity by 2014. Therefore, the recommended capacity sizes for each of the two proposed plants is 7,000 metric tons per year based on the assumption that the Armenian government would mandate 5 percent blend-ing of ethanol by volume with gasoline by the year 2014.

Construction of a 7,000 metric ton per year ethanol plant would cost $17 million to $19 million (2008 dollars) depending upon specifi c conversion tech-nology chosen by the develop-er. The major variables for the fi nancial analysis of a biofuel project are ethanol price, feed-stock price, co-product price and energy costs.

Due to the lack of reliable price information for the pro-posed feedstocks (Jerusalem artichoke and corn), the fi nan-cial analysis was necessarily con-ducted by setting an acceptable rate of return on investment

and solving for the cost of the feedstock that would generate this return over time. A variety of scenarios was analyzed to as-sess the sensitivity of the pro-jected results to the different assumptions.

If yields are around 40 to 45 metric tons per hectare, pric-ing for Jerusalem artichoke is expected to be approximately $50 per metric ton as farmers move towards more modern production practices. The fi nan-cial model showed that the pro-cessing plant can pay up to $88 per metric ton for Jerusalem ar-tichoke and still achieve a return on investment of 15 percent.

The 2008 price for import-ed feed corn into Armenia was approximately $400 per metric ton. This price is signifi cantly above the world market price of corn, likely at least in part due to high transportation costs and small trading volumes. Re-sults of the analysis indicate that while higher yield seeds are now being used by local farmers, the

upward pressure on corn pro-duction costs especially from the higher cost of fertilizers, weed suppressants, and diesel fuel for tractors is offsetting enhanced revenues from higher crop yields. Farmers will have to beat this price if they hope to enter into long-term con-tracts with an ethanol process-ing plant. However, given that the fi nancial model was set to achieve a minimum ROI of 15 percent, fi nancial projections in-dicated that the processing plant could only afford to pay up to $393 per metric ton for feed corn and still remain attractive to potential investors.

Based on these results and competitive guidelines, either plant could provide suffi cient economic returns. The risk is perceived to be greater with Jerusalem artichoke due to the lack of commercial production experience, cost data regarding cultivation and harvest, and his-torical pricing data in the com-mercial marketplace. However,

in the fi nal analysis, such risks are common to any new dedi-cated energy crop.

Land Availability for Feedstock Production

On average, only 70 per-cent of tillable land in Armenia is presently being used. Guiding principles for identifying suit-able land during conduct of the ethanol program assessment were to:

Focus on surplus lands only

Consider lands from the Soviet era that are not pres-ently being utilized for food production and unlikely to ever be brought back into useful pro-duction

Primarily concentrate on marginal lands between 1,000 and 2,400 meters in elevation or else saline soils that cannot be utilized for food production re-gardless of elevation

Rule out lands that are not accessible by mechanized farm equipment or include en-

ARMENIA.


Considering all of the potential ethanol fuel cycle environmental aspects, it can be concluded that the project will have a favorable impact on the environment in Armenia. The main positive aspect of the proposed project will be the reduction of air pollutions.

dangered species of plants or animals

An extensive study was conducted to determine the best locations for growing acceptable feedstocks from the perspective of prevailing climatic condi-tions, soil suitability, elevation constraints and possible access to irrigation. It is anticipated that the local farmers, not agri-busi-nesses, would be responsible for planting and growing feed corn. Harvested feed corn would then be stored in humidity-controlled storage containers or buildings for use throughout the season. A study of available land for

corn growing shows there is the capability to produce the re-quired amount within 50 km of the proposed plant.

Potential Coproduct Markets

The sale of coproducts from a planned ethanol plant is essential to ensure the economic viability of such a project, es-pecially if no direct fi nancial subsidies will be provided by the government to guarantee an ethanol program’s success over time. Potential coproducts from a Jerusalem artichoke plant in-clude pulp to be used as a high

carbohydrate animal feed as well as feedstock for combined heat and power systems. Potential coproducts from a corn frac-tionation plant include DDGS and corn oil. In addition, both processing plants are expected to produce dry ice and liquid carbon dioxide as coproducts.

Anticipated Developmental Impacts

Rural development is an-other important driver for worldwide support of biofu-els. Since feedstocks are grown on agricultural land, increas-ing demand results in increased economic development in rural areas; however, biofuels policies have faced increased scrutiny in recent years. The two most controversial topics are the food versus fuel issue, and the actual level of environmental ben-efi ts accruing from ethanol pro-grams. In Armenia, only unused marginal lands or surplus will be utilized and only non-food feed-stocks will be grown for conver-

sion into ethanol, unlike major ethanol programs in the United States, Europe and Brazil.

Moreover, the proposed projects are expected to have signifi cant and positive develop-mental impacts and benefi ts to Armenia. The most important benefi ts include:

Stimulation of Em-ployment in Depressed Rural Areas. An ethanol feedstock production program of this magnitude will have an instant and measurable positive eco-nomic and job creation impact upon the two most depressed parts of Armenia.

Human Capacity Build-ing. Most of the construction work would be provided by local Armenian contractors- overseen by an international contractor with experience in ethanol plant construction. New jobs would be created both directly and in-directly. These jobs will require new skills and training to oper-ate and maintain the two plants.

Technology Transfer.

ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION • ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING • AUTOMATION • INSTRUMENTATION

1-800-827-1662 • www.interstates.com

There has been little experience with ethanol processing plants for Jerusalem artichoke on a ma-jor commercial scale. Only small demonstration facilities using Jerusalem artichoke have been implemented to date. In a sense, this project will create a whole new industry in Armenia.

Economic Develop-ment Benefi ts. Substantial tax revenues would be generated, as well as money spent in local rural economies.

Environmental ImpactsConsidering all of the po-

tential ethanol fuel cycle en-vironmental aspects, it can be concluded that the project will have a favorable impact on the environment in Armenia. The main positive aspect of the pro-posed project will be the reduc-tion of air pollutions. With a nationwide program goal of 5 percent ethanol blending, it is anticipated that carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by 3,300 metric tons per year or by

ARMENIA.

at least 15 percent of the level of such emissions in 2007. Con-sidering a projected increase in the number of vehicles that will be added to the current stock in the future, this anticipated emis-sions reduction will have a ten-

dency to increase over time. Other environmental

concerns are mostly related to land use changes triggered by higher agricultural product prices. By historical averages, current prices for commodities

such as corn and soybeans are high. The higher prices provide an incentive to increase pro-duction, which in many cases means expanding the amount of land used for agriculture. If the expansion land is currently

The Tavush Marz area of Armenia was determined to be well-suited for a dry mill corn ethanol facility.

