At issue: is burning biomass carbon-neutral, and are there other emissions associated with it that make biomass an unappealing alternative to the burning of fossil fuels.

“Biomass incinerators, wrongfully promoted as clean and green under various proposed energy and climate bills, will make Americans sick, destroy our forests, dry up our rivers, and pollute the air,” writes Patricia Charles, who also acts as a public relations consultant to biofuel companies such as Qteros.

According to the Campaign, “Recent science has destroyed the myth that biomass burning is “carbon neutral” – the erroneous assumption that lets biomass get the same subsidies as clean energy sources that don’t have smokestacks belching pollution 24/7/365.”

At issue: carbon debt

The problem of carbon neutrality, and the theory of carbon debt are simply explained: when harvesting biomass, the biomass process releases stored carbon in the form of direct emissions (through burning), and also releases emissions in the form of energy applied to grow and harvest biomass. Though re-growth will eventually re-absorb the direct emissions in the form of new growth, there is a time lag, and that lag is presented as a “carbon debt”.

And, how is carbon counted?

For example, if we count carbon storage first and carbon release afterwards, then direct emissions are simply returning carbon to the atmosphere that have already been sequestered. By this method, we have a carbon surplus during the period that biomass is growing, and the balance returns to zero when the biomass is burned.

Here’s the other way to count.

We can count the biomass emissions first, and then consider that the biomass re-growth is restoring the stored carbon that was emitted when it was burned. By this method, we have a carbon debt during the period when the biomass is growing, and the balance returns to zero when the biomass is fully grown.

It’s a semantic point, and feels like a wonky debate. But this distinction has been used by the green left-wing to derail biomass legislation in Massachusetts. According to the Campaign, “Massachusetts is changing its laws, and the activists urged Congress to use Massachusetts law as a template and require proper accounting of the massive CO2 emissions generated from biomass incineration.”

So it’s a material issue. Broadly, there would be agreement that first growth forest or prairie would represent a stored carbon resource where emissions would be counted first, regrowth second, and a carbon debt would be incurred.

But, with second growth forest or cultivated land, which comes first, the chicken or the egg. On the green right-wing, the argument is that biomass growth should be counted first, and emissions second – so that the burning of biomass is working down a cyclical surplus, not creating a debt.

Crisis in the Evergreen State

Ironically, the front lines appeared to be manned in Washington state, the “Evergreen state”, and at Evergreen State College, one of the most liberal colleges in the country. A president of the institution, back in the 1970s, Dan Evans, was the founder (when Washington state governor) of the first state-level Department of Ecology, and that Department served as a blueprint for the original design of the Environmental Protection Agency. Ironies abound.

On the green left, the No Biomass Burn group, led by Seattle environmental activist and occasional gubernatorial candidate, Duff Badgley, who in recent years has been often spotted protesting against biodiesel at Propel Biofuels stations around the city. According to a report in the Seattle Times, the group contends that “the college biomass project would emit twice as much carbon dioxide as the gas-fired plant, and 20 percent more of other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and carbon monoxide.

On the green right, professor Rob Cole told the Times that “As long as the wood waste used by Evergreen is replenished in the forest, the net effect is that carbon released in the atmosphere is equal to the carbon stored in the trees.” College facilitiess director Paul Smith also told the Times that the No Biomass Group had not waited for the feasibility report to come out before protesting against the project, and predicted that the scientific assessment would show that biomass non-carbon emissions would be less harmful than those from natural gas.

What is a material carbon debt?

No matter in which order the various critics and proponents of biomass incineration count the emissions, there is the problem of defining what a material carbon debt, in fact, is, and how to model long term carbon-storing strategies.

As the Digest reported in “Fuzzy Math: 6th Most Overlooked Biofuels Story of 2010“: “The lesson for policymakers,” we quoted an Iowa State research team in Chicken Little, Corn Little, Jatropha Little: Is the Sky Really Falling? , “is that results from economic models depend heavily on assumptions, and because we are trying to predict long-run human behavior, there can be legitimate differences in these assumptions.” In its February article, the Digest revealed that simply assuming a one percent increase in corn yields per decade, reduced a projected carbon debt by 80 percent, and increasing yields by one percent per year (as they are currently increasing now), the carbon debt is virtually wiped out.

Meanwhile, the National Anti-Biomass Incineration and Forest Protection Campaign contends that “that the Senate and House energy and farm bills, and proposed federal Renewable Electricity Standards, include dirty energy made from incinerators that burn trees and garbage for falsely labeled “clean energy.” They also told Congress that Senator Wyden’s forest bill and others promoting more logging of our nation’s forests for fuel for these incinerators will destroy our carbon-absorbing forests, leading to more global warming.”

