WGA REPORT - ASSESSMENT OF BIOALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION ... · Bioalcohol Fuel Production ... Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., ... This study report presents the results of a wide-ranging investigation

Northern California Rice field

Assessment of Conversion Technologies forBioalcohol Fuel Production

Dennis Schuetzle, Greg Tamblyn and Fredrick TornatoreTSS Consultants (www.tssconsultants.com)

2724 Kilgore Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

And

Tom MacDonaldCalifornia Energy Commission

1416 9th Street, Sacramento California 95814

Western Governor’s AssociationNational Biomass State and Regional Partnership Report

www.westgov.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................3

SECTION 1. ALCOHOL FUELS AS BIOENERGY OPTIONS ..............................6

SECTION 2. PAST CALIFORNIA BIOMASS-TO-ALCOHOL PROJECTS..........11

SECTION 3. THERMOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALCOHOL FUELPRODUCTION.....................................................................................................24

SECTION 4. BIOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALCOHOL FUELPRODUCTION.....................................................................................................29

SECTION 5. INTEGRATED THERMOCHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICALCONVERSION AND OTHER EMERGING PROCESSES ...................................34

SECTION 6. 5E APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF BIOMASSCONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES........................................................................36

SECTION 7. 5E ASSESSMENT OF THERMOCHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICALCONVERSION PROCESSES..............................................................................39

SECTION 8. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR ALCOHOL FUELPRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS ........................................................................45

SECTION 9. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND INITIATIVES ..................................53

SECTION 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................55

SECTION 11. REFERENCES.............................................................................59

APPENDIX 1. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPER PROFILES ..................................62

Nova Fuels, Fresno, CA……………………………………………………………….63

Pearson Bioenergy Technologies, Aberdeen, MS………………………………….64

Power Energy Fuels, Inc., Lakewood, CO…………………………………………..65

Range Fuels, Inc., Denver, CO……………………………………………………….67

Thermo Conversions,Denver, CO……………………………………………………68

Bioversion Industries, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada……………………………...69

Enerkem Technologies, Inc, Montreal, Quebec, Canada………………………….70

Standard Alcohol Company of America, Inc., Durango, CO……………………….71

SVG GmbH, Spreetal, Germany……………………………………………………...72

Syntec Biofuels, Inc., Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada………………………...73

Thermogenics, Inc., Albuquerque, NM……………………………………………….74

ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc., Baltimore, MD………………………..75

Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., Irvine, CA…………………………………………………….77

Bioenergy International, LLC, Norwell, MA…………………………………………..79

Brelsford Engineering, Inc., Bozeman, MT…………………………………………..80

Celunol Corp., Dedham, MA…………………………………………………………..81

Dedini Industrias de Base, Piracicaiba, SP, Brazil………………………………….82

HFTA/ University of California Forest Products Lab, Livermore, CA....................84

Losunoco, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL………………………………………………….85

Masada Resource Group, LLC, Birmingham, AL…………………………………...87

Paszner Technologies, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada………………………..89

Petrobras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil……………………………………………………..90

Pure Energy Corp., Paramus, NJ.........................................................................92

Xethanol Corp., New York, NY.............................................................................93

Abengoa S.A., Sevilla, Spain………………………………………………………….95

Archer Daniels Midland Corp, Decatur, IL…………………………………………...96

SEKAB Group, Ormskoldsvik, Sweden………………………………………………98

Iogen Corp., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada……………………………………………….99

PureVision Technology, Inc., Fort Lupton, CO…………………………………….101

RITE/Honda R&D Co., Kyoto, Japan……………………………………………….102

Colusa Biomass Energy Corp., Colusa, CA.......................................................104

DuPont and Co./POET, Wilmington, DE/Sioux Falls, SD………………………...105

BioGasol ApS, Lyngby, Denmark……………………………………………………107

Swan Biomass Company, Glen Ellen, IL…………………………………………...108

Mascoma Corp., Cambridge, MA…………………………………………………...109

Genotypes, Inc., Pacifica, CA.............................................................................111

Waste-To-Energy, Paso Robles, CA..................................................................113

Bioengineering Resources, Inc., Fayetteville, AR...............................................115

APPENDIX 2. CALIFORNIA ETHANOL PRODUCTION PROJECTS...............117

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1–Categories of Biomass Conversion Technologies and TheirDirect and Secondary Products 9

Table 2–Categories of Technologies for the Conversion of Biogas(Biosyngas and Biomethane) to Liquid Fuels 10

Table 3–Syngas Quality and Conditioning Requirements for CatalyticConversion to Methanol 26

Table 4–Syngas Quality Requirements for Engines 28

Table 5–Comparison of Thermochemical and Biochemical Systems 40

Table 6–Estimates of Annually Available Biomass in California 48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1–Potential Biofuel and Bioenergy Pathways 6

Figure 2–Thermochemical Conversion Processes Compared toConventional Combustion Processes 24

Figure 3–System Components of Biochemical Conversion Processes 30

Figure 4–Biomass Resource Potential from Forest and AgriculturalResources 46

Figure A1–Nova Fuels Process Flow Illustration 64

Figure A2–Pearson Technologies Process Flow Diagram 65

Figure A3–PEFI Fuel Process Diagram 66

Figure A4–Enerkem Process Diagram 71

Figure A5–Syntec Biofuels Inc. Technology 74

Figure A6–Thermogenics Inc. Technology 75

Figure A7–TRI PulseEnhanced Technology 76

Figure A8–BlueFire/Arkenol Technology 79

Figure A9–BEI Process 81

Figure A10–Dedini Hidrolise Rapida (DHR) Process 83

Figure A11–Losonoco Wood-to-Ethanol by Dilute Acid Hydrolysis 87

Figure A12–MRG CES OxyNol Process 89

Figure A13–Petrobras Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology 91

Figure A14–PEC Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology 93

Figure A15–Abengoa Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology 96

Figure A16–Iogen Biomass-to-Ethanol Process 101

Figure A17–PureVision Process 102

Figure A18–RITE/Honda Process 104

Figure A19–DuPont Process 107

Figure A20–Biogasol Technology 108

Figure A21–Genotypes Technology 112

Figure A22–Waste-To-Energy Technology Diagram

Figure A23–BRI Technology Diagram

114

116

1

INTRODUCTION

The State of California has maintained for decades an active interest in the productionand application of alcohol fuels for transportation energy. This has included effortstoward development of technologies for producing ethanol and other alcohol fuels frombiomass. Past studies and projects conducted by the California Energy Commission(CEC), academic institutions and other California organizations have sought toadvance the timetable for commercial projects in the state to produce alcohol fuels,along with electricity and other products, from cellulosic biomass resources.

The Western Governor’s Association (WGA), through its Western RegionalBiomassEnergy Program, is also promoting the increased use of bioenergy and biobasedproducts through the conversion of biomass residuals from forest health projects andcommercial agriculture. In 2006, WGA engaged the CEC to study and report on thestatus and outlook for technologies under active development for conversion ofcellulosic biomass feedstocks to ethanol or other alcohol fuels. This report containsthe results of that study, which was conducted by TSS Consultants and CEC staff.

The purpose of this study is to further the understanding of the progress to date anddevelopment status of biomass-to-alcohol (bioalcohol) production technologies, and tohelp guide continued development activities in California, the Western region andelsewhere. Specific objectives outlined for the study are to:

(1) Review and evaluate candidate technologies for producing ethanol and otheralcohols from cellulosic biomass feedstocks, describing development progressto date and future prospects for these technologies.

(2) Review and summarize relevant past bioalcohol production technology projectsstudied or proposed in California.

(3) Identify opportunities for new projects involving applications of candidatebioalcohol production technologies using California’s cellulosic biomassresources.

(4) Identify remaining regulatory, economic and institutional obstacles to bioalcoholproject development and describe state and federal government roles inaddressing these challenges.

This study report presents the results of a wide-ranging investigation of bioalcoholproduction technologies under development worldwide. A survey conducted as part ofthe study is summarized in the form of individual profiles of 38 active technologydevelopers in the U.S., Canada and several other countries. A number of thesedevelopers have operated pilot-scale and demonstration facilities, however, none haveproduced ethanol on a commercial scale.

The study’s key analysis involves application of a unique methodology, called “5E” assessment, to evaluate key features of the various categories of bioalcohol

2

technologies under development. This approach was used to generally evaluate someof the principal technologies under development, using information compiled fromdevelopers and from publicly available reports and publications. The profiles of activedevelopers of cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol technologies are presented in Appendix I.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides a perspective on the potential viability of various technologicalapproaches for the production of alcohol fuels (bioalcohols) from renewable biomass(cellulosic) resources in California and the Western United States. Included is ahistorical review of several biomass-to-alcohol fuel projects that have been pursued inCalifornia. One reason such projects have yet to achieve commercial reality -- inCalifornia and elsewhere -- is that the principal conversion technologies underlyingthese ventures have not been adequately assessed for their scientific and engineeringbasis, energy efficiency, environmental impacts, economic viability, and socio-politicaleffectiveness. Progress toward commercialization and deployment of suchtechnologies requires more complete assessment of all these technology aspects,applying appropriate evaluation methodology to sufficient technical data.

To address the above need,a “5E” assessment approach (Schuetzle, 2007) wasdeveloped and applied to evaluate the potential viability of technologies under activedevelopment for the production of bioalcohol fuels from cellulosic biomass. Thecomponents of this 5E assessment methodology are: E1–validation of technicalperformance and stage of development; E2–estimation of energy efficiency; E3–environmental impact assessment; E4–economic analysis; and E5–appraisal ofsocio-political effectiveness.

Hundreds of organizations worldwide have engaged in the development oftechnologies for the conversion of biomass materials to bioenergy, including electricityand process heat as well as various biofuels. The report separates these bioenergytechnologies into fifteen different categories based on the technology characteristicsand type(s) of bioenergy produced. Those technologies designed to produce ethanolor other alcohols, either as primary or secondary products, were selected as the focusfor further study. Organizations that have concentrated their efforts on the productionof bioalcohols were specifically identified and information on these organizations andtheir technologies was gathered directly from them and/or from other various sourcesof published information.

Results of the 5E assessment are provided generically for the technology categorieswhere available data was found to be adequate to perform such an assessment. Inmany cases, technology developers have either not yet acquired some of this requireddata or keep this data confidential; thus the study does not comprise a complete orequally applied assessment of all candidate technologies. The report’s recommendations include further study needs in those cases where sufficient data forcomplete 5E assessment are not available.

On the basis of this assessment approach, technologies are identified that appear tohave the most promising potential applicability for the conversion of biomassresources to bioalcohols in California and the Western region. Of these, it isconcluded that the thermochemical conversion technology with the highest probabilityfor near-term success is an integrated pyrolysis/steam reforming process incorporating

4

syngas to bioalcohol and electricity co-production systems. It is expected that thebioalcohols directly produced from these thermochemical processes will be comprisedof an 80-85 % ethanol/10-15% methanol mix, with smaller percentages of other higheralcohols possibly present as well. Distillation can be employed to separate ethanolfrom such a mixed alcohol product if necessary. However, this adds to the costs,energy intensity and environmental impacts of the production facilities, and therefore isbest avoided. Thus, steps to gain acceptance of mixed alcohol fuels by theautomotive industry and regulatory agencies must also be pursued to fully realize theopportunity these technologies represent for bioalcohol fuel production.

The 5E assessment indicates that the above thermochemical process will be capableof producing bioalcohols in facilities using as little as 250 dry tons (DT) per day ofbiomass at a production cost of less than $1.50/gallon. Furthermore, this processshould be able to produce ethanol at an average of $1.12/gallon for a 500 DTPD plant.Improvements in this thermochemical technology have the potential of reducingethanol production costs to below $1.00/gallon by 2012, where biomass feedstock canbe supplied at $35/ DT.

Other thermochemical conversion processes that incorporate air or oxygen typicallyproduce syngas that has a low BTU value (<300 BTU/cubic ft.) and highconcentrations of tars, particulate and other contaminants. Although these types oftechnologies have been used for over seventy years for the large scale production offuels, electricity and chemical feedstocks from renewable and fossil biomass, it is notbelieved that these technologies are viable for bioalcohol fuel production in smaller-scale plants (200-1,000 DT/day).

Biochemical conversion processes that utilize enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose,followed by fermentation of the simple sugars, are currently estimated to have thepotential for producing ethanol at approximately $2.24/gallon for a 2,200 BDT/dayplant. Simpler biochemical conversion processes have been studied for nearly 100years that utilize acid hydrolysis for the conversion of cellulose to sugars, followed bythe fermentation of the sugars to bioethanol. Projected improvements in biochemicalconversion processes have the potential of reducing ethanol production costs below$1.50/gallon for 2,000 BDT/day or larger plants by 2012.

These thermochemical and biochemical technologies are expected to serve differentneeds and applications. Examples of prospective California applications include theconversion of forest biomass, agriculture waste, urban green waste and wastewaterplant solids to bioalcohols, electricity and heat. Many different varieties of purpose-grown cellulosic energy crops could be used in the longer term.

Biochemical technologies appear most applicable where large volumes of a biomassfeedstock of consistent quality are available. Examples include corn- and sugarcane-growing regions where residues from these crops are abundant and conventionalethanol production facilities already exist or are planned. Since thermochemicalprocesses require much less biomass for economic viability, they are adaptable for the

5

distributed production of bioalcohols and electricity. In addition, the thermochemicalapproach can be used for the conversion of nearly any biomass feedstocks.

Several novel technologies have also been under development for the conversion ofbiomass to bioalcohols. These include processes that employ specially-developedorganisms (e.g., bacteria or yeasts) to produce alcohols, some using shallow pondsystems capturing solar energy, some using syngas from a gasification process.These are examples of potential future technologies that require further research andscientific validation before their ultimate potential can be determined.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced (February 2007) aninvestment of up to $385 million for the demonstration and deployment of sixbiorefinery projects incorporating both biochemical and thermochemical conversiontechnologies in California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa and Kansas. The totalinvestment in these six technologies is projected to total more than $1.2 billion overthe next four years. The DOE grant program will provide a significant boost to theadvancement of such conversion technologies. The technology developersrepresented by these six DOE grants (Abengoa, BRI, BlueFire, DuPont, Iogen, andRange Fuels) are among the 38 active technology developers profiled in Appendix I ofthis report.

Additional opportunities are summarized for the commercialization of technologies inCalifornia and the Western United States for alcohol fuel production from biomassfeedstocks. The impact of high energy prices, geopolitical uncertainty, the growingfocus on clean energy technologies and concern about global climate change aredriving substantial increases in funding from the public and private sectors. There hasnever before been such a wide-ranging opportunity for technological advancements inthe area of renewable and clean fuels and electricity.

Although U.S. government and private sector support has been increasing rapidly,much greater financial support for research, development, demonstration anddeployment of renewable biomass to alcohol fuel and electricity productiontechnologies will almost certainly be necessary to assure their commercial success.And, while the majority of active development projects identified by this study are inNorth America, growing interest in Asia, Europe and South America is also apparent.This suggests the likelihood of increasing worldwide competition for the lead inbioenergy technology development.

6

SECTION 1 - ALCOHOL FUELS AS BIOENERGY OPTIONS

Figure 1 is a simplified illustration of the technology options available for energyproduction from biomass (bioenergy pathways). Biofuels represent some of the mostattractive of these pathways, since they represent effective means of supplying liquidtransportation fuels from renewable resources. Some of the same biomass feedstocksapplicable to biofuel conversion processes can also be used for electricity (biopower)generation, as well as for production of food products, animal feed and various otherbeneficial products or byproducts. Of the biofuel options, alcohol fuels offer the mostproven and practicable alternative for the gasoline market, which accounts for three-fourths of on-road fuel usage, and over one-half of all transportation energy use in theU.S.

Figure 1 - Potential Biofuel and Bioenergy Pathways

Bio-Alcohols

BiomassResource

Transportation,Preparation and

HandlingTechnology

PlatformFuels/

Products

Forest &Agricultural

Residues

MunicipalSolid Waste

DirectCombustion

Biochemical

ThermochemicalBio-Diesel

ChemicalsDrugs

Materials

Electricity &Heat

Energy Crops

This study examines the pathways for the two principal technological approaches (or“technology platforms”) under development for producing ethanol and otherbioalcohols, including mixed alcohols, from cellulosic biomass feedstocks. Cellulose isthe primary material that makes up the cell walls of plants, and is the raw material formany manufactured goods, such as paper, cellophane, and fabrics like rayon. Usingeither biochemical or thermochemical processes, cellulosic materials–derived eitherfrom various types of agricultural, forestry or municipal wastes and residues, or frommany different types of cultivated energy crops–can undergo conversion to ethanoland other bioalcohols. However, unlike conventional processes producing ethanol

7

from corn, sugarcane and other sugar and starch crops and residues, none of theprocesses for producing alcohol fuels from cellulosic feedstocks are yet commerciallyapplied. This study was undertaken to identify, review and evaluate the technologiescurrently under development for production of bioalcohols from cellulosic feedstocks.

Categorization of Biomass Conversion Technologies

An estimated 450 organizations worldwide have developed technologies for theconversion of biomass to biopower and/or biofuels. These technologies, summarizedin Tables 1 and 2, utilize either thermochemical or biochemical processes, orintegrations of both. Table 1 includes six categories of thermochemical processes (I-VI), four categories of biochemical processes (VII-X), and two categories of integratedprocesses (XI-XII). Table 2 includes three additional processes (XIII-XV) that applybiogas, such as landfill gas, wastewater treatment plant digester gas, or animalmanure-derived gas, for bioenergy production.

Table 1 lists six categories of thermochemical processes for the conversion ofrenewable biomass to biofuels and/or biopower. Of these, Categories I-III includes thetechnologies most relevant for this study–namely, those designed for bioalcoholproduction. These processes produce a synthetic gas (syngas) via gasification orpyrolysis, which can then be used to produce alcohols in a catalytic process.

Category IV technologies produce a crude, unrefined biofuel. The refining of thiscrude biofuel to produce an alcohol would require costly refining processes, thuseliminating this approach for the production of bioalcohols. The Category V and VItechnologies produce biopower and/or heat and not fuels, and therefore are notexamined further in this report, other than included for purposes of comparison withbioalcohol production technologies in a later section of the report.

The thermochemical conversion processes that incorporate air or oxygen (Category II-VI technologies) typically produce syngas that has a low BTU value (<300 BTU/cubicft.) and potentially high concentrations of tars, particulate and other contaminants.Although these types of technologies have been used for over seventy years for thelarge-scale production (> $1 billion plants) of electricity, fuels and chemicals fromfossil-based feedstocks, these technologies appear less viable for alcohol fuelproduction, and for smaller-scale production plants (200-1,000 BTD/day). Thus,Category I technologies, employing pyrolysis/steam reforming processes (no oxygenor air); appear to be the most promising thermochemical approach for producingalcohol fuels from biomass.

Table 1 lists four categories of biochemical processes for producing fuels frombiomass. These processes employ anaerobic digestion to produce methane(Category VII), chemical and physical methods to produce sugars from cellulosicmaterials (Category VIII), enzymes to produce sugars from cellulosic materials(Category IX), or a variety of microbiological processes to produce methane, alcohols

8

and hydrogen from biomass (Category X). Of these, the main technologies relevant forthis study are acid hydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis (Categories VIII and IX), whichproduce alcohols by breaking down cellulose into component sugars that are thenfermented.

The principal thermochemical and biochemical processes for bioalcohol production aredescribed in more detail in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. An estimated fifty or moreorganizations worldwide have concentrated their efforts on the production ofbioalcohols employing such processes. Information about these organizations andtheir technology development activities and progress, as well as the characteristicsand available data on their technologies was collected as a major part of this project.This effort included a standardized survey/data request sent to all identified developersof biomass-to-alcohol production technologies. Only publicly-releasable informationabout individual developers and their technologies was collected, excluding anyconfidential or proprietary data. Responses to this direct information request weresupplemented with information obtained from other public sources, including publishedpapers, websites and media reports. The resulting information is summarized inAppendix I (Technology Developer Profiles).

9

Table 1–Categories of Biomass Conversion Technologies andTheir Direct and Secondary Products

Category Conversion Technologies PrimaryProducts

SecondaryProducts(Energy)

SecondaryProducts(Fuels)

THERMOCHEMICALPROCESSES

I Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming(no oxygen or air)

Biosyngas Electricity& Heat

Bioethanol, MixedBioalcohols, Biodiesel(See Table 2)

II Gasification(with oxygen or air)



III High Temperature (>3500oF)Gasification (with oxygen or air)



IV Thermal Pyrolysis(no oxygen or air)

UnrefinedBiofuels

None Refined Biodiesel

V Thermal Oxidation (combustionat/or near stochiometry)

Heat Electricity None

VI Integrated ThermochemicalConversion/Oxidation

Heat Electricity None

BIOCHEMICALPROCESSES

VII Anaerobic Digestion Biomethane None Bioethanol, MixedBioalcohols, Biodiesel(See Table 2)

VIII Biochemical (acid hydrolysis/fermentation)

Sugars None Bioethanol

IX Biochemical (enzyme hydrolysis/fermentation)

Sugars None Bioethanol

X Other Biological Processes Biomethane,Biohydrogen,Bioalcohols

None None

INTEGRATEDPROCESSES

XI Integrated Bio-Refinery (VII-X)with generation of electricity andheat from waste materials

Bioalcohols ElectricityandHeat

Bioethanol

XII Fermentation of Syngas fromThermochemical Processes

Bioethanol None None

10

Table 2–Categories of Technologies for the Conversion of Biogas(Biosyngas and Biomethane) to Liquid Fuels

Category Conversion Technologies BiogasReactant

Products(Fuels)

Products(Energy)

XIII Thermochemical Processes(Catalysis) Biosyngas Bioalcohols &

BiodieselElectricity& Heat

XIV Thermochemical Processes(Reforming and Catalysis) Biomethane Bioalcohols &

DieselElectricity& Heat

XV Biochemical Processes Biosyngas,Biomethane Bioalcohols

11

SECTION 2 - PAST CALIFORNIA BIOMASS-TO-ALCOHOLPROJECTS

Sacramento Ethanol and Power Cogeneration Project

In May 1994, the CEC, after a 20-month public regulatory process, grantedcertification for construction of the Sacramento Ethanol and Power CogenerationProject (SEPCO). This project was proposed to be a joint venture between theSacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and a company formed for the projectknown as Sacramento Ethanol Partners (SEP). The project involved a 150 MWnatural gas fired electricity cogeneration facility, to be operated by SMUD, and a 12million gallons/year rice-straw-to-ethanol plant to be operated by SEP. The site of theproposed project was a 90-acre tract in Rio Linda, California, a northern suburb ofSacramento. The SMUD/SEP partnership dissolved before the project was built, andthe CEC certification ultimately expired. The ethanol plant proponents, havingretained rights to the project site, petitioned the CEC in 1999 for an extension of thefive-year period allowed to begin construction of a licensed project, but ultimatelywithdrew this request. The CEC formally closed its site evaluation case involving theSEPCO project in April 2000.

The ethanol plant component of SEPCO was designed to convert 408 tons per day ofrice straw and other cellulosic agricultural residue into approximately 35,000 gallonsper day of fuel grade ethanol. The conversion technology to be used for ethanolproduction was the Arkenol concentrated acid hydrolysis technology (now Blue FireEthanol); the parent company of Arkenol, ARK Energy, was the principal member ofSEP. At the time, this project was seen not only as the first commercial cellulosicbiomass-to-ethanol plant, but also as a key part of the solution to the rice strawdisposal problem facing California’s rice growing industry in the face of regulationsbanning most field burning of such agricultural residues.

SEPCO was essentially two separate yet linked projects with different owners unitedby a contractual arrangement, sharing a site and various operational synergies,including process heat and power supplied to the ethanol plant by the cogenerationplant, shared water supply and waste disposal provisions, etc. Normally, the CECwould only have licensing jurisdiction over the power plant and a new natural gaspipeline associated with the project (which was also approved), while SacramentoCounty would be the permitting agency for the ethanol facility. However, the CEC andSacramento County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which providedthat the CEC would be the lead agency on the county's behalf for environmentalreview of the ethanol plant, thus essentially treating SEPCO as a single project forenvironmental and site review purposes. The CEC environmental studies anddocuments for the overall project served as the functional equivalent of anEnvironmental Impact Report for Sacramento County’s approval of the ethanol plant.

12

The SEPCO Project, while not constructed, serves as a landmark case study of a fullyreviewed and permitted cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol and electric generation project inCalifornia. Although 12 years have passed, there are still numerous similarities tosome of today’s biorefinery project concepts. The voluminous project documentationdeveloped by the project proponents, consultants and vendors, the CEC and othersincludes information and analysis on a variety of subjects potentially still relevant anduseful to the pursuit of bioalcohol and other types of bioenergy projects in Californiaand elsewhere.

Among the aspects of the SEPCO Project that offer valuable experience andapplicable lessons going forward are:

Environmental Analysis and Mitigation Measures–Detailed environmentalanalysis was conducted on a full range of issues, including air quality, watersupply and water quality, hydrology, and biological resources. Issuance of anair quality permit for the entire project was based on emission offsets to beobtained via the discontinuation of rice straw burning resulting from use of ricestraw as the ethanol plant feedstock. Flood plain concerns resulted inmodifications to the facility site plan. Original plans to use groundwater wellswere changed to use of surface water; water supply arrangements includedmitigation measures at the Sacramento River water intake to protect salmon.Various other mitigation measures were adopted involving several differentendangered species found on the site.

Public Acceptance and Health and Safety Issues–The suburban site locationengendered considerable public interest and some local opposition to theproject. A review of a number of alternative sites was conducted. Land use,traffic, noise, fire protection, visual impacts, and hazardous material transportand storage issues were all addressed. An initial incompatible usedetermination was resolved with a county zoning amendment. Several changesin on-site use of chemical materials were instituted. An intervener petition for athirty-year epidemiological study of project impacts on workers and nearbyresidents was rejected.