SOU

RC

E: A

REG

GH

ARAB

EGIA

N


Jerusalem artichoke has been determined to be a feedstock with great potential for ethanol production in Armenia. Farmers currently grow the crop for their own use on a small scale.

forested, turning it into arable land will require deforestation resulting in environmental harm which will likely outweigh the benefi ts of biofuels for many years. However, ethanol produc-tion as envisioned for Armenia will result from greater utiliza-tion of unutilized crop lands or marginal lands and not result in reductions of forested lands.

Suggested Policy Measures for Consideration

Suggested government en-ergy and transportation policy measures to stimulate ethanol market development in Armenia include the following:

Develop a fuel stan-dards program by 2009

Mandate a minimum fuel blending program at 5 per-cent by volume by 2014 coupled with an excise tax on imported ethanol in an effort to create a new industry

Increase mandated blending requirement to 10 per-cent by volume by 2020

Classify ethanol as a motor transport fuel for tax pur-poses rather than as ethanol for use in alcoholic beverages

Institute vigorous en-forcement of fuel quality stan-

dards testing at fuel depots and retail outlets

Treat ethanol as a re-newable energy resource

Develop and imple-ment a nation-wide public awareness program to introduce and promote the production and use of ethanol EP

Kendrick Wentzel participated in the study as a project man-ager for Enertech International. Reach him at [email protected]. Areg Gharabegian partici-pated as the environmental and biomass specialist. Reach him at [email protected] or (626) 440-6047.


Project Financing in Difficult Capital MarketsAcquiring fi nancing for ethanol projects is more diffi cult now than ever before. Fortunately, there are many types of government grants and loans available to assist future producers.


FINANCE. BY SUE WYKA

Contribution

he biomass industry, including cellulosic ethanol, represents an exciting new area

of opportunity in renewable en-ergy. As an emerging industry, there remains a lot of uncer-tainty around feedstock costs, supply, aggregation, technology, and off-take contracts. Project fi nance, diffi cult in the best of times, is especially challenging

in today’s capital markets. The bright side is the amount of money fl owing from the federal government into renewable en-ergy in the form of grants and loan guarantees. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the stimulus package) has allocated billions to renew-able energy, and biomass and cellulosic ethanol are key focus areas. By leveraging these grant,

loan guarantee and tax incentive programs, as described below, it is possible to get a well-planned and organized biomass project funded today. These govern-ment programs will bridge the gap in funding biomass proj-ects until the industry matures and traditional capital becomes available.

The stages that projects go through in the fi nancing life-

cycle and the types of cap-ital available at each stage are include pre-develop-ment capital, development capital and project debt fi nancing.

Sue Wyka, partner, Ascendant Partners Inc. and AscendantFinancial Partners LLC.

T


Pre-Development CapitalThe fi rst phase in the life-

cycle of a project is pre-de-velopment. Pre-development capital or risk capital is the fi rst money raised in a project and, in the overall scope of the project, is relatively small. These dollars are used to determine the feasi-bility of the project. This can be the toughest to fi nd or the easi-est. If the founders have capital, are well connected locally and/or the project has strong appeal locally, bringing in local inves-tors can be less diffi cult.

Development CapitalDevelopment capital is

used in several areas, including business planning, land acquisi-tion, engineering, contracting with vendors and contractors. The same attributes that bring in pre-development capital can make raising development capital easier. Most project de-velopers fi nd it very diffi cult to raise development capital as the dollars are larger (up to several million dollars depending on the size of the project) and the risk is still very high. In stron-ger economic times, local inves-

tors and agricultural producers were willing to fund renewable energy development efforts lo-cally. Friends, family, and local/regional angel investors are still the most viable capital alterna-tive at this point in the develop-ment cycle. Strategic investors with a reason to invest such as off-take or supply arrangements are worth pursuing as well.

With the amount of federal dollars available under the farm bill, energy bill and stimulus bill, grants are worth pursuing to fund pre-development and de-velopment tasks. Federal grants that are available to renewable energy projects include Section 9008 grants (joint USDA and U.S. DOE) for advanced biofu-els (non-corn cellulose) research and development and demon-stration plants. The deadline for the initial round for these grants has passed, but it is expected that additional grants will be an-nounced this year.

Other DOE grants and USDA grants such as biomass research and development, Re-newable Energy for America Program grants, and value-add-ed producer grants will also of-

fer funding opportunities. It is important to monitor funding announcements at www.grants.gov as well as state programs at http://www.dsireusa.org.

Project Debt FinancingOnce the development eq-

uity has been raised, the next step is to fi nd debt fi nancing. One of the best alternatives in today’s market is to pursue federal government guaranteed loans. There are many pro-grams that provide government guaranteed loans through the farm bill, the energy bill and the American Recovery and Rein-vestment Act. The U.S. govern-ment, through various agencies, provides the underlying guaran-tee but loans are made by private commercial lenders. The lender must underwrite the loan and present it to the government agency for its approval to pro-vide the guarantee. Lenders set the terms but must work within program parameters. There are a limited number of lenders that understand and are willing to work with these programs. The process can be tedious and time consuming. Feasibility studies are generally required for all government loan programs. The government guarantees do not become effective until the proj-ect is complete and in operation; therefore, a construction loan must be procured.

The major loan guarantee programs available for biomass projects are:

USDA Business & In-dustry Guaranteed Loans (B&I Loans)

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/b&i_gar.htm

USDA Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP) Guaranteed Loans

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/9006loan.htm

Biorefi nery Assistance Program

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/baplg9003.htm

DOE Innovative Tech-nology Loan Guarantee Pro-gram

http://www.lgprogram.en-ergy.gov/features.html

The USDA B & I prob-gram has been around for many years and is well established. The purpose of both B & I and REAP loans is to assist farmer/producer owned and rural small businesses. Both loan programs require that the project be situ-ated in a rural location. The guarantees are on loans up to $25 million and cover between 60 and 85 percent of the loan amount depending on the size of the loan. Minimum tan-gible equity of between 20 and 40 percent of the project cost is required, depending on the project. Renewable energy is an area of interest for REAP loans. The B&I loans program is funded and available now, and REAP funding announcements are expected at any time.