One potato, two potato

Who’s right? The central issue is the counting order of emissions and re-growth. As any child or grow-up veteran of schoolyard counting games like “one potato, two potato” will tell you, it all comes down to a question of where the counts starts.

If the count starts where you like it, you’re in. If it starts where you don’t, you’re out. Though biomass producers often busy themselves with the business of renewables, it may be time to not only stand up and be counted, but to ensure that the counting is done in an appropriate order.

Readers: I am delighted to announce Biofuels Digest’s Advanced Biofuels Markets on November 9-10, 2010 in San Francisco, which will feature the largest assemblage of CEOs of the “50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy” since our Washington DC conference in April.

The full agenda and registration information is here.

Sponsorship and exhibition information is here.

Our goal in San Francisco: to address the near-term, immediate steps towards commercialization of bioenergy, including a special series of presentations and dialogue on renewable chemicals, plastics, organic acids and other bio-based materials.

True innovators in bioenergy, from production to finance

We’ll host the true innovators in the financing of bioenergy – such as the Stern Brothers/Mintz Levin proposed bond financing of commercial-scale plants, and a visit from Tom Baruch and Alan Shaw, who as chairman and CEO of Codexis led the first successful IPO in the field this year for some time. Plus, we will have strategic investors on hand to present their vision of how they are driving value for their companies through their investment portfolios.

In short, we want to analyze what is working, outline the conditions moving forward, and maximize opportunities to develop relationships for the taking of next steps towards commercialization.

Making high-level networking and partnership happen

I also plan to work hard, as in Washington, to make sure that every attendee has a full diary of side-meetings and briefing opportunities. The presentations will be excellent, but even more important are the side-meetings that turn into commercialization opportunities.

We’ll also have Administration officials on hand from USDA and DOE to update us on the policy front – those of you who know the central role that Bill Hagy plays at USDA will want to hear his latest views. We’ve also just received word that Mike McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, will join us for a special presentation.

The conference agenda is here – but there is much more to the ABLC than just the formal agenda. The Biofuels Digest team has attended a lot of conferences over the past two years – we intend to emulate those features that work well at other conferences, and improve others, and offer a few new features. In particular, we wanted to improve the quality and quantity of networking opportunities, informal dialogue, and side events.

The conference will be held at the beautiful Stanford Court Hotel, and the Bay Area location is excellent for those who have partnership opportunities, are raising a new round of finance, or are located in the Golden State or elsewhere in the West.

30 Transformative Technologies Awards reception and 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy finalist announcements

For companies recently recognized among the “30 Transformative Technologies,” we will have an awards event on the first evening, and will also be announcing the finalists in the 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy for 2010-11, as we enter the final weeks of voting.

Our partner: Greenpower Conferences, producer of World Biofuels Markets

Our partner in this endeavor: Greenpower Conferences, which presents World Biofuels Markets each year in Europe, the most prestigious global event in bioenergy which this year attracted 1400 delegates.  The Digest has had a very successful association with Greenpower over the past year, and we are delighted to have a partner with global vision and impact. We believe that Advanced Biofuels Markets will reflect the very best of what World Biofuels Markets has come to mean for the industry as well as having a unique strength in offering networking opportunities, a focus on dialogue, and a US-based venue.

Private briefing on US elections impact

In addition, I will be conducting a private briefing on the impact of the US November elections, and you’ll have an opportunity to meet with the Digest’s writers and editors about your plans, and making sure we shine a light on your achievements.

As with our April event, since we are emphasizing networking, dialogue, and the exchange of ideas, there are some limitations imposed by room size. I encourage you to register promptly, as we are expecting a sellout. As you may recall, our April event sold out in February – so I encourage you to register early and take advantage of the reduced “early bird” rates.

A list of speakers is included here. We should have an additional announcement on some exciting keynote speakers within 30 days.

The conference agenda and full event information is here.

We are also formally opening the process today for conference sponsorships that will help those of you with special visibility and commercial goals. More information on Sponsorship & exhibition opportunities can be found here.

Registration for the conference, as well as details on the Stanford Court Hotel, including special conference rates, are here.

On behalf of the entire Digest team, we look forward to seeing you in San Francisco and making it a very successful week for you in terms of knowledge gained, relationships established, and missions accomplished.