Project Integration Issues–The unique features of the project, combining ricestraw to ethanol production and electricity cogeneration, posed a number ofconsiderations not previously encountered in CEC or other California regulatoryproceedings. Reliability of the unproven cellulosic ethanol production processstood to affect both the cogeneration performance and emission offset viabilityof the power plant. Various issues associated with the feedstock supply planbased on the yet-to-be-demonstrated use of rice straw were addressed.

In the end, the range of site and environmental issues raised during the SEPCOProject regulatory proceeding were successfully resolved and the project wasapproved for construction, despite its unconventional technology features and locationin a developing suburban community. Whether the project did not go forward becauseof complexities of the joint venture approach and multiple parties involved, or because

13

the technological approach was too advanced for the time, or due to other reasonsremains debatable. But as an early test case of the California regulatory process forpermitting a biorefinery-type facility combining new bioalcohol production technologyand electricity generation, the project serves as an instructive example and at least apartial success story.

Reference documents on the SEPCO Project (housed in the CEC Library) are listedbelow:

SEPCO Project Application for Certification, August 1992

SEPCO Project Application for Certification (Appendices), August 1992

SEPCO Project Data Adequacy Responses, October 1992

SMUD Cogeneration Pipeline Project Application for Certification, May 1993

Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision on the SEPCO Project, March 1994

Revised Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision on the SEPCO Project, April 1994

Commission Decision on the SEPCO Project, May 1994

Commission Decision on the SMUD Cogeneration Pipeline Project, May 1994

Commission Decision on Modifications to the License for the SEPCO Project,December 1996

Gridley Ethanol Project

The Gridley Ethanol Project (GEP) was initiated as a potential solution to the rice strawdisposal problem in the Sacramento Valley region of California. Gridley is located inButte County in the heart of California’s rice growing area, and its economy is uniquelydependent on rice production and markets.

The rice straw disposal problem became acute with legislative mandates tosignificantly reduce the amount of rice straw burning after the fall rice harvest. TheRice Straw Burning Reduction Act of 1991 (AB 1378) mandated a reduction in ricestraw burning by the year 2000 to no more than 25% of the planted acreage. TheCalifornia rice straw burning phase down has proceeded as required by the statute,with growers burning less than the statutory limitations. Other open-field burning lawsand regulations further limit the actual rice straw acreage burned annually. The totalrice acreage burned annually has declined from 303,000 acres in 1992, the first yearof the phase down, to slightly less than 72,000 acres in 2002.

Despite the ongoing reduction of rice straw burning, no alternative market or disposaloption sufficient to handle the quantities of rice straw being produced has yet

14

emerged, and large volumes of this material continue to accumulate. Without a viablemarket alternative to dispose of the rice straw, the phaseout of rice straw burningcould render useless thousands of acres of rice lands, since in these hard clay-pansoils, no other crops have been successful. Production of ethanol from rice strawcontinues to be seen as a potential solution.

The GEP conceptually began in 1994 and was formalized in February 1996, when aNational Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) contract was awarded for this project.The GEP team originally consisted of the following partners:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Stone and Webster Engineering–subcontractor to NREL

SWAN Biomass Company–providing conversion technology, process design

TSS Consultants–providing feedstock supply analysis, site evaluation,environmental assessment and permitting

California Institute of Food & Agricultural Research–consultation on enzymes,membranes, and thermal conversion of rice straw

Northern California Power Agency–power market assessment

Sacramento Municipal Utility District–consultation of power generatingtechnology

Hass-Cal Industries–consultation on separation of silica and lignin

City of Gridley– project “sponsor”

The GEP objectives were to validate the economic production of ethanol from ricestraw, acquire additional cost–share funding for the development and ultimateconstruction of a rice straw-to-ethanol facility, and acquire financial commitments fromthe private sector to design, construct, and operate a commercial ethanol productionfacility in the Gridley area. Gridley operates a municipal utility, with responsibility fordelivering electrical power to the community; thus integration with electric powergeneration has been of interest to the GEP.

The original concept of the GEP facility involved application of an enzymatic hydrolysisprocess, under development by Swan Biomass, to produce ethanol. Lignin remainingfrom the hydrolysis process was to be utilized as combustion fuel for firing the facility’s boiler for the production of steam and electricity to be used on site, with excess steampotentially used by adjacent facilities. Excess electricity would be supplied to themunicipal utility and/or sold to the grid.

During 1996 and early 1997, work on Phase I of the GEP was conducted. Thepurpose of Phase I was to perform an initial screening of the technical and economicfeasibility of a commercial rice straw-to-ethanol facility in the Gridley area. Phase IIwas to acquire financial and site commitments, perform pilot plant studies of the Swan

15

conversion technology at NREL, prepare a preliminary engineering package, evaluatethe economics and risks, and finally to prepare an implementation plan tocommercialize the process. Phase II was to lead to a “go/no go” decision regarding the construction of the GEP.

In early 1997, the original conversion technology developer (Swan) withdrew from theproject and moved on to other projects. However, since Phase I tasks had beencompleted and a rice straw-to-ethanol facility appeared feasible, NREL authorized theGEP to identify a potential owner/operator of the GEP facility. In mid-1997, the City ofGridley selected BC International (BCI) of Dedham, Massachusetts to provide theconversion technology and be the owner/operator of the GEP facility. The BCItechnology was principally acid hydrolysis and fermentation, with lignin as a co-product. BCI was also developing a test facility in Jennings, LA where testing ofGridley rice straw for conversion to ethanol would be conducted. In 1998, rice strawwas shipped from California to the BCI Jennings facility for testing.

During the progress of Phases I and II, it was determined that project economics withthe then-current state of conversion technology would be enhanced by making theGEP a cogeneration facility. The GEP was tentatively to be sited next to an existingbiomass power plant in Oroville (still within the Gridley region), which uses orchardprunings and forest wastes as feedstock. It was believed that this co-location wouldreduce the costs and improve the efficiency of both the power plant and the proposedethanol facility. Orchard prunings and forest wastes could also potentially be suppliedas a backup and supplemental feedstock to the ethanol plant, thereby reducing therisks in supplying a seasonal feedstock (rice straw) for year-round operations. Thebiomass power plant's use of lignin from the ethanol facility as a supplemental fuelcould also potentially reduce the air emissions of the power plant. In 1999 and 2000,project work continued for GEP, particularly on the environmental impact assessment,permitting, and rice straw collection and processing (as feedstock for ethanolproduction facility). Construction of the GEP was projected to commence in early2002 with operations to begin in late 2003.

The collection and processing of rice straw became a paramount consideration,particularly for the economics and operations of the proposed GEP. Infrastructure toharvest rice straw for use in the GEP was virtually nonexistent. Processing of the ricestraw for use as feedstock (i.e., grinding) presented technical challenges due to thehigh silica content of rice straw. Rice straw supply studies indicated that the rice strawwould cost over $30.00/bone dry ton (BDT) to be delivered to the facility. This did notinclude the grinding and processing of the rice straw at the facility. To produce the 23million gallons of ethanol would require 300,000 dry tons of rice straw (some of whichcould be provided by orchard and forest wood wastes).

During the same time, environmental permitting and impact assessment indicatedsome potentially higher costs for the GEP than originally anticipated. Wastewater fromthe GEP would have to be discharged to the local municipal wastewater treatmentplant. Connecting to the plant and discharging wastewater would cost several million

16

dollars. Plus, in order to discharge to the wastewater plant, the GEP would also haveto conduct wastewater pretreatment. This added another several million dollars.Additional air emission control equipment would be needed for the project that was notpreviously anticipated. This, combined with the technical uncertainties connected withthe BCI two stage dilute sulfuric acid conversion technology, led the GEP to reach acritical milestone in November 2001: the BCI acid hydrolysis technology was notjudged to be financially viable for use by the GEP. Thus, a decision was made toinvestigate the use of a gasification technology to create syngas that could beconverted to ethanol or other fuels. This evaluation, done in June 2002, indicated thatswitching from the dilute sulfuric acid process to a gasification process could have thefollowing advantages:

Increased yields of ethanol, with associated reductions in feedstock and otheroperating costs per gallon of ethanol produced

Lower capital investment cost

Fewer air emissions and wastewater effluents

Reduced feedstock requirements, which better fit the initial needs of ButteCounty for disposing of a critical mass of rice straw

Another decision was made at this time regarding the GEP site location. Theproposed GEP facility would be sited in the City of Gridley as a result of a new Gridleyindustrial site becoming available, shorter transportation hauling distances from therice fields, significantly reduced wastewater disposal costs and available infrastructureto better support the proposed facility.

The gasification technology tentatively selected at the time was the PearsonTechnology. Continued funding support from NREL was used, and augmented, tofund pilot testing at the Pearson facility in Aberdeen, MS. The testing was reported byTSS Consultants in a report prepared for NREL (TSS, 2005). Although the projectionsmade in June 2002 appear to be overstated somewhat, continuing analysis by theGEP project team favored the use of a gasification system. The GEP was able to getfunding augmentation directly from the U.S. Department of Energy to continue topursue the gasification pathway to ethanol production. The GEP project teaminvestigated several gasification technology companies and developers and, inDecember 2006, issued a Request for Proposals to construct and operate athermochemical conversion system using rice straw to produce electricity in Gridley.Selection of a submitted technology is to occur in summer 2007. This RFP is toinitially apply a gasification system using rice straw to produce electricity (and wasteheat). The GEP team intends to implement the syngas-to-ethanol production as asubsequent step.

In light of the need to have a proven system to convert syngas to ethanol, the GEPteam submitted a proposal to the CEC Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)Program in Early 2007. This project, which was awarded a CEC grant in April 2007,

17

will use matching funds from the U.S. Department of Energy to demonstrate anintegrated biofuels and energy production system for potential application to the GEP.

This project will support the construction, demonstration and validation of a cost-effective and energy efficient biomass conversion system as follows:

Demonstrate that a 200 ton/day commercial scale thermochemical conversionsystem will be able to produce clean syngas suitable for catalytic conversion toethanol.

Validate commercial viability of a three-way catalyst (patents pending) forconversion of syngas to ethanol.

Build and validate a demonstration scale syngas to ethanol production system.

Integrate the demonstration scale syngas to ethanol production system with thecommercial thermochemical conversion system to create an Integrated Biofuelsand Energy Production System.

Carry out validation studies on the integrated system.

Develop a commercialization plan based upon the validated system.

Some key aspects of the GEP to date that offer valuable experience and applicablelessons going forward are:

Technology developer claims need verification

Third-party review of technology claims are critical, as technology claimsand testing indevelopers’ own labs are subject to scrutiny. Technologydevelopers may not have adequate equipment and expertise to scientificallyverify their technology. Such verification is crucial in attracting projectfinancing, as well as permitting and other project approvals.

Public agency funding mechanisms do not always synchronize well withtechnology development

Although public funding resources have been available, technologydevelopment projects involving emerging technologies being examined forpotential deployment may still suffer from lack of adequate funding. Timingof available funding resources may also not be consistent with the evolvingnature of emerging technologies. Public funding agencies need to beflexible in the use of their project funding to be able to address necessarychanges in technologies as they develop.

Emerging technology projects utilizing biomass resources are extremelycomplex

18

Not only are the production technologies themselves typically complex,there are numerous other critical components to utilizing biomass resources–resource economics (which includes harvesting, collection, transporting,and processing), optimal siting to decrease transportation costs (and thusimproving project economics and community acceptance), difficulties inpermitting due to lack of knowledge of potential air, water, and wasteemissions from emerging technologies, and market uncertainty for bothprincipal products (i.e., fuels) and potential byproducts. All of these aspectsneed serious review and are resource intensive.

Reference documents on the GEP (housed in the CEC Library) are listed below:

Report: Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing Biomass GasificationTechnology: Pilot Plant Gasifier and Syngas Conversion Testing, February2005, NREL/SR-510-37581.

Report: Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing GasificationTechnology Feedstock Supply Plan: July 2004, NREL/SR 510-36403

Presentation: City of Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project TechnicalAssessment–Conversion of Rice Straw to Ethanol; presented to U.S.Department of Energy, Washington D.C. May 17, 2005 by TSS Consultants,unpublished

Presentation: Preliminary Environmental Assessment & CEQA/NEPA ReviewProcess; presented to U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. May 17,2005 by TSS Consultants

Status Report: Proposed Gridley Ethanol Project Status Report, June 2002;prepared by TSS Consultants

Status Report: Proposed Gridley Ethanol Project Status Report, June 2001;prepared by TSS Consultants

Status Report: Subcontract No. ZCO-0-30019-01 Gridley Ethanol ProjectDevelopment, prepared by BC International, March 2001

Status Report: Chronology of Events for the Gridley Project, February 1996 toOctober 2000; prepared by TSS (undated)

Status Report: Phase II of the Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-to-EthanolGridley, California, Progress Report by Task, Prepared by TSS Consultants,July 1999

19

Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California PhaseII, Task 5.1.1 - Early Discernment of Environmental Impact Issues; prepared byTSS Consultants under Stone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, UnderNREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, January 1999

Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California PhaseII, Task 2.0 –Feedstock Supply Plan; prepared by TSS Consultants underStone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, Under NREL Subcontract No.ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093,January 1999

Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, CaliforniaPhase I, Task 4 –Project Interest Report; prepared by Stone & WebsterEngineering Corporation, NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOEPrime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1997

Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, CaliforniaPhase I, Task 6 –Preliminary Engineering and Economic Report; prepared byStone & Webster Engineering Corporation, NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1997

Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California PhaseI Task 7 Risk Assessment/Project Definition; prepared by Stone & WebsterEngineering Corporation, NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOEPrime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1997

Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, CaliforniaPhase II Work Plan; prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation,NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1997

Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California PhaseI, Task 2 –Power Market Assessment; prepared by Northern California PowerAgency under Stone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, Under NRELSubcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, October 1996

Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, CaliforniaPhase I, Task 3 –Preliminary Site Identification Report; prepared by TSSConsultants under Stone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, Under NRELSubcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, October 1996

Memorandum: Gridley –Summary of Initial Results for Sub Task 1.1, EthanolMarket Assessment; prepared by SWAN Biomass Company, October 1996

20

Report: Proposed Gridley Ethanol Facility Phase I Feasibility Study Draft, Task6.6 Environmental Evaluation, prepared by TSS Consultants, LetterSubcontract No. PS-026443 to NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, UnderDOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, August 1996

Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California PhaseI Summary; prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, NRELSubcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1996

Presentation: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-to-Ethanol Production in GridleyCalifornia; prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, March 1996

Technical Proposal: Feasibility Study for City of Gridley Agrifuels andChemicals, Gridley, California; prepared by Stone & Webster EngineeringCorporation for NREL, July 1995

Collins Pine Cogeneration Project

The Collins Pine Cogeneration Project was an offshoot of the Northeastern CaliforniaEthanol Manufacturing Feasibility Study (1997) prepared for the Quincy Library Group(QLG). The QLG was formed in the early 1990’s as an attempt to bring together competing forces in regards to forest management in the Plumas, Lassen, and TahoeNational Forests of California. The proposed forest resource management activitiesby the QLG were federally legislated by the Quincy Library Group Forest Recoveryand Economic Stability Act of 1997. This federal legislation was intended to reducethe risk of catastrophic wildfire in the northern Sierra Nevada forests.

In response to growing concerns regarding how biomass resources are managed andhow catastrophic fire could be reduce or avoided, the QLG put forth a plan to reducefire danger by removing biomass from the forest to fuel an ethanol cogenerationfacility. The QLG, together with U.S. Department of Energy, NREL, and other projectpartners, initiated a study to determine the economic, environmental, and regulatoryfeasibility of a facility designed to process forestry wastes into ethanol. Four proposedsites were evaluated for such a project, located in or near the Sierra Nevada Californiacommunities of Westwood, Chester, Greenville, and Loyalton. The Quincy Project’s seven major tasks are listed below:

Feedstock supply and delivery systems

Site selection

Design and cost estimates

Financial evaluation and sensitivity analysis

21

Environmental issues

Market issues

Socioeconomic impacts

The conclusion of the work done by the stakeholders indicated that there wasadequate feedstock to support a biomass to ethanol project. The selection of Chester,California and the existing Collins PineCompanies’ saw mill site spurred the funding offurther feasibility assessments from 1998 to 2001. These efforts were funded by theCEC and the U.S. Department of Energy.

During 1998 to 2001, the CEC co-funded the economic and technical feasibility studyof integrating a biomass to ethanol facility with the existing Collins Pine plant inChester. This sawmill includes an existing boiler system using fuel from sawmilloperations to produce process heat and electricity. The proposed CEC-funded projectwas to prepare a feasibility study similar to the GEP to determine the economic andtechnical feasibility of producing 20 million gallons per year of ethanol using forestremediation (thinning the forest to reduce wildfire danger) and wood wastes asfeedstock.

Specific technical and economic goals of the Collins Pines ethanol project set forth bythe CEC were:

Determine whether the ethanol facility can produce up to 20 million gallons peryear of ethanol from softwood feedstock using the BCI acid hydrolysistechnology.

Determine whether lignin from the ethanol facility can partially displace theexisting fuel of Collins Pine biomass power plant by 30 percent to 60 percent.

Reduce the cost of electricity production at the Collins Pine biomass powerplant by at least 1.5 cents/kWh.

Identify at least one co-product, other than lignin or ethanol, which can beproduced by the ethanol facility and has a value of at least $2/pound.

A Phase I work plan, similar to the GEP was conducted to ascertain the preliminaryfeasibility of producing ethanol and power at the Collins Pines, Chester facility. BCInternational of Dedham, Massachusetts, the same technology supplier as the GEP(described above) was to conduct testing of wood waste at its Jennings, LA testfacility. However, the project was terminated before this was completed. The CECissued a stop work order in September 2001 upon determination by CEC projectmanagement that progress and performance by some of the key participants was notfulfilling project objectives.

22

Among the aspects of the Collins Pine project that offer valuable experience andapplicable lessons going forward are:

Forest residue supplies in California could supply a cellulosic ethanol project (orprojects), if sufficient forest thinning operations were conducted on both privateand federal forestlands. However, such facilities require long term supplycontracts, 10 years or more, to effectively attract financing. This is a particularlydifficult thing to do for federal forestlands. There are initiatives afoot in the U.S.Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior to allow thefederal government to enter into such long-term contracts, but these initiativesare not yet fully realized.

Technology developer claims need verification (as described above for theGridley Ethanol Project)

Economic stability and/or fortitude of technology developers need to beconfirmed. Many of the emerging technology companies in recent years havebeen relatively small business concerns, with limited funding resources.Emerging technologies, often fraught with potential changes and subsequentunforeseen costs, can severely stress business finances causing project delaysand failures. Although this may be changing as funding of emergingtechnologies for cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol fuels is experiencing a bigupswing, it is nonetheless prudent for project developers, particularly in public-funded projects, to scrutinize their technologyprovider’seconomic stability.

Reference documents on the Collins Pine Project (housed in the CEC Library) arelisted below:

CEC Project Description

CEC Project Fact Sheet

Report: CEC/Collins Pine Subcontract, Interim Report, Executive Summary;prepared by BC International, July 2001

Report: Collins Pine Electricity Market Assessment, prepared by TSSConsultants, April 2001

Presentation: Collins Pine Ethanol Project Lignin Residue Characterization,prepared by National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 29, 2000

Report: Power/Ethanol Cogeneration Basis of Design Report; Contract #500-98-043 of the CEC Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program, preparedby BC International, April 2000

Presentation: Collins Pines Cogeneration Project; prepared by TSSConsultants, February 9, 2000,

23

Presentation: Collins Pine Cogeneration Project; prepared by CaliforniaInstitute of Food and Agricultural Research, presented at CEC Project ReviewMeeting November 29, 1999

Memorandum: Collins Pines Project; prepared by BC International, September9, 1999

Report: Collins Pine Ethanol Project, Early Discernment of EnvironmentalImpact Issues, Phase I, Task 2.5.1.1; Contract #500-98-043 of the CaliforniaEnergy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program,prepared by TSS Consultants, August 2000

Report: Northeastern California Ethanol Manufacturing Feasibility Study;prepared by The Quincy Library Group, California Energy Commission,California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, Plumas Corporation, TSSConsultants, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 1997

Report: Quincy Library Group Northeastern California Ethanol ManufacturingFeasibility Study, Feedstock Supply and Delivery Systems, Final Report;prepared by TSS Consultants, June 1997

24

SECTION 3 - THERMOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FORALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION

Figure 2 illustrates the major system components used for the thermochemicalproduction of fuels, electricity and heat from biomass. Conventional combustion(oxidation) processes for the production of electricity from biomass are also illustratedfor comparative purposes. The processes of syngas production, syngas cleanup andconditioning, alcohol purification and heat and power production are described in thefollowing sections.

Figure 2–Thermochemical Conversion Processes Compared toConventional Combustion Processes

GrindingMixing

Screening

Bioalcohols

BiomassProcessing

BiomassConversion

SteamTurbine

Syngas

Combustion

Thermo-Chemical

EnergyConversion

Steam

Engine/Generator

Heating,Cooling

EnergyProduction

Electricity

Heating,Cooling

Electricity To Grid

To Grid

FuelProduction

Syngas

Buildings,Processes

EnergyUse

Refining,Blending &Distribution

Fuel Use

Transport

Buildings,Processes

1. Evaluation (Technical)2. Energy3. Environment4. Economics5. Socio-Political

Effectiveness

5EAssessment

25

Syngas Production

The thermochemical conversion of biomass to synthesis gas (syngas) encompassesprocesses that are carried out in closed systems under reducing (oxygen depleted) oroxidizing (partial oxygen) conditions at high temperatures (typically 1500-2000oF). Theprimary chemical processes that occur include pyrolysis, oxidation, steam reformingand gasification.

Carbon-containing compounds in the biomass feedstock are converted to synthesisgas (syngas), which is composed primarily of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO),methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Syngas may be utilized as a substitute fornatural gas in cogeneration engines, gas turbines or boilers to produce power and/orheat. In addition, syngas can be an excellent feedstock for fuel production via catalyticsynthesis.

In air-blown systems, significant amounts of nitrogen (N2) will also be present due tothe air supplied for partial oxidation. Syngas can also contain minor constituentsincluding higher hydrocarbons and tar compounds, and other trace constituents. Asdiscussed in the following section, syngas cleanup and conditioning is important formaking a useful fuel product.

The types of syngas production systems include air-blown gasification, oxygengasification, thermal pyrolysis (no oxygen) and steam reforming. Systems that aresupplied with air or oxygen are autothermal with heat from the partial oxidation of thebiomass. Thermal pyrolysis and steam reforming of biomass are endothermic andtypically require a secondary fuel to supply heat to the reaction chamber. This is oftensupplied with clean syngas recycled back to externally heat the reactor.

When syngas production takes place in a carefully controlled, closed system, thereshould be no direct emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants. Externally heatedsystems may have some emissions from the secondary burners, but these can beminimized with low-emission nozzles and controls typical for boiler systems. Inaddition, oxygen gasification systems typically require an oxygen generation plant thatconsumes energy, with associated emissions. These systems produce a raw syngasthat may require cleanup and conditioning to insure the proper function of downstreamprocessing of the syngas.

Chevron Texaco, Conoco Phillips (Global Energy) and Shell (Lurgi) have developedeconomically viable biomass-to-syngas production systems for the production ofelectricity in the 100-1,000 MW output range (NREL, 2002). However, thesetechnologies have not proven to be economical for small scale power generationapplications (1-25 MW).

During the past several years approximately 110 organizations have focused theirefforts on the development of small (1-25 MW), economical systems for generation ofelectricity from waste materials. However, very few of these companies have

26

successfully demonstrated their technologies by building and systematically testing fullscale operating systems.

Syngas Cleanup and Conditioning

Without sufficient cleanup and conditioning, syngas produced from biomass may notbe useful for alcohol synthesis. Synthesis catalysts work optimally with a certain ratioof H2 to CO, and the effectiveness is reduced when a large concentration of inertcompounds (like N2) are introduced to the catalyst system. Catalysts used forsynthesis can also be extremely sensitive to gaseous contaminants like sulfur,chlorine, metal poisons and particulate contaminants such as tars. These compoundsoccupy active sites of the catalyst, reducing catalyst activity and catalyst life. Syngascleanup and conditioning strategies must address the major and minor constituents inthe syngas to meet the requirements of the catalyst being utilized.

The requirements for syngas purity have not been well established for ethanol andmixed alcohol catalysts. However, years of industrial experience with methanolproduction catalysts has established some basic guidelines for syngas quality tomaintain a catalyst life of several years (Table 3) (Spath and Daton, 2003). Note thevery low levels required for constituents that reduce catalyst life that will typicallyrequire specialized syngas cleanup. Particulate matter and tars also have to becontrolled to very low levels.

Table 3–Syngas Quality and Conditioning Requirements forCatalytic Conversion to Methanol

Stoichiometric Ratio(H2–CO2) / (CO + CO2) ~2

CO2 4-8%

Sulfur < 0.1 ppmvHalides < 0.005 ppmv

Fe and Ni < 0.001 ppmv

Syngas cleanup can include various scrubbers, precipitators and adsorbents toremove undesired compounds. Many of these approaches have been usedcommercially in natural gas systems, coal gasification systems and other industrial gasapplications. While gas cleanup and conditioning present complexities and costchallenges for system developers, many existing technologies can be applied tobiomass-derived syngas.

27

Alcohol Synthesis

The direct synthesis of methanol is an established commercial technology, and thecatalysts for this process can be purchased from many suppliers. Copper/Zinc basedcatalysts are typically used for this synthesis and achieve high productivity. The per-pass CO conversion is low (7-20%) because of equilibrium limitations and the need tomaintain mild conditions to prevent copper sintering, but selectivity is high (99.5%).Because of the low cost ($20-30 l-1) and long useful life (3 to 5 years) of thesecatalysts, the production of methanol from synthesis gas is a very cost-effectiveprocess and is the starting point for many other useful chemicals like formaldehyde,acetic acid, MTBE, plastic compounds, etc. Spath and Daton (2003) present athorough overview of methanol catalysts and systems related to methanol production.