The Biorefi nery Assistance Program also known as Sec-tion 9003 of the 2008 Farm Bill focuses on advanced biofuels. Funds must be used to build or retrofi t commercial-scale biore-fi neries to produce advanced biofuels (non-corn cellulose).

One of the best alternatives in today’s market is to pursue federal government guaranteed loans. There are many programs that provide government guaranteed loans through the farm bill, the energy bill and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The technology must be estab-lished or demonstrated as a vi-able commercial technology. The guarantees are for qualify-ing loans up to $250 million, not to exceed 80 percent of project costs. The next funding announcement for 2010 is ex-pected in the fourth quarter of this year.

The DOE Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program totals $6 billion. The government wants rapid de-ployment and is expected to announce the application pro-cess by the end of this month. The loan program will provide loan guarantees for renewable

technologies and transmission technologies. The goal is to en-courage early commercial use of innovative technologies in ener-gy projects and to achieve sub-stantial environmental benefi ts (reducing greenhouse gas emis-sions). The DOE can guarantee up to 100 percent of a loan as long as the loan does not exceed 80 percent of project costs, but the DOE prefers lower guaran-tee amounts.

Other Federal ProgramsOther programs applicable

to biomass developers worth monitoring and exploring in-clude:

FINANCE.

Government is leading the way in encouraging new biomass projects, and grants and loan programs are being announced on a continuous basis.

There are a multitude of government fi nancing programs for alternative fuel projects. Most loan guarantee and grant programs are funded by either the USDA or the U.S. DOE. The DOE Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program alone totals $6 billion. The DOE is expected to announce the application process this month.


Pro-Environmental, Inc.Thermal and Catalytic Oxidizers for VOC/HAPS Control Made In America

• Leading supplier of custom oxidation systems for control of VOC, HAPS and odorous emissions

• Our designs are based on the “best solution” for your application• Aftermarket services for parts, upgrades, rebuilds, testing and on-site service

Product Offerings Include:• Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers

(RTO)• Regenerative Catalytic Oxidizers

(RCO)• Recuperative Oxidizers• Direct Fired Oxidizers

Aftermarket Services:• Emissions Source Testing• Equipment Rebuilds/Upgrades• Field Service Technicians

Available 24/7• Spare Parts In Stock

Visit us online: www.pro-env.comE-mail: [email protected]

Pro Environmental, Inc.Rancho Cucamonga, CA909-989-3010

Section 9004 - RePow-ering Assistance - to encourage existing biorefi neries to replace fossil fuel used during produc-tion

Section 9005 – Bio-energy Program for Advanced Biofuels – provides payments to ag producers to support and ensure expanding production of advanced biofuels

Section 9009 – Rural Self-Suffi ciency Initiative – pro-vides funding to enable rural communities to increase energy self-suffi ciency (uncertain pro-gram timing/funding)

Section 9011 – Bio-mass Crop Assistance Program – provides support to establish and produce crops for conver-sion to bioenergy and to help with collection, harvest, storage

Section 9012 - Forest Biomass for Energy – to sup-port R & D to facilitate use of forest biomass for energy-relat-ed applications

Project Equity FinancingIn conjunction with the se-

nior debt, suffi cient equity must be raised. The options for equi-ty today are local investors, stra-tegic partners, equity funds (not very likely) and tax equity. The ability for biomass-to-electricity companies to claim investment tax credits, production tax cred-its, bonus depreciation and ac-celerated depreciation opens the door for tax equity inves-tors. The tax equity market has shrunk signifi cantly in the past few years due to the economic environment. As a result of this situation, a new program under ARRA has made it possible to get a grant from the federal gov-ernment in lieu of the 30 per-cent investment tax credit for certain biomass projects. These grants are issued within 60 days of project completion. With this grant, local equity and a loan guarantee, more project devel-opers will be able to successfully fund their projects.

Another tax driven option

is New Market Tax Credits. This federal program has been in existence for several years and funding was increased this year. It is very diffi cult to meet the re-quirements but worth the effort as the capital is treated as subor-dinated debt or equity. The fi rst hurdle is the project must be in a qualifying census tract that is distressed. Being in a rural area is a positive. The census tract must be low income or with high net migration of popula-tion. Economic development and job creation are needed to qualify. The investor invests up to 25 percent of the project cost and gets tax credits against federal taxes (39 percent) over seven years instead of getting his capital returned from the project. The interest rates and fees on new market capital are between two percent and four percent per year with no amor-tization. The structure is com-plicated and it is diffi cult to fi nd lenders that can work within the structure. The project size that

works best is in the $10-$40 mil-lion total cost range.

In today’s capital markets, there is scarce private capital be-yond the developer’s own seed capital, making it a diffi cult en-vironment in which to start and fund a new project. That being said, the emphasis on renew-able energy in this country has never been greater. Government is leading the way in encourag-ing new biomass projects, and grants and loan programs are being announced on a continu-ous basis. There are many re-quirements and procedures to navigate and it can take a long time, but it is worth the effort if your project qualifi es. The right business plan, the right partners and a realistic capital structure signifi cantly improve the odds for success. EP

Sue Wyka is a partner at Ascendant Partners Inc. and Ascendant Financial Partners LLC. Contact her at [email protected] or 303-221-4700.


Protecting Distillers Grains from Sulfur Build-upExcess amounts of sulfur in distillers grains could result in a less desirable product, affecting the company’s bottom line and its reputation.

SULFUR. BY TOM SLUNECKA

Contribution

n today’s marketplace, maximizing the value of ethanol co products has never been more impor-

tant, and contaminants in an ethanol plant’s distillers grains can impact overall profi tability in many ways. Producing a product that is in any way not compatible with industry standards could not only potentially reduce the plant’s ability to sell its distillers grains but could also affect the

plant’s overall reputation. A fa-cility’s distillers grains customers must feel confi dent that the feed

source they are purchasing for their livestock is a safe, as well as cost-effective, product.

