Atlantic BIOEnergy Conference Conference proceedings · 2008. 8. 26. · Rotary grate furnace and...

Atlantic BIOEnergy Conference

Conference proceedings

April 9-11, 2008

Saint John, New Brunswick


Page 2 Conference Proceedings

Contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Drivers for change ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Opportunities.......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Challenges.............................................................................................................................................................. 12 The future ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

State of the industry in Atlantic Canada – activity and policy updates ............................................ 14 Province of New Brunswick – Claire LePage, New Brunswick Department of Energy .......................... 14 Prince Edward Island – Peter Boswell, Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture..................... 16

Current energy situation....................................................................................................................................... 16 Total energy mix by fuel type.............................................................................................................. 16

PEI energy framework ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Eastern Canadian premiers and New England governors ............................................................................. 17 Environmental and Renewable Industries Committee (ERIC)........................................................................ 17 ERIC recommendations........................................................................................................................................ 18 Action areas ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Biomass, biofuels, biogas...................................................................................................................................... 19 Energy strategy development process.............................................................................................................. 19 Summary – bioenergy policy ............................................................................................................................... 19

Nova Scotia – Nancy Rondeaux, Nova Scotia Department of Energy................................................... 19 Current policy......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Policy proposals submitted to NSDOE................................................................................................................ 21 Current programs .................................................................................................................................................. 22

Building a sustainable future – Mike Bryan, BBI International................................................................ 22

Growing beyond oil: the case for biofuels in Canada – Gordon Quaiattini, Canadian Renewable Fuels Association .................................................................................................................... 24

Who is the CRFA................................................................................................................................................. 24 What are renewable fuels................................................................................................................................ 25 Government commitment on renewable fuels ........................................................................................... 25 What is driving growth? .................................................................................................................................... 26 Canadian biofuels market ............................................................................................................................... 26 Impact on agriculture and rural economies ................................................................................................ 26 Impact on environment.................................................................................................................................... 26 Impact on crop science................................................................................................................................... 27

April 9-11, 2008 Saint John, New Brunswick

Conference Proceedings Page 3

Barriers to development ................................................................................................................................... 27

Keynote address: Energy production by America's farms, ranches and forests – Michael Bowman, 25x’25........................................................................................................................................... 28

25x’25: a national alliance............................................................................................................................... 28 Our vision ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 25 x ’25 evolves .................................................................................................................................................. 28 Partners ................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Phase IV mission ................................................................................................................................................. 33

Phase IV: Four primary goals................................................................................................................................ 33 “Source authority” ................................................................................................................................................. 33 Critical challenges and opportunities ................................................................................................................ 34 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................................... 34 Sustainability principles ......................................................................................................................................... 34 25x’25 carbon work group................................................................................................................................... 35 Public policy ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 Supporting partners............................................................................................................................................... 35 Path forward........................................................................................................................................................... 35

Food vs. fuel debate – Rick Tolman, National Corn Growers Association ......................................... 36 National Corn Growers Association ............................................................................................................... 36 Performance in 2007 ......................................................................................................................................... 36

2007 corn supply and demand........................................................................................................................... 37 NCGA’s vision – “15 x 15 x 15” ............................................................................................................................. 37

Meeting demand .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Three steps to meeting demand ........................................................................................................................ 38 More corn to ethanol............................................................................................................................................ 40 Food and fuel......................................................................................................................................................... 44

Myths and misinformation ................................................................................................................................ 48 Energy balance: Most studies show positive return ......................................................................................... 49 Corn nutrient use improving................................................................................................................................. 50 No-till trends ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 Corn’s water needs............................................................................................................................................... 51

Comparing crops.................................................................................................................................. 52 Water use in perspective..................................................................................................................... 52

Land use controversy............................................................................................................................................ 53 Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 55

Bioenergy and climate change: Global initiatives and policy: Why invest in bioenergy projects? – Don O'Connor, (S&T)2 Consulting Inc................................................................................... 56

Climate change................................................................................................................................................. 56