US states with existing Renewable Power Standards are marked in organge

For a long time there has been discussion of 20 percent renewable power standards in a wide assortment of countries. There’s squabbling about the exact percentages, and the merits of solar, wind, biomass, geo and hydro — but it’s a conversation that hasn’t gone away, and won’t.

Why? To meet the 2050 global carbon goals and provide power for a world population growing in numbers and affluence, a 20 percent RPS is a minimal standard, no more or less than a material first step.

With carbon legislation under consideration this month in the United States Senate, its worth looking at the impact of such a transition on the economics of power generation. These have been studied in depth many times, and industry conferences and the halls of academia and government could be effectively wallpapered with all the pages of impact analysis that have been generated.

But studies do not always equate to readership, and the reason is often that the very sophistication and depth that is the hallmark of a study, is the kiss of death in terms of achieving a broad readership. There are many members of the green-conscious society who would rather spend the evening with an insurance salesman than wade through an academic journal.

Getting a member of Congress to master the fine points of economic analysis is even harder. Congress is a world of five-minute meetings, and the most effective impact analyses are those which can be communicated in the 140-character world of a Twitter post.

So, without limiting ourselves to 140 characters, let’s go through some of the numbers and impact, with simplicity. We’ll look at the US, but the math will be a fair proxy for other countries.

Renewables by the numbers

The United States generates about 4000 terawatts of power per year – never mind exactly what a terawatt is. We produce about 10 percent of our needs today from renewables. In a 20 percent scenario, we’ll need 10 more – or 400 terawatts.

Hydro and geothermal have development limits, solar is a beautiful infant, nuclear takes forever, and there’s only so much wind that can be built at one time without toppling the credit markets and overloading the grid. In a five-year, near term scenario, we’d be darn lucky to add 11 terawatts from all those sources.

Even so, we’d be doubling the capacity of that entire sector – the 50 year history of that buildout reduplicated in just five years.

What’s left? Biomass. Whether you think of it as the “friendly fuel” or the “scourge of mankind”, its infrastructure and capital light. Co-firing or conversion, its the near-term technology that’s available.

Usually, we burn wood when we burn biomass, but wood takes quite a while to grow, and the near-term play is in energy grasses.

Since you get about 1000 kilowatt hours per ton of switchgrass, you need 250 million tons to produce the extra 250 terawatts of power from new generation.

That uses up about 30 million acres, at 8 tons an acre (if you can get those yields, planting in such a darn hurry). Sure, wood will take up some of that, and energy canes where they grow well, but this is the Twitter version of an impact analysis, so we’ll keep it simple.

Someone is going to have to pay for all that biomass. Switchgrass will cost 10 cents per KWh on a good day with that kind of need for added production – that’s around $100 per ton, and the price for biomass is already at those levels in some markets without the full-court press of a national price on carbon.

Coal costs around 5 cents per Kwh.

Doesn’t sound like much, but it adds up quickly. The differential is around $15 billion. That can be absorbed in the form of tax, or rate increases. Throw in a few pennies for the impact of other new renewables generation, and we look at $20 billion per year in added cost, excluding the capital cost of new generation from wind, solar and geo.

The bottom line

That’s about $200 per household per year, $4 per week, or about 60 cents per day. That’s the kind of metric that can really cheese off an annoyed electorate, fed up with government spending.

But look at it another way. Hurricane Katrina caused $125 billion in total damages. And anyone who thinks that global warming will cause less economic impact than Katrina hasn’t been looking at the numbers.

Global warming believer? Renewables are a must, with a superior ROI to “do-nothingism”.

Global warming skeptic. Still sounds like an affordable hedge, with a pay-off in lower rates down the line, should all the carbon chat turn to nothing and tons more fossil fuel resources be uncovered.

Capacity builds can be tough asks for investors and financiers, but they always, always pay off for the end-user.

Ah, no reasons to worry. As in, Hakuna matata. She’ll be apples, matey.

But we get a slightly less rosy picture from those in the business of financing biomass. Paul Battelle, Deutsche Bank director of renewable energy financing: “Historically, power and energy projects that have undertaken unhedged commodity risk such as electricity price risk and biofuel related price risks have performed poorly for banks. We like green certificates, but especially feed-in tariffs, as they have historically offered good certainty.”

So, perhaps there’s a little too much hakuna in our previous matata. Both Batelle and Hodson share an interest in the “sure thing” – one in the post-carbon society, the other in the making of money. Nothing wrong in that – just doing their respective jobs – one looking after the future of the planet, one looking after the money to pay for it. It’s self-interest at work.