The amount of sulfur in dis-tillers grains is one of the most important product elements for plants to be aware of. While sul-fur at small doses is an essential nutrient, excessive amounts are a concern in all species, espe-cially ruminants. Sulfur at high levels can cause a decrease in the rate of weight gain and at worst may cause Polioencephalomala-cia (PEM), commonly known as polio,which can lead to death.

The amount of sulfur in distillers grains is one of the most important product elements for plants to be aware of. While sulfur at small doses is an essential nutrient, excessive amounts are a concern in all species, especially ruminants.

I



GETTING ANSWERSFROM FIELD TO FUELALTERNATIVE FUEL SERVICES

CUSTOMIZED SOLUTIONS FOR INVESTORS, PRODUCERS,MANUFACTURERS, SUPPLIERS AND TRADERS

• Ethanol lab testing & certification to ASTM specifications (34 ISO labs in U.S.)• Field inspections for custody transfer• In-plant labor - railcar loading, switching, material handling, grading & weighing• Tank/pipeline inspection and calibration, flow monitoring & measurement consulting• Corrosion inhibitors/additives & cargo treatment services• On-site laboratory management• QA/QC program development & consulting• Sustainability/ISO/OHASA audits, training & certifications• Quality analysis of in-process components, DDGS & water• Industrial mechanical integrity management systems• Environmental analytical services & data management systems• Wood chip & pellet quality composition analysis & quantity verification

SGS is the global leader and innovator in inspection, verification, testing and certification services with over 55,000 employees and 1,000 offices worldwide.

Our broad range of services deliver competitive advantage by enhancing quality, reducing risk, improving productivity and ensuring compliance.

SGS Alternative Fuels Services business lines work together across industries covering supply chains, thinking globally and acting locally.

CONTACTS IN NORTH AMERICAHowie Nelson, Business Development Manager: 952-892-6372, [email protected] Fortner, Marketing Coordinator: 281-478-8234, [email protected]

GO TO OUR WEBSITE AND ENROLL FOR NEWS UPDATES FROM SGS

WWW.SGS.COM/ALTERNATIVEFUELS

Such results could cause major damage to a plant’s reputation and reduce the price they com-mand for its distillers grains.

Sulfur is an essential mac-ro-mineral for all livestock spe-

cies. It is c o n t a i n e d in essential amino acids such as me-thionine and cystine and is also found in the B-vi-tamins, thi-amine and biotin. The 2005 Na-

tional Research Council guide-lines recommend a 0.3 percent total dietary sulfur on a dry mat-ter basis for livestock consuming high concentrate rations, such as feedlot cattle and 0.5 percent total dietary sulfur on a dry mat-ter basis for livestock consum-ing forage-based rations, such as beef cows. Sulfur can come from the following sources:

Distillers grains Water supply Other feed additives

In distillers grains, sulfur build-up occurs due to an addi-tive effect associated with typi-cal processing practices. Corn contains about 0.12 percent sul-

Tom Slunecka,vice president of marketing, Phibro Animal Health Corp. Ethanol Performance Group

In distillers grains, sulfur build-up occurs due to an additive effect associated with typical processing practices. Ethanol producers can improve the marketability of their distillers grains by consciously trying to minimize sulfur additions whenever possible.

How much is too much?Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln recently

compiled data from experiments on ethanol byproduct feeding conducted over the past several years at the university’s research feedlot in Mead, Neb. More than 4,000 cattle, including calf-fed and yearling cattle, were used for the feeding studies.

According to the published report, data showed that the in-cidence of polioencephalomalacia (polio) was very minimal when the animals’ diets contained 0.46 percent or less of sulfur. When levels of sulfur increased to amounts greater than 0.56 percent the incidences of polio also increased.

Researchers found that of the 4,143 cattle used for the ex-periment, a total of 23 cattle were classifi ed as having polio. The majority of polio cases resulted from an experiment in which the cattle were fed a diet that contained 0.47 percent sulfur and no roughage. Cattle which were fed a diet consisting of 0.46 percent sulfur or less fared better – only three of 2,147 animals were di-agnosed with polio.

After conducting several test runs, the researchers conclud-ed that phosphoric acid could be safely substituted for sulfuric acid in ethanol production, however the amount and cost of phosphoric acid needed for production likely limits the feasibility of its use.

SOURCE: 2009 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources.


fur. The addition of other sulfur-containing compounds can quickly elevate the sulfur content of distillers grains. Additionally, yeast will add to the amount of sulfur in the distillers grains. Ethanol producers can improve the marketability of their distillers grains by consciously trying to minimize sul-fur additions whenever possible.

The recycling and reuse of water streams within these plants may increase the sulfur concentration by as much as 300 per-cent, according to James Chapman, Ph.D, dairy technology manager for Prince Agri Products Inc. In addition, several chemi-cals that are utilized during the typical etha-nol production process can contribute to higher sulfur levels in the fi nished product. Among the chemicals that are major culprits in elevated sulfur concentrations in fi nished products are:

1. Sulfuric acid2. Cleaning acids (sulfamic acid or so-

dium bisulfate) 3. Sodium bisulfi te used in ethanol car-

bon dioxide scrubbers.

SULFUR.

The amount of sulfur in distillers grains could have a detrimental effect on cattle if left unchecked. High levels of sulfur can cause a decrease of the rate of weight gain and, in extreme cases, cause polio. Chemical companies are willing to work with ethanol producers to monitor the amount of sulfur in distillers grains and can assist in the reduction of sulfur content.


►Sulfuric AcidSulfuric acid is the largest non-natu-

rally occurring contributor to sulfur levels. Sulfuric acid is used for pH adjustment to optimize fermentation and distillation conditions. The generation of chlorine dioxide from sodium chlorite is improved with the addition of sulfuric acid. The in-dustry needs to be wary of adopting anti-microbials that can add more sulfur to DG through the addition of sulfuric acid.

►Cleaning AcidsSulfamic acid, as a cleaning agent, is

used to remove mineral scale in heat ex-changers. The amounts and frequency of cleanings need to be minimized, within reason, to reduce the contribution of sulfur into the recycle streams while still maintaining a clean system.

►Sodium Bisulfi teSodium bisulfi te is utilized to remove

acetaldehydes from the carbon dioxide scrubber. Its use can be minimized by mak-ing more frequent inspections of scrubber gas emissions to insure that the sodium bisulfi te dosage is optimized. Overuse of sodium bisulfi te will contribute to sulfur levels and can stress the yeast into produc-ing more glycerol thus reducing ethanol yield.