The methanol catalysts have been used as a starting point for the manufacture ofethanol and higher alcohols. Several processes for higher alcohol synthesis havefocused on modifying the hydrogenation catalysts to produce larger amounts of higheralcohols including ethanol.

Most of the recent efforts on the conversion of syngas to ethanol have focused onmodifications of catalysts originally developed by Dow Chemical Company (U.S. Pat.No. 4,675,344; 4,749,724; 4,752,622; 4,752,623; and 4,762,858). They developed asupported catalyst based on molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) to produce mixed alcohols,primarily C1-C4 (methanol—butanol), in a packed column or fluidized bed. The bestper-pass CO conversion is approximately 20%, with up to 85% selectivity to mixedalcohols. The alcohol mix is typically comprised of 40% ethanol, 55% methanol andabout 5% C3-C5 alcohols.

Alcohol Purification

The resulting raw alcohol produced via catalytic synthesis requires purification to meetmarket standards for alcohol products. Both methanol and ethanol have qualitystandards for fuel grade and chemical grade products. Raw methanol can containwater, higher alcohols, hydrocarbons and other byproducts. Raw mixed alcoholscontain a mixture of multiple linear alcohols and water (and possibly other traceproducts). In order to separate these constituents into fuel grade components, acombination of absorption and multi-step distillation can be used. The technology topurify alcohols is technically feasibly with various components that have beenemployed by methanol and ethanol production facilities around the world.

Some have proposed that alcohol mixtures be accepted as fuel additives withoutfurther purification, but there are currently no accepted standards for these mixtures.Italy successfully used a mixed alcohol product (MAS-Metanolo piu Alcoli Superiori) ingasoline during the 1980’s produced by the Snamprogetti plant (Spath and Daton, 2003). Ultimately, this type of approach would save some of the cost of purificationsteps in alcohol synthesis plants, but would require acceptance by vehiclemanufacturers and air quality regulatory agencies.

28

Heat and Power Production

Clean synthesis gas can be used directly for heat and power production in a boiler,turbine, or engine, or recycled to supply heat to the syngas generator. In addition,purge gas from the catalytic synthesis process can be used for energy or heatproduction in the system. An advantage of the thermochemical approach to productionof alcohols is the ease with which any excess gas produced can be used for otherenergy applications.

The gas cleanup requirements for heat and power production equipment are usuallyless stringent than with catalytic synthesis. The level of gas cleanup required isgenerally in the following order: boilers << reciprocating engines << turbines. Tars andparticulates are a concern for all systems because of the potential for fouling andclogging as shown in Table 4 (Williams, 2005; Hasler and Nussbaumer, 1999).

Table 4–Syngas Quality Requirements forEngines

Component Unit Reciprocating Gas TurbinePM mg/Nm3 <50 <30

Particle size μm <10 <5Tar mg/Nm3 <100 -

Alkali metals mg/Nm3 - < 0.24

Other contaminants like sulfur compounds can impact the performance andmaintenance of these systems and associated emission controls. Generally, if the gashas been cleaned sufficiently for synthesis, it should be able to operate withoutproblems in these other energy production systems.

29

SECTION 4 - BIOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FORALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION

The efficiency of biochemical conversion processes is highly dependent upon thechemical composition and physical structure of the biomass feedstock. Biomass istypically comprised of:

Lignin–a complex polymer that is resistant to microbial attack

Hemicellulose–a sugar polymer that is easy to hydrolyze

Cellulose–a sugar polymer that is fairly resistant to chemical/microbial attack

Starch–a sugar polymer that is readily degraded by chemical or microbialattack

Inorganics–primarily comprised of oxides and salts of Na, K, Fe and Si

Figure 3 illustrates the major systems used for the biochemical production of fuelsfrom cellulosic biomass. These processes include

Feedstock pretreatment (acid or steam explosion)

Separation (lignin and celluloses from sugars)

Cellulose hydrolysis (production of sugars using acid or enzymes)

Separation (lignin and other unreacted solids from sugars)

Separation (sugars from acids or enzymes)

Fermentation (ethanol production from sugars) and neutralization (acidhydrolysis)

Alcohol purification (distillation and drying)

The effectiveness of processes for the biochemical conversion of biomass to ethanol isdependent upon:

Type of feedstock

Type of pretreatment

Types of separation processes

Simultaneous fermentation and saccharification (SSF) vs. sequential processes

Continuous vs. batch processes

30

Figure 3–System Components of Biochemical Conversion Processes

3. CelluloseHydrolysis

production of sugarsusing acid or enzymes

5. Separationsugars from acid or

enzymes

1. FeedstockPretreatmentacid or steam

explosion

Neutralizationgypsum 6. Fermentation

ethanol productionfrom sugars

EnzymeRecoveryAcid Recovery

AcidHydrolysis

EnzymaticHydrolysis

Cellulosic Material

2. Separationlignin & cellulose from

sugarsSugars

4. Separationlignin and other

unreacted solids fromsugars

Lignin

7. AlcoholPurificationdistillation &

drying

31

Feedstock Pretreatment

There are a number of possible pretreatment processes that can be applied tocellulosic biomass (such as rice straw) to prepare the fiber for enzymaticsaccharification prior to fermentation and ethanol recovery:

Mechanical (grinding, milling, shearing, extruding)

Acid treatment (dilute or concentrated H2SO4)

Alkali treatment (sodium hydroxide, ammonia, alkaline peroxide)

Autohydrolysis (steam pressure, steam explosion, liquid hot water)

Acid Pre-Treatment–The acid hydrolysis of cellulose for the production of ethanolwas first incorporated in a commercial plant in South Carolina in 1910. The ethanolyield was approximately 20 gallons/ton (Fieser and Fieser, 1950). Since that time theacid hydrolysis process has been greatly improved.

Steam Explosion–This process uses high pressure steam (typically 200-450 psig)for 1-10 minutes to break down biomass fibers. The resulting product is thenexplosively discharged at atmospheric pressure to another vessel. Although thisprocess is nearly 75 years old, it has had a number of limitations until recently. Arelatively new development involves a continuous steam explosion process thatsupports a higher processing temperature and reduces the residence time. Thisprocess greatly reduces the need for chemicals (e.g. acids) typically associated withthis process.

Separation of Lignin and Cellulose from Sugars

Filtering–Different types of filtering media have been used to separate lignin andcellulose from the free sugars. The free sugars are added to the fermentation tank(Figure 3–Process 6).

Cellulose Hydrolysis

Cellulose must first be converted to sugars by acid hydrolysis or enzymatic hydrolysisbefore these sugars can be converted to ethanol by fermentation processes.

Acid Hydrolysis–Two common methods under development for converting celluloseto sugar are dilute acid hydrolysis and concentrated acid hydrolysis, both of whichtypically use sulfuric acid (although other acids have also been tried). Dilute acidhydrolysis usually occurs in two stages to take advantage of the differences betweenhemicellulose and cellulose. The first stage is performed at low temperature tomaximize the yield from the hemicellulose, and the second, higher temperature stageis optimized for hydrolysis of the cellulose portion of the feedstock. Concentrated acid

32

hydrolysis typically uses a dilute acid pretreatment to separate the hemicellulose andcellulose. Water is added to dilute the acid and then heated to release the sugars,producing a gel that can be separated from residual solids.

Both the dilute and concentrated acid processes have several drawbacks. Dilute acidhydrolysis of cellulose tends to yield a large amount of byproducts. Concentrated acidhydrolysis forms fewer byproducts, but for economic reasons the acid must berecycled. The separation and recovery of the sulfuric acid adds more complexity tothe process. In addition, sulfuric acid is highly corrosive and difficult to handle. Theconcentrated and dilute sulfuric acid processes are performed at high temperatures(100o and 220o C) which can degrade the sugars, reducing the carbon source andultimately lowering the ethanol yield. Thus, the concentrated acid process is estimatedto have somewhat less potential for cost reductions from process improvements. TheNational Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that the cumulative impactof improvements in acid recovery and sugar yield for the concentrated acid processcould provide savings of 14 cents per gallon, whereas process improvements for thedilute acid technology could save around 19 cents per gallon.

A more recent approach uses countercurrent hydrolysis. Countercurrent hydrolysis isa two stage process. In the first stage, cellulosic feedstock is introduced to ahorizontal co-current reactor with a conveyor. Steam is added to raise thetemperature to 180o C (no acid is added at this point). After a residence time of about8 minutes, during which some 60 percent of the hemicellulose is hydrolyzed, the feedexits the reactor. It then enters the second stage through a vertical reactor operated at225o C. Very dilute sulfuric acid is added to the feed at this stage, where virtually all ofthe remaining hemicellulose and, depending on the residence time, anywhere from 60percent to all of the cellulose is hydrolyzed. The countercurrent hydrolysis processappears to offer more potential for cost reduction than the dilute sulfuric acid process.NREL estimates this process may allow an increase in glucose yields to 84 percent,an increase in fermentation temperature to 55o C, and an increase in fermentationyield of ethanol to 95 percent, with potential cumulative production cost savings ofabout 33 cents per gallon.

Enzymatic Hydrolysis–The enzyme cellulase simply replaces the sulfuric acid in thehydrolysis step to break the chains of the remaining sugars (cellulose) to releaseglucose. Cellulase enzymes must either be grown on-site or purchased fromcommercial enzyme companies for cellulose hydrolysis.

The cellulase enzyme can be used at lower temperatures, 30 to 50o C, which reducesthe degradation of the sugars. In addition, process improvements now allowsimultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF). In the SSF process, cellulaseand fermenting yeast are combined, so that as sugars are produced, the fermentativeorganisms convert them to ethanol in the same step. In the long term, enzymetechnology is expected to have the most potential for cost reduction. NREL estimatesthat future cost reductions could be four times greater for the enzyme process than forthe concentrated acid process and three times greater than for the dilute acid process.

33

Achieving such cost reductions would require substantial reductions in the current costof producing cellulase enzymes and increased yield in the conversion of non-glucosesugars to ethanol.

A number of companies worldwide are developing improved enzyme systems for theproduction of cellulosic ethanol. Besides applications to cellulosic ethanol production,some of this development progress benefits conventional sugar- and starch-basedethanol production as well. A major focus is on the conversion of corn stover andother biomass feedstocks to not only alcohol fuels but in broader industrialapplications, possibly even the use of corn stover as an alternative feedstock forproducts currently derived from petrochemicals.

Fermentation of Sugars

Ethanol is produced from the fermentation of the five major free sugars by enzymesproduced from specific varieties of yeast. These sugars are the five-carbon xyloseand arabinose and the six-carbon glucose, galactose, and mannose (M. McCoy,“Biomass Ethanol Inches Forward,” Chemical and Engineering News, December 7,1998). Traditional fermentation processes rely on yeasts that convert six-carbonsugars to ethanol. However, other enzymes need to be added to convert the five-carbon sugars to ethanol.

It is estimated that as much as 40 percent of the sugars contained in typical forms ofcellulosic biomass are of a type that normal yeast won’t metabolize. Therefore, the biochemical cellulosic ethanol processes starts out at a 40 percent efficiencydisadvantage to corn- or sugarcane-based ethanol processes, which produce sugarsthat are 100 percent convertible with normal yeast.

Once the hydrolysis of the cellulose is achieved, the resulting sugars must befermented to produce ethanol. In addition to glucose, hydrolysis produces other six-carbon sugars from cellulose and five-carbon sugars from hemicellulose that are notreadily fermented to ethanol by naturally occurring organisms. They can be convertedto ethanol by genetically engineered yeasts that are currently available, but the ethanolyields are not sufficient to make the process economically attractive. It also remains tobe seen whether the yeasts can be made hardy enough for production of ethanol on acommercial scale.

The resultant sugars are combined with the sugars from the first step and neutralized.The sugars are fermented then purified to produce alcohol. A byproduct of theneutralization is gypsum.

34

SECTION 5 - INTEGRATED THERMOCHEMICAL ANDBIOCHEMICAL CONVERSION AND OTHER EMERGINGPROCESSES

This section describes technologies that integrate thermochemical and biochemicalconversion processes, and other potential technological approaches to bioalcoholproduction in early stages of development.

Large-scale biochemical conversion plants appear to be most viable when significantquantities (>2,000 BDT/day) of biomass are available at feedstock costs below$35/BDT. A particularly promising application is to co-locate these plants with large,traditional corn-to-ethanol or sugarcane-to-ethanol production plants. Thermochemicalprocesses can also be integrated with biochemical processes to supply electricity, heat(steam), cooling and the production of additional ethanol from waste materials(Category XI technologies). These integrated approaches are expected to increaseplant energy efficiency, reduce emissions and increase economic benefits.

Since many new projects continue to be developed to produce ethanol from corn andsugarcane, some of the earliest and best prospects for cellulosic ethanol productionwill undoubtedly occur via incorporation into these conventional facilities. Indeed,some of the approaches currently being pursued by cellulosic process developersinvolve initial project plans at existing or new corn-to-ethanol plants. The proliferationof conventional technology ethanol projects beyond the traditional corn-growing regionof the U.S. and sugarcane-growing region of Brazil points to expanding opportunitiesfor producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass feedstocks jointly with sugar/starch-based production. In California there are numerous ethanol production projects invarious stage of completion and planning -- see partial list in Appendix 2. Some ofthese California projects apply conventional corn-to-ethanol process technology, whileothers intend to use sugarcane as the primary feedstock. Several proposed Californiaprojects also intend to apply some type of cellulosic ethanol production technology.

One unique technological approach under development begins with a thermochemicalprocess for producing syngas; the syngas is then introduced into an aqueous solutioncontaining nutrients and specially-tailored microorganisms. One such process is saidto be capable of producing ethanol and acetate from the CO and/or H2 and CO2 in thesyngas in 2 minutes or less, with a reported yield of 70-85 gallons of ethanol per dryton of carbohydrates. In order for this approach to prove feasible and advantageous,some additional technical issues need to be addressed and further scientific validationcarried out. Specifically, the carbon-containing constituents of the syngas (CO andCH4) have limited solubility in aqueous media and therefore any biological conversionof these components will be rate-limited by their equilibrium diffusion kinetics from thegas phase to the liquid phase. More complete experimental evidence is required toconfirm and quantify the actual production of ethanol from the carbon-containingcomponents of the syngas via microorganisms in aqueous media.

35

Another novel approach to bioalcohol production involves the direct formation ofethanol or other alcohols by photosynthetic organisms using solar energy in shallowponds. Similar approaches are being studied for potential production of a variety ofdifferent biofuel and biochemical products, such as production of biodiesel fuel fromvarious strains of algae. One proposed bioalcohol production concept would employ aspecial bioengineered photosynthetic bacterium strain to produce ethanol in one-meter-deep ponds, requiring only solar energy, water, atmospheric carbon dioxide andtrace minerals. The potential advantages of such processes, if they prove to be viable-- besides the obvious benefit of requiring no external source of energy other than thesun -- could include scalability, potential low cost, and higher productivity per acre ofland required than current bioenergy processes. However, these types of processesremain in the laboratory development stage, with insufficient data available to evaluatetheir effectiveness.

36

SECTION 6 - 5E APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFBIOMASS CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES

The “5E” assessment approach used to assess the principal candidate technologiesincludes the following components: technology evaluation (E1); energy efficiency (E2);environmental impacts (E3); economic viability (E4); and socio-political and humanresource effectiveness (E5). Each of these components is described further below.This 5E assessment is designed to assist in:

Determining the commercial viability of promising technologies for theconversion of various biomass feedstocks to renewable fuels, other forms ofbioenergy, and renewable chemical products

Comparing the range of available and prospective technology options forobtaining transportation fuels, electricity and other forms of bioenergy andbioproducts from biomass resources

Estimating the likelihood, extent and timetable for new bioenergy technologiesto enter the marketplace, gain acceptance by stakeholders and the generalpublic, and contribute to energy supplies

Processes, products and co-products included in this assessment include theconversion of cellulosic feedstocks to bioalcohols, biopower and bioheat. Thegrowing, collecting, and transportation of feedstock, and its associated impacts, arebeyond the scope of this study.

Technology Evaluation (E1)

E1 evaluates the progress of the Research, Development, Demonstration, andDeployment (R3D) stages for each technology type. The validation of each stage isnecessary to ensure the long-term success of the commercially deployed productionfacility. The R3D validation stages are:

Research–Laboratory studies have been successfully carried out usingbench-scale experiments to validate key chemical and physical concepts,principles and processes. Computer models have been used to analyze andvalidate the technology. The research has been documented in patents and/orpublications in peer-reviewed journals.

Development–All unit and chemical/physical processes have been validatedon a 0.5-10 ton/day pilot plant. Processes for the preparation and introductionof the biomass have been perfected. Accurate mass and energy balancemeasurements for each unit process have been made. The unit processes

37

have been run for a sufficient time period to ensure that mass and energyconversion efficiencies have not degraded with time.

Demonstration–The objective of the demonstration plant is to fully establishand develop specifications as necessary for the construction of a commercialfull-scale plant. This demonstration plant should be able to process more than20-25 tons/day of biomass on an annual basis. Its design includes theincorporation of on-line chemical and physical sensors and control systems torun the plant continuously for several days as a totally integrated system. Thehardware for recycle loops is included so that recycling process can be fullyevaluated. The demonstration plant is used to help determine the potentialrobustness of each unit process and component for the full-scale productionplant.

Deployment–This final stage includes the engineering and design of acommercial scale plant within the expected capital costs. The operating andmaintenance costs are within due diligence estimates, as determined after theplant has been running for 329 days/year, 24 hrs/day for at least 1 calendaryear (preferably two calendar years). The energy and/or fuel production yieldsare within anticipated design specifications.

Energy Efficiency (E2)

E2 compares the energy efficiencies for the production of bioalcohol fuels, and anymerchantable co-products such as electricity. Energy efficiency of the fuel productionprocess is also one of the key determinants of the relative greenhouse gascontribution of the full fuel cycle. The criteria for the production of alcohol fuels are asfollows:

Excellent: >45% thermal energy efficiency

Good: 40-45% thermal energy efficiency

Fair: 30-35% thermal energy efficiency

Poor: 25-30% thermal energy efficiency

Not Acceptable: <25% thermal energy efficiency

Environmental Impacts (E3)

E3 is based upon the potential impact of each system with respect to air, water andsolid waste emissions and the consumption of natural resources in the productionprocess. An acceptable technology is one that results in environmental benefits on a

38

total life cycle assessment (LCA) or systems analysis compared to current productiontechnologies. A summary of environmental assessment ratings is as follows:

ExcellentMinimal or no environmental impact is anticipated.

GoodThere will be a modest increase in emissions, which will be within the limits ofthe current EPA and other required environmental permits.

FairThere will be a moderate increase in emissions. However, this increase willbe acceptable to applicable regulatory agencies (such as EPA or state/local airquality districts) after approval of the required environmental permits.

Not AcceptableThere will be a significant increase in emissions at levels that are notacceptable to the EPA and local community. Securing required environmentalpermits will be difficult to impossible.

Economic Viability (E4)

E4 determines the cost of fuel production ($/gallon or $/MMBTU), electricity production($/kWh or $/MMBTU) and amortized costs ($/Yr) for the candidate technologies. Thisfuel and energy production cost can be compared to the current, average wholesalerate of fuel and electricity production from conventional processes. Subsidies are notconsidered in these economic assessments. These cost estimates can also be usedto predict the Return on Investment (ROI) for a production plant. Such ROI estimatescan be compared with past, current and projected market data for ethanol producedfrom current production processes. The criteria for ROI ratings are summarized asfollows:

Excellent: >30%

Good: 18% to 30%

Fair: 10% to 18%

Not Acceptable: <10%

Socio-Political Effectiveness (E5)

E5 evaluates selected socio-political factors such as compliance with governmentregulations, societal benefits, environmental stewardship, and stakeholder needs and

39

concerns. This evaluation determines if the deployment of the technology will beacceptable to all interested parties such as government regulatory groups, NGO’s, environmental groups, local and regional communities and other relevantorganizations.

SECTION 7 - 5E ASSESSMENT OF THERMOCHEMICAL ANDBIOCHEMICAL CONVERSION PROCESSES

This section summarizes some general results and conclusions from the 5Eassessments of thermochemical and biochemical processes for the conversion ofrenewable biomass to alcohol fuels, with electricity as a secondary product.

Although this “5E”assessment process is described in qualitative and quantitativeterms, it is beyond the scope of this paper to apply this process for comparativelyranking individual biomass conversion technology developers. Instead, thisapproach was used to generally evaluate and compare some of the principalbioalcohol production technologies under development using information compiledfrom developers and from publicly available reports and publications.

The completeness of available data varies among the technology categories,depending on the extent of actual development progress and the willingness ofdevelopers to disclose information. Thus, a fairly complete assessment is possiblefor some technologies, whereas more definitive data would be necessary toadequately assess other technologies. For example, enough information wasgathered from several developers of a promising thermochemical technology (e.g.pyrolysis/steam reforming) that it was possible to design a prototype plant anddevelop “5E” data for a future 500 ton/day plant sited in Northern California.Incontrast, detailed data for biochemical technology involving acid hydrolysis wasfound to be less accessible, despite the long history of development of thisapproach.

With further refinement and application, and as more complete technology databecomes available, the 5E approach can be routinely used as a tool bygovernment, private and academic organizations to evaluate the potential viabilityof all under-development and emerging thermochemical and biochemicalconversion processes. This type of assessment methodology also has the value ofidentifying potential problems with candidate technologies, and it will help point theway to solving those problems.

Table 5 is a summary comparison of three different bioenergy technologyapplications, applying some of the key parameters of the 5E assessment. Thethree technologies compared are: (A) a thermochemical (pyrolysis/steamreforming) facility producing mixed alcohol fuel and electricity; (B) a biochemical(enzymatic hydrolysis) facility producing ethanol fuel and electricity and (C) for

40

comparative purposes, a thermochemical facility producing electricity only. The 5Efactors applied in this quantitative comparison include: product yields (an E1factor); net energy efficiency (an E2 factor); emissions of criteria pollutants andcarbon dioxide (E3 factors); and capital, operating and production costs (E4factors). Socio-political (E5) factors are less amenable to quantification and thusare not included in this table.

Table 5–Comparison of Thermochemical and Biochemical Systems

N/A: Not applicable; E1, E2 and E4 values are given with +15% uncertainty and E3 values are givenwith +20% uncertainty

A) ThermochemicalConversion

Mixed Alcohols &Electricity

B) BiochemicalConversion

Ethanol & Electricity

C) ThermochemicalConversion

Electricity Only

500Plant SizeDT/day 500 2,205

Products (E1)

Ethanol Fuel (gallons/DT) 80 59 N/A

Electricity(kWh/DT) 550 205 1400

Total Net EnergyEfficiency (E2) 50% 33% 28%

Plant Emissions (E3)

(lb/MMBTU output)

NOX 8.58E-03 2.71E-01 1.80E-02

SOX 6.17E-04 5.95E-01 1.56E-03

PM 1.20E-02 7.30E-02 3.17E-02

CO 1.11E-01 2.71E-01 3.13E-01

VOC 2.96E-03 2.30E-02 7.47E-03

CO2 303 481 694

Economics (E4)

Capital Cost, $M 66 205 60

Operating Cost, $M/yr 14.9 107.0 16.4

Electricity Production Cost($/kWh) $0.071 N/A $0.071

Alcohol Production Cost($/gallon) $1.12 $2.24 N/A

41

The data in Table 5 are based upon thermochemical technologies that process 500BDT/day and biochemical technologies that process 2,205 BDT/day of biomass. Itwould be preferable to compare similar size plants (e.g., 500 BDT/day), but sufficientdata are not available at this time for biochemical conversion plants smaller than 2,205BDT/day. The application of 5E assessment methodology to the technologiescompared in Table 5 is discussed further in the following sections.

Technology Evaluation (E1)

Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)Several companies have developed varying approaches and improvements infeedstock introduction, pyrolysis/steam reforming processes, syngas purification andsystem design. The data presented for System A in Table 5 is for the thermochemicalconversion of 500 BDT/day of biomass using a generic integration of thepyrolysis/steam reforming process with catalytic processes recently developed for theco-production of alcohols, electricity and heat as an example.

Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)The “5E” assessment was carried out for the Category IX technology (enzymatichydrolysis/fermentation). The data presented for System B in Table 5 is for thebiochemical conversion of 2,205 BDT/day of biomass using an enzymatichydrolysis/fermentation process. The values presented are an average of dataobtained from several developers of this technology (Schuetzle, 2007).

Thermochemical System (Electricity)The data presented for System C in Table 5 is for the thermochemical conversion of500 BDT/day of biomass to electricity (only) using the pyrolysis/steam reformingtechnology. This analysis was based upon similar data inputs and assumptions usedfor System A.

A major requirement for the deployment of any of these advanced technologies is thatthey be able to produce bioalcohols and energy continuously and reliably, for examplefor 329 days/year, 24 hours/day. The requirement that these technologies maintain90% up-time is directly related to the economic efficiency of the facility. Thesestringent operational requirements will necessitate that every component in theproduction plant be designed with a high level of durability, that the conversionsystem(s) have modular designs, and are configured for easy repair.

42

Energy Efficiency (E2)

Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)This Category I technology, when integrated with the Category XIII technology, shouldbe able to produce 80 gallons/DT of bioalcohol fuel (80-85% ethanol/10-15%methanol), enough electricity and heat to operate the entire plant, and an extra 550kWh of electricity for sale to the power grid or for operation of other collocatedoperations. The total energy conversion efficiency of this plant averages 50%. If theextra heat from the reciprocation engines/generators is recovered, then an extra 12%efficiency can be realized.

Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)This Category IX technology, when integrated with a thermal oxidation system(Category V) for the production of electricity and heat from the waste materials shouldbe able to produce an average of 59 gallons of ethanol/BDT and an extra 205 kWh ofelectricity. The total energy conversion efficiency of this plant averages 33%.