But there are more actors than policy makers and bankers in the world of biomass and power. For example, there are the farmers. Where are they?

Bette Jean Crews, Ontario Federation of Agriculture president, articulates: “Until Ontario Power Generation says they are actually going to buy it, and what they are going to pay for it, farmers need that information before they can do the math and see whether they can afford to grow it.”

Ah, chicken and the egg. “We’ll plan to grow it if you buy it, and you’ll plan to buy it if we agree to grow it.” It’s more than self-interest at work, of course – its the survival instinct. Absent a market maker, buyers and sellers struggle to make transactions, become nervous, and stall.

Even amongst those who have vision to pioneer, there are challenges and reasons for hesitation.

In the UK, the country’s largest power station Drax ahas announced plans that it will convert one of its boilers to biomass. Though the coal-based plant has been co-fired with biomass for the past seven years, converting a single boiler to completely biomass could reduce the carbon dioxide from the plant by 4.4 million metric tons a year, the equivalent to taking 1.2 million cars off the road.

If the experiment goes well, Drax may look at converting its other five boilers to biomass as well. The company says the government’s lack of subsidies for biomass power is hindering the industry’s transition to greener fuels.

The lesson? Biomass is a value-chain of many actors, and renewable energy as a whole involves far more than a mandate. What is required is the catalyst that certainty brings, and certainty flows from solid partnerships and certainty begins with policy stability. That stimulates the utility, who in terms gives the certainty to the feedstock provider and the technology vendor.

Those who have the broadest capital or social base have the obligation to create the rules of engagement by which any new technology is adopted. Let us not forget that the government did more than subsidize the internet, it picked up every dime of the tab for development and deployment for a quarter century. Having been initially funded in 1966, it was commercialized in 1991, and gained traction within just a few years after that.

Where would we be without the internet? Better to ask where would we be without the policy stability that created it? Nowhere, that’s where, despite any well expressed thoughts on the internet’s inevitability from any quarter, EU or otherwise, or any other technology platform, like renewables, that has the power to transform society.

It takes a village to raise a child, and policy writ in 20-year increments to raise a platform. One that is in place, well may we say Hakuna Matata, and not before.

According to Ceres, there are more than one billion acres of abandoned cropland globally that could benefit from this trait and others in Ceres’ pipeline, including 15 million acres of salt-affected soils in the U.S. The company now plans to evaluate energy crops with its proprietary salt-tolerant trait at field scale.

Chief Scientific Officer Richard Flavell said “When we begin stacking together salt tolerance, drought tolerance and traits that allow plants to require less nitrogen fertilizer, we can deliver significant productivity and yield increases with fewer inputs than used in the first Green Revolution, as well as valuable increases on marginal or abandoned cropland that does not currently sustain economic yields.”

“From Maine to Washington state, from Ohio to Florida,” the EWG report says, “electric utilities have been embracing “biomass power” as a way to reduce dependence on coal and other fossil fuels and to meet ambitious goals for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. And both state energy policies and the pending federal climate and energy legislation are designed to encourage the trend by providing huge incentives.

“The trouble is…the hoped-for reduction in emissions is illusory. In fact, carbon emissions from burning biomass at rates designed to meet renewable power goals will make it impossible to meet federal and state greenhouse gas reduction targets. Making things worse, the only realistic way to satisfy the expected appetite for biomass fuel would require cutting down the equivalent of more than 46,000 square miles of forest by 2025 – an area larger than Pennsylvania.”The Biomass Power Association responds that the study is misleading. BPA says they are not aware of any facilities that use whole trees for energy and that it is not an economically sustainable approach to biomass as the cost of cutting down one tree outweighs the potential energy benefits.

Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of Biomass Power Association (BPA), further challenged the report by saying that the tax credit and the investment tax credit passed by Congress last year are only available for waste wood products and other organic by-products and not merchantable timber.

Support for the BPA comes from the Manomet Center for Conservation Scientists, which took the extraordinary step of issuing a press release urging the media and environmentalists to read its report on Massachusetts’s biomass options before drawing conclusions.

“One commonly used press headline,” said the Manomet plea,”has been ‘wood worse than coal’ for GHG emissions or for ‘the environment.’ This is an inaccurate interpretation of our findings, which paint a much more complex picture. While burning wood does emit more GHGs initially than fossil fuels, these emissions are removed from the atmosphere as harvested forests re-grow. As discussed in more detail below, the timing and magnitude of the recovery is a function of forest productivity, land management choices, and technology and fuel characteristics.

The full Manomet statement is here.