“High sulfur can be devastating to a livestock producer,” says Chapman. “As such, making informed decisions about the production aids used in ethanol pro-duction plants, and working closely with live-stock producers to minimize the ad-dition of sulfur in their operation will make signifi cant strides towards reducing the negative outcomes associated with dis-tillers grains. This technical vigilance will ultimately increase the broad acceptance, safety and profi tability of our industry as a whole.”

Chemical companies are willing to work closely with ethanol plants and their distillers grains customers to assist in re-ducing sulfur content and its associated

negative effects. If a plant manager discov-ers a problem with the facility’s fermen-tation process, an on-site diagnostic test kit can be used to collect data from areas within the plant where suspected contami-nation has occurred. A successful resolu-tion to a customer’s problem will result in a series of recommendations to alter the operating parameters of the fermentation process. EP

Tom Slunecka is the vice president of mar-keting for Phibro Animal Health Corp.’s Ethanol Performance Group. Reach him at [email protected] or (402) 575-5855.

126

Biofuels Markets Asia & Jatropha Executive Briefi ng June 29 – July 1, 2009 Millennium Hotel Jakarta, Indonesia The conference will provide a platform to learn about the latest trends as well as regional and in-ternational developments in the biofuels market. Leaders in the biofuels industry speak on ethanol, biodiesel, next generation biofuels and jatropha. Ethanol sessions will cover developments of bio ethanol, refi ning, production and distribution, and cellulosic ethanol. Discussions will target policies, refi ning and blending, downstream logistics, and the transport sector.

+44 (0)207 099 0600www.greenpowerconferences.com/biofuelsmarkets/biofuelsmarkets_asia09.html

World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology & BioprocessingJuly 19-22, 2009 Palais des congrès de MontréalMontreal This 6th Annual World Congress will focus on rel-evant topics in the fi eld of industrial biotechnology including advanced biofuels, feedstock collection, ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. Individuals with diverse experience will share knowledge that will speed the development and growth of a sector that is vital for value creation and sustainable in-dustrial development. This conference will foster the exchange of ideas and will provide “real world” scenarios, present an overview of the latest tech-nological developments, and offer unparalleled networking opportunities.

(202) 962-6630www.bio.org/worldcongress/

R-energy Argentina June 10-12, 2009Golden CenterBuenos AiresR-energy prides itself in being a global initiative to create an expo and congress network for the re-newable energy industry. The event will provide a comprehensive and specifi c business hub for re-newable energy and development, covering topics from ethanol and biodiesel to wind and solar, and provide attendees with opportunities to network with others in the renewable energy business.

+49 521 96533-90http://argentina.r-energy.info/en/index.html

International Fuel Ethanol Workshop & ExpoJune 15-18, 2009Denver Convention CenterDenverThis will mark the 25th anniversary of the world’s largest ethanol conference, with more than 3,500 attendees and 700 exhibitors representing more than 500 countries. The event will provide un-matched business development, networking op-portunities, and an industry leading educational forum. The workshop will address conventional ethanol, next-generation ethanol and biomass.

(701) 746-8385www.2009few.com

EVENTS CALENDAR

R-energy BrazilJune 17-19Anhembi ParqueSao-Paolo, BrazilR-energy Brazil will provide a compact and com-prehensive market overview of what’s going on in the renewable energy industry. Display areas for special product groups and related industries will be offered. The event will cover topics ranging from ethanol to biodiesel, and wind and solar.

+55 11 4412 9468http://brasil.r-energy.info/en/

China Biofuels & Ethanol Outlook 2009June 24-25, 2009The Westin BeijingBeijingThis event will provide in-depth knowledge of China’s stimulus plan on renewable energy, in-cluding the advantages and pitfalls of different feedstocks, and the latest technology updates. Industry experts and market representatives will give pointers on maximizing production potential in the current economy.

(+65) 6 5143180

2009 BioFuel ConferenceJune 24 -25, 2009Minneapolis This conference will host sessions on commodity risk management, leadership best practices, busi-ness analysis, technical and industry updates and discussions on mistakes of the past year and what the future may hold for ethanol. A discussion is planned on the correlation between corn, ethanol and petroleum throughout 2008 and how plants can manage the correlation to their advantage. Other topics will cover fi nancial models for plants and how leadership roles should be defi ned within a plant.

(888) 852-5937 www.christiansoncpa.com/biofuelsconference.cfm

June July

126 ETHANOL PRODUCER MAGAZINE June 2009

127

Ethanol Conference & Trade ShowAug. 11-13, 2009 MilwaukeeThe American Coalition for Ethanol’s 22nd an-nual conference will highlight public policy, technol-ogy and education related to the ethanol industry, among many other topics. The conference will include: updates from high level political offi cials, updates on technological innovations and effi cien-cies in corn and cellulose, discussions on blending economics, risk management techniques, and up-dates on biofuels role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A more detailed agenda will be available as the event approaches.

(605) 334-3381www.ethanol.org

The Alcohol SchoolSeptember 13-18, 2009MontrealThis week-long course will educate fuel-ethanol and distilled beverage producers in the science of alco-hol production. The program will cover the ethanol production process from milling and mash prepara-tion through fermentation and distillation. Enzyme usage, yeast biology, bacterial contamination and control will also be discussed, along with other is-sues currently affecting both industries. Registration is limited, with preference given to fuel-ethanol and distilled beverage producers.

(800) 583-6484 www.ethanoltech.com

Atlantic BIOenergy ConferenceSeptember 21-23, 2009Delta BeausejourMoncton, New BrunswickThe Atlantic BIOenergy Conference, hosted by BBI Biofuels Canada, focuses on growth and sustain-ability and renewable energy opportunities in At-lantic Canada. The conference features dynamic sessions and discussions on biomass-based en-ergy generation, anaerobic digestion, waste man-agement technologies, government incentives and more. The conference promises lively debates, ac-tion-oriented discussions and world class presen-tations on the latest developments, applications and technologies in the bioenergy fi elds.