Thermochemical System (Electricity)This Category I technology will produce a syngas with an average energy content inthe range of 400-600 BTU/ft3 at an average thermal energy conversion efficiency of75%. This technology, when integrated with a reciprocating engine/electricalgenerator, operating at an average 40% syngas to electricity conversion efficiency, isexpected to produce an average of 1,400 kWh of electricity per 1.0 dry ton of wood.

Environmental Impacts (E3)

All thermochemical and biochemical processes for the conversion of biomass tobioalcohols will produce air, water and solid waste effluents. However, the levels ofthese effluents can be minimized by implementing the current BACT (BestAvailable Control Technology) and developing even more advanced controltechnologies. The collection, transport, and processing of biomass can also resultin certain air pollution and other environmental impacts beyond those describedhere for production facilities.

Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)The emissions of criteria pollutants for this plant are similar to the electricity-only plant,as described below.

Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)The criteria pollutant emissions from this plant are similar to that of a biomasscombustion plant. This is, in part, due to the use of a biomass combustion plant forthe generation of electricity and heat from the waste products.

43

Thermochemical System (Electricity)There are only two sources of emissions from this plant–1) the burners used forheating of the pyrolysis and heat forming chambers and 2) the emissions from thereciprocating engine/generators. It was assumed that the engine/generators producedby reciprocating engine manufacturers such as Deutsch and Jenbacher will be able tomeet the BACT demonstrated by companies like Bluepoint (Reno, NV). The totalestimated emissions of the criteria pollutants (NOx, SOx, PM, CO and VOC) aresummarized in Table 5.

Economics (E4)

This analysis was based upon using dry biomass with an energy content of 8,500BTU/lb at a cost of $45.00/BDT that is delivered to a plant site in a NorthernSacramento Valley farming community (Schuetzle, 2007).

Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)This $66 million plant is projected to have the capability to co-produce 80 gallons ofalcohol fuel (85-90% ethanol/10-15% methanol) and 550 kWh of electricity (net) perton of dry biomass. The economic analysis results for a 500 DTPD plant operated for329 days/year are as follows:

Capital Cost: $65.8 million

O&M Cost: $14.9 million/yr (incl. feedstock at $45.00/BDT)

Alcohol Production: 13.2 million gallons/yr (85-90% ethanol/10-15% methanol)

Electricity Production: 11.46 MW (net)

Alcohol Production Cost: $1.12/gallon (assumed that the electricity is sold at$0.071/kWh)

Electricity Production Cost: -$0.025/kWh (assumes alcohol is sold at$1.80/gallon)

Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)This 2,205 BDT/day facility is projected to have the capability to produce 59 gallons ofethanol and 205 kWh of electricity (net) per ton of dry biomass. The economicanalysis results for this plant are as follows:

Capital Cost: $205 million

O&M Cost: $107.0 million/yr (incl. feedstock at $45.00/DT)

Ethanol Production: 42.8 million gallons/yr

Ethanol Production Cost: $2.24/gallon

44

In addition, this size plant will require large quantities of waste biomass resources.The cost of transporting waste agricultural and forest biomass resources from beyonda 30-40 mile radius from the plant would likely increase the feedstock cost beyond theassumed $45.00/dry ton. However, if this facility was co-located with a largetraditional corn-to-ethanol or sugarcane-to-ethanol plant, then a sufficient supply oflow-cost feedstock might already exist on-site.

Thermochemical System (Electricity Only)This $60 million plant is projected to have the capability to produce electricity at$0.071/kWh, which is within the average current wholesale cost of electricity inCalifornia ($0.070-$0.080/kWh). This electricity cost is much less than that for currentgeneration biomass combustion plants that typically produces electricity for anaverage of $0.091/kWh.

These calculations assume that the 550 kWh/DT of electricity produced is sold to thegrid at a wholesale price of $0.071/kWh. Improvements in these thermochemicaltechnologies have the potential of reducing ethanol production costs to below$1.00/gallon by 2012.

Socio-Political Effectiveness (E5)

Various socio-political issues will need to be addressed for all types of bioenergyfacilities, including general siting issues that often engender local communityopposition to new energy projects. Even conventional technology bioenergyfacilities face concerns such as water usage, waste disposal, emissions and odors.Some of these same concerns will affect the siting of cellulosic biomass-to-alcoholplants. Transportation and storage of biomass feedstocks pose an additional set ofconcerns that need to be faced in the siting and permitting of bioenergy projects.Cultivation of energy crops engenders further issues involving land and water use,competition with food production, etc.

One important factor in overcoming opposition to individual projects is for next-generation conversion technologies to develop and implement the best availableenvironmental control technologies for air emissions and wastewater and solidwaste effluents. Currently, some environmental groups are resistant to conversionprocesses that operate at high temperatures (e.g. above 400oF). These groupsbelieve that high temperature processes can produce dioxins and other hazardouscompounds. However, since thermochemical systems such as that depicted assystem A in Table 5 emit minimal particulate air emissions, it is not believed thatthis will be an issue. Biochemical systems employing acids or other hazardousmaterials will need to be especially attentive to storage and handling practices forsuch materials that allay community and environmental agency concerns.

45

SECTION 8 - OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FORALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS

Biomass Resource Potential

Candidate sources of cellulosic biomass for alcohol fuel production exist in manydifferent forms with a variety of origins. The specific sources, characteristics andquantities of these biomass resources vary widely by geographic region. They aregenerally grouped into three overall source categories: agricultural products andresidues, forestry materials and municipal solid wastes. Examples of biomassmaterials in each of these categories are currently being pursued as potentialfeedstocks for cellulosic alcohol production processes, as well as for a range of otherbioenergy and non-energy uses.

The disposal of waste biomass has become a major problem for the agriculture,forestry and municipal sectors. These sectors have a keen interest in supporting thedevelopment and implementation of technologies that will be able to convert thesewaste materials to energy and fuels. As a result, a number of studies have beencompleted on the quantification of these biomass resources. Most biomass resourcestudies make a distinction between total estimable quantities of existing biomass(waste and residual) materials and the quantities judged likely to be obtainable forbeneficial uses given various technical, economic and institutional constraints.

Typically, biomass wastes and residues are viewed currently as the best feedstocksfor bioenergy production, even though they may pose greater technical challenges thatthe production of specific energy crops. Cultivated biomass crops, including numerousagriculture, silviculture and aquaculture crop species, continue to be studied for theirlonger-term and potentially greater resource potential.

U.S. Biomass Resources

The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) have conducted or sponsored the most comprehensive studies of biomassresource potential in the U.S. The latest, and perhaps most significant of thesestudies, conducted under USDOE and USDA auspices by Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, is commonly referred to as the “Billion Ton Study” (Perlack, 2005). Asimplied by the title, this project set out to investigate whether the U.S. could producean annual supply of one billion tons of biomass, a quantity that has been equated withpotential bioenergy production equivalent to about 30 percent of current U.S.petroleum consumption. This 30 percent petroleum reduction target was set forth bythe federal Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee, a panel of government andprivate sector representatives established in 2000 by Congress to guide federalbiomass R&D activities. The Billion Ton Study assessed the overall potential forbioenergy (and other bioproduct) production from biomass in the broad sense–

46

including expansion of conventional grain-based biofuel production (from corn andsoybeans) as well as production from cellulosic wastes and residues and new energycrops like perennial grasses and trees.

The Billion Ton Study’s findings, summarized in Figure 4, exceeded its ownexpectations, estimating over 1.3 billion tons of biomass resource potential by “mid-21st century” from agricultural and forestry sources. The study did not attempt anoverall assessment of municipal solid wastes, but it did include (among forestrymaterials) an estimate of urban wood residues. The study deems urban wood wasteto be the MSW fraction most amenable to bioenergy applications, even though suchmaterial represents only about 13 million of the estimated 230 million tons per year ofMSW generated.

The largest source of waste biomass (nearly one billion tons) is from the agriculturesector. This agriculture waste is comprised of crop residues (43%); perennial crops(38%); grains (9%); and animal manures, food processing residues, and othermiscellaneous feedstocks (11%).

Forest materials comprise the remaining 27% of the study’s estimated national biomass resource potential. About 48% of the 368 million tons of forest biomasswould come directly from so-called forest “treatment” –thinning and removal of excessmaterial from forests, reducing the risk of catastrophic forest fires. About 39% wouldbe secondarily derived from the forest products industry. And the remaining 13%would be comprised of urban wood wastes.

Figure 4 - Annual Biomass Resource Potential from Forest andAgricultural Resources (Perlack et al. 2006)

47

For all of the biomass resource categories covered, the Billion Ton Study incorporatesgrowth factor assumptions on top of present-day resource inventories, along with otherassumptions intended to result in a single realistic estimate of producible biomass.The authors suggest that this estimated national biomass resource potential “can be produced with relatively modest changes in land use, and agricultural and forestrypractices. This potential, however, should not be thought of as an upper limit. It is justa scenario based on a set ofreasonable assumptions.”

California’s Biomass Resources

California’s biomass resource potential has been the subject of a series of studies conducted by the CEC and other organizations since the early 1990s (Tiangco, et al.,1994). The 1999 CEC inventory was intended to quantify the gross amounts ofbiomass produced in the state annually, not what could realistically be expected to becollected and delivered for bioenergy production or other beneficial uses (Blackburn,1999). Thus the 50 plus million tons per year overall estimate was conditioned withthe statement that “the actual amount of residues available will be significantly lower once economic, technological and institutional factors are considered.” The CECinventory did not attempt to project potential future growth in the estimated biomassresources, but suggested that some categories of biomass wastes and residues wouldbe expected to increase while others might decrease.

More recently, in 2004, the California Biomass Collaborative (CBC), undersponsorship of the CEC, conducted An Assessment of Biomass Resources inCalifornia (Jenkins et al., 2005). CBC also provided an update of this work to supportthe Commission’s 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (Jenkins, 2005). TheCBC’s assessments represent the most detailed inventory of the state’s biomass wastes and residues to date, with the most specific sub-categorization of these biomass resourcesand including a county level resource distribution. The CBC 2005 biomass resourceestimate is summarized in Table 6. The gross resource estimate is said to have anuncertainty factor of about 10 percent.

48

Table 6 - Estimates of Annually Available Biomass inCalifornia (Millions of Dry Tons per Year)

* California Biomass Collaborative, Jenkins et al (2005)** Land filled MSW and biosolids assumed to be available as landfill gas

The CBC inventory includes estimates of both gross annual biomass production and ofso-called “technical resource potential” –the amounts in each biomass categoryestimated to be potentially supplied for beneficial applications. The total estimatedtechnical potential of 33.6 million tons per year amounts to about 40 percent of theestimated gross resource of 86 million tons. CBC’s report describes the estimate of technical potentialas “a preliminary estimate based on technical and ecosystem limitations in resource acquisition and does not strictly define the fraction of biomassthat is economically feasible to use.”

The CBC’s 2005 inventory provides a considerably higher estimate of state biomass resources than the previous CEC estimates. In fact, the CBC estimate of technicalbiomass potential approaches the original 1994 estimate of gross biomass potentialdeveloped by the CEC, and the CBC’s latest estimate of gross biomass is about 70 percent higher than the CEC 1999 estimate. Also, the 2005 CBC report projectsgrowth of the gross and technical biomass resource potentials by 2017 to about 100million tons and 40 million tons, respectively.

Agricultural Wastes/ResiduesGross Technical

Animal Manure 11.8 4.5Field and Seed 4.9 2.4Orchard and Vine 2.6 1.8Vegetable 1.2 0.1Food Processing 1.0 0.8

Total Agricultural 21.6 9.6Forestry Wastes/Residues

Logging Slash 8.0 4.3Forest Remediation Waste 7.7 4.1Mill Residue 6.2 3.3Chaparral 4.9 2.6

Total Forestry 26.8 14.3Municipal Wastes/Residues

MSW Land filled 18.5 *MSW Diverted from Landfills 18.4 9.2Biosolids Land filled 0.1 *Biosolids Diverted 0.6 0.5

Total Municipal 37.6 9.7Total Biomass 86.0 33.6

49

The above CEC and CBC inventories of waste and residual biomass sources indicatea technical potential for biofuel production from these sources equivalent to about 10%of California’scurrent transportation fuel supply. About 5 million tons per year, orroughly one-seventh of the estimated technical biomass resource estimate, is currentlybeing utilized, mostly for biopower generation.

The ultimate long-term potential for bioenergy production beyond biomass wastes andresidues is represented by energy crops produced specifically for this purpose.Compared to the above estimates of waste and residual biomass resources, thepotential for cultivation of energy crops as feedstocks for bioenergy production hasbeen less definitively quantified. Many different types of dedicated energy crops havebeen identified, and some have been subjects of research for potential bioenergyapplications in California. These include perennial grasses and trees for cellulosicbiofuel production as well as many starch, sugar and oil crops for conventional biofuelprocesses. California’s climate and standing as the nations’ number oneagriculturalstate definitely present some major opportunities for energy crop production, with theultimate potential of agriculturally-based energy in the state still to be determined.

Prospects for Expanded Research, Development,Demonstration and Deployment (R3D) Activities

While the development of biomass to bioalcohol fuel technologies has been pursuedfor several decades, none of the bioalcohol production technologies described in thisreport have been commercially deployed. However, concerns about the increasingprice and long-term supplies of energy, climate change, geopolitical and energysecurity, and the rapid growth of energy demand in developing countries is drivingevery sector of the energy industry to pursue renewable fuels, other alternative fuels,efficiency and demand management.

In recent years, interest in carbon emission reduction has grown dramatically. TheNew Oxford American Dictionary even chose "carbon neutral" as its "Word of theYear" for 2006–clear evidence, if more was needed, that this is the wave of thepresent -- and that understanding the role of energy technology in attaining "carbonneutrality" is increasingly important. Bioenergy, including bioalcohols and otherbiofuels, clearly offer some of the most promising options for achieving carbonreduction goals.

The above concerns are expected to result in rapidly increasing levels of funding forresearch, development, demonstration and deployment (R3D) projects for biofuels andbioenergy. There has never been such a wide-ranging opportunity for technologicaladvancements in the area of renewable and clean fuels and electricity. Venturecapitalists (VCs) are the new players in renewable energy. Many of the VC fundingsources that brought immense innovation in information technology and life sciences

50

are now focusing on the energy industry. In North America, such venture capitalinvestment reached an estimated $2.1 billon in 2006, four times what it was in 2004(Clean Venture Network, 2006).

Federal, state and local governments have also increased significantly their support ofbiofuels and bioenergy R3D projects. This investment surge comes not only withhope, but in many cases with hype. The bioenergy technology development field, andbioalcohol production technology in particular, has seen its share of exaggeratedclaimsand unrealistic expectations over the years. And, while today’s developmentpicture shows great promise, there is still no guarantee which, if any, of the biomass-to-ethanol processes under development will achieve commercial success, or on whattimetable. As has been the case with other emerging areas of technology, many ofthe technology development activities described in this report will end up becoming“dry wells.” This is the character of R&D and venture investing. Further R3D progressmust address a variety of remaining technical, environmental and regulatory, market-related, and socio-political challenges in order for cellulosic bioalcohol production toachieve commercial reality. These challenges are summarized in the followingsubsections:

Technical Challenges

Remaining technical issues still need to be resolved for both the thermochemical andbiochemical conversion of cellulosic biomass to alcohol fuels. For thermochemicaltechnologies, for example, specificity of syngas to ethanol catalyst performance needsfurther development work. Biochemical technologies require further development oflower-cost and more effective enzymes. Technical issues also remain with respect tofeedstock characteristics; collection, processing and storage of feedstock; processscale-up and integration of commercial scale facilities. The lack of complete and well-documented demonstration-scale project results continues to impede the availability offinancing for commercial applications of any of the cellulosic bioalcohol productiontechnologies.

Environmental and Regulatory Challenges

The lack of substantial data from demonstration scale facilities to quantify the potentialenvironmental impacts -- involving air emissions; water use and treatment; ecologicalimpacts; solid waste disposal; environmental permitting; and the impacts related to thedelivery of biomass (i.e. traffic, emissions, odor and noise) pose continuing issues forthe development of cellulosic bioalcohol facilities. Siting and permitting new facilities isoften complex and arduous for biofuel project developers in California and in someother U.S. regions. Various environmental and regulatory issues also continue toaffect the collection and transportation of biomass feedstocks, especially with respectto the regulation of municipal waste sector in California and the harvesting of excessforest materials.

51

Economic and Institutional Challenges

The promise of cellulosic ethanol production is often equated with lower productioncost than today’ssugar- and starch-based ethanol production. However, realizingtechnically viable, commercially deployable production technology does notnecessarily assure economically competitive or lower-cost bioalcohol production. Nordoes technological success necessarily assure that the necessary investments tocreate a major commercial industry employing such technologies will immediatelyfollow.

Some of the more significant economic and institutional constraints are:

Access to bank loans, which could be alleviated by legislative authorization of10-to 15-year loan guarantees for construction and operation of biomass toethanol facilities

Need for reliable, long term contracts for supplies of low cost waste biomassfeedstocks

Need for qualified and trained personnel

Market-Related Challenges

In order for investments in new fuel production technologies to be effective, adequatemarkets must be assured for the resulting fuel products, preferably markets inreasonable proximity to the production locations. Ethanol’s current 6% share of California’s 16 billion gallons-per-year gasoline market seemingly represents a hugemarket opportunity for future production sources of this fuel, with less than 100 millionof the current 950 million gallons of ethanol used in the state currently supplied by in-state producers. Prospects for increasing the ethanol blending percentage to 10% ormore, along with other potential ethanol fuel applications such as E85 in flexible fuelvehicles, equate with an even larger longer-term market share for ethanol. However,there are some remaining uncertainties that preclude any confident estimate of futuremarket demand for ethanol in California. These include:

Continuing air quality regulatory issues affecting the allowable and economicallyeffective ethanol blending percentage in gasoline

Individual and collective decisions by gasoline marketers on ethanol/gasolineblending strategies to comply with federal Renewable Fuel Standard guidelinesstill being formulated

Outcome of new initiatives to increase the national permissible ethanolpercentage in gasoline beyond the current 10% level

Prevailing constraints to E85 market growth involving both a limited FFVpopulation and slow introduction of fueling infrastructure

52

Undetermined viability of other potential ethanol fuel markets such as dieselengines, aviation fuels, and fuel cell vehicles

These market uncertainties for ethanol are amplified with respect to other alcohol fuelsand mixed alcohol products. The prospective advantages of mixed alcohol fuels from aproduction standpoint would require equivalent market-side advancement in order tomake this a viable technology approach.

53

SECTION 9 - GOVERNMENT ROLES AND INITIATIVES

A number of federal government programs have been initiated to accelerate thedevelopment of domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuels.USDOE’s Advanced Energy Initiative was set up to make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive so that this renewable fuel could potentially displace up to 30% of thecurrent transportation fuel used in the US. DOE recently announced (DOE, Feb. 28,2007) an investment of up to $385 million for the demonstration and deployment of sixthermochemical and biochemical conversion technologies in California, Florida,Georgia, Idaho, Iowa and Kansas. Profiles for the six grant recipients (Abengoa,ALICO, Blue Fire Ethanol, Broin, Iogen and Range Fuels) are included in Appendix I.The investment in these six technologies is projected to total more than $1.2 billionover the next four years. These DOE programs will provide a significant boost to theadvancement of such conversion technologies. The Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (DARPA) has also appropriated $2.0 Billion for clean and renewableenergy R&D in 2007 and proposed $14.0 Billion for 2008.

On October 13, 2006, the USDA and USDOE announced $17.5 million in grants for 17research, development and demonstration projects that will help make biobased fuelscost competitive with fossil fuels in the commercial market.

The State of California is also stepping up its support for bioenergy development. Thisincludes new CEC research and development programs to help advance thedemonstration and deployment of biomass-to-alcohol and other biofuel productiontechnologies in the state. Three grants totaling $3 million were awarded in April 2007by the Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program for R&D projects involving thermochemical and biochemical technologies.

In 2006, CA Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-06-06 to helpCalifornia meet future needs for clean, renewable energy, and calling for actions bythe state to meet targets for in-state production of biofuels and biopower. In responseto this Executive Order, the CEC, in conjunction with the California BiomassCollaborative at U.C. Davis, has prepared a roadmap for biomass research anddevelopment.

In March of 2006, the Governor asked the Bioenergy Interagency Working Group(Working Group) to make recommendations for near-term state government actions toincrease the use of biomass resources. The Working Group consists of the CEC andincludes the Air Resources Board (CARB), California Environmental ProtectionAgency (Cal/EPA), California Public Utilities Commission, California ResourcesAgency, Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Forestry and FireProtection, Department of General Services, Integrated Waste Management Board,and the State Water Resources Control Board.

The Bioenergy Action Plan (CEC 2006) has the following policy objectives:

54

1. Maximize the contributions of bioenergy toward achieving the state’s petroleum reduction, climate change, renewable energy, and environmental goals.

2. Establish California as a market leader in technology innovation, sustainablebiomass development, and market development for biobased products.

3. Coordinate research, development, demonstration, and commercializationefforts across federal and state agencies.

4. Align existing regulatory requirements to encourage production and use ofCalifornia’s biomass resources.

5. Facilitate market entry for new applications of bioenergy including electricity,biogas, and biofuels.

On September 27, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the GlobalWarming Solutions Act. The Act calls for the reduction of California’s greenhouse gas emissions by 11% by 2010, by 25% by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.The enforcement of AB 32 will be phased in starting in 2012.

Under the Act, the state board is authorized to adopt market-based compliancemechanisms, including cap-and-trade, and allow for one-year extension of the targetsunder extraordinary circumstances. CARB is directed to develop appropriateregulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitorgreenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, the Act requires CARB to distribute costs and benefits equitably, ensurethat there are no direct, indirect or cumulative increases in air pollution, protect thosewho have voluntarily reduced their emissions prior to the passage of this act, and allowfor coordination with other agencies to reduce emissions.

55

SECTION 10 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Production of ethanol and other alcohol fuels from cellulosic biomass offers apromising means of supplying a significant part of future transportation energy needsusing renewable resources. However, significant remaining research, development,demonstration and deployment (R3D) steps need to be successfully pursued beforetechnologies for producing alcohol fuels from cellulosic biomass can be consideredcommercially available.

The impact of high energy prices, geopolitical uncertainty, the growing focus on cleanenergy technologies and concern about global climate change are driving substantialincreases in funding from the public and private sectors. These factors have resultedrecently in a substantial increase in biomass-to-alcohol research and development inthe U.S. and several other countries. A number of new and expanded demonstrationprojects are under development and plans for several commercial-scale projects arebeing formulated. This increasing emphasis on development activities is encouraging,but still does not assure advancement of any of the various biomass-to-alcoholproduction technology options to the commercial stage.

For those technologies that appear to be promising, demonstration and commercialscale plants need to be built, tested, validated and improved. These plants need tobe fully assessed applying a methodology such as the 5E approach described inthis report–covering technical validation, energy efficiency, environmentalimpacts, economic viability, and socio-political effectiveness. A consistent methodshould be adopted as a tool by government, private and academic organizations tohelp evaluate the potential viability of emerging thermochemical and biochemicalconversion processes. This type of process also has the value of identifyingpotential problems with candidate technologies, and it can help identify RD&Dprograms that should be carried out to help resolve those problems.

Although numerous biofuel and bioenergy reports and presentations have beenpublished by public and private sector organizations during the past two decades,most of the information contained within these resources has not been published inpeer-reviewed scientific and engineering journals, books, patents and other readilyaccessible resources. As has been the case with the rapid development andadvancement of other technologies (e.g. information systems, software andautomotive technologies), much more effort is needed to encourage the publication ofsuch information in these peer-reviewed resources.

Government organizations should implement regulations, provide increased R3Dsupport, and grant incentives that will help promote technological advancements andthe implementation of production plants by the public sector. However, governmentshould not mandate the type(s) of technologies that they believe will be the futurewinners, but support all promising technology approaches to the point where the mosteffective technologies prove commercially successful. The coordination of agencies

56

with regards to siting and permitting could streamline the demonstration anddeployment of these technologies. Governments can also assist on the market sidethrough policies and regulations that assure adequate markets for bioalcohols and co-products and adequate returns on investments in production facilities.

The recently funded DOE projects are intended to produce several demonstrationprojects by at least 2012. Other technology companies are planning to buildcommercial scale plants by this time. These expectations appear to be realisticassuming that the level of interest and funding continues to increase substantially.

Among the 38 active technology developers profiled in this study are a number ofpromising candidates for potential commercial deployment. Included are boththermochemical and biochemical process approaches representing fundamentallydifferent technology paths. Both approaches require and warrant further developmentemphasis and funding support, although most emphasis to date has been on thebiochemical path. Thermochemical technology is the more emerging path, butappears to have certain advantages that suggest it deserves at least equaldevelopment attention.

Thermochemical processes have the ability to convert virtually any biomass feedstockto bioalcohols or other biofuels, a particularly important feature for California and otherregions with a wide variety of biomass feedstock sources of different compositions andqualities. The energy efficiencies and environmental characteristics of facilitiesemploying thermochemical technologies appear attractive as well. Also, thethermochemical processes require much less biomass for economic viability, makingthem better suited for the distributed production of bioalcohols and electricity.

The thermochemical technology with the highest probability for success is anintegrated pyrolysis/steam reforming process. Current analysis suggests that acommercial plant utilizing this technology should be able to produce mixed alcohols ata cost of about $1.15/gallon for a 500 BDT/day plant, which would make this processcompetitive with traditional corn-based ethanol production. If market constraints to theuse of mixed alcohols as transportation fuels prevail, then the further refinement ofmixed alcohols to ethanol would add nominally to this production cost.

The biochemical conversion processes encompass two primary approaches–acidhydrolysis/fermentation and enzymatic hydrolysis/fermentation. Biochemicalconversion processes that utilize enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose, followed byfermentation of the simple sugars are currently estimated to have an ethanolproduction cost of approximately $2.24/gallon for a 2,205 BDT/day plant. Projectedimprovements in biochemical conversion processes have the potential of reducingethanol production costs below $1.50/gallon for 2,205 BDT/day or larger plants by2012.