The Manomet Executive Summary is here.

The EWG study is downloadable here

The controversy has to do with carbon accounting and the carbon neutrality of biomass. There is no question among the parties that carbon dioxide is released when biomass is combusted, and that new biomass growth will absorb that carbon – hence, the term carbon-neutral.

The controversy comes over how you account for, and how you weight the importance of, the time lag between combustion and new growth.

View #1. Those who view biomass as an existing carbon storage system will count the emissions first, and the carbon absorption second – leaving a “carbon debt” that can take a considerable amount of time to eliminate — by some accounting, decades.

View #2. Those who view biomass as a user of “forest slash” and other wood wastes consider that they are using waste resources that are not a stable carbon storage system – that wood waste would be left on forest floors or otherwise disposed, and carbon emissions would have occurred naturally in bacterial decomposition. By this accounting, you count the carbon absorption of new growth first, and the emissions second – because it is the second cycle of biomass growth that reflects the actual impact of a biomass industry. By this accounting approach, the carbon debt is far less intense.

The debate over carbon accounting standards is one for science, not petitions and ballot initiatives, where it can only descend into a series of simplistic sound bites that distract from the real challenges of developing a sustainable renewables industry.

The Manomet warning is apt: even the EWG, according to Manomet, is already sensationalizing and misreporting the Center’s findings. What hope is there that a ballot initiative will be about real issues.

“Lignin is nature’s plastic and any organism that wants to get to the sugars in a plant has to be able to get past this protective barrier,” professor Ming Tien of Penn State.

There’s lignin, lignin everywhere. Next to cellulose, it is the second most abundant organic material on Earth, representing 24-35 percent of softwood weight and 17-25 percent of hardwoods. That’s around 135 billion tons of lignin

Generally, when we use lignin at all, we use it for burning., By and large, it has similar moisture and BTU values as coal (in the 11-12,000 Btu/lb range) with a low ash content. With Central Appalachian coal in the $65/ton range, it’s a low value product at around 3 cents per pound.

Not only is there a lot of low-value lignin in biomass, it surrounds and protects the cellulosic sugars in biomass, making them difficult and expensive to access.

So there have been two basic approaches to the science of lignin: get plants to make less of it, or find ways to get around it.

But new science in the use of lignin is prompting some reassessment. It may be that the optimal approach is not to find a way to limit or work around lignin, but to find better uses for it. Other processes are focused less on finding new uses, but new low-cost ways to isolate lignin from cellulose, converting cellulose into higher-value products while converting lignin into pellets that are optimized as biomass for power generation.

Here’s a Digest recap of some of the most important work being done commercially and in the lab to unlock the value of lignin.

Lignin pellet technologies

Inbicon
Symbiosis between ethanol refinery, power plant with lignin as a key element

Last November, Prince Joachim of Denmark inaugurated the 1.4 Mgy, demonstration-scale Inbicon cellulosic ethanol plant in Kalundborg, which is utilizing wheat straw as its initial feedstock. The plant became the largest cellulosic ethanol facility in Europe.Inbicon and its parent company DONG Energy, the state oil, power and gas firm, confirmed that Inbicon will license its technology for use outside of Denmark, while DONG CEO Alders Eldrup said that the company expects to “construct a few factories also in Denmark.

A unique feature of the technology is symbiotic relationship with power production — utilizing waste heat from power gen to eliminate the use of natural gas and costly heating infrastructure in a free standing ethanol plant, which also reduces greenhouse gas emissions associated with production. In addition, the company has pioneered a proprietary pretreatment process and proprietary designs on its first-stage hydrolysis units, where enzymes are first introduced to capture sugars from the lignin and cellulose – both innovations are designed to reduce the energy intensity of the process, thereby reducing emissions and cost.

The remaining lignin is converted into pellets and supplied back to the power plant where it is co-fired with coal, or completely replaces coal as a power-generation feedstock.

KL Energy
Cellulosic ethanol process produces pellets, and optimizes pretreatment for higher yields

Last October, KL Energy and Fair Energy announced a long term cellulosic ethanol off take agreement for the US and European markets. Under the agreement, KL will supply cellulosic ethanol from the first  first commercial demonstration cellulosic ethanol plant, based in Upton, to the Swiss and US-based energy trading firm.KL’s commercial demonstration facility produces cellulosic ethanol and lignin pellets from wood waste, using a proprietary thermo-mechanical pretreatment and an enzymatic hydrolysis process.