International bioenergy initiatives................................................................................................................... 59 European Union ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 United States .......................................................................................................................................................... 60 Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)................................................................................................................. 60 Canada .................................................................................................................................................................. 61

Policy drivers ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 Biofuel drivers.......................................................................................................................................................... 62 BioEnergy benefits ................................................................................................................................................. 62

Bioenergy and public policy............................................................................................................... 62 Agricultural economics........................................................................................................................ 63 Biofuels and the environment............................................................................................................. 64 Food vs. fuel and land use emissions................................................................................................. 67

Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 71

Pyrolysis: Bio-energy, bio-chemicals, and renewable transport fuel from residuals – David Boulard, Executive Vice President, Ensyn Technologies Inc. ................................................................ 71

European directive............................................................................................................................................ 71 Primer on pyrolysis .............................................................................................................................................. 71

Bio-energy: boiler applications............................................................................................................................ 73 Bio-energy: electrical turbines............................................................................................................................. 74 Bio-chemicals: food ingredients.......................................................................................................................... 75 Bio-chemicals: natural resins and polymers ...................................................................................................... 75 Bio-energy and bio-chemical: CHAR................................................................................................................. 76

Small scale rural ethanol plant - Keith Rueve, Pound-Maker Agventures.......................................... 78 Ethanol production............................................................................................................................................ 79 Co-products........................................................................................................................................................ 79

Thin stillage.............................................................................................................................................................. 79 Wet distillers grain (WDG) ..................................................................................................................................... 79 Benefits of co-products ........................................................................................................................................ 80

Saskatchewan wheat production.................................................................................................................. 80 Starch content of wheat ...................................................................................................................................... 80 Ethanol production issues..................................................................................................................................... 80

Closed loop biofuel projects and benefits to rural communities – J. Ken Graham, Canadian Integrated BioSolutions Ltd......................................................................................................................... 81

Producer and rural community ownership ................................................................................................... 81 Closed loop agriculture .................................................................................................................................... 81 Feeding wheat DDGS ....................................................................................................................................... 81 What must governments do? .......................................................................................................................... 82



Overcoming air quality fears in urban areas – Gideon Richards, Consulting With Purpose Ltd..... 82 How far does the fear go?............................................................................................................................... 82

What are the perceptions?.................................................................................................................................. 82 Biomass, its context and urban areas ............................................................................................................ 83 Offsetting fossil fuels........................................................................................................................................... 84 How we can overcome the fears................................................................................................................... 84

Biomass technologies – current and future uses .............................................................................................. 84 Biomass CHP technologies................................................................................................................................... 85

Biomass – medium/large CHP............................................................................................................. 85 Biomass – small/medium CHP............................................................................................................. 86 Biomass heat technologies ................................................................................................................. 87 Rotary grate furnace and internal combustion cyclone ............................................................... 88 Integrated flue gas condensation ..................................................................................................... 88 Biomass – microCHP ............................................................................................................................. 90 Torrified chip and pellet fuel ............................................................................................................... 91 Air quality abatement technologies.................................................................................................. 92 Fabric-Filter (FF) baghouse .................................................................................................................. 93 Electrostatic precipitator ..................................................................................................................... 93

Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 94

Cellulosic fractionation biorefining technology – Carl Lehrburger, PureVision Technology Inc..... 94 PureVision's biomass fractionation process................................................................................................... 94

Platform................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Enabling technologies ......................................................................................................................... 95 Platform technology............................................................................................................................. 95

PureVision biofuels platform............................................................................................................................. 98 PureVision pulping platform............................................................................................................................. 98 PureVision lignin platform ................................................................................................................................. 99 Lignin markets and value ................................................................................................................................. 99 PureVision’s commercialization timeline ..................................................................................................... 100 Biorefining center initiatives ........................................................................................................................... 101 Pre-treatment vs. fractionation ..................................................................................................................... 102