(888) 501-0224 (North America) (519) 576-4500 (International)www.atlanticbioenergy.ca

2009 Farm to Fuel SummitJuly 29-31, 2009Rosen Shingle CreekOrlandoThe summit is a major gathering place for stake-holders to assemble to advance the development of Florida’s bioenergy industry. The event promotes the production, distribution and use of renewable fuels, particularly ethanol. This year’s featured in-ternational, national, and state speakers will discuss research, production, and distribution of biofuels and bioenergy.

(850) 488-0646www.fl oridafarmtofuel.com/summit_2009.htm

World Bioenergy – Clean Vehicles & FuelsSeptember 16-18, 2009Stockholmsmässan Stockholm, SwedenThis conference will focus on the practical imple-mentation of bioenergy and sustainable transport systems. A variety of commercial examples from Sweden will be highlighted. Topics to be covered include socio-economic drivers, impact of interna-tional trade in biofuels, emergence of bio-refi neries, coproduction of fuels, chemicals, power and materi-als, and the development of markets for clean ve-hicles and fuels. Attendees will include delegates, offi cials, researchers, and visitors from Europe and beyond.

+46 (0)18-67 38 03www.wbcvf2009.se

127

Aug Sept



EPM MARKETPLACE

Ag Products & ServicesGrain Origination Services

Agnetic, LLC317-696-2824 blog.agnetic.com

Hybrid Corn

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.800-247-6803 www.pioneer.com

Associations/OrganizationsEPPIC Environmental Index334-277-1364 www.eppicenv.com

Trade

API Credit Exchange202-682-8192 www.api.org/ace

ChemicalsPhibroChem 800-223-0434 www.lactrol.com

Anti-Microbial

Ferm Solutions859-402-8707 www.ferm-solutions.com

Lallemand Ethanol Technology800-583-6484 www.ethanoltech.com

PhibroChem 800-223-0434 www.lactrol.com

Resonant BioSciences, LLC.866-933-0408 www.puremash.com

Enzymes

Genencor585-256-5249 www.genencor.com

Novozymes919-494-3101 www.novozymes.com

Water Treatment

Buckman Laboratories, Inc.901-278-0330 www.buckman.com

Yeast

Ferm Solutions859-402-8707 www.ferm-solutions.com

Fermentis-Division of SI Lesaffre800-558-7279 www.fermentis.com

Lallemand Ethanol Technology800-583-6484 www.ethanoltech.com

CleaningDryer Systems

Hydro-Klean, Inc.515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

Seneca Companies800-369-5500 www.senecaco.com

Ductwork


Emergency Spill Response



Evaporators


Fans


Filter Media


Heat Exchanger



Hydro-Blasting


Plate-Frame


Railcar Spill Response


Railcars


Scrubbers


Smoke Stack


Tank Cleaning Equipment

Spraying Systems Co.630-665-5000 www.spray.com

Tank Cleaning Services


Reach your customers

Your Solution. Advertise Today.

EPM MARKETPLACE

Stabilized Liquid Yeast,Thermosacc,® Superstart™


EPM MARKETPLACE

Professional Environmental Cleaning Services402-212-0949 www.professionalECS.com


ConstructionBuildings-Modular

Fabrication

Agra Industries, Inc.715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

VAL-FAB Inc.877-482-5322 www.valfab.com

Foundations

Insulation

Miller Insulation Co, Inc.701-258-4323 www.millerinsulation.com

Petrochem Insulation707-644-7455 www.petrocheminc.com

Management

Marcus Construction Company800-367-3424 www.marcusconstruction.com

Mechanical

Mid-States Mechanical Services, Inc.800-950-0279 www.mid-statesmechanical.com

Plant Construction


Lipten800-860-0790 www.lipten.com

Reimer Welding Inc.218-773-0886 www.reimerwelding.com

Railroad Tracks

R & R Contracting, Inc.800-872-5975 www.rrcontracting.net

Railworks913-888-4091 www.railworks.com

Tanks

ATEC Steel620-856-3488 www.atecsteel.com


Caldwell Tanks502-964-3361 www.caldwelltanks.com

WINBCO Tank Company641-683-1855 www.winbco.com

Your Ad HERE


EPM MARKETPLACE



EPM MARKETPLACE

P.O. BOX 315, 208 BAKER ST. N.DEER CREEK, MN 56527PHONE 218.462.2607FAX 218.462.2508

WWW.STRONGFORM.NET

SPECIALIZING IN structural concrete foundations

rebar placement steel buildings structural steel erection

anaerobic and aerobic digestersSERVICES TO

INDUSTRIES INCLUDE alternative energy agriculture

mining cement fertilizer food and beverage

power and other industrial projectsEXCELLENT WORKMANSHIP ON

AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULESTOP SAFETY STANDARD


EPM MARKETPLACE

Central Energy Plant


ConsultingEnvironmental

Air Resource Specialists,Inc.970-484-7941 www.air-resource.com

ICM, Inc.877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Natural Resource Group, LLC.612-347-6789 www.nrg-llc.com

Pinnacle Engineering Inc.507-280-5966 www.pineng.com


Weaver Boos Consultants888-645-5240 www.weaverboos.com

Feasibility Studies

Harris Group Inc.206-494-9422 www.harrisgroup.com

Management Services

Greenway Consulting,LLC320-589-3085 www.greenwayconsulting.net

Plant Optimization

Granatus Consulting, Inc.218-773-0005 www.granatusinc.com




Project Development


EducationIowa Lakes Community College800-242-5108 www.iowalakes.edu

EmploymentRecruiting

McDermott & Bull-Energy Practice415-722-8966 www.mbsearch.net

SearchPath of Chicago815-261-4403 www.searchpath.com/chicago

The Richmond Group USA - BioEnergy Search Division804-285-2071 www.trgbioenergy.com

EngineeringBiomass Energy


Design/Build


Process Design


Process Engineering Associates, LLC865-220-8722 www.processengr.com

Vogelbusch USA, Inc.713-461-7374 www.vogelbusch.com

Equipment & ServicesAgitation Equipment

ProQuip, Inc.330-468-1850 www.proquipinc.com

Air Pollution/Odor Control

Ceco Abatement Systems, Inc.630-493-0624 www.cecoenviro.com/Abatement

Analytical Instruments

Gusmer Enterprises, Inc.847-277-9785 www.gusmerbiorefi ning.com

Perten Instruments, Inc.801-936-8165 www.perten.com

Blowers & Fans

FlaktWoods716-845-0900 www.fl aktwoods.com

Robinson Industries, Inc.724-452-6121 www.robinsonfans.com

Boiler Systems

Hurst Boiler & Welding Co., Inc.800-666-6414 www.hurstboiler.com

Boilers-Reboilers

Wabash Power Equipment CO.847-541-5600 www.wabashpower.com

Providing turnkey civil & geotechnical engineering & environmental services for industrial, commercial & residential

land development projects.