Mascoma
Consolidated bioprocessing venture partners with Chevron for lignin offtakeIn New Hampshire, Mascoma announced that it has entered into a feedstock processing and lignin supply agreement with Chevron Technology Ventures.  Under terms of the agreement, CTV will provide various sources of lignocellulosic feedstock to Mascoma.

Mascoma will then convert the feedstock to cellulosic ethanol through its proprietary process, which produces lignin as a by-product.  Mascoma will provide this lignin to CTV for evaluation.“This is an important moment for us at Mascoma,” said Dr. Jim Flatt, President of Mascoma. “The upgrading of our byproduct lignin to high value transportation fuels is an important step in our effort to prove the effectiveness of integrated biorefineries. It has been our goal all along to make our process as integrated and sustainable as possible.”Lignin is a complex chemical compound derived from woody biomass.

After biomass has been converted through Mascoma’s proprietary Consolidated Bio Processing method, which breaks down the sugars in the cellulose and turns it into ethanol, energy-rich lignin is left over.Michael Kannelos at Greentech Media commented, “The lignin angle is interesting. Ligning keeps microbes from gobbling up plants. It is why we have coal: the lignin outlasted the microbes and the cellulosic material fossilized into coal over millions of years.”It’s a high-energy material. Some ethanol companies plan to burn lignin to run their own plants. Others transform it thermochemically and add the byproducts back into the ethanol mix.

Gasification

Chemrec
Gasifiying lignin trapped in pulp mill black liquor, for biofuels

Gasification has long been used to convert coal, oil and natural gas into syngas containing the building blocks of valuable fuels and chemicals. Black liquor is a byproduct of the kraft pulp production process and also an excellent gasification feedstock for syngas production. Black liquor consists of dissolved wood substance, mostly lignin, and spent pulping chemicals. It is traditionally burned by pulp mills in a Tomlinson-type recovery boiler to produce steam to drive the pulp mill processes and to recover the spent pulping chemicals. A gasification-based biofuels unit added to an existing pulp mill includes the patented Chemrec process and other technology extensively used in the petrochemicals industry.

Mild pyrolysis: Torrefaction

Torrefacation can generally be defined as a process that uses  “mild pyrolysis” to separate water, VOCs and hemicellulose from the cellulose and lignin contained in  woody biomass. The VOCs and hemicellulose fractions are combusted to generate process heat, leaving only the cellulose and lignin to produce TW, a charcoal like solid. And depending on the process time, the TW yield is quite high. varying between 66% and 75%.>The mild pyrolysis process  is lucidly described  in an article written by Robert Flanagan, titled “Torrefied Wood vs. Charcoal”.

As Flanagan explained, in mild pyrolysis, green woody biomass with 50% moisture is subjected to temperatures in the 250oC to 300oC range in a closed torrefaction unit in which little or no oxygen is added. And depending on the process dwell time (i.e., residence time), the woody biomass is reduced to a char, with only 25% to 33% of the amount of input material used, being driven off as a gas.

The torrefaction units that are available differ primarily in how the woody biomass is fed into the torrefaction unit, how it moves through the unit and how ash is removed. All units need a backup heat source such as a natural gas burner to ignite the process and help control the process temperatures, but process heat is primarily provided by the synthetic gases produced from the woody biomass being torrefied. Although torrefaction is a sophisticated process it is not nearly as complex or as costly as processes used in biorefining.

New Science

Purdue
Researchers suppress gene, reduce lignin precursor phenylalanine by 80 percent in petunias>

In April, Purdue researchers have identified, in an article published in the Plant Cell online journal, a gene linked to potential increases in cellulosic ethanol process efficiency. The gene is responsible for phenylalanine production, and by suppressing the gene’s expression, the research team reduced 80 percent of phenylalanine content in petunias. Lignin is synthesized from phenylalanine.

ArborGen
Testing low-lignin eucalyptus

In Washington, the USDA approved a permit for ArborGen to field trial 200,000 genetically modified trees on 28 sites, in seven states, involving 300 acres of land. The purpose of the test: the eucalyptus has new genes inserted to make them freeze-tolerant, making it possible to plant eucalyptus throughout the Southern timber areas as a fast-growing timber source. The trees have also had their lignin modified to make it possible to more easily convert wood into ethanol.

Chevron
Holds two patents for converting lignin to hydrocarbon fuel components

In February 2008, Chevron filed applications for two patents on refinery-based processes for converting lignin to hydrocarbon fuel components. In one embodiment, the lignin is first separated from the black liquor at a paper mill and then the lignin is transported from the paper mill to the refinery for hydroprocessing. In an alternative embodiment, the entire black liquor solution may be transported from the paper mill to the refinery for hydroprocessing. The Mascoma agreement opens up the potential for an alternative source of lignin.