Forest bioproducts research in Maine – Hemant Pendse, University of Maine................................ 103 FBRI’s core research ........................................................................................................................................ 103 Laboratory instrumentation highlights.......................................................................................................... 103 2003 Maine wood supply model................................................................................................................... 103 Challenges with other recoverables ............................................................................................................ 105 Red Shield Environmental (RSE)..................................................................................................................... 106

RSE Pulp & Chemical........................................................................................................................................... 106 Van Heiningen process – from lab to mill floor ............................................................................................... 107



Research portfolio overview.......................................................................................................................... 107 Research thrusts ................................................................................................................................................... 108

The Canadian Biomass Innovation Network – Alex MacLeod, Office of Energy Research and Development, Natural Resources Canada.................................................................................. 108

Canadian context........................................................................................................................................... 108 Federal initiatives and policies ...................................................................................................................... 109

Canadian federal funding................................................................................................................................. 109 Biofuels .................................................................................................................................................. 109 Electricity .............................................................................................................................................. 110

Federal research funding and initiatives ......................................................................................................... 110 What is CBIN...................................................................................................................................................... 111

CBIN’s vision.......................................................................................................................................................... 111 Highlights from CBIN activities ....................................................................................................................... 112

Collaborative RD&D............................................................................................................................................ 112 ST&T technology activities and themes ........................................................................................................... 112 Mobile pyrolysis .................................................................................................................................................... 113 Biodiesel ................................................................................................................................................................ 113 Direct firing of syngas for lime kiln and power boiler applications .............................................................. 113 GIS-based biomass inventory ............................................................................................................................ 114 Short-rotation plantation and agroforestry systems....................................................................................... 115 Environmental criteria for siting of cellulosic bioethanol facilities................................................................ 115 Asset maps............................................................................................................................................................ 116 CBIN communication ......................................................................................................................................... 117 Next activities for CBIN........................................................................................................................................ 117

Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................................ 117

Commercial biogas production from potatoes processing plant residues – Veselin Milosevic, J.D. Irving Ltd............................................................................................................................ 118

Project introduction......................................................................................................................................... 118 Biogas basics: Anaerobic digestion ............................................................................................................. 118 Process setup.................................................................................................................................................... 118 Inputs.................................................................................................................................................................. 124 Outputs .............................................................................................................................................................. 124 Project team..................................................................................................................................................... 125

Landfill gas: Making energy from waste – Greg McCarron, SCS Engineers..................................... 125 LFG generation................................................................................................................................................. 125 LFG collection and control systems.............................................................................................................. 126



Landfill gas and green power ....................................................................................................................... 126 Direct gas use................................................................................................................................................... 127 Direct LFG use................................................................................................................................................... 127 Direct use projects ........................................................................................................................................... 128 Electrical generation....................................................................................................................................... 128

I.C. engines ........................................................................................................................................................... 128 Engine projects.................................................................................................................................... 128

Steam turbine projects ....................................................................................................................................... 129 Microturbine experience.................................................................................................................................... 130

LFG conversion to pipeline quality gas........................................................................................................ 131 Carbon dioxide removal ................................................................................................................................ 132 Alternative use projects .................................................................................................................................. 133

Integrated biorefinery concept & research – Adriaan van Heininigan, University of Maine ........ 135 Value prior to pulping within forest biorefinery........................................................................................... 135 Near-neutral hemicellulose extraction process.......................................................................................... 136 Process advantages........................................................................................................................................ 139 Process disadvantages................................................................................................................................... 139 Basis for economic analysis............................................................................................................................ 140 Effect on recovery and lime kiln ................................................................................................................... 142 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................................... 143

Growing Power integrated biorefinery – Trevor Nickel, Growing Power Group.............................. 143 Growing Power Group.................................................................................................................................... 143 Highmark Renewables Research.................................................................................................................. 144

Current biorefinery............................................................................................................................................... 144 Growing Power Hairy Hill..................................................................................................................................... 144 Energy synergies and benefits........................................................................................................................... 147 Economic synergies and benefits ..................................................................................................................... 147 Environmental synergies and benefits ............................................................................................................. 147

Food versus fuel................................................................................................................................................ 148 Right-sized biofuel production........................................................................................................................... 148