A full-service engineering firm, integrating many disciplines for each

project, saving our clients time and money.

Colorado•Florida•Illinois•Indiana Michigan•Missouri•Ohio•Texas

888-645-5240 877-645-5242 www.weaverboos.com

Integrated Solutionsfor Every Challenge

WEAVER

BOOS

CONSULTANTS

Your Ad HERE


EPM MARKETPLACE



EPM MARKETPLACE


EPM MARKETPLACE

Continuous Emissions Monitoring SystemsEasiest installation, operation and maintenance

Meet or exceeds EPA requirementsNOx, O2, CO, SO2 and others

Turnkey systems for under $100,000.00P.O. Box 9271, Columbus, Oh 43209

866-682-6771 [email protected]

Combustion Equipment

Eclipse.Inc.815-637-7213 www.eclipsenet.com

Computer Software

Encore Business Solutions204-989-4330 www.encorebusiness.com

dbc SMARTsoftware, Inc.770-427-7633 www.dbcsmartsoftware.com

Control Systems

FeedForward, Inc.770-426-4422 www.feedforward.com


Revere Control Systems800-536-2525 www.reverecontrol.com

SoftPLC Corporation512-264-8390 www.softplc.com

Control Systems-Distributed

Conveyors–Mechanical

U.S. Tsubaki847-459-9500 www.ustsubaki.com

Conveyors–Pneumatic

MAC Equipment, Inc.816-891-9300 www.macequipment.com

Cooling Towers

Delta Cooling Towers, Inc.800-BUY-DELTA www.deltacooling.com

Corn Oil Recovery


Distillation Equipment

SRS Engineering Corporation800-497-5841 www.srsbiodiesel.com

Dryers-Fluid Bed

Aeroglide Corporation919-851-2000 www.aeroglide.com

Littleford Day, Inc.859-525-7600 www.littleford.com

Dryers-Ring

Barr-Rosin,Inc630-659-3980 www.barr-rosin.com

Dryers-Rotary Drum

Barr-Rosin,Inc.630-659-3980 www.barr-rosin.com


Ronning Engineering Company, Inc.913-239-8118 www.ronningengineering.com

Dryers-Rotary Steam Tube


Dust Control Systems

MAC Equipment, Inc.816-891-9300 www.macequipment.com

Emission Monitoring Systems

MonitorTech Corp.866-682-6771 www.monitortechgrp.com

Fermentation Monitoring

ETS Laboratories707-963-4806 www.etslabs.com

Fermentors



Filtration Equipment

Fluid Engineering814-453-5014 www.fl uideng.com

Fractionation-Corn

Buhler Inc.763-847-9900 www.buhlergroup.com/us

Cereal Process Technologies217-779-2595 www.cerealprocess.com

Crown Iron Works651-639-8900 www.crowniron.com

FWS Technologies204-487-2500 www.fwsgroup.com


MOR Technology, LLC618-522-8324 www.mortechnology.com

Grain Handling & Storage


McC, Inc.763-477-4774 www.mccormickconstruction.com

Ethanol Effi ciency. Integrated business management system for purchase/sales contracting, risk management, plant production and material usage data collection, and automated receiving and loadout.

800.518.0472JohnDeereAgriServices.com

You produce fuel. We fuel your success.

© 2009 John Deere Agri Services, Inc.



EPM MARKETPLACE


EPM MARKETPLACE

Heat Exchangers

Custom Metalcraft Inc.417-862-0707 www.custom-metalcraft.com

Munters - Des Champs Products540-291-1111 www.deschamps.com

Instrumentation

Endress+Hauser317-535-2174 www.us.endress.com


WIKA Instrument Corporation888-945-2872, x5127 www.wika.com

Insulator

Industrial Construction & Engineering636-970-1650 www.ic-e.cc

Laboratory-Equipment


Laboratory-Outsourcing

SGS North America Inc. 281-479-7170 www.sgs.com/alternativefuels

Laboratory-Supplies

CHATA Biosystems877-246-2428 [email protected]