Larger biochemical conversion plants can become viable when significant quantities(>2,000 tons/day) of biomass are available at feedstock costs below $35/BDT. An

57

initial attractive application may be to co-locate these plants with large, traditional corn-to-ethanol production plants. Thermochemical processes can also be integrated withbiochemical processes to supply electricity, heat (steam), cooling and the productionof additional ethanol from waste materials. These integrated approaches are expectedto increase plant energy efficiency, reduce emissions and increase economic benefits.

The following R3D needs are identified for both thermochemical and biochemicaltechnologies under development for producing alcohol fuels from cellulosicbiomass:

Thermochemical Processes

The production of syngas from thermochemical conversion systems will need to meetcertain compositional and purity standards to ensure acceptable catalyst efficiencies,selectivities and lifetimes for the efficient and economical production of bioalcohols.

Thermochemical conversion systems are needed that meet the followingspecifications:

~100% energy conversion efficiency of biomass to syngas, with external energyinput of ~25% of natural gas and electricity (or)

~75% energy conversion efficiency of biomass to syngas, using the syngas as aheating source for the thermochemical conversion system)

Syngas that has >350 Btu/SCF energy content at ambient conditions (STP)

Syngas that meets or exceeds the following composition specifications:

H2+CO: >60 mole%CH4: 15-25 mole%CO2: <15 mole%N2+O2+Ar: <2 mole%C6–C16 <500 PPMTars/Waxes (>C16): <1 mg/M3Sulfur and Chlorine: <0.5 PPMParticulate Matter (excluding Tar) : <0.5 mg/M3

The following development efforts are recommended to help meet these syngascompositional requirements:

Develop efficient, low-cost and robust syngas purification processes

Develop thermochemical pyrolysis/gasification/steam reforming systems thatproduce low levels of contaminants, thus reducing the need for extensive andcostly syngas purification processes

58

Thermochemical processes also require further catalyst development, including thefollowing recommended efforts.

Develop catalysts for the conversion of syngas to bioalcohols that have the followingcapabilities:

A one-pass catalyst conversion efficiency of greater than 30% (the currentaverage conversion efficiency is ~18%)

An ethanol/methanol catalyst selectivity of greater than 5/1

A conversion efficiency for >2,000 hrs while maintaining greater than 80% of theinitial catalyst specifications

Develop integrated systems for the co-production of bioalcohols, electricity and heatthat:

Reduce the number of unit processes needed to co-produce bioalcohol,electricity and heat, resulting in the reduction of capital and O&M costs

Continuous syngas composition monitoring systems, integrated with real-timeprocess control, for the optimization of bioalcohol, electricity and heatproduction

Biochemical Processes

Some R3D recommendations needed to develop efficient and low-cost methods forthe production of ethanol via biochemical production technologies include:

Separation of lignin and cellulose from sugars

The development of lower-cost enzymes needed for the hydrolysis of cellulose

Recovery and re-use of enzymes after the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose

Recovery and re-use of acids after feedstock pretreatment and the acidhydrolysis of cellulose

The development of fermentation organisms capable of co-fermenting C5 andC6 sugars

The purification and recycling of wastewater with the objective of reaching azero discharge system

59

SECTION 11 - REFERENCES

Barrett, J., Ethanol Reaps a Backlash in Small Midwestern Towns, WSJ (Friday,March 23, 2007).

Blackburn, B., T. MacDonald, M. McCormack, P. Perez, M. Scharff and S. Unnasch,Evaluation of Biomass-to-Ethanol Fuel Potential in California, CEC 500-99-022,California Energy Commission (December 1999)

California Energy Commission, Report # CEC-600-2006-010 (2006A)

California Energy Commission, 2006 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, CEC-100-2006-001-CTF (2006B )

California Energy Commission,http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/biomass/ethanol/projects.html,http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/projects/fact_sheets/COLLINS1.pdf

Fieser, L. F., and Fieser, M, Organic chemistry, 2nd Edition, Heath and Company,Boston, Chapter 18, p. 483 (1950).

Gildart, M., Jenkins, B.M., Williams, R. B., Yan, L., Aldas, R.E. and Matteson, C., AnAssessment of Biomass Resources in California, CEC PIER Contract 500-01-016 Report (2005).

Hasler, P., and Nussbaumer, T., Gas Cleaning for IC Engine Applications from FixedBed Biomass Gasification, Biomass and Bio-energy, 16(6), 385-395 (1999).

Jenkins, BM, Biomass in California: Challenges, Opportunities and Potentials forSustainable Management and Development, California Biomass Collaborative,California Energy Commission report, CEC-500-01-016 (2005)

Jenkins, BM, A Preliminary Roadmap for the Development of Biomass in California,California Energy Commission report, CEC-500-2006-095-D (2006)

Klass, D. L., Biomass for Renewable Energy, Fuels and Chemicals, Academic Press(1998).

Minteer, S., Alcoholic Fuels, CRC Press (2006).

Nechodom, M., Schuetzle, D., Ganz, D., Cooper, J., Sustainable Forests and theEnvironment, Environmental Science and Technology Journal, In Press (2007)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy andBioproducts Industry –The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton AnnualSupply, DOE (April 2005).

60

Perlack, R., L. Wright, A. Turhollow, R. Graham, B. Stokes and D. Erbach, Biomass asFeedstock for a Bio-energy and Bio-products Industry: The Technical Feasibilityof a Billion-ton Annual Supply, Oak Ridge National Laboratory under U.S. DOEcontract DE-AC05-000R22725 (April 2005)

Quaak, P., Knoef, H, Stassen, H., Energy from Biomass –A Review of Combustionand Gasification Technologies, World Bank Technical Paper #422 (1999).

Quincy Library Group, Northeastern California Ethanol Manufacturing FeasibilityStudy, Feedstock Supply and Delivery Systems Final Report, prepared by TSSConsultants, June 1997.

Schuetzle, D., Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing Biomass GasificationTechnology: Pilot Plant Gasifier and Syngas Conversion Testing, NRELTechnical Report #510-37581, Golden, CO; prepared under TSS ConsultantsSubcontract to NREL No. ZCO-2-32065-01 (February 2005).

Parsons, E. L. and Shelton, W. W. Advanced Fossil Power Systems ComparisonStudy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (December, 2002).

Schuetzle, D. and Greg Tamblyn, An Assessment of Biomass ConversionTechnologies and Recommendations in Support of an IntegratedThermochemical Refinery Approach for the Production of Energy and Fuelsfrom Rice Harvest Waste, DOE Report #DE-FC36-03G013071, Golden, CO,prepared under TSS Consultants Subcontract to DOE No. DE-FC36-03G013071 (August 2007),

Spath, P.L. and Dayton, D.C., Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gasto Fuels and Chemicals with Emphasis on the Potential for Biomass-derivedSyngas, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA. Report #TP-510-34929 (2003).

Tiangco, V., Sethi, P., Simons, G. and K. Birkinshaw, Biomass Resource AssessmentReport for California, California Energy Commission (1994)

TSS Consultants, Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing BiomassGasification Technology - Pilot Plant Gasifier and Syngas Conversion Testing,NREL/SR-510-3758 (February 2005)

U.S. Patents 4,675,344; 4,749,724; 4,752, 623; 4,752,622; 4,762,858

Von Bernath, H., G. Matteson, R. Williams, L. Yan, M. Gildart, B. Jenkins, et al., AnAssessment of Biomass Resources in California, California Biomass

61

Collaborative, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy ResearchProgram (2004).

Wall Street Journal, page A8 (Feb. 14, 2007).

Wall Street Journal, page A12 (Feb. 15, 2007).

Wall Street Journal, page A1 (March 23, 2007)

Western Governor’s Association, Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, Biomass Task Force Report (Jan. 2006)

62

APPENDIX 1 - TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPER PROFILES

This appendix summarizes the information gathered by the study on organizationsengaged in active development of technologies for producing ethanol, or other formsof alcohol fuel, from cellulosic biomass feedstocks. Over fifty organizations worldwidewere identified during the course of the study as possibly pursuing such technologies.Most of these organizations responded to a survey questionnaire developed anddistributed by the project team requesting basic non-confidential information on theirorganizations, characteristics of their bioalcohol process technologies, and theirtechnology development status and future plans.

Some survey respondents indicated they were not presently active in this field or thattheir technology development did not involve a complete process for producing analcohol fuel from cellulosic biomass. A few organizations declined to respond to thesurvey and others indicated they prefer to keep most or all of their developmentprogress confidential. Therefore, additional sources of information were used tosupplement the survey, including websites, papers and presentations and directcontacts. Only publicly-releasable information supplied by technology developers orotherwise found in the public domain was used to compile these profiles. For the mostpart, the information is exactly as reported by the development organizations, with noattempt by the project team to screen or substantiate this developer-specificinformation.

Following in this appendix are profiles of 38 organizations that were found to beactively engaged in the development of a cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol productionprocess. These profiles are grouped in various technology categories previouslydescribed in the report (and summarized in Table 1, page 9).

Of the organizations listed, 26 are headquartered in the U.S., 5 in Canada, 2 in Brazil,and one each in Sweden, Germany, Spain, Denmark and Japan. This list is believedto include most of the noteworthy entities currently active in this field, especially in theU.S. and Canada. However, there may very well be other organizations, especiallyoutside North America, engaged in bioalcohol process development. There are alsomany other organizations (not listed) pursuing development of related components ofbioalcohol production technologies, such as enzyme development for biochemicalprocesses, catalyst development for thermochemical processes, etc.

63

CATEGORY 1–THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSESINCORPORATING PYROLYSIS/STEAM REFORMINGWITHOUT OXYGEN

Nova Fuels, Fresno, California

Organizational Background–Nova Fuels is an independent technology innovationcompany pursuing development and commercialization of a biomass-to-alcohol fuelprocess designed to produce a mixed alcohol product called Novahol.

Technology Characteristics–The Nova Fuels technology uses a thermochemicalsteam reforming processes to produce syngas. Biomass is ground to 1”-2” and injected into the pyrolysis/steam reformer using a screw auger. Appropriatefeedstocks can include wood waste, agricultural waste, sorted municipal solid waste,and other clean carbon sources. This process is illustrated in Figure A1.

The gasifier and its steam reforming section are a proprietary design of Nova Fuelsand can be sized for different feedstock rates. Due to the presence of the 1500º Fsuperheated steam in the reactor vessel, the Nova Fuels system provides both a longresidence time and little opportunity for fouling the reactor internals with tar.

Catalysts will be used to convert the syngas to a mixture of alcohols, consistingprimarily of methanol and ethanol and traces of propanol, butanol and pentanol.Nova Fuels believes that they have carried out enough engineering and modeling workto proceed directly to commercial scale development. They have designed theirthermochemical conversion systems to convert 250 DTPD of biomass feedstock tosyngas.

Development Status–Nova Fuels is currently engineering a commercial scalefacility, having opted to bypass the demonstration phase. The end product of thecatalytic process is Novahol which is made up of a range of fuel alcohols and can, ifnecessary, be refined to pure ethanol, propanol, butanol, or pentanol. Novahol, said tohave an octane rating of 120, could also potentially be used as a fuel by itself, as anoxygenator for gasoline and diesel fuels (including biodiesel), and as an octanebooster for gasoline. Nova Fuels is anticipating that the US EPA and CARB willultimately approve this alcohol mixture as a gasoline additive.

Future Plans–Nova Fuels is planning to build its first commercial facility at a site inMedical Lake, WA. This plant is intended to employ 8 of Nova Fuels’ nominal size processing modules for a total processing capacity of 2000 tons per day of biomassmaterials. Most of the feedstock will be wheat straw, supplemented by material frompaper and lumber mills. The company has also been exploring potential projects inCalifornia and elsewhere.

64

Figure A1. Nova Fuels Process Flow Illustration

Nova Fuels, all rights reserved

Pearson Bioenergy Technologies, Aberdeen, Mississippi

Organizational Background–Pearson Bioenergy Technologies has carried outresearch efforts since the early 1990s to develop technologies for the conversion ofbiomass material into syngas and the syngas into alcohol, including ethanol. As aresult, Pearson has developed a system for the production of syngas, electric powerand bioalcohol using a unique combination of gasification and steam reformingprocesses. In addition, Pearson has developed proprietary Fischer-Tropsch type (F-T)catalysts to convert syngas to ethanol.

Technology Characteristics– The feedstock is sized to 3/16” and fed, along withsuperheated steam, into a gas-fired primary reformer. Prior to entering the reformer,air is removed from the feedstock to minimize dilution of the syngas product withnitrogen. The multi-stage steam reformer (gasifier) is said to have a “cold gas” efficiency of 81%. The raw syngas then passes through a series of gas clean-up stepsto remove any ash or tars. The clean syngas is then compressed to a high pressureand passed through a series of F-T stages to adjust the ratio of H2 to CO to anoptimum for reaction to ethanol. A proprietary catalyst developed by Pearson isutilized. The hot, raw syngas is cooled in the steam production/heat recovery systemand the recovered heat is used to produce super heated steam and lower grade heatfor feedstock drying. A simplified illustration of the Pearson process is presented inFigure A2.

Since the F-T catalyst cannot produce a single alcohol product (ethanol in this case)with one pass, in order to increase the yield of ethanol it is necessary to separate theother products (e.g., methanol) by distillation and reintroduce the methanol with the H2

65

and CO at the compression stage. The nearly complete conversion of the methanol toethanol may require recycling up to 7 or 8 times.

Development Status–The Pearson technology is currently operational at the pilotscale stage at the company’s facility located at the Aberdeen, MS industrial park. Thepilot plants have a nominal capacity for processing 30 tons of biomass per day.Among the feedstocks tested to date at the facility are rice straw from the Gridley,California area, and mesquite wood from Texas. A February 2005 report by TSSConsultants, sponsored by U.S. DOE/NREL (2005) examines the Pearson technologyin detail for potential application to the proposed Gridley Ethanol Project.

Future Plans–Pearson continues to pursue applications of its technology in variousproposed projects in a number of U.S. states, including Mississippi, Texas, Californiaand Hawaii.

Figure A2. Pearson Technologies Process Flow Diagram

Pearson Bioenergy Technologies, Inc., all rights reserved

Power Energy Fuels, Inc., Lakewood, Colorado

Organizational Background–Power Energy Fuels, Inc. (PEFI) was formed in 1996as a Nevada Corporation. The company has a licensing agreement withPowerEnerCat, Inc. for the exclusive worldwide rights to the Ecalene process. Ecaleneis a mixed alcohol, comprised of ethanol, methanol, butanol, propanol, hexanol andother alcohols.

Technology Characteristics–PEFI is developing its own downdraft gasifier, whichproduces the low BTU syngas needed for production of Ecalene. The gasifier isplanned to accept up to 300 tons per day with approximately 30% moisture content.The company has integrated the gasification process into the Ecalene process, calledthe Power Energy System. The process, illustrated in Figure A3, employs aproprietary catalyst. The company also is able to work with other gasification vendors

66

to produce Ecalene. The Ecalene fuel production process is also suited for use withlarger IGCC systems, such as the GE Energy Gasifier, formerly the Chevron/Texacotechnology, and the e-gas gasifier from Conoco Phillips.

Development Status–PEFI has not reported on its actual technology developmentactivities or results to date. However, the company claims to currently have thecapability to produce and sell the mixed alcohol Ecalene, and is pursuing funding forprojects. The company is working with modular designs with production capacities offrom 21,000 to 30,000 gallons per day, intended to be close to the feedstock supplysource. The process can reportedly employ a wide variety of agricultural, forestry andmunicipal waste feedstocks. Ecalene, said to have a blending octane value of 124, isregistered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a fuel additive,and has potential applications as a neat fuel in hydrous or anhydrous form.

Future Development Plans–PEFI is currently working with a large oil company aswell as Eastman Kodak on the large IGCC plant. The company will continue todevelop their downdraft gasifier while searching for additional funding. The company’s business plan incorporates various approaches to commercializing the Ecaleneprocess, including plant licensing agreements, production royalties, new plant sales,and joint venture partnerships.

Figure A3. PEFI Fuel Process Diagram

67

Range Fuels, Inc., Denver, Colorado

Organizational Background–Range Fuels, Inc. is a privately held company fundedby Khosla Ventures, LLC. The company was formerly known as Kergy, Inc., andbefore that BioConversion Technology, LLC (BCT). The company, which employs 25people, operates a pilot facility in Denver, CO, testing its gasification-based processfor producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass, which the predecessor companies havebeen developing for a number of years.

Technology Characteristics–The Range Fuels technology relies on gasification inthe absence of oxygen. The system, which the company calls K2, uses a two stepprocess to convert biomass to a synthetic gas and from there convert the gas toethanol. It can accept a variety of biomass feedstocks, such as wood chips,agricultural wastes, grasses, and cornstalks as well as hog manure, municipalgarbage, sawdust and paper pulp into ethanol. The K2 system is also modular;depending on the quantity and availability of feedstock, the K2 system can scale fromentry level systems to large configurations. This allows for location near the biomasssource and selection of the most economical plant size for each application.

Development Status–Range Fuels has tested its gasifier at the 25 ton per day scalein the company’s pilot plant. Technical results of this development progress to dateare not disclosed.

Future Plans–Range Fuels intends to design, build, own and operate facilitiesapplying its proprietary technology, and has plans to fully commercialize thistechnology. The company is presently pursuing a commercial demonstration projectincorporating its technology in Soperton (Truetlen County) Georgia. Partners in thisproject include Merrick and Co., PRAJ Industries, Georgia Forestry Commission,Western Research Institute, Yeomans Wood and Timber, Truetlen CountyDevelopment Authority, BioConversion Technology and CH2M Hill, and Gillis Ag andTimber. USDOE, in February 2007, awarded a grant of up to $76 million to RangeFuels to co-fund this project.

Range Fuels’ Georgia project is scheduled to break ground in 2007. This plant isintended to ultimately produce 40 million gallons of ethanol plus 9 million gallons ofmethanol per year. The primary feedstock for this plant will be wood waste fromGeorgia’s millions of acres of indigenous Georgia Pine. The project is intended tobegin operation at a scale of 10 million gallons per year and add additional modules toreach the above full capacity. About 1,200 tons per day of wood chips and forestwaste feedstock are expected to be processed at full operating capacity.

68

Thermo Conversions, Denver, Colorado

Organizational Background–Thermo Conversions (TC) is a privately help companyinvolved in joint ventures with several organizations to pursue thermochemicalbioenergy technology development. Partner companies include Wiley Engineeringand others. TC plans are to develop and deploy fully integrated systems for the co-production of bioalcohols, electricity and heat.

Technology Characteristics–The TC technology utilizes thermochemicalpyrolysis/steam reforming in the absence of oxygen or air, intended to optimizeconversion efficiency of biomass carbon to syngas. TC claims to have made anumber of significant technical innovations and improvements to the state-of-the-artincluding: modular design that facilitates sectional construction and allows rapidservice of parts and components; a track-feed biomass introduction system; a systemthat eliminates air from entering the pyrolysis chamber, minimizing oxidation of organiccompounds; injection of ionized water into the reactor, enhancing syngas productionand reducing production of tars and phenols; and a flue gas closed-loop recyclingsystem to enhance carbon source conversion and reduce emissions.

Energy efficient production of cleaned syngas is predicted by TC to represent energycontent in the 400-600 BTU/cubic ft. range. This syngas can be used for theproduction of electricity, heat and steam or converted to liquid fuels and chemicalfeedstocks allowing the handling of most all types of feedstock materials.

Development Status–The TC technology has been integrated with a syngas tobioalcohol and electricity production technology developed by Pacific RenewableFuels (PRF). The PRF technology employs next-generation catalysts and processcontrol technologies for which several patents are pending. Parts, components andmaterials are applied that have undergone long-term testing under real-worldoperating conditions and that are readily available from reliable suppliers. The track-feed biomass introduction system utilized has been proven to be reliable through manyyears of use by the coal industry.

Future Plans–A 200 ton/day TC production plant for the conversion of biomass toelectricity and bioalcohol is being built at a location in the Port of Toledo, OH area.This TC plant will be equipped with instrumentation that will allow environmental,energy and mass balance measurements. The plant has been designed with a highlevel of modularity so that operational changes can be made quickly to solve anyproblems that may arise and to further enhance the “optimization” of syngas energy value, purity, and volume output from the system. TC indicates they are alsodesigning other plants for deployment in the U.S. and Canada.

69

CATEGORY II–THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSESINCORPORATING GASIFICATION WITH OXYGEN

Bioversion Industries, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Organizational Background–Bioversion Industries Inc. (Bioversion) was establishedin 2005 in Ontario, Canada by Thermo Design Engineering Limited, an Albertaengineering and construction company that specializes in petrochemical and chemicalprocess systems and Woodland Chemical Systems Inc., a developer of processtechnologies for the areas of energy, environment, and waste disposal. Bioversions islicensed by Woodland Chemical for the Catalyzed Pressure Reduction (CPR)technology.

Technology Characteristics–The CPR technology is a gasification technologydesigned to convert lignocellulosic feedstock to ethanol. The feedstock is sized to lessthan two inch blocks, and then dried to fifteen percent moisture. The ethanolproduction system creates extra heat that is used to dry the feedstock. The CPRtechnology then utilizes a proprietary gasifier to produce a synthesis gas composed ofcarbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide and minor amounts of largercarbon molecules. The system is equipped with a gas clean-up system to removecontaminants that may disrupt the alcohol catalyst. The syngas then reacts with thecatalyst to produce alcohol. The alcohol is then purified to ethanol containing 0.75percent water.

Development Status–Bench scale studies were initiated in 1991 with thedevelopment of a system operating at 50 gm of biomass per hour. A 25 kg/hr pilotscale gasification model was developed in 1995, which incorporated indirect heatingand processing of syngas to organic liquids.

Computer simulations were carried out using Honeywell Unisym dynamic simulationsoftware to validate the pilot scale studies. The company is currently developing ademonstration facility and completing the engineering design phase.

Future Plans–Bioversions is currently developing their first industrial scale plant inEastern Canada with construction expected to begin in 2007. The company iscurrently negotiating relationships with U.S. ethanol producers. In addition Bioversionsis in discussions with a major international investment bank and with a leadingrenewable energy group to complete financing of the company’s first owned plant in 2007.

70

Enerkem Technologies, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Organizational Background–Enerkem Technologies, formed in 1998, is atechnology developer with the mission to develop advanced technologies for theconversion of wastes and biomass into marketable electricity, biofuels and co-products. Enerkem’s patented technologies involve partial oxidation systems, gas clean-up and catalytic reforming. Catalytic synthesis of alcohols (ethanol and/ormethanol) from syngas is one of the company’s areas of specialization.

Technology Characteristics–The Enerkem gasification system, illustrated in FigureA4, is based on partial oxidation of feedstock to produce syngas and then catalyticconversion of syngas to alcohol. The feed material is metered into the gasificationchamber, which consists of a fluidized bed reactor. Air or oxygen-rich air enters thegasification chamber from the bottom of the reactor. The gasification reactor operatesin a range of 800 to 1,000 °C at 2 to 6 atmospheres of pressure. The syngas travelsthrough a series of gas clean-up steps, including: cyclones; a syngas quench; venture;demister; and finally an electrostatic precipitator. The conditioned syngas is sentthrough a steam reformer, and then converted to methanol. The methanol product isconverted to ethanol and/or methyl acetate and ethyl acetate. The fuel grade ethanolproduct is then separated from system byproducts.

Development Status–Enerkem operates a pilot/demonstration plant in Sherbrooke,Quebec. Among the biomass feedstocks said to be candidates for application of thecompany’s technology are agricultural and forestry residues, municipal wastecomponents, and various industrial wastes.

Future Plans–Enerkem seeks to apply its technologies either by operation of its ownplants or in partnership with established users, or by licensing toindependent users.

71

Figure A4. Enerkem Process Diagram

Enerkem Technologies, Inc., all rights reserved

Standard Alcohol Company of America, Inc., Durango,Colorado

Organizational Background–Standard Alcohol Company of America, Inc., formed in1993, is pursuing a production process for a fuel it calls “Envirolene”, a mixed alcohol fuel. The company has formed a subsidiary, New Energies LLC of Omaha, Nebraska,with the objective of commercializing the production of Envirolene from manure andother agricultural wastes.

Technology Characteristics–The Envirolene production process, as described byNew Energies LLC is gasification, or a process of molecular disassociation where thefeedstock material, dried and sized to meet the process needs, is introduced into agasifier where it is heated up to several thousand degrees in an oxygen-free(reduction) environment. The resulting carbon/hydrogen syngas is then sent through afixed-bed methanization type reactor which converts the syngas to the mixed alcoholproduct. The process is said to be simple, scaleable, and resulting in low-emissionsand minimal waste effluents.

The claimed advantages of Envirolene include high octane rating (138), high energycontent, low emissions, biodegradability, and a mid-range evaporation rate (4.61 psi),Intended applications of this product include as a gasoline or diesel fuel blendingcomponent, an FFV fuel, an aviation gasoline replacement and/or a de-icer fuel foraircraft turbine engines.

72

Development Status–The completed development steps or the plans and schedulefor further research and development of Envirolene have not been announced byStandard Alcohol Company or New Energies LLC.

Future Development Plans–Standard Alcohol Company indicates that its work withhigher mixed alcohol synthesis remains private. They indicate that, at some point,they may choose to release information or otherwise participate in specific forums ofpublic disclosure. The firm has declined interviews with government agencies anddoes not lecture at biofuels conferences concerning their patented and patent-pendinggas to liquids technology or formula developments. They have privately formed alicensing authority and continue to pursue licensing their patents to publicly tradedfirms, electric utilities, Indian tribes or foreign governments.

SVG GmbH, Spreetal, Germany

Organizational Background–The Sustec Schwarze Pumpe GmbH (SVZ GmbH)company is a located in Spreetal, Germany. In 2005 SVZ GmbH became a part of theSustec Group, Switzerland. According to the company web site the Schwarze Pumpesite will be developed into a center for industrial application and demonstration ofinnovative coal and waste gasification technologies. The company’s original development of coal gasification technology has expanded to include conversion ofvarious biomass waste materials to methanol.