Renewable energy in Canada ..................................................................................................................... 148 Renewable energy in Alberta ....................................................................................................................... 148 Commercialization .......................................................................................................................................... 148



Biomass co-firing electric utility opportunity – James Taylor, Nova Scotia Power Inc. ................... 149 Trenton Generating Station............................................................................................................................ 149 Co-firing of biomass......................................................................................................................................... 150

Direct firing............................................................................................................................................................ 150 Separate combustor (CFB) ................................................................................................................................ 150 Separate combustor ........................................................................................................................................... 150

Next steps .......................................................................................................................................................... 152

Bioenergy: NB Power perspective – George Dashner, NB Power...................................................... 153 NB Power’s generation system ...................................................................................................................... 153 Developing renewable generation in New Brunswick.............................................................................. 154

NB Power’s environmental commitment......................................................................................................... 154 The Renewable Portfolio Standard................................................................................................................... 154 Bioenergy at NB Power ....................................................................................................................................... 154

Wood biomass utilization in Europe … the Austrian showcase: markets, technologies and R&D – Walter Haslinger, Austrian Bioenergy Center, GmbH ...................................................... 155

Bioenergy markets in Austria.......................................................................................................................... 155 Primary energy consumption in Austria ........................................................................................................... 155 “Other” renewable energy sources ................................................................................................................. 156

Technologies – state-of-the-art ..................................................................................................................... 160 Small-scale combustion technologies (SSCs) – fuels ..................................................................................... 160 Combustion principles of manually stoked SSCs............................................................................................ 161 Combustion principles of automatically stoked SSCs.................................................................................... 161 SSC products – overview.................................................................................................................................... 162 Characteristics of modern biomass SSCs......................................................................................................... 162 Most innovative technologies ........................................................................................................................... 164 Medium- to large-scale combustion technologies........................................................................................ 165 Medium-scale combustion technologies........................................................................................................ 165 Cogeneration....................................................................................................................................................... 166

Micro-scale (< 10 kWel) biomass CHP systems............................................................................... 166 Small-scale (< 100 kWel) biomass CHP systems.............................................................................. 166 Medium-scale (100 – 2.000 kWel) biomass CHP systems .............................................................. 166 Large-scale (> 2 MWel) biomass CHP systems ............................................................................... 166

Research and development ......................................................................................................................... 167 Company overview ............................................................................................................................................ 167 Services – overview ............................................................................................................................................. 168 R&D highlights ...................................................................................................................................................... 169 Micro-scale CHP based on thermoelectrics ................................................................................................... 169 Advanced gasification technologies .............................................................................................................. 169 Second generation biofuels .............................................................................................................................. 169



Biomass-to-liquid .................................................................................................................................................. 170 Conclusions and summary............................................................................................................................. 171

Capturing the opportunity: Motivation and model for the Colorado Center for biorefining and biofuels – Dr. Will Medlin, C2B2, Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels ....................... 172

Opportunities in Colorado.............................................................................................................................. 172 Creation of the Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory, March 2006.......................................... 172 Timeline for launch of C2B2 ........................................................................................................................... 172 C2B2’s mission................................................................................................................................................... 173 Research thrusts ............................................................................................................................................... 173

Cross-boundary projects .................................................................................................................................... 173 Organizational Structure – developed with input from sponsoring companies........................................ 174

C2B2’s uniqueness ........................................................................................................................................... 174 Sponsored research: the “tailored interface” ............................................................................................ 174 Shared research: a uniform interface.......................................................................................................... 175 Creating value for sponsors ........................................................................................................................... 175 Meetings............................................................................................................................................................ 175 State and partner matching support........................................................................................................... 175 People and technology pipeline.................................................................................................................. 176 Seed grant projects funded in Fall 2007 (based on sponsor evaluations) ............................................ 176 Postdoctoral fellows program ....................................................................................................................... 176 Undergraduate summer research program ............................................................................................... 176 Future programs............................................................................................................................................... 177 What are C2B2’s overall goals? .................................................................................................................... 177 Corporate sponsors ......................................................................................................................................... 177