Phenomenex310-212-0555 www.phenomenex.com

Laboratory-Testing Services

Midwest Laboratories, Inc.402-829-9877 www.midwestlabs.com

Romer Labs, Inc.636-583-8600 www.romerlabs.com

Trilogy Analytical Laboratory636-239-1521 www.trilogylab.com

Loading Equipment

Carbis, Inc.800-845-2387 www.carbis.net

Hemco Industries, Inc.877-347-7106 www.hemcocpm.com

SafeRack866-761-7225 www.saferack.com

Maintenance Services

Joule’ Industrial [email protected] www.jouleinc.com

Mechanical Solutions, LLC515-332-7035 www.mecsol.com

Maintenance Software


Mapcon Technologies, Inc.800-922-4336 www.mapcon.com

Mills-Hammer

CPM/Roskamp Champion800-366-2563 www.cpmroskamp.com

Millwright


Mixers

KINEMATICA, INC.631-750-6653 www.kinematica-inc.com

Moisture Analyzers


Sartorius Mechatronies-Omnimark800-835-3211 www.sartorius-omnimark.com

Molecular Sieve Desiccant

3 Angstrom630-980-5205 www.3Angstrom.com

Molecular Sieves


Vaperma, Inc.418-839-6989 www.vaperma.com

Zeochem, LLC502-634-7600 www.zeochem.com

Motors

Trico TCWind, Incorporated320-693-6200 www.tricotcwind.com

Paint & Protective Coatings

Mongan / Bockman 260-748-7655 www.monganbockman.com

Parts & Services


Pipe

ISCO Industries800-345-4726 www.isco-pipe.com

Robert-James Sales, Inc.800-666-0088 www.rjsales.com

Pipe-Fittings


Pipe-Flanges


Pressure & Temperature

WIKA Instrument Corporation888-945-2872, x5127 www.wika.com

Pressure Vessels


Process Control


VFTechnical Services, LLC423-794-6747 www.vftechserv.com

Pumps

ITT Industries Goulds Pumps315-568-2811 www.gouldspumps.com

Valley Equipment Co. Inc.423-753-3541 www.valleyequipment.com

Watson-Marlow Bredel Pumps800-282-8823 www.watson-marlow.com

QA Test Products


Resource Recovery

Eco-Tec, Inc.905-427-0077 www.eco-tec.com

Scales-Software

John Deere Agri Services800-518-0472 www.johndeereagriservices.com

Scales-Truck

Weigh-Tec Inc.1-800-461-4153 www.truck-scales.com

Seals

Aesseal Inc.865-531-0192 www.aesseal.com

Utex Industries, Inc.432-333-4151/800-873-0946 www.utexind.com


EPM MARKETPLACE

Separation Equipment


Puritan Magnetics, Inc.248-628-3808 www.puritanmagnetics.com

Size Reduction-Shredders

DuraTech Industries / Haybuster701-252-4601 www.haybuster.com

Storage-DDGS

Laidig Systems, Inc.574-256-0204 www.laidig.com

Structural Fabrication


Tanks



Brown Tank LLC651-747-0100 www.browntank-mn.com

CMC Letco Industries417-831-1528 www.cmc-letco.com

Federal Equipment Company800-652-2466 www.fedequip.com

Paragon Trailer Sales800-471-8769 www.paragontrailer.com


Thermal Oxidizers

Pro-Environmental, Inc.909-989-3010 www.pro-env.com

Used Equipment

Valves

Check-All Valve Mfg. Co.515-224-2301 www.checkall.com

North American Safety Valve800-800-8882 www.nasvi.com

Wastewater Treatment Services

Biothane Corporation856-541-3500x501 www.biothane.com



UEM, Inc.561-385-7515 www.uemgroup.com

Water Treatment

Aquatech International Corporation724-746-5300 www.aquatech.com


[email protected]

PROVENRELIABILITYfor VOC, CO & PM

ABATEMENT

EISENMANN CorporationCrystal Lake, Illinois

EPM MARKETPLACE

With all contact information placed

in one convenient location, Ethanol

Producer Magazine not only con-

tains top editorial content but also

a useful directory in each publica-

tion. Whether a fi rst-time adver-

tiser wanting to raise awareness

of your business or a frequent dis-

play advertiser looking for added

exposure, EPM Marketplace is the

perfect solution.


EPM MARKETPLACE

Yield Enhancement

EdneiQ, Inc.310-592-4158 www.EdeniQ.com

Ethanol ProductionExisting Producers

Louis Dreyfus Commodities402-844-2680 LDCommodities.com

POET LLC605-965-2200 www.poetenergy.com

Finance

Accounting

Christianson & Associates PLLP320-235-5937 www.christiansoncpa.com

Eide Bailly LLC605-977-2703 www.eidebailly.com

Kennedy and Coe, LLC800-303-3241 www.kcoe.com

Appraisals

Natwick Associates Appraisal Services800-279-4757 www.natwick.com

Due Diligence


Mergers & Acquisitions

Kent Group, Inc.715-358-7528 www.kentgroupinc.com

Risk Management

First Capitol Risk Management800-884-8290 www.fi rstcapitolrm.com

R.J. O’Brien800-621-0757 www.rjobrien.com

Software-Accounting

Encore Business Solutions204-989-4330 www.encorebusiness.com

Software-Commodity

John Deere Agri Services800-518-0472 www.johndeereagriservices.com

Legal ServicesAttorneys

BrownWinick Law Firm515-242-2400 www.biofuellawyers.com

Faegre & Benson, LLP612-766-6930 www.faegre.com

Stoel Rives LLP612-373-8800 www.stoel.com/biofuels

MarketingDistillers Grains

CGB Feed Ingredients985-867-3554 www.cgb.com

Fuel Ethanol

Atlas Renewable Energy, LLC800-884-8290 www.atlasenergyllc.com

Gavilon402-595-5678 www.gavilon.com

Miscellaneous

Nelson Ink Promotional Products218-222-3831 www.nelsonink.com

TransportationMarine

Evolution Markets, Inc.914-323-0259 www.evomarkets.com

Railcar Moving

Shuttlewagon, Inc.816-767-0300 www.shuttlewagon.com

Railcar Parts

Salco Products, Inc.630-783-2570 www.salcoproducts.com

Terminals & DSP

ERS Rail Transload205-322-8312 www.ersrail.net

UtilitiesUtility

Integrys Energy Services608-235-2547 www.integrysenergy.com

Biomass Magazine is a trade journal serving companies that use and/or produce power, fuels and chemical feedstocks derived from biomass. Collectively, these biomass utilization industries are positioned to replace nearly every product made from fossil fuels with those derived from plant or waste material. The publication covers a wide array of issues on the leading edge of biomass utilization technologies, from biorefining, dedicated energy crops and cellulosic ethanol to decentralized power, anaerobic digestion and gasification. It’s all here.

www.BiomassMagazine.com

For additional informationplease contact us at (701) 746-8385 or at

[email protected].



EPM MARKETPLACE

Your Ad HERE


EPM MARKETPLACE

www.rjsales.com

Buffalo, NY 800-666-0088Cleveland, OH 800-777-0820Cincinnati, OH 800-777-2260Chicago, IL 800-777-2008Cranbury, NJ 800-777-1858

Indianapolis, IN 800-777-0510Minneapolis, MN 800-777-1355Raleigh, NC 866-493-8834Tavernier, FL 305-852-1694

Robert-James Sales is your #1 source for stainless PIPE, FITTINGSand FLANGES up to 36" in Sch 5,10 and 40. We also carry 2205 duplex through 24".

Free Product CDContact the Robert-James Sales location nearest you and ask for a free copy of ourcomprehensive, up-to-date CD. It outlinesour stainless product line including referencecharts, graphs and tables to help you calculate what your processing plant needs.

poet.com

June 2009 Ethanol Producer Magazine

Documents

e n g i n e e r i n

c o n s t r u c t i

t i n g s o

n d c o n s u

r c h i t e c t u r

ethanol plants

ethanol prices

distillers grains production