Beijing University
Researchers develop process to convert lignin to gasoline, diesel precursors

In 2008, researchers at Beijing University identified a means to convert lignin, the primary component of plant matter and wood, into 8-18 carbon alkanes that can be refined into gasoline or diesel. The scientists reported that they have developed catalysts that breakdown carbon-oxygen-carbon bonds using hydrogen, and “near-critical” (250-300 degrees Celsius) water at pressures of 7000 kilopascals (about 70 atmospheres of pressure).  The researchers say that the process produces 8-9 carbon alkanes that are precursors for gasoline, 12-18 carbon alkanes for diesel, and methanol.

Penn State
Inserting protein between lignin molecules to make breakdown easier to achieve

Researchers at Penn State University said that they have developed a technique to genetically modify the connections in lignin to make it a more efficient feedstock for biofuels. The technique focuses on inserting a protein between lignin molecules. The protein does not affect plant rigidity or health, but makes it possible to use enzymes that attack proteins, rather than lignins, to break open the lignin polymer and facilitate glucose conversion and ethanol production.

Iowa State
Testing lignin as a roadbed building material

The Grow Iowa Values Fund, Iowa Highway Research Board, Grain Processing Corp. of Muscatine and Iowa State University’s Office of Biorenewables Programs have jointly funded and resourced a $93,775 project to study the use of lignin, a byproduct of corn ethanol production, in Iowa road construction. Natural Iowa roadbeds are less stable than desired and lignin’s properties as a roadbed binding agent are the subject of the research. ]]> http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/06/17/lignin-make-less-or-make-more-of-it-a-digest-special-report/feed/ 1 http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/06/10/swedes-do-it-better-a-biomass-digest-profile/ http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/06/10/swedes-do-it-better-a-biomass-digest-profile/#comments Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:39:42 +0000 Meghan Sapp http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/06/10/swedes-do-it-better-a-biomass-digest-profile/ In Sweden, biomass power is estimated to represent 32% of all energy consumption and demand is leading to competition for pulp resources between paper and energy producers, pushing pulp prices to new highs, according to a new study.

Between 2000 and 2009, biomass power consumption grew from 88TWh to 115TWh. During the same period, oil-based power consumption fell to 112TWh from 142TWh. Demand by competing sectors for biomass is steadily increasing prices. Q1 2010 saw pulplog prices up 20% from five years ago and 36% higher than 10 years ago.

According to Hakan Ekstrom of Wood Resource Quarterly, “Sawmills in Central and Northern Europe continue to have the highest wood costs in regions producing softwood lumber. These are also regions that have experienced the biggest price increases the past year. In Sweden and Germany, spruce sawlog prices were 28% and 15%, respectively, higher in the 1Q/10 than in early 2009.”

“Sweden is currently the biggest consumer of wood pellets in the world, consuming over 20% of the world’s production of wood pellets,” said Ekstrom. “In order to meet the demand from a fast growing market, the country produced almost 1.6 million tons in 2008 and imported another 300,000 tons mainly from other countries in Europe but also from Canada. There are no signs portending any slowdown in demand for wood pellets, and the annual growth is expected to be between 8% and 10% in the coming years.”

Why? Access to feedstock or high energy prices?

What makes Sweden so successful in converting to biomass?There are four factors.

First, a commitment to renewables, centered around general European plans to be at 20 percent renewable content by 2020 in terms of power generation. Two, available infrastructure for wood. Three, high energher prices. Four, well, solar and wind do not work as well in Sweden. Brrr!

But there’s another factor – Scandinavians have far more experience in integration of facilities – symbiosis, as they call it – co-location as it is known in the US. According to Smurfit-Stone’s Tim Rowden: “The USDA estimates the cost of starting up a new biomass facility to be upward of $320 million. Leveraging existing assets and infrastructure from closed mills could drastically reduce that initial investment. Pulp mills have woodyards, boilers, wastewater treatment, rail and truck access, tanks and piping – all of which could be used in a biomass facility. These mills have access to fiber supply chains, including logging forces and nearby biomass supply.”

But there is competition from the higher-cost, but higher yielding biofuels arena. Biofuel company Chemrec AB is integrating a biodiesel facility into Domsjö Fabriker’s pulp mill in Örnsködsvik, Sweden. The proposed 40-million-gallon per year (MMgy) plant will utilize a black liquor gasification process to produce BioDME(dimethyl ether) and BioMethanol.