Appendix A – Green Light session........................................................................................................... 179 Support a capital cost funding scheme...................................................................................................... 179 Model community/living lab.......................................................................................................................... 179 Provide disincentives for electric heat and remove impediments to bioenergy alternatives .......... 179 Make net metering more flexible and remove disincentives.................................................................. 179 Bioenergy producers’ association ................................................................................................................ 180 More aggressive knowledge transfer for the agricultural sector ............................................................ 180 Create a bioenergy technology centre ..................................................................................................... 180 Provide a standard offer program or seasonal price premiums for small energy producers............ 180



Establish base information and base policy with respect to biomass harvesting and available biomass.............................................................................................................................................................. 181 Establish estimates of available agricultural biomass ............................................................................... 181 Pursue all viable bioenergy technologies and alternatives..................................................................... 181 Standardization, in association with a centre of excellence .................................................................. 181 Standardized, predictable pricing for biofuels and additives................................................................. 181 Understand the full consequences of action (for example, nutrient depletion) ................................. 182 Take a regional approach............................................................................................................................. 182 Provide good information for policy makers and decision makers........................................................ 182

Appendix B – Preliminary observations – Tim Curry, Event Chair and President, Atlantica Centre for Energy ...................................................................................................................................... 183

What’s next........................................................................................................................................................... 185

List of figures, charts and tables .............................................................................................................. 187



Executive summary

The Atlantic Bioenergy Conference 2008 was a very successful followup to last year’s conference. The conference included discussions regarding policy environments in the three Maritime provinces, and to a certain extent in a national context, explanations of various technologies touching on biorefining, electrical generation, and heating applications, and interesting explorations of business cases. There was also a discussion about public understanding and perceptions, and the influence of that understanding on public policy. There were also explicit references to the benefits of bioenergy applications in the context of rural and regional economies. This summary provides a brief overview of the Conference’s themes and conclusions.

Drivers for change

Drivers for the evolution of the bioenergy industry include: • Climate change, along with all of the drivers that result from society’s

understanding of the factors affecting climate change. • Diversity and security of our energy supplies is an important issue going

forward. We can no longer contemplate a future where we have one primary fuel source that comes from a long way away.

• The world price of crude oil, in and of itself, has significantly disrupted the

economics of energy applications and solutions.. • Rapid technological innovation is now well established as a driver of change. The

art of the possible is changing, and we’re beginning to see more and more ideas become viable.

• Increasingly broad and public discussion about societal sustainability– both in

the context of climate change and the need to use all the resources at our disposal – has also become a driver.

Benefits

Benefits of bioenergy include reductions in emissions and the diversity and security of energy supplies. Economic benefits include energy dollars remaining closer to home, and cost and productivity improvements associated with local industries integrating bio-solutions into existing processes. Sustainability benefits arise from more complete and more intensive use of both waste and product streams.



Opportunities

There is an increasing commitment to the renewable sector in society, and public interest in green energy is growing. People in this region are more aware of the need to be green, and are starting to talk about it, think about it, and make decisions. This region also benefits from the presence, in both the forestry and agricultural sectors, of both large-scale investors and small-scale investors. This region also has a cadre of bioenergy experts who live here, work here, and innovate here. Being informed by solutions used elsewhere in the world, but being able to develop our own innovations and applications, is an important advantage. The increased focus on policy in this region on the part of governments at both the provincial and federal level creates a number of opportunities for this industry.