Technology Characteristics–The Company has experimented with threegasification processes since the original plant was built in 1982. The first system is asolid bed gasification process used for coal and solid waste. This first plant wasdesigned to use low-grade coal. The gasifier operates at a pressure of 25 bars and atemperature of 800 to 1300°C. The company indicates that under pressure, thesystem uses steam and oxygen as gasification agents. The waste enters the gasifierthrough an airlock system. The gasifier produces syngas and ash in the form of slag.The syngas then goes through a gas clean-up step before it can be used for electricityor fuels production.

In order to remain operational, the company modified the gasification technology tohandle liquid wastes. The second gasifier developed by SVZ GmbH was theEndrainet flow gasification system. The contaminated oils, tars and slurries are drivenby steam over a burner system in the reactor that operates at 1600 to 1800°C. Thesystem produces a syngas and all organic pollutants are captured in the slag.

The third gasification system developed by SVZ GmbH was the British Gas-Lurgi(BGL) gasifier developed by British gas and Lurgi. The system is designed to operateon a feedstock of mixed waste with coal. The feedstock enters the system via anairlock system. The gasifier operates at a temperature of 1600°C and 25 bars.Similarly to the other gasifiers, the BGL system utilizes steam and oxygen as thegasification agents. The main products of the gasifier are syngas and a liquid slag.

73

The slag leaves the gasifier and is quickly shock cooled to form a vitrified slag. Thecompany uses the syngas to make methanol.

Development Status–The solid bed gasification system operates at approximately15 tons per hour. The Endrainet flow gasifier has a capacity of approximately 16.5tons per hour. The BGL gasifier processes pre-treated solid waste at approximately38.5 tons per hour. The company lists feedstocks able to be processed by itstechnology as: wood, sewage sludge, domestic garbage, plastics, light shreddedmaterials, and other solid waste.

Future Plans–SVZ GmbH’s facility in Germany is being developed into a center forindustrial application and demonstration of innovative coal and waste gasificationtechnologies.

Syntec Biofuels, Inc., Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

Organizational Background–Syntec Biofuels (Syntec) was established in 2001 atthe University of British Columbia. The company has since been developing catalystsfor conversion of ethanol using synthetic gas derived from renewal sources. For thelast 2 years, the Syntec research team has focused on developing new ethanolcatalysts that utilize base metal variants suitable for commercial deployment.

Technology Characteristics–The Syntec technology, depicted in Figure A5, utilizesthe thermochemical conversion of biomass to synthesis gas. The company integratesother established processes to make syngas from biomass. The syngas can then becatalytically converted to ethanol using Syntec’s proprietary catalyst. In 2004, Syntecfiled a patent for its first ethanol catalyst using precious metals. The fuel productiontechnology relies on low pressure catalytic technology, similar to what is being used inthe methanol industry.

Development Status–The Company has completed both concept and bench scaletesting of their technology. Initial experiments to prove out the technology werecarried out at lab facilities at the University of British Columbia through a servicecontract in parallel with the company’sown facilities in Vancouver and later inBurnaby. Syntec continues to test their technology at the pilot scale.

Future Plans–Syntec is in the process of establishing alliances with potentialstrategic partners for feedstock, infrastructure, funding and a site for a demonstrationplant in the next 2 years. Syntec has filed several patents and expects to fullycommercialize their product within three years.

74

Figure A5. Syntec Biofuel, Inc., Technology

Syntec Technology

©2006, Syntec Biofuel Inc.

Thermogenics, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico

Organizational Background–Thermogenics is a privately held corporationspecializing in development of the company's patented gasification system. Thecompany has been financed by private sources as well as U.S. DOE.

Technology Characteristics–The Thermogenics technology, illustrated in FigureA6, relies on an air blown gasification technology. The gasifier converts cellulosicfeedstock into synthesis gas that is cleaned with an electrostatic precipitator, and thencooled. The clean syngas can then be used for the production of mixed alcohols.

Development Status - Feedstocks that have been tested or considered include:sorted municipal and commercial waste, shredded paper, wood waste, dewateredsewage sludge, scrap tires, agricultural waste, automobile shredder "fluff", paintsludge, oil field wastes and hydrocarbon contaminated soils

Future Plans–The Company has partnered with Power Energy Fuels Inc. to providethe alcohol processing equipment.

75

Figure A6. Thermogenics, Inc., Technology

ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc., Baltimore,Maryland

Organizational Background–ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc. (TRI) wasfounded in 1996 as a licensee of proprietary technology developed by MTCI. Thetechnology includes designs applicable to an integrated biomass biorefinery. TRI haspartnered with a number of organizations to further develop their technology. Some oftheir partners include: Brigham Young University; North Carolina State University,University of Utah, US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy; Center for Technology Transfer, Inc.; American Forest and PaperAssociation and TAPPI.

Technology Characteristics– TRI’s patented technology, shown in Figure A7, isknown as the PulseEnhanced steam reforming gasification system, where thefeedstock reacts in a gasifier with steam and oxygen at a high temperature andpressure in a reducing (oxygen-starved) atmosphere. This process produces amedium-Btu syngas comprised primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and smallerquantities of carbon dioxide and methanol. This syngas can be used as a substitute fornatural gas or as a feedstock for various biofuels and other products, includingethanol, methanol, biodiesel and acetic acid. A unique feature of the technology is anindirect heating method using modular pulsating heaters in a steam-driven bubblingfluid bed vessel. The system simultaneously employs a water-gas shift reaction toproduce additional hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hot syngas leaves thegasification chamber and is passed through cyclones to remove particulate matter,

76

cooled then quenched and scrubbed. A portion of the syngas is burned in the pulsedheaters to supply the necessary heat, making the steam reformer energy self-sufficient. The remaining syngas is available for conversion to liquid fuels via catalytictransformation.

Development Status–TRI has demonstrated their gasification technology at thecommercial scale in the pulp and paper industry, producing syngas from spent liquorscommon to this industry. The resulting syngas is used in these applications to produceelectricity and/or process heat. Applications of the process to produce alcohol fuelsusing various agricultural and forestry-based feedstocks are being pursued. TRI hasan operating test facility in Baltimore capable of processing 30 pounds per hour ofsolid biomass feedstock.

Future Plans–TRI and its partners are reportedly pursuing development of projectsin several different countries involving applications of its technology for production offuels, including bioalcohols.

Figure A7. TRI PulseEnhanced Technology

ThermoChem Recovery Intl., all rights reserved

77

CATEGORY VIII–BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSESINCORPORATING ACID HYDROLYSIS/FERMENTATION

Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., Irvine, California

Organizational Background–Originally formed in 1992 as Arkenol, Inc., BlueFireEthanol is the operating company established to deploy the patented ArkenolTechnology for producing ethanol from biomass. The original parent company, ARKEnergy (since acquired by Tenneco, Inc.), developed electric power cogenerationprojects. In 1994, Arkenol, in partnership with Sacramento Municipal Utility District(SMUD), was granted certification by the CEC for the Sacramento Ethanol and PowerCogeneration Project (SEPCO), a joint-venture intended to produce ethanol andelectricity from rice straw and other agricultural wastes. However, the Arkenol/SMUDpartnership dissolved and the project was not constructed.

Technology Characteristics–The Arkenol Technology, illustrated in Figure A8, is aconcentrated acid hydrolysis process, incorporating various technologicalimprovements to traditional hydrolysis, along with modern control methods, and newermaterials of construction. One particular innovation is use of commercially availableion exchange resins to separate the sugars produced in the process from the acidsolution, which is then re-concentrated and recycled. Lignin is also separated from thehydolyzate for use as a boiler fuel.

In a full commercial application, the process would involve a sequence of the followingsix steps for producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass feedstocks:

1. Feedstock preparation2. De-crystallization/hydrolysis reaction vessel3. Solids/liquid filtration4. Separation of the acid and sugars5. Fermentation of the sugars6. Product purification

The technology is said to be extremely versatile, both in its ability to utilize a widevariety of feedstocks and in the end-products that it can produce. All of the feedstockused in the process is intended to be converted to saleable products, including:ethanol, lignin, gypsum, and animal yeast. In the presence of a viable market, carbondioxide may also be captured and sold as a byproduct of the process.

Development Status–BlueFire’s technology has undergone twelve years of progressive development involving several stages of pilot plant operations. The first ofthese was conducted at the company’s own research facility in Orange, California, where a 1 ton-per-day batch facility was employed for testing from 1994 to 1999.

78

In 2000, Arkenol entered into a cooperative agreement with JGC Corp. of Yokohama,Japan. With funding from the Japanese New Energy Development Organization(NEDO), JGC first constructed and operated a 2 tons-per-day pilot test of the Arkenolprocess for two years at JGC’s research center in Oharai, Japan, which demonstrated the ability of the Arkenol technology to produce fermentable sugars. This led to anexpanded (up to 5 tons-per-day) pilot facility built and operated in conjunction with anexisting conventional ethanol plant in Izumi Japan from 2002 to 2006. The Izumi pilotproject involved a fully integrated demonstration of all Arkenol process components,producing ethanol for use in a Japanese government vehicle test program. Lignincombustion testing, involving 4 tons of lignin fuel, was also reportedly conducted.

Among the biomass feedstock materials said to have been tested with the Arkenolprocess in the Japanese pilot projects are: rice straw, wheat straw, wood wastes,green wastes, MSW, paper, residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), andsugarcane bagasse.

Future Development Plans–BlueFire has partnered with Waste Management, Inc.,a major U.S. waste management firm to develop plans for a series of projectsintended to produce ethanol from urban green waste at the partner company’s landfill disposal sites. The first of these projects, planned for a Southern California landfill site,would be designed to process 700 metric tons per day of material and produce 19million gallons of ethanol per year. In February 2007, Blue Fire was awarded a grantby the U.S. DOE for up to $40 million for this project. BlueFire is pursuing theremaining funding and selecting equipment vendors and engineering providers for thisproject and, subject to obtaining pending regulatory approvals, hopes to break groundin 2007. Further projects at additional MSW landfill sites and at other possible venuesinvolving agricultural and forestry biomass feedstocks are also being explored. TheCalifornia Energy Commission awarded BlueFire a grant in April 2007 to support thecompany’s technology development.

79

Figure A8. BlueFire Arkenol Technology

Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., all rights reserved

Bioenergy International, LLC, Norwell, Massachusetts

Organizational Background–BioEnergy International, LLC is a privately heldbiotechnology company, founded by the former principals of BC InternationalCorporation (BCI). BCI, a former technology development company, pursued an acidhydrolysis-based technology during the 1990s that was originally intended to beapplied in the Gridley and Collins Pine biomass-to-ethanol projects in California.BioEnergy International has ongoing development activities aimed at ethanolproduction from cellulosic materials. Meanwhile, the company is pursuing conventionalcorn-to-ethanol projects in Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

Technology Characteristics–BioEnergy's research and development is said to befocused on the early commercialization of products produced by microbialfermentations of sugars derived from biomass. The company has entered intoagreements with the University of Florida involving various aspects of biochemicalconversion process research and development, including: organisms modified toferment all sugars derived from biomass to produce selected specialty chemicals; theprocess technology for genetically engineering the organisms; the development of theorganisms for commercialization, excluding ethanol.

80

Development Status–BioEnergy International claims to be developing a “pipeline of novel biocatalysts”, but has not publicly released information about its current activities or progress involving development of a cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol process.

Future Plans–As it moves forward with its conventional corn-to-ethanol projects,BioEnergy International intends to continue improving its process technology for theproduction of ethanol from biomass, including the fermentation of sugars generatedfrom the processing of the cellulose components of agricultural wastes, to augment itscorn based process technology. The company’s goal is to have this technology ready for commercial deployment at one of its corn-to-ethanol plants by 2008.

Brelsford Engineering, Inc., Bozeman, Montana

Organizational Background–Brelsford Engineering Inc. (BEI) has developed acellulosic biomass-to-ethanol technology based on a patented hydrolysis processutilizing dilute acid. Part of BEI’s development efforts have been funded by theMontana Renewable Energy Foundation. BEI’s development originated with a small-scale grain-based ethanol production plant designed, built, and operated for USDOEby EG&G Idaho, Inc. at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) in 1980. Itwas dismantled in 1982. Subsequently, BEI obtained the complete EG&G IdahoEngineering Designs and Reports.

Technology Characteristics–The BEI process, shown in Figure A9, utilizes a diluteacid two-stage plug-flow reactor system. The slurry feedstock is fed into the feedtank, where sulfuric acid is combined with biomass. The slurry goes through aprogressive cavity pump to the primary reactor that operates at 135°C. The output ofthe primary reactor is centrifuged then exposed to fresh sulfuric acid and heat. Thefeedstock goes through a slurry mixer and then into the secondary reactor, which iskept at 180°C. The slurry is then flashed to lower the temperature. Waste heat isrecycled to the primary reactor. The acid and water mixture is then returned to theslurry feed tank where it re-enters the system. The slurry goes back into the primaryreactor to produce highly concentrated sugars. The sugars are fermented to produceethanol.

Development Status - BEI has completed bench-scale and pilot-plant testing of itsprocess. However, the results of these tests are not publicly available. The companyclaims to have tested its process with the following feedstocks: soft and hardwood sawmilling wood wastes; wheat and barley straw; corn stover and corn fiber; and municipalrefuse-derived cellulose and green wastes.

Future Plans–BEI offers for private sale the industrial design of the BEI CelluloseHydrolysis Processing & Reactor System, along with specifications of availableprocess equipment, instruments and control systems.

81

Figure A9. BEI Process

Celunol Corporation, Dedham, Massachusetts

Organizational Background–Celunol Corporation, headquartered in Cambridge,Massachusetts, is a privately-held research and development company that previouslyoperated as BC International Corporation (BCI). Celunol, in 1995, (then BCI) secureda license agreement for a biomass-to-ethanol technology, developed at the Universityof Florida. In February 2007 Celunol announced a merger agreement with San Diego,CA-based Diversa Corporation, a developer and producer of specialty enzymesfounded in 1994.

Technology Characteristics–The Celunol technology utilizes metabolicallyengineered microorganisms to ferment sugars to ethanol. The company hasgenetically engineered strains of Escherichia coli bacteria to be able to ferment aportion of cellulosic based sugars into ethanol. The technology is said to be able toconvert almost all the sugars found in cellulosic biomass to ethanol.

Development Status–The Company has announced the start-up, as of November2006, of its pilot facility in Jennings LA. This pilot plant has an initial capacity of50,000 gallon of ethanol per year, with plans for expansion to 1.4 million gallons peryear demonstration facility by the end of 2007.

82

Future Plans–The company has licensed its technology to Marubeni Corporation tooperate a 323,424 gallon per year plant in Osaka, Japan, expected to be operationalin 2007 and expanded to a capacity of 1.057 million gallons in 2008. With completionof Celunol’s merger with Diversa, the combined companies intend to accelerate the commercialization of their cellulosic ethanol production technology. A commercial-scale facility at the Jennings, LA site is among the future projects under consideration.

Dedini Industrias de Base, Piracicaiba, SP, Brazil

Organizational Background–The Brazilian company Dedini, formed in 1920, is oneof Brazil’s largest and most diverse industrial corporations,with areas of businessranging from chemicals, to food and beverages, to mining and cement, and including anumber of energy-related business areas. One of Dedini’s primary areas of specialization is equipment for sugar and ethanol production plants as well ascomplete turn-key plants. Over 80% of the ethanol produced in Brazil reportedlyemploys Dedini equipment. In 1987, Dedini began development of biomass-to-ethanolproduction technology, in partnership with the Brazilian sugar and ethanol producerCopersucar and the State of Sao Paulo Research Supporting Foundation (FAPESP),with funding support from the World Bank.

Technology Characteristics–Dedini’s technology, shown in Figure A10, is knownas the Dedini Hidrolise Rapida (DHR) process, Portuguese for Rapid Hydrolysis. DHRuses the “organosolve” hydrolysis process to convert sugarcane bagasse into sugars which are then fermented and distilled into ethanol via conventional ethanol plantprocesses. The single-stage process employs both a very dilute acid for reduction ofcellulose and hemicellulose to sugars and a strong solvent for lignin extraction. Ofmany lignin solvents tested, ethanol itself proved most effective and was selected forapplication. Both the ethanol solvent and the acid are recycled in the process, andlignin is recovered for use as a supplementary boiler fuel. DHR’s main unique feature is reduced hydrolysis reaction time (only a few minutes) in a continuous high-throughput process, with quick cooling of the hydrolysate. This is said to enable lowcapital and operating costs, higher yields and reduced operating complexity. Patentsfor the DHR process have been issued (beginning in 1996) in Brazil, the U.S.,Canada, the European Union, and Russia, and applied for in Japan and othercountries.

Development Status–Following initial laboratory-scale testing, Dedini developed a100 liters-per-day pilot plant at the Copersucar Technology Center in Piracicaiba,which has undergone 345 test runs over 2,100 hours with the DHR process.Technical-economic feasibility of the process is said to be confirmed by the pilot plant.Since 1992, Dedini and its partners have also operated a “semi-industrial” demonstration plant with the DHR technology, located at the Sao Luiz Sugar andEthanol Plant in Pirassununga, Sao Paulo State. The DHR demonstration plant iscoupled with the conventional sugarcane-to-ethanol plant, sharing various utility and

83

support systems and using the conventional plant’s fermentation/distillation systems for the finished ethanol production steps. For feedstock, the DHR demonstration plantuses a sidestream of the same sugarcane bagasse supply normally used to fuel theadjacent sugarcane-to-ethanol plant’s boilers. The demonstration plant has the capacity to process about 2 tons of bagasse per hour and produce about 5,000 liters(1,300 gallons) of ethanol per day, and is typically operated for five-day periods at atime continuously.

Future Development Plans–Dedini and partners intend to continue operating thedemonstration plant for an unspecified period of time in order to better define theengineering parameters and engineer solutions to remaining technical issues, leadingto design of an industrial-scale unit. Dedini’s ultimate intention is to develop commercial DHR technology to offer ethanol producers as part of its core businessselling equipment to the sugar and ethanol industries. Feedstocks other thansugarcane bagasse could eventually be explored for application of the DHR process,and the possibility of integrating enzymatic processing with DHR is not being ruled out.However, the near-term intention is to develop commercial applications of the existingDHR process using only sugarcane bagasse and integrated with conventionalsugarcane-to-ethanol plants.

Figure A10. Dedini Hidrolise Rapida (DHR) Process

Dedini, all rights reserved

84

HFTA/UC Forest Products Lab, Livermore, California

Organizational Background–Technology invented at the University of CaliforniaForest Products Laboratory (UCFPL) for the purpose of producing ethanol fromcellulosic (primarily forestry) materials continues to be pursued by a private company,HFTA. Patents covering the technology are owned by the University of California, andan exclusive option on commercialization rights is held by HFTA, formed in 1994 byUCFPL staff. Much of the past HFTA/UCFPL research on the technology has beensupported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable ResearchLaboratory. The UCFPL was a research and graduate teaching facility operated underthe auspices of the University of California, Berkeley, at the Richmond, California fieldstation. Facilities included a chemical laboratory, a fermentation laboratory, and large-scale chemical processing laboratory equipment, including pulping digesters, wetoxidation reactor, and a batch biomass/hydrolysis reactor. The University of Californiahas closed this laboratory and the equipment and staff capabilities are no longeravailable in that setting.

Technology Characteristics–The HFTA/UCFPL process utilizes dilute nitric acid asa catalyst in an acid hydrolysis process to break down cellulosic materials into theirconstituent sugars for fermentation to ethanol. The technology was developedfocusing mainly on wood chips, but is said to be generally applicable to alllignocellulosic feedstocks, including forest thinnings, sawmill residues, waste paper,urban wood waste, corn stover, switchgrass, rice or wheat straw, and sugarcanebagasse. The technology can be used in a single-stage or two-stage process, withresidence times of 5-8 minutes in each reactor stage. Lignin collected via filtration isclaimed to be sufficient for all process energy requirements. The HFTA/UCFPLtechnology could also be applied as the pre-treatment step for enzymatic hydrolysisprocesses.

A key feature of the HFTA/UCFPL technology is its use of nitric acid, rather thansulfuric or hydrochloric acids used in most other hydrolysis processes. Nitric acid wasselected by HFTA/UCFPL due to several identified characteristics, including itsmiscibility with water, allowing low acid concentrations to sufficiently catalyze thehydrolysis reaction. Nitric acid also “passivates” stainless steels, effectively forming aprotective coating shown to provide corrosion protection at the required operatingtemperatures, acid concentrations and abrasiveness of the process. This is said toreduce the cost of materials needed for processing equipment. The nitric acid-basedprocess is also claimed to reduce water requirements by affording greater waterrecycling, as well as reducing wastewater treatment requirements and solid wasteresiduals.

Development Status–HFTA/UCFPL has completed over a decade of research anddevelopment of its technology, through the bench-scale testing phase. Numeroustechnical reports and papers have been authored by the project researchersdocumenting the results and findings. Economic evaluations have also beenconducted for the process. Since the University of California closed the UCFPL

85

several years ago, HFTA has been without a physical venue to carry on itsdevelopment of the process. HFTA claims that the development and testing conductedto date demonstrate that the technology is ready for pilot plant verification.

Future Development Plans–HFTA continues as a business entity, headquartered inLivermore, California. The University of California, Berkeley, Office of IntellectualProperty and Industrial Research Alliances includes the HFTA/UCFPL technologyamong its listed available technologies, identifying it as an “efficient and cost-effectivebiomass technology for clean energy”. The next stage of anticipated development of the technology has been described as scale-up that will require a stable feedstocksupply and access to financing for a pilot plant with a capacity of 20 to 100 tons perday. Commercial equipment is said to be available for all major components of a full-scale plant, allowing almost parallel development of pilot and commercial facilities. Atthis point, neither funding nor plans for continuation of development work involving theHFTA/UCFPL technology have been announced.

Losonoco, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Organizational Background–Losonoco was formed in the UK in 2003 andmoved its headquarters to Florida in 2006. The name derives from “low sulfur dioxide, no carbon dioxide”. The company’s business plan is to design, build, own and/or operate biorefineries producing ethanol and electricity primarily fromcellulosic biomass.

Technology Characteristics–Losonoco’s proprietary biomass-to-ethanoltechnology, illustrated in Figure A11, is a two-stage dilute acid hydrolysis process; itconsists of five steps described by the company as follow:

1. Feedstock preparation: Chopping, shredding and steam treating the feedstockto soften it and start the process of breaking down the lignin

2. Acid hydrolysis: Using dilute acids, temperature and pressure to break open thelignin and release the natural sugars

3. Sugar separation: Removing the acid/sugar solution from the hydrolysate;separating the sugar from the acid and neutralizing it

4. Ethanol manufacture: Fermenting the sugars into a ‘beer’; removal of the ‘wet’ ethanol from the beer by distillation and removing the water from the ethanol

5. Carbon dioxide manufacturing: Capture, purification and liquefaction of thecarbon dioxide

A key feature of Losonoco’s technology is said to be its precise operating conditions (temperature, pressure, acidity and residency) for each feedstock or mix of

86

feedstocks. The process is said to be able to use a variety of cellulosic feedstocks,including wheat and rice straw, yard waste, commercial wood waste, agriculturalresidues and forestry products and residues. Lignin byproduct from the process isintended to be used as boiler fuel. The company also claims to have developed asignificant improvement in the fermentation process, a specially-created organism thatimproves ethanol yields by 25 percent over conventional yeast fermentation.

A key feature of Losonoco’s technology is said to be its precise operating conditions (temperature, pressure, acidity and residency) for each feedstock or mix of feedstocks.The process is said to be able to use a variety of cellulosic feedstocks, including wheatand rice straw, yard waste, commercial wood waste, agricultural residues and forestryproducts and residues. Lignin byproduct from the process is intended to be used asboiler fuel. The company also claims to have developed a significant improvement inthe fermentation process, a specially-created organism that improves ethanol yields by25 percent over conventional yeast fermentation.

Development Status–Pilot-scale testing of Losonoco’s process was conducted at the test facilities formerly operated by Tennessee Valley Authority, reportedly involvingsome 40 different biomass feedstocks. Additional advanced pilot-scale anddemonstration stages of development are said to be ongoing, leading to plans for aninitial small-scale commercial facility. Emissions from the process are said to havebeen quantified, but are proprietary. Wastewater effluents are said to be minimal.

Future Development Plans–Losonoco says it has projects under discussion or indevelopment stages at Merseyside and Teeside in the UK, in Sicily, and in the statesof Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Washington andCalifornia. Permitting for one of more projects is intended to commence in 2007, withconstruction to begin in 2008 at the first site still to be selected. Losonoco is looking topartner in project development with forestry, pulp and paper companies and otherwood waste feedstock suppliers; also in pursuing synergies between cellulosic ethanolproduction and conventional sugar/starch-based ethanol production, using residuessuch as sugarcane bagasse and corn stover as feedstocks for its process.

87

Figure A11. Losonoco Wood-to-Ethanol by Dilute Acid Hydrolysis

ShredderChipper

FEEDSTOCKPREPARATION

Commercial woodForestry wasteStraw

ACIDHYDROLYSIS

Stage 2Dilute AcidHydrolysis

LiquidSolid

Separation

Power plant

ProcessSteam

ElectricityLignin + Stillage

Acid recovery

Fermentation Distillation

CO2 Capture & Purification

AcidSugar

Fuel Ethanol

Industrial CO2

ALCHOHOLMANUFACTURE

SUGARSEPARATION Neutralisation

LimeGypsum

Stage 1Dilute AcidHydrolysis

SteamExplosion

C6 sugars C5 sugars

Sugar

Dehydration

CARBON DIOXIDEMANUFACTURE

Losonoco, all rights reserved

Masada Resource Group, LLC, Birmingham, Alabama

Organizational Background–Masada Resource Group (MRG) was formed in themid-1990s by a group of experienced businesspeople to pursue waste conversion torenewable energy. MRG and its affiliate companies have developed a patentedproprietary technology, known as the CES OxyNol Process, for converting municipalsolid waste and municipal sewage sludge to ethanol. In 1996, MRG’s affiliate PMO entered into an agreement with the City of Middletown, New York for development ofan integrated waste management facility incorporating the CES OxyNol Process toproduce ethanol from the city’s municipal waste streams. After years of pursuing thisproject, the protracted illness and untimely death of MRG’s founder and CEO, in 2005, interrupted project plans and necessitated corporate restructuring and newmanagement. Under new direction, MRG/PMO is continuing development of the CESOxyNol Process, including pursuing the Middletown MSW-to-ethanol project.