Fortum’s Swedish venture

In Finland, Reuters is reporting that the Finnish utility, Fortum, has announced that it is investigating a $1.49 billion investment to construct a biomass-based combined heat and power plant in the Stockholm area, and increase the share of biomass (compared to coal) at its giant Vartan plant by 45 percent to 70 percent by 2015.

Sweden by the numbers

Wood Resources Quarterly is reporting that demand for wood pellet demand is expected to grow in Europe by 8 to 10 percent per year in the near-term, as Europe begins to turn towards its 20 percent renewables target for 2020 in power generation. Wood pellets., compressed from  bark, sawdust and other forest residues, burn more efficiently than wood chips.

According to WRQ, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Britain are leading the sharp uptick in demand — Sweden used nearly 2 million tonnes in 2008, and 450 plants are now in operation in Europe. In the US, a $1500 consumer tax credit is available to those who install high-efficiency pellet stoves and heaters.

More on the story.

These projects will promote investment in clean energy infrastructure that will create jobs, help communities provide long-term renewable energy and save consumers money. They will also serve as models for other local governments, campuses or small utilities to replicate, allowing other communities to design projects that fit their individual size and energy demands.

“Smaller, more localized renewable energy systems need to play a role in our comprehensive energy portfolio,” said Secretary Chu. “These projects will help create jobs, expand our clean energy economy, and help us cut carbon pollution at the local level.”

The selected projects will be leveraged with approximately $167 million in local government and private industry funding.  DOE estimates that these projects will provide enough clean, renewable energy to displace the emissions of approximately 10,700 homes.

Projects selected for awards include:

City of Montpelier (Montpelier, VT)

This project will further Montpelier’s energy goals by supporting installation of a 41 MMBtu combined heat and power district energy system fueled with locally-sourced renewable and sustainably-harvested wood chips. The CHP system will be sized to provide heating to the Vermont Capitol Complex, city owned schools, the City Hall Complex, and up to 156 buildings in the community’s designated downtown district for a total of 176 buildings and 1.8 million square feet served. By providing 1.8 million KWh of power to the grid, the system will maximize its operating efficiency and reduce thermal costs for users in the community. Montpelier will conduct outreach to encourage replication regionally and nationally through its project partners, the Biomass Energy Resource Center, the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, and Veolia Energy North America.  DOE share: $8,000,000

Forest County Potawatomi Tribe (Forest County, WI)

The Forest County Potowatomi Tribe proposes to implement an integrated renewable energy deployment plan that will provide heating, cooling and electricity for the Tribe’s governmental buildings, displacing natural gas and propane. The renewable energy installations will include: a 1.25 MW biomass combined heat and power facility that will provide heating, cooling and electricity; a biogas digester and 150 kW generation facility; three 100 kW wind turbines (788,400 kWh/year); and three dual-axis 2.88 kW solar PV panels (14,000 kWh/yr) located at the Tribe’s Governmental Center. DOE share: $2,500,000

University of California at Davis (Davis, CA)

UC Davis’ proposed Waste-to-Renewable Energy (WTRE) system is one component of a campus oriented mixed housing and commercial development venture. The system would generate power from a renewable biogas fed fuel cell.  The organic waste will enter a receiving station in which it can be collected and prepared for digestion.  Once the appropriate mix has been created in buffer tanks, the waste will flow to the reactor where methanogenic bacteria will generate methane and carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, etc. These gases will flow to the Bio-methane Upgrade System for hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide removal, so that cleanup is to a level appropriate for use in a fuel cell system, and the cleaned gas is stored. Housed alongside the WTRE system within the Community Energy Park will be an advanced storage battery and a 300kW fuel cell that will be fueled by the on-site biogas and provides electric power to West Village end-users.  DOE share: $2,500,000

The Map can be found on the REN21 website, at http://www.ren21.net/map

Designed as a central access-point to renewable energy information, the Map is dependent on the knowledge contributions of many organisations and individuals in the renewable energy community. REN21 strives to cite the sources for all the information presented, so that users can access further information directly. The REN21 Secretariat collects the information from various reports, databases, news announcements, specific enquiries, and other sources.

As the network of the renewable energy policy community, REN21 has provided authoritative information for several years, in particular through its Renewables Global Status Report. As a new tool for REN21’s knowledge management, the Renewables Interactive Map is designed to track more closely the dynamic development of renewable energy policy-making and market development, and to provide disaggregated information for specific countries and technologies.