Challenges

This region needs to be cautious about possible economic shocks and disruptions, and the possibility of unintended consequences. The bioenergy sector also faces some real contention regarding feedstocks. There is not an unlimited supply of any resource, even a bio-resource. It is important to identify and mitigate some of the institutional barriers that remain in place and impede access to development in this sector. A one-size solution does not necessarily fit all, and we’re going to have to apply multiple solutions attain our goals. Certain energy infrastructures are so dominant and so entrenched that there’s a huge amount of inertia to overcome before new ideas and applications have a chance in the market. This is particularly problematic when it comes to fuel distribution infrastructure, transportation methodologies, or electrical generation at the edges of the grid. In addition, the most economically attractive solutions and applications are not simple. Innovation and lateral thinking is needed to make them work. Another challenge is public misconception about the bioenergy sector. Educating the public and addressing misinformation and misconceptions is imperative. We need to communicate the idea that we may not have perfect solutions, but that we’re making progress. Today’s solutions are better than yesterday’s. A final challenge is seeing beyond the one-size-fits-all paradigm and understanding that there are benefits to be gained from both large-scale and small-scale applications.



The future

We must work together. Regional cooperation and coordination is going to be absolutely critical to our success. We also need to continue to develop better information resources, both for policymakers and for the public. We need to strive to think outside whatever box we happen to be in, and look to see what’s being done elsewhere. We also need to focus on solid, practical, sustainable, economically viable solutions.



State of the industry in Atlantic Canada – activity and policy updates

Province of New Brunswick – Claire LePage, New Brunswick Department of Energy

This has been a particularly busy winter for New Brunswick with regard to renewable energy. The Government of New Brunswick is committed to increasing our renewable energy supply and developing the renewable energy sector. Green forms of energy and energy efficiency have become an important focus of the Government. In fact, Minister Jack Keir has announced the development of four commercial wind farms for the province since taking office. These wind farms are pushing forward our utility’s commitment to purchase green energy to meet its RPS commitments. In the wind sector, it is our view that much more can be harnessed, provided that it is done with proper consideration of the environment, land use, and planning. The Government has also launched a consultation and research process to investigate opportunities for tidal power in the Bay of Fundy. There has been interesting progress since last year on bioenergy. The Department of Energy is looking into the market for biofuels and developing its knowledge of this emerging industry. There are a number of biodiesel production projects taking place, and some demonstration projects leading the way to market introduction of transportation biofuels. New Brunswick’s Bio-D Energy Inc. recently received federal support to help them reach their goal of a thirty million liter per year production capacity of Oil C biodiesel. We have also seen bio-oil development facility owned and operated by Eastern Greenway Oils, and demonstration tests on Fredericton transit buses. This was accomplished in partnership with UNB to test the use of one of Eastern Greenway’s vegetable oil based fuels additives. As part of the federal Biofuels for Producers initiative, six feasibility projects looking at ethanol and biodiesel are underway or completed. These projects represent great steps in exploring the potential for production in the province. On the fiber front, New Brunswick has been the leader in wood energy for many years. The 1980s and early 90s saw an expansion in the use of wood energy in our forest industry for both processing and electricity for generation. A highly successful wood energy program resulted in wood being introduced into the commercial sector at several hospitals, the Fleming forestry centre, and UNB’s heat plant, which installed wood



boilers. In 2004, over 23% of energy delivered in New Brunswick was in the form of wood. This, coupled with the wood used to generate electricity, puts New Brunswick in forefront of wood use for energy in Canada. Most of this development was based on wood residues from the forest industry, and about a third used in the residential sector in the form of harvested hardwoods. But there are additional energy resources available, which would see economic viability under the increases in oil prices. We have a firm foundation from which to work. Today we are learning from further advances in wood energy, a field which has demonstrated tremendous value over the years and offers considerably more potential value for New Brunswick in the future. Countries in Europe such as Austria or Germany offer an excellent example of the potential for transformational change that wood energy can bring to this province. We look forward to hearing of their experiences. From the Department of Energy perspective, we recognize the many benefits associated with the diversification of our energy mix. By developing bioenergy as a supply of renewable energy, our energy supply becomes more reliable, and energy costs become more stable, which is truly a win-win for New Brunswick. The development of the bioenergy industry will also help the province meet its climate change goals, a fact that is incredibly important to our province. The Government of New Brunswick recognizes the significant benefits to the environment and the economy, especially in the rural regions, that bioenergy can bring. As the Department of Energy reviews its energy strategy, bioenergy will play an important role in fulfilling the Government’s commitment to developing our renewable energy resources. The Department will continue to pursue a collaborative approach and lead in coordinating a strategic direction for the Province on bioenergy. We also plan to pursue continued engagement with industry partners that will be essential to growing this sector. We acknowledge the importance of developing the supply chain for bringing value to our biomass resources. From those who build the machinery to fuel distributors and processors, to those building the infrastructure such as transportation and construction services … all these layers must be involved to push the industry forward. Technology advances will also play a very big part in how the bioenergy markets are developed. The Government of New Brunswick has an important role to play in moving the bioenergy strategy forward. In collaboration with government departments and agencies at provincial and federal levels, the Department of Energy will help facilitate the necessary changes to create the right environment for investment in bioenergy. Government has a role to play in educating the public about bioenergy, to create a better understanding and market acceptance of the expanding industry. I have no doubt that together we can move this industry forward as a clean and reliable source of energy for our communities and local industries.