Technology Characteristics–The CES OxyNol Process, shown in Figure A12, isa concentrated sulfuric acid hydrolysis process. It is intended to utilize a primarywaste stream: municipal solid waste (MSW); and two additional waste streams;municipal waste-water biosolids (sludge) and off-spec waste paper. The MSW and

88

waste paper are handled on one process train and sludge on a parallel processtrain. The MSW is pre-sorted, including removal of recyclables, then shredded anddried prior to being subjected to the process.

Wastewater biosolids or sludge is composed, on average, of eighty percent waterand twenty percent solids. The sludge is treated with acid, and then mixed with thehydrolyzed cellulose. The solid fraction (lignin and biosolids) is collected,dewatered and used as a renewable solid boiler fuel. This fuel can be usedinternally to meet process energy requirements, or can be sold for use in solid fuelboilers. The acidic sugar stream is treated to recover and recycle the acid andconcentrate the sugar stream. The resulting sugar stream is still too acidic forbiological fermentation, and is buffered with an agent to bring the sugar solution toa normal pH. Buffering the sugar stream results in the precipitation of gypsum andthe removal of some heavy metals associated with MSW and sludge.

The sugar stream is then fermented into ethanol. During fermentation, the carbondioxide is captured, conditioned and sold as an industrial gas. The ethanol isdistilled, denatured and sold to the transportation fuels market. The process is saidto result in conversion to beneficial use of over 90 percent of the waste feedstockstreams.

Development Status–Much of the early research and development of Masada’s process was conducted by Mississippi State University and the Tennessee ValleyAuthority in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. This testing involved the acid recoveryportion of the technology in addition to key process system components, includingthe successful conversion of cellulose to sugar and fermentation into ethanol, inequipment supplied by third party vendors. Current research and developmentefforts are being lead by Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama.

Since inception of the Middletown project, known as the Orange Recycling andEthanol Production Facility, MRG/PMO has pursued various aspects ofdevelopment of this project, including engineering and design, permitting andcommunity public relations, financing, feedstock supply and product off-takeagreements. The project is said to be fully permitted by the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the federalEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). As part of the permitting process, allenergy and mass balances were reviewed by the NYSDEC. These reviewsincluded water usage and wastewater discharge, and air emissions.

Future Development Plans–MRG recently submitted a bid to purchase theTennessee Valley Authority’s facility in Muscle Shoals testing facility that was used for the earlier testing of the CES OxyNol Process. This equipment consists of hydrolysisunits, centrifuges, fermentation and distillation units in addition to other key systemcomponents. Masada intends to use the equipment in part or in whole at AuburnUniversity as part of its ongoing efforts to refine, commercialize and adapt the CES

89

OxyNol process. TVA is decommissioning this equipment as part of its ongoing effortto streamline it operations and meet the goals of its mission.

The Orange Recycling and Ethanol Production Facility planned for Middletown, NewYork is intended to be a commercial scale facility. It has a permitted capacity of230,000 tons of MSW, 71,000 tons of off-spec waste paper, and 71,000 tons of drybiosolids per year. The facility is designed to produce about 8.5 to 9.5 million gallonsof ethanol per year, along with 21,000 tons of glass, plastics and metals not normallyrecovered from the municipal waste stream. Additionally, 27,000 tons of carbondioxide, 21,000 tons of gypsum, and 50,000 tons of fly ash will be produced and soldannually.

Figure A12. MRG CES OxyNol Process

© 2007 Masada OxyNol, LLC

GarbageWaste

Sludge

Recyclables

DriedCellulose

RecycledSulfuric

AcidIN

OUT

Boiler/Gasifier

LigninFuel

SugarWater

BrewersYeast

Stillag

e

PlantWastewaterTreatment

Ethanol

Water

Steam

For Illustrative Purposes Only

Air Out

MaterialRecycling

FacilityCity of

Birmingham

Water

CO

2

CO2

Celluloseto

SugarConversion

Fermentationand

Distillation

Gyp

sum

Gypsum

Inert Fines to Disposal

Fly Ash Gas

The CES OxyNol™ Process

Paszner Technologies, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

Organizational Background–Paszner Technologies has pursued development of abiomass-to-alcohol (ethanol and/or butanol) technology called Acid CatalyzedOrganosolv Saccharification or ACOS. The ACOS technology was originally inventedin 1976 and subsequently was the subject of litigation over ownership and licensingrights, before Paszner ultimately prevailed and assumed sole ownership of the relatedpatents. Paszner has actively sought financial support, joint-venture partners and/orlicensees for application of its technology.

90

Technology Characteristics–The Paszner ACOS Process is a hydrolysis processdescribed as “a unique solvent pulping variant in which the chemistry in the reactor has been modified in a manner that total (100%) dissolution of all biomasscomponents becomes possible in a single step, achieved by the use of a benigncongruent solvent system”. The proprietary solvent chemistry brings aboutsimultaneous hydrolysis of both carbohydrates and lignin and prevents unwantedbyproducts (such as furfurals). 100 percent solvent recycling is said to be achieved,with no wastewater disposal requirements. No feedstock pre-treatment is requiredother than chipping or hammer-milling. The process is intended to be a simple, low-cost, low-temperature, short reaction time process applicable to any lignocellulosicfeedstocks, including all coniferous and deciduous tree and shrub species and theirbarks, agricultural crop residues and grasses, municipal cellulosic solid wastes,various manures and paper mill sludge. The process is said to be amenable to small-scale applications.

Development Status–The Paszner ACOS process has been under development for28 years, with various bench-scale and pilot-scale testing conducted. Thisdevelopment work has received limited funding support from Energy Mines andResources Canada, a Canadian government agency. This testing is said to haveinvolved some 35 lignocellulosic species of feedstocks. An engineering feasibilitystudy was completed in 1994. The most recent physical testing phase of the processwas apparently completed in 2001, and funding for further phases of development hasyet to be obtained. Paszner delivered a presentation on its technology at the USDOEEthanol Workshop held April 2003 in Sacramento.

Future Development Plans–Paszner Technologies has identified and developedpreliminary plans for projects applying its plans at numerous sites in Canada, the U.S.,and various other countries. However, none of these projects is known to be movingforward at this time, with Paszner continuing to pursue funding for continueddevelopment of its process and to seek potential partners for its commercialization.

Petrobras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Organizational Background–Petrobras was formed in 1953 when BrazilianPresident Vargas signed a law establishing the monopoly of the Brazilian federalgovernment over the activities of the oil industry in the country and authorizing thecreation of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras as the state company to be the executorof the monopoly. Today Petrobras is the world’s14th largest oil company, andoperates as a semi-public corporation, with activities in at least seven countriesbesides Brazil. Petrobras has been instrumental in the development of Brazil’s ethanol fuel program (Proalcool) since its inception in the 1970s. Recently, Petrobrasannounced that the company is developing a biomass-to-ethanol process at itscorporate research and development center.

91

Technology Characteristics–The biomass-to-ethanol technology underdevelopment by Petrobras, illustrated in Figure A13, involves an acid hydrolysisprocess, thus far being tested on castor bean cake, a residual of a castor oil biodieselproduction process (described as an “amylaceous” material). Ultimately, the intent is to apply the process to sugarcane bagasse, a lignocellulosic residual material producedin large quantities from conventional sugarcane-to-ethanol processing. Petrobras hasreportedly patented this proprietary process, but has yet to release any more detailedinformation, beyond including mention of this development activity in several publicforums, such as the Sixteenth International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels (Rio deJaneiro, November 2006).

Development Status–Petrobras indicates that the company has completedsuccessful bench-scale laboratory experiments with its biomass-to-ethanol process, asof the fourth quarter of 2006. The process is said to produce 100 liters of ethanol perton of castor bean cake feedstock.

Future Development Plans–The next stage of Petrobras’ development of its technology is a planned pilot-scale facility scheduled for start-up in the first quarter of2008. Further plans call for a demonstration facility intended to be operational in 2010.

Figure A13. Petrobras Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology

Petrobras, all rights reserved

92

Pure Energy Corp., Paramus, New Jersey

Organizational Background–Pure Energy Corporation (PEC), established in 1992,is a renewable energy and biotechnology development company, with partnerlaboratories and testing centers in five states. PEC’s activities have been partly funded by USDOE, USEPA and other federal and state agencies. Among variousbiofuel production technologies under development by PEC is an integrated biorefineryconcept that combines biochemical and thermochemical technologies. PEC has alsodeveloped and patented a number of proprietary fuel formulations

Technology Characteristics–The PEC technology process, shown in Figure A14,involves feedstock size reduction followed by an integrated two stage hydrolysisprocess. The resultant slurry contains lignin, ash and unreacted cellulose, which canbe used to generate electricity and process steam. The glucose produced throughhydrolysis can be treated to produce ethanol and organic acids. The xylosecomponent is processed using thermochemical treatment. The technology combinesfuels, solvents and chemicals production by combining fermentation and catalyticthermochemical conversion processes into a single processing system. Among the co-products obtainable from the process are organic acids, furans, aldehydes and esters.

Development Status–PEC reports that, since 1997, it has operated its biorefinerysystem in the laboratory, at the pilot scale and in a demonstration plant, working inconjunction with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Over 42 different biomass feedstockshave reportedly been tested, including various agricultural wastes, municipal solidwaste components and wood waste and other industrial wastes.

Future Plans–PEC plans to continue developing or licensing innovative technologiesfor the production of fuels, the fuels' constituent chemicals and their formulations. Thecompany indicates that it is prepared to scale up its technology and implement it in acommercial plant.

93

Figure A14. PEC Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology

Xethanol Corp., New York, New York

Organizational Background–Xethanol entered the ethanol business in 2003 withacquisition of an existing corn-to-ethanol plant in Hopkinton Iowa, and purchasedanother similar plant in Blairstown Iowa in 2004. In 2005, Xethanol went public with itsstock listed on the American Stock Exchange. In addition to conventional corn-to-ethanol production, Xethanol has announced plans to develop a cellulosic ethanolproduction technology and apply this process in projects the company is pursuing inseveral Eastern U.S. states to produce ethanol from various sources of biomasswastes and residues. Since becoming a publicly-traded company, Xethanol has beenthe subject of widely-circulated reports and analyses by investment advisory firms, andthe company has undergone corporate reorganization and management changes.

Technology Characteristics–Xethanol has become involved with an acidhydrolysis-based cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol technology under development atVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). The Virginia Techprocess has been described as a “cost-effective pretreatment process that integratesthree technologies–cellulose solvent pretreatment, concentrated acidsaccharification, and organosolv, and overcomes the limitations of existingprocesses”. A novel feature of the process is its use of a phosphoric acid/acetone solution. The process is said to operate at atmospheric pressure and 50 C (120 F),instead of other systems operating at higher pressures and between 150 and 250degrees C. Byproducts include lignin and acetic acid.

Development Status–The Virginia Tech process, which shares some of itsdevelopment origins with related process development at Dartmouth College, has

94

reportedly been tested successfully at the laboratory scale. Plans for a pilot-scalefacility are being developed. Augmentation of the process with special enzymes hasalso been studied in conjunction with NREL and other organizations. Xethanol hasreportedly secured an agreement for licensing the Virginia Tech process. In addition,the company has entered into a CRADA with the U.S. Forest Service Forest ProductsLaboratory (FPL) for eventual application of an advanced strain of ethanol processingyeast being developed by FPL at its Madison WI lab.

Future Development Plans–Xethanol has described plans for a number ofadditional ethanol production facilities using various technology approaches andfeedstocks. One project, a joint venture with Renewable Spirits LLC, is proposed inBartow, Florida, and would begin using waste citrus peels as feedstock. Xethanol hasalso acquired a former fiberboard plant in Spring Hope, N.C., where it intends to setup a pilot plant for its process, reportedly scheduled for completion in 2007.

95

CATEGORY IX - BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES USINGENZYME HYDROLYSIS AND FERMENTATION

Abengoa S.A., Sevilla, Spain

Organizational Background–Abengoa S.A. is a Spanish company with a presencein over 70 countries, including the U.S. Abengoa operates business units related to:solar, bioenergy, environmental services, information technology, and industrialengineering and construction. Abengoa’s subsidiary, Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation, formed in 2003 and headquartered in St. Louis, MO, owns and operates several U.S.corn-to-ethanol plants. Abengoa also has a major ongoing corporate effort to developtechnology for production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass.

Technology Characteristics–Abengoa is developing a novel biomass-to-ethanolprocess, shown in Figure A15, with emphasis on thermochemical fractionation andenzymatic hydrolysis to release these sugars for ethanol fermentation. In addition,Abengoa is studying various routes for thermochemical conversion of the biomass,with the goal of selecting the technology with the most promising technical andeconomical attributes. The company is also considering using thermochemicalconversion of waste to generate syngas. This syngas will be used in a reciprocatingengines/generator to produce electricity and heat for the biorefinery.

Development Status–Abengoa is conducting a multi-stage technology effort for thedevelopment of the biomass-to-ethanol process technologies. Following laboratoryand bench-scale testing, the company is building a 1.2 ton/day pilot facility at itsexisting York, NE ethanol plant to evaluate an integrated bioprocess under a currentUSDOE award. The company is also in the process of building a 77 ton per daydemonstration plant at the site of its existing conventional ethanol plant in Salamanca,Spain. This demonstration plant, with a capacity of 5 million liters of ethanol per year,is scheduled to begin operation during the second half of 2007. The company hasfurther plans to build a larger commercial-scale demonstration plant in Kansas. InFebruary 2007, Abengoa was awarded a U.S. DOE grant of up to $76 million for thelatter project.

Future Plans–Abengoa is evaluating several sites for its planned project in Kansas,which will reportedly cost $300 million. This plant is planned to produce up to 15million gallons of ethanol per year using 700 tons per day of corn stover, wheat straw,milo stubble, switchgrass, and other feedstocks. The cellulosic ethanol production willbe combined with a conventional ethanol plant planned to produce an additional 85million gallons per year. Process energy for the entire facility will be obtained viabiomass gasification. The facility is scheduled to be in operation in late 2010.

Based on the operations and scale-up of the aforementioned plant, AB plans to designa 2000 dry metric ton per day system. This technology will deployed at AB’s existing

96

ethanol plants and subsequently licensed to qualified third parties. Abengoa Bioenergyand has committed $100 million to R&D for the next four years.

Figure A15. Abengoa Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology

Abengoa S.A., all rights reserved

Archer, Daniels, Midland Company, Decatur, Illinois

Organizational Background–Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM), founded in1902, is one’s of world’s largest and most diverse agricultural processors, producing food ingredients, animal feed, fuels and other agriculturally-derived products in manycountries. ADMhas been the world’s largest producer of ethanol fuel since entering this market in the late 1970s, and currently operates about 20 percent of U.S. corn-to-ethanol production capacity. The company produces ethanol using both the dry-milland wet-mill processes, having pioneered development of the wet-milling process andthe varied slate of corn-based products derived as byproducts from ethanol productionin wet-mills, such as corn syrup, high-fructose corn sweetener, corn gluten meal andothers.

ADM began investigating and sponsoring research in the area of conversion of cornfiber to ethanol via hydrolysis processes as early as 1984. A number of differentprocess approaches were explored. Currently, ADM is pursuing development of ahydrolysis-based process for producing ethanol from corn fiber, jointly developed withthe U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in

97

Richland Washington, with U.S. DOE grant co-funding. The National Corn GrowersAssociation is also a participant in this project. ADM and the U.S. Government sharepatent rights to the technology.

Technology Characteristics–The ADM technology is intended to process thefibrous fraction of the corn kernel to produce higher value-added products, includingethanol, from this fraction, which currently is used as a low-value animal feedcomponent. Corn fiber contains 35 percent hemicellulose, 18 percent cellulose, 17percent starch, 11 percent protein, 6 percent ash, 3 percent oil, 1 percent mannan,and 4 percent other materials. The hydrolysis process being developed by ADMinvolves treating corn fiber in an initial thermochemical hydrolysis step, in whichresidual SO2 in the corn fiber from the conventional ethanol production process isutilized as an acid catalyst to hydrolyze the starch and hemicellulose polymers. Thisprocess involves a temperature of 140°C and residence time of 30 minutes, and issaid to hydrolyze most of the starch and 72 percent of the hemicellulose in the cornfiber. Fermentation of the corn fiber hydrolysate generated by the above step hasproved to be successful in producing a high concentration of ethanol from thecomponent glucose and xylose. Other related process refinements are also underdevelopment intended to yield improved feed products and other byproducts from theremaining components of the corn fiber not converted to ethanol.

Development Status–The pilot-scale testing phase of this project is nearingcompletion, with reportedly successful results. This work has been carried out since2003 using ADM’s and PNNL’s facilities, along with facilities at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. A final report on this work is inpreparation and expected to be released in mid-2007.

Future Development Plans–Plans for further development or demonstration stagesand ultimate commercialization of this technology have not yet been announced byADM or the other project participants. Such plans are assumed to be contingent onthe results and findings of the yet-to-be-released report on the project phase nowbeing completed. Potential applicability of this process, if commercialized, appears tobe extensive, since virtually any corn-to-ethanol plant could incorporate the process tosignificantly increase ethanol output from the existing feedstock supply. The process issaid to yield an additional 0.3 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, about a 10-15percent increase in the output of conventional corn-to-ethanol plant operations. Thisamounts to an ultimate potential for over one billion gallons of additional ethanolproduction if the process was to be applied to all U.S. corn-to-ethanol productioncapacity currently operating or scheduled. Applicability of the process to feedstocksother than corn fiber has yet to be closely studied. However, in general, other types ofbiomass feedstocks with high hemicellulose, which includes various other agriculturalcrop residues in particular, may be eventual candidates for application of this processif it becomes commercialized.

98

SEKAB Group, Ormskoldsvik, Sweden

Organizational Background–SEKAB Group, newly-reorganized in 2006, is aSwedish industrial consortium consisting of the following four established and newcompanies: SEKAB E-Technology -- research and development of industrial processes for

cellulose-based biofuels in biorefineries SEKAB Industrial Development -- industrial development and construction of

ethanol production facilities SEKAB International Project -- organization for international investment in

production plants SEKAB BioFuels & Chemicals -- provision, refinement and marketing of

bioethanol as fuel and chemicals

SEKAB BioFuels and Chemicals (formerly Svensk Etanolkemi AB) is one of the largestexisting producers of ethanol in Northern Europe. SEKAB E-Technology (formerly EtekEtanolteknik AB) has, since 1999, pursued development of biochemical processes forproducing ethanol from cellulosic biomass materials. Since 2004, the company hasoperated a pilot facility in Ornskodsvik to test these processes, in cooperation withseveral Swedish universities and research institutes.

Technology Characteristics– SEKAB’s biomass-to-ethanol technology development(begun as Etek), has involved both a dilute acid hydrolysis process and an enzymatichydrolysis process. The technology is based on hydrolyzing the cellulose andhemicellulose, whereupon the sugar is fermented to ethanol, which is then distilled. Inweak acid hydrolysis, sulfuric acid or sulfur dioxide is used as a catalyst attemperatures of around 200ºC. In enzymatic hydrolysis, the material is first treatedwith a mild weak acid hydrolysis after which enzymes hydrolyze the remainingcellulose in a third stage.

Development Status–Both the weak acid and enzymatic processes are currentlybeing evaluated at SEKAB’s pilot plant, which has a capacity of 300-400 liters ofethanol per day using 2,000 kilograms (dry weight) of feedstock. The initial feedstocktested has been fir wood chips. The plant is said to be extremely flexible withsignificant feedback possibilities in the process flow. In the four fomenters, it ispossible to ferment with fed-batch or continuous technology. SEKAB’s pilot facility is said to operate 24 hours per day, and the project has a total staff of about 20 people.Air emissions and wastewater effluents have reportedly been measured, with energybalance determinations in process. Project staff members have delivered varioustechnical papers and presentations on their technology development, including at theSixteenth International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil inNovember 2006.

Future Development Plans–In parallel with operation of its pilot facility, SEKAB isplanning a larger demonstration and reference plant in the northern part of Sweden,

99

construction of which could begin in 2007. The company is also studying two morebiorefineries having an ethanol capacity 500 to 700 times higher than the existing pilotfacility. Other products besides ethanol will be produced at these biorefineries:electricity, lignin pellets, district heating, and high-grade chemicals. Testing of otherfeedstocks besides fir wood chips is also planned. SEKAB sees its currentdevelopment activities as steps in a sequence of long-term industrial investment incellulose-based ethanol and the international development of production plants. Theaim is to develop an industrial structure for providing knowledge and equipment andfor building production plants in Sweden and the rest of the world.

Iogen Corp., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Organizational Background–Iogen Corporation was established in 1974 with threeemployees (then Iotech Corp.) as a commercial manufacturer of enzymes for use inindustries such as pulp and paper, textiles, and animal feeds. Today, the companyoperates a 30,000 square feet enzyme manufacturing plant and employs nearly 200people. For most of its history, Iogen has also been pursuing biomass-to-ethanolproduction technology, based on the company’s own development of special enzymes for converting cellulosic materials into sugars. Iogen’s supporting partners for its biomass-to-ethanol process development have included the Canadian Government,Goldman Sachs and Co., Petro Canada, and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, whichowns a 22 percent equity share of Iogen. The company has been seeking to buildupon experience achieved with its existing biomass-to-ethanol demonstration facility inOttawa and construct a “commercial prototype” plant. In February 2007, Iogen received a U.S. DOE grant of up to $80 million to co-fund such a project in the State ofIdaho.

Technology Characteristics– Iogen’s patented technology, shown in Figure A16,incorporates a multi-stage enzymatic hydrolysis process. Four steps are involved inthe complete biomass-to-ethanol production process, described as follows: (1)Feedstock Pretreatment–using a modified steam explosion process to increase thesurface area of the biomass feedstock accessible to the enzymes (2) EnzymeProduction–high-efficiency enzymes are made using Iogen’s proprietary technologyfor use in the hydrolysis step (3) Enzymatic Hydrolysis–using a multi-stage process inan Iogen-developed reactor, Iogen’s cellulase enzymes convert the cellulosic material to glucose sugars (4) Ethanol Fermentation and Distillation–fermentation is doneusing recombinant yeasts and microbes tailored to Iogen’s specific process.

Lignin byproduct, said to have 80 percent of the energy content of common coal, isalso produced in the process for use as boiler fuel. Iogen’s process is said to produceabout 340 liters of ethanol and 250 kilograms of lignin per tonne of fibrous cellulosicfeedstock processed. To date, Iogen’s main focus has been on processing of wheat straw, a common agricultural residue in the Ontario region. Other cereal grain straws,such as oat and barley straw are also adaptable, and various other potentialfeedstocks of interest include corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, sugarcane

100

bagasse, and hard wood chips. Soft wood is not considered compatible with theprocess. Feedstock with at least 60 percent carbohydrate content is said to berequired for Iogen’s process.

Iogen claims to have completed analyses of its process energy balance and of criteriathat include air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and wastewatereffluents and solid wastes; however the results are maintained as confidentialinformation. The company does indicate that ethanol produced by its process results inmore than an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared togasoline. Production cost estimates and other economic analysis of Iogen’s technology is also confidential.

Development Status–Iogen and its partners and sponsors have reportedly investedsome $135 million in its biomass-to-ethanol process development to date, includingabout $18 million of Canadian Government funding. Following laboratory and bench-scale testing, a one ton-per-day pilot plant was initially operated beginning in 1983.The current demonstration-scale (or “semi-works”) facility, which produced its firstcellulosic ethanol in April 2004, was built at a reported cost of $45 million. This facilityis capable of processing about 30 tons of dry wheat straw per day and producingabout 2.5 million liters of ethanol per year (63 gallons/dry ton). The CanadianGovernment announced in February 2007 that it would contribute an additional $7.7million toward a $25.8 million project to upgrade this facility.

Future Development Plans–Iogen and its partners have been exploring potentialplans in a number of Canadian provinces, U.S. states and other countries for acommercial-scale (or “commercial prototype”) biomass-to-ethanol facility employing itsprocess. Factors considered in site selection include: availability and cost offeedstock; quality of existing local infrastructure; magnitude and timeframe ofgovernment policy commitment; and ability to conclude all necessary commercialagreements. Based on these factors, the company has announced a narrowing oflocations for this first project to include North Central Saskatchewan, East CentralAlberta, Eastern Germany and Southeast Idaho.

Following the 2007 U.S. DOE grant award, the Idaho project now appears to have thebest prospects, although funding plans for this facility are apparently still to befinalized. Total cost to configure and construct the plant and associated facilities issaid to be up to $350 million (U.S.). This facility, planned for a site at Shelley, Idaho,would process 700 dry tons per day of agricultural residues–said to include wheatstraw, barley straw, corn stover, switchgrass and rice straw -- producing about 18million gallons of ethanol per year (71 gallons/dry ton). Final announcement of theproject and initiation of construction is expected before the end of 2007.

101

Figure A16. Iogen Biomass-to-Ethanol Process

Iogen, all rights reserved

PureVision Technology, Inc., Fort Lupton, Colorado

Organizational Background –Pure Vision Technology, Inc. (Pure Vision) wasestablished in 1992 as a research and development organization. Pure Vision has itsprimary research and development laboratories located in Golden, CO at the HazenResearch, Inc. campus. The privately held company owns patented and proprietarybiorefinery technology for pre-treating cellulosic biomass for ethanol production.