In closing, I would like to add that the Department of Energy is well aware of the many challenges associated with bioenergy. To that end we appreciate the tremendous efforts of the people in this room. The advances that have been made are largely due to your hard work and commitment. As we move away from nonrenewable sources of energy, bioenergy in all its forms is going to play a larger and more important role in the energy sector. It is up to us to continue to work together to ensure that New Brunswick maximizes its opportunities in the bioenergy sector, while at the same time protecting and ensuring the long-term sustainability of our natural resources.

Prince Edward Island – Peter Boswell, Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture

Current energy situation

Total energy mix by fuel type

PEI’s current energy mix

2% 10%

27%

42%

12%7%

Wind

Biomass

Home Heating Oil

Transportation

Electricity-Imported

Other

PEI is highly dependent on imported oil. Seventy six percent of PEI’s total energy supply is met by this fuel source. About 14% percent of our energy is met by electricity. Most of that electricity is imported. Approximately 10% of our energy is supplied by biomass (such as fuel wood, sawmill residue and municipal waste, which is used principally in our district energy plant in Charlottetown). Two percent of the total



energy supply is from wind-powered electricity; 15% generated by wind, times 14% for the electrical portion of total energy use, means that about 2% of PEI’s total energy is supplied by wind power. The ‘other’ category, at 7%, is a catch-all category that includes Bunker C jet fuel and a number of other minor fuels and applications. The important thing is that the chart represents more than $440 million per year leaving the province to purchase energy. That’s a large drain on a very small economy.

PEI energy framework

PEI has history, along with the other provinces, of developing renewable energy. We have a district heat plant in Charlottetown that’s been in operation for a number of years. It’s one of the larger district heat plants in the country. The North Cape wind farm was one of our first wind energy developments, and it’s adjacent to the Wind Test Site in North Cape, Prince Edward Island. In 2004 the Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry oversaw the development and implementation of the Renewable Energy Act. This Act provided a number of policy instruments – net metering, feed-in tariffs, designated development zones, and a Renewable Portfolio Standard to increase the development of renewable energy. The Renewable Portfolio Standard was oriented more toward electricity, and it required utilities to acquire at least 15% of their electrical energy from renewable resources by 2010. This Portfolio requirement was actually satisfied in 2007, and currently wind generation is used to meet over 18% of our electrical demand.

Eastern Canadian premiers and New England governors

In 2001, Eastern Canadian premiers and New England Governors adopted North America’s first multijurisdictional climate change action plan, to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions, and to begin to mitigate the harmful consequences of climate change. The action plan established regional reduction targets, including a 10% greenhouse gas reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. As part of our effort to meet our greenhouse gas targets, premiers and governors recently agreed to focus on the development of environmentally friendly biofuels that address greenhouse gases and other air emissions using local feedstocks and technologies. This is critically important in Prince Edward Island, where space heating and transportation using imported petroleum are responsible for almost 70% of our greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing our emissions will have to include efforts to switch to less carbon-intensive fuels.

Environmental and Renewable Industries Committee (ERIC