Technology Characteristics –The Pure Vision technology, illustrated in Figure A17,has been developed as a broad technology platform with many applications fordifferent industries. The technology utilizes countercurrent processing in an extrudersystem to process the feedstock. The first stage of the extruder uses water and acid.The second stage exposes the biomass to an alkali prior to discharge. The reactivefractionation process produces cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, which can then befurther converted to usable products via enzymatic hydrolysis. The cellulose fraction

102

could be converted to glucose, then fermented and distilled to produce ethanol. TheHemicellulose fraction can be converted to xylose, then fermented and distilled toproduce ethanol. Finally, the lignin can be used to create industrial chemicals orenergy in the form of process steam and electricity.

Development Status–From 2003 to present the Pure Vision team has been workingon their Process Development Unit (PDU). The PDU was developed as a proof ofconcept endeavor. During 2005 Pure Vision was able to demonstrate continuousoperation of the fractionation technology on a scale of 200 pounds of biomass perhour.

Future Plans–A larger three to five ton per day system, Engineering DevelopmentUnit (EDU), is currently under development. The Company expects to have the EDUoperational during the first quarter of 2007.

Figure A17. PureVision Process

PureVision, all rights reserved

RITE/Honda R&D Co., Kyoto, Japan

Organizational Background–The Research Institute of Innovative Technology forthe Earth (RITE) was established in 1990 as a joint-venture between the Japanesegovernment and private companies to conduct research on climate changestabilization/mitigation technologies. RITE has been conducting biochemical-relatedresearch on a number of different fronts since its inception. Honda R&D Co. is theresearch and development subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., the world’s number four automaker. RITE and Honda R&D have formed a cooperative venture to develop and

103

commercialize a biomass-to-ethanol process technology, combining biochemicaltechnology developed by RITE and engineering technology of Honda.

Technology Characteristics–The RITE/Honda biomass-to-ethanol process, shownin Figure A18, is based upon a technology termed “enzymatic saccharification” wherein a special saccharifying enzyme is applied to cellulosic feedstocks following apretreatment step, resulting in production of C5 and C6 sugars (glucose, xylose,arabinose, etc.). A special microorganism developed by RITE, identified as“corynebacterium” is also said to enhance the subsequent sugar-to-ethanolconversion. A particular advantage claimed for the technology is its ability to reducethe harmful effects of fermentation inhibitors common to most ethanol productionprocesses, allowing a significant increase in ethanol productivity. The RITE/Hondaprocess is intended for application to “soft biomass” feedstocks, meaning the inedible leaves and stalks of various plants; examples mentioned include rice straw and cornstover.

Development Status–A joint press release by RITE and Honda R&D in September2006 announced the success of research progress to date, claiming that “the new process represents a large step forward for practical application of soft biomass as afuel source”. The process has been patented in Japan. The success achieved to dateleads to identified next steps intended to permit scale-up and integration of theindividual process components into a single facility, together with further progress incost-reduction anddetermination of “social compatibility”.

Future Development Plans–RITE and Honda R&D have announced plans tocontinue their joint venture and pursue further development stages for their process,leading to “industrialization” of the process and incorporation into a biorefineryproducing ethanol and co-products, said to include “industrial commodities and automotive products”. The joint venture’s plans include construction of a pilot facility beginning in April 2007, intended to provide data results by the end of 2007. Followingthis, a demonstration plant is intended to be designed and built beginning sometime in2008.

104

Figure A18. RITE/Honda Process

Colusa Biomass Energy Corp., Colusa, California

Organizational Background–Colusa Biomass Energy Corporation (CBE), foundedin 2001, is a publicly-traded biomass-to-energy company focusing on biofuels fortransportation. The company is located in the heart of the Sacramento Valley’s rice producing area. CBE has patent rights to an acid hydrolysis-based technology forproducing ethanol and co-products from cellulosic biomass feedstocks, focusingprimarily on rice straw.

Technology Characteristics–The technology employed by CBE uses a hammer-mill or ball-mill to grind the rice straw and rice hulls to 45-55 mesh (~300 microns or1/100”). Dilute sulfuric (or other) acid (0.03 M), along with the ground biomass, are added to a steam explosion chamber. This process consists of the chemicalimpregnation of the ground biomass, short time steam cooking, and pressure release,refining and bleaching. An anti-oxidant is added in order to protect the biomassagainst oxidation during the cooking stage and to simultaneously develop hydrophilicgroups on the fiber surface during the steam treatment.

The solids are separated from the liquid phase using a belt-press filter to 70-80% totalsolids. This material is feed into a second counter-current extractor using sodiumhydroxide to dissolve the lignin and silica. An ultra-filtration membrane system,

105

developed by CBE, is used to separate the cellulose from the lignin from the sodiumsilicate. The filtered cellulose is washed with a washing centrifuge. A belt-press filteris used to remove water to 70-80% cellulose. The cellulose is hydrolyzed with acidhydrolyzing enzymes. The sugars, generated from the hydrolyzed cellulose, arefermented to ethanol. Ethanol and lignin are mixed in a ratio of 3.8 parts of ethanol to1.0 part lignin (weight/weight) to produce a petroleum-like fuel.

Development Status–A pilot plant testing the process employed by CBE wasreportedly operated for 24 months beginning in the mid-1990s. CBE has acquired a 20acre site in Colusa, California to employ this process for the production of bioethanol,silica/sodium oxide and lignin from waste rice straw and rice hulls. The company hasengaged an engineering firm to develop full plant specifications and plans. Thecompany began rice straw harvesting operations during the 2006 harvest season.

Future Development Plans–The Colusa Biomass Project is scheduled to beinitiated in the fourth quarter of 2007. The Colusa facility is planned to consume asmuch as 165,000 tons of waste biomass annually, with planned production of from 10to 20 million gallons of ethanol and 28,000 tons of silica/sodium oxide per year.Silica/sodium oxide is a widely used ingredient with applications in the paper industry,by detergent and soap producers and for the production of gels, catalysts andzeolytes. CBE has also identified at least five additional locations in the U.S. forpossible future projects employing its technology.

DuPont and Co./POET, Wilmington, Delaware/Sioux Falls,South Dakota

Organizational Background–DuPont and POET (formerly Broin Companies)formed a partnership in 2006 to combine forces in developing and commercializingtechnology for the production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass feedstocks, primarilycorn stover. DuPont, formed in 1802, is a large producer of chemicals and otherproducts, with operations in over 70 countries. Broin/POET, which began by building asmall-scale ethanol plant on the family’s Minnesota farm in 1983, has since designed and constructed ethanol plants in five states, approaching a total of more than 30plants. Since 2003, DuPont has been conducting a U.S. DOE-sponsored researchprogram to develop technology to produce ethanol from corn stover. In February 2007,Broin/POET was awarded a U.S. DOE grant of up to $80 million to integrate cellulosicethanol production into an existing corn-to-ethanol facility at Emmetsburg, Iowa.

(Note: Separately, DuPont, in collaboration with BP, is pursuing development in theUK of a process for producing butanol using sugar beets as feedstock. This processdevelopment is not a subject of this study, since it does not thus far involve cellulosicbiomass feedstocks.)

Technology Characteristics–DuPont’s biomass-to-ethanol technology, shown inFigure A19, is a mild alkaline enzymatic hydrolysis process developed in partnership

106

with Deere and Company, Diversa Corporation, Michigan State University, DuPontsubsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, and U.S. DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Figure 19). The process incorporates a specially-developed organism,known as zymomonas mobilis, said to convert higher volumes of both the (celluloseand hemicellulose) or simple and complex sugars to ethanol than other biochemicalsystems, and at a faster rate. The technology was designed to be incorporated into an“integrated corn-based biorefinery”, combining all steps from milling and pretreatmentof corn stover through fermentation and ethanol production. This biorefinery concept isalso intended to cut natural gas use by 85 percent compared with typical ethanolplants by putting a portion of the stover waste through a gasifier and using the gas foron-site fuel.

Development Status–Bench-scale testing of the DuPont biomass-to-ethanoltechnology has been conducted at the company’s Wilmington, Delaware laboratories. This work confirmed the performance of the enzymatic process in three years oftesting, leading to the joint venture with Broin/POET, which was already pursuingplans for an integrated biorefinery under DOE sponsorship. Broin/POET, a recognizedinnovator in the ethanol production technology field, brings a number of its owntechnology advancements to the partnership, including its advanced corn fractionationand raw starch hydrolysis processes. Plans for carrying out a pilot-scale phase of theproject have been described.

Future Development Plans–Expansion of the existing dry-mill ethanol plant atEmmettsburg is planned to begin upon finalizing terms of the grant agreement withDOE, and will take 30 months to complete. This facility, with a current ethanolproduction capacity of 50 million gallons per year, will be capable of producing 125million gallons per year of ethanol from both corn and corn stover once the $200million expansion and integration of the cellulosic process is complete. The overallintended result is a biorefinery producing 11 percent more ethanol from a bushel ofcorn and 27 percent more ethanol from an acre of corn, while consuming 24 percentless water and using 83 percent fewer fossil fuels than what is needed to operate aconventional corn to ethanol plant. Stated goals of the DuPont/POET collaboration areto bring cellulosic ethanol to commercial viability by the end of the decade and to haveit match the cost of conventional ethanol production within about 7 years.

107

Figure A19. DuPont Process

BioGasol ApS, Lyngby, Denmark

Organizational Background–Biogasol ApS (Biogasol) was founded in 2006 as anengineering and technology Company developing and designing technologies forbiofuel production. The company is moving to commercialize a cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol technology which the company founders have been working to develop forover a decade at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). The company,employing 16 people, is operated out of DTU.

Technology Characteristics–The Biogasol technology, illustrated in Figure A20, isan enzymatic hydrolysis process that relies on pretreatment of lingocellulosic materialto open the biomass in order to release the polysaccharides. The biomass is thentreated with enzymes to hydrolyze cellulose and hemi-cellulose. The product of thisstep is glucose and xylose. The glucose is easily fermented to produce ethanol. Thexylose requires another fermentation process. The pre-treatment process is a newlydeveloped method called Wet Explosion, a combination of steam-explosion and wet

108

oxidation, applying both the addition of oxygen and a pressure release at hightemperature (170-200oC). BioGasol’s method uses no chemicals and only a small amount of oxygen is added. A wide variety of feedstocks can reportedly beaccommodated by the process, including straws, corn fiber and stover, grasses,bagasse and wood.

Development Status–The Biogasol technology is currently being tested in a pilot-scale facility at DTU. Biogasol has collaborated with Novozymes to develop anenzyme system for application in its process.

Future Plans–Biogasol has plans for a larger demonstration facility, scheduled tostart in 2007. The company eventually plans to license their technology worldwide.

Figure A20. Biogasol Technology

Biogasol, all rights reserved

Swan Biomass Company, Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Organizational Background–Swan Biomass was formed in the 1990s as acollaboration between Amoco Corp. and Stone and Webster Engineering. Today,Swan operates as an independent company pursuing commercialization ofacid/enzymatic hydrolysis-based technology for producing ethanol from variouscellulosic feedstocks, which Swan’s principals have been engaged in since the origins at Amoco. Swan has also been a contractor or sub-contractor in several U.S.Department of Energy-sponsored projects and studies involving biomass-to-ethanoltechnology.

109

Technology Characteristics–The Swan technology is an advanced form ofenzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of biomass to produce fuel ethanol. Swan hasutilized the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s research and development facilities for testing of its process. The company has also worked with PurdueUniversity on a modified yeast applicable to ethanol production. The Swan technologyis said to be able to accommodate a variety of biomass feedstocks.

Development Status–The company reports that the technology is currently ready forcommercial deployment. Emissions of some criteria air pollutants (particulates, NOx,SOx, CO, HC ’s, VOC’s, toxics) are said to have been measured; emissions of others are being determined. Net energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions analysishave also reportedly been completed for the technology. In its currently preferredconfiguration waste biomass will be imported to balance energy requirements.Detailed technical data results for the process are being held confidential by Swan.

Future Development Plans–Swan is part of a venture being undertaken in theImperial Valley of California to produce ethanol from sugarcane. Known as ImperialValley Biorefining LLC, this project intends to apply the Swan technology to convert allof the sugarcane plant, including the cellulosic components, to ethanol at an initialscale of approximately 30 million gallons per year. Expanded applications, includingother projects in Imperial Valley and elsewhere are also planned. Additionalfeedstocks are also being investigated, including other agricultural wastes andresidues and wood. Swan’s business plan is to license its technology for multiple project developers and act as a project facilitator, rather than construct or operateprojects of its own.

Mascoma Corp., Cambridge, Massachusetts

Organizational Background–The Mascoma Corporation was founded in 2005based on many years of cellulosic ethanol research and development by DartmouthCollege laboratories. Mascoma maintains corporate offices in Cambridge, MA andresearch and development labs in Lebanon, NH. In 2006 Mascoma secured Series Afunding in the amount of $4 million from Flagship Ventures and Khosla Ventures. InNovember 2006 the company raised an additional $30 million in Series B funding fromGeneral Catalyst Partners, with additional participation from Kleiner Perkins Caufield &Byers, Vantage Point Venture Partners, Atlas Venture, and Pinnacle Ventures, as wellas existing investors Khosla Ventures and Flagship Ventures.

Technology Characteristics–The Mascoma thermophilic SimultaneousSaccharifcation and Fermentation (tSSF) technology is based on the modification ofthermoanaerobacterium saccharolyticum. This strain has demonstrated the ability toproduce ethanol from xylose at elevated fermentation temperatures. This innovationsubstantially reduces the cellulase required in the production of ethanol. TheMascoma technology has been tested at the laboratory scale level.

110

Development Status–Mascoma reports that the company’s technology is ready for demonstration and commercial projects. Mascoma is partnering with Genencor to buildand operate a cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol plant in Rochester, New York, pendinglocal permit approvals and definitive agreements among the relevant parties. TheState of New York has provided a grant of $14.8 million for this $20 million project. Theplant is expected to operate using paper sludge, wood chips, switch grass and cornstover.

Future Plans–Mascoma estimates that construction and start-up of the Rochester,NY facility will take 10 to 12 months. Mascoma has also signed a license and jointdevelopment agreement with Royal Nedalco, a European ethanol technology leaderand producer. The objective of this technology partnership is to license Nedalco’s yeast-based technology for use in Mascoma’s recently announced demonstration plantand for use in future Mascoma commercial plants, and to explore collaborativeresearch efforts to accelerate production of bioethanol. The companies expect toexchange related know how and to engage in specific joint research programs todevelop lignocellulosic ethanol from agricultural side streams, such as straw and woodwaste.

111

CATEGORY X–OTHER BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES

Genotypes, Inc., Pacifica, California

Organizational Background–Genotypes, Inc. is a small California firm founded in1992 as a contract research company to assist biotech/pharmaceutical companieswith yeast strain improvement. Its principals are experienced biochemists withextensive backgrounds in the biotechnology industry. Since 1996, Genotypes hasbeen pursuing development of a novel technology approach to producing ethanol fromsolar energy in shallow ponds employing specialty cultured organisms. The companyhas filed several patents on its technology, beginning in 1998, involving bioengineeringthe desired organism to photosynthetically produce ethanol in ponds.

Technology Characteristics–The Genotypes technology, shown in Figure A21,involves use of a bioengineered photosynthetic (nitrogen-fixing) organism–cyanobacteria stabilized as organelles in yeast–to produce ethanol in one meter-deep ponds using only solar energy, water, atmospheric carbon dioxide and traceminerals. Biomass would be produced during the growth of the organism up to anappropriate density, then the biomass production would be essentially turned off andreplaced by direct conversion of photosynthetically produced sugars to ethanol. Thusthe organism would produce its own biomass feedstock, resulting in no net carbonemissions since carbon dioxide taken up to produce sugars, which are directlyconverted to ethanol in the organism, would be released by burning the alcohol butthen reabsorbed upon making more ethanol in the same organism. Genotypesestimates the potential ethanol yields from this process to be in the range of 37,000gallons per acre per year. This would translate, for example, into a land arearequirement of about 670 square miles to produce the ethanol equivalent ofCalifornia’s current gasoline supply. Genotypes also estimates a potential ethanol production cost from its pond technology could eventually be as low as $0.33 pergallon.

The advantages claimed for this unique technological approach are: 1) Scaleable–would use less than 1% of land that corn ethanol uses - could eventually be scaled tocompletely replace gasoline. 2) Cost effective: scaled-up projections of less than$1.00/gallon. 3) Carbon Neutral (no net carbon dioxide put in the air)–environmentally friendly. 4) Sustainable–will not run out of feedstocks: sunshine,carbon dioxide, and trace minerals. Also, the pond system is considered highlyadaptable to desert-type climates and areas not well-suited for conventionalagriculture or bioenergy crops.

Development Status–Genotypes has conducted laboratory research aimed atdeveloping the best photosynthetic organism for ethanol production at its formerlaboratory in South San Francisco. The laboratory was sold in 2000, and Genotypescontinues to see partnerships with other developmental organizations and/or fundingto carry on this development work. The company has delivered a number of

112

presentations on its technology to governmental agencies and at various workshopsand other forums in California.

Future Development Plans–Gentoypes continues to seek funding for further proof-of-concept of its technology approach. Proposals containing plans for a concerted nextstage of research and development have been submitted to various organizations forfunding consideration.

Figure A21. Genotypes Technology

From atmosphere, from power plant, smokestacks, and from production systems I and II

Andglycolyticproduction ofalcohol should occurat the same time toavoid morebiomassproduction

Genotypes, all rights reserved

113

CATEGORY XI–INTEGRATED BIOREFINERY WITHGENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND HEAT FROMWASTE MATERIALS

Waste-to-Energy, Paso Robles, California

Organizational Background–Waste-To-Energy (WTE) is a small California firm witha background in the waste management field. Since 2000, WTE has been engaged inthe development of projects in California to produce ethanol from municipal wastematerials and from agricultural waste materials. Currently, WTE has strategicpartnerships with several other technology development companies and other publicand private organizations to develop and apply both thermochemical and biochemicalconversion processes for ethanol production from various biomass feedstocks. WTEhas identified four proposed projects it is actively pursuing at MSW and agriculturalsites in Southern and Central California. As a founding member of the BioenergyProducers Association, WTE is also a prominent participant in initiatives to reviseCalifornia’s current state regulatory requirements to better facilitate bioenergy conversion projects.

Technology Characteristics–WTE’s technology approach is unique in that it seeks to apply different technologies and combinations of technologies that best fit thefeedstock source characteristics and other site-specific features of its various plannedprojects. For some projects and feedstocks, a dilute acid hydrolysis (biochemical)process is intended for application, while a pyrolysis steam reformation and catalytic(thermochemical) system would be applied for other projects, in which cases electricitywould also be generated. For example, one planned project would employ pre-sortedMSW waste materials in a pyrolysis steam reformation system, with some of theresulting syngas used to produce ethanol in a catalytic process and the remainderused to generate electricity and/or process heat to serve the facility’s energy requirements and/or to export. Another planned project, using agricultural wastes,would employ a two-stage dilute acid hydrolysis process to produce ethanol along withlignin for boiler fuel and other potential byproducts such as yeast, gypsum and furfuralfor the plastics market. Integrated biochemical/thermochemical systems are alsoincluded among the various technology designs under development by WTE and itspartners, which include a California technology engineering firm, BioEnergyDevelopment (BED).

Development Status–WTE reports that its partnership with BED has resulted inseveral completed stages of testing of both its biochemical and thermochemicaltechnology processes (shown in Figure A22), leading to planned demonstrationprojects in the San Francisco Bay area. Partial funding for these projects is beingprovided under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) withthe U.S. Department of Agriculture. Testing to date has involved sorted MSW

114

materials (such as urban green waste), construction/demolition wood wastes, andagricultural prunings. In the planned demonstration projects, between 15 and 25 tonsper day of these types of material are intended to be processed. Preliminary airpollutant emission analysis has been done for WTE’s thermochemical process, with further emission source-testing plans being pursued with the Santa Barbara County AirPollution Control District.

Future Development Plans–WTE’s project plans involve proposed MSW-to-ethanolconversion operations to be collocated with existing municipal waste processingfacilities in Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), Riverside and Los Angeles County.These projects would use between 250 and 1,500 tons per day of municipal wastematerials as feedstocks. The timetables for these projects, with the Santa Mariaproject intended to be first, have been stalled pending anticipated adoption ofproposed revisions to California’s waste management regulations that affect the permitting and operating requirements for such projects. Pending resolution of theregulatory issues affecting these MSW-to-ethanol projects, WTE has chosen to firstpursue a project using agricultural residues at a site in the Central Valley. This project,currently in permitting stages, would use 900 tons per day of agricultural wastefeedstocks. Meanwhile, the demonstration project results are intended to providefurther process validation applicable to all of WTE’s future projects.

Figure A22 Waste-To-Energy Technology Diagram

Waste-To-Energy, all rights reserved

115

CATEGORY XII–FERMENTATION OF SYNGAS FROMTHERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES

Bioengineering Resources, Inc., Fayetteville, Arkansas

Organizational Background–Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI) was formed tocommercialize a unique patented process that employs a bacterial culture to convertsynthesis gas into ethanol. Development of this process by University of Arkansasresearchers began some 18 years ago.

Technology Characteristics–The BRI technology, illustrated in Figure A23, uses anenclosed two-stage gasification process to thermally decompose the carbon moleculesin organic feedstocks. A patented microorganism then reconstructs CO, CO2 and H2into ethanol and water. Finally, anhydrous ethanol is produced by conventionaldistillation followed by a molecular sieve. The microbiological conversion of hydrogen,carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to ethanol uses a strain of bacterium in theclostridium family. BRI carried out pilot studies using a 2-foot reaction chamber inwhich an aqueous solution of nutrients are added. Hydrogen, carbon monoxide andcarbon dioxide are added from gas cylinders. The bacteria convert these gases toabout 2-3% ethanol. Higher ethanol concentrations inhibit bacteria metabolism.Products are continuously removed from the reactor and ethanol is recovered bydistillation. The synthesis gas exits the gasifier at temperatures of up to 2,350°F, andmust be cooled to about 98°F before being fed to the microorganisms. This coolingprocess generates waste heat that can be used to create high temperature steam todrive electric turbines.

Development Status–BRI reports that six years of testing at the company’s laboratory and 1.5 ton-per-day pilot plant, both located in Fayetteville, Arkansas, havesuccessfully demonstrated that syngas with various impurities can be used.

Future Plans–BRI has formed a joint venture with a Florida land managementcompany, Alico, Inc. to apply the BRI technology in a project planned by Alico inLaBelle, FL. In February 2007, Alico was awarded a U.S. DOE grant of up to $33million for this project. This plant is intended to produce 13.9 million gallons of ethanola year and 6,255 kilowatts of electric power, as well as 8.8 tons of hydrogen and 50tons of ammonia per day. For feedstock, the plant will use 770 tons per day of yard,wood, and vegetative wastes and eventually energycane.

116

Figure A23. BRI Technology DiagramBRI, all rights reserved

117

APPENDIX 2. CALIFORNIA ETHANOL PRODUCTION PROJECTS

Operating Ethanol Production FacilitiesOrganization

NameLocation Capacity

MGYStartYear

Feedstock Byproduct(s) Comments

Parallel Products RanchoCucamonga

5 1984 food andbeverageindustrywastes

recycledmaterials

Golden CheeseCompany ofCalifornia

Corona 3.5 1985 cheeseprocessingwastes

Altra, Inc.(formerly PhoenixBioindustries)

Goshen 27 2005 corn distillers grainanimal feed

plansannounced forexpansion to 35MGY

Pacific Ethanol,Inc.

Madera 40 2006 corn distillers grainanimal feed

Total production capacity inoperation

75.5

Ethanol Production Facility under ConstructionCalgrenRenewable FuelsLLC

Pixley 55 2007 corn distillers grainanimal feed

Total production capacity underconstruction

55

118

Proposed Conventional (Sugar/Starch Feedstock) Ethanol Production Facilities

OrganizationName

Location CapacityMGY

StartYear



Stockton 60 2008 corn environmentalimpact reviewunderway


Brawley 60 2008 corn distillers grainanimal feed

permitapplicationfiledw/Imperial Co.

Cilion, Inc. Keyes 55 2008 corn distillers grainanimal feed

Cilion, Inc. Famoso 55 2008 corn distillers grainanimal feed

Cilion, Inc. Imperial 110 2008 corn distillers grainanimal feed

AmericanEthanol, Inc.

Santa Maria 50 corn distillers grainanimal feed

submitted toSanta BarbaraCo. forpermittingreview

ImperialBioresources,LLC

Brawley 58 sugarcane,sugar beet

electricity,animal feed

negotiationsongoing topurchase HollySugar Co. plantas site

Imperial Ethanol(subsidiary ofU.S. Farms, Inc.)

ImperialCounty

50 sugarcane,corn

feasibilitystudies beingcompleted;several sitesunderevaluation

119

Proposed Advanced Technology (Cellulosic Feedstock) Ethanol ProductionFacilities

OrganizationName

Location CapacityMGY

StartYear


Blue Fire Ethanol,Inc.

Blue FireEthanol, Inc.

Blue FireEthanol,Inc.

Blue FireEthanol,Inc.




Waste to Energy Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste to Energy Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Waste toEnergy

Imperial ValleyBiorefining, LLC

ImperialValleyBiorefining,LLC

ImperialValleyBiorefining, LLC

ImperialValleyBiorefining, LLC

ImperialValleyBiorefining,LLC

Imperial ValleyBiorefining,LLC

Imperial ValleyBiorefining,LLC

Colusa BiomassEnergy Corp.

Colusa 20 rice straw,waste ricehulls, othercellulosicmaterials

silica, lignin biochemicaltechnology;groundbreakingplanned 4th

Quarter 2007City of Gridley Gridley 13 2010 rice straw,

rice hulls andfoodprocessingplant waste

electricity (11.5MW) andsteam for a co-located foodprocessingplant; silica ashproducts(ceramicconstructionand filtering)

thermochemical (co-production ofbioalcohols,electricity andsteam

WGA REPORT - ASSESSMENT OF BIOALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION ... · Bioalcohol Fuel Production ... Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., ... This study report presents the results of a wide-ranging investigation

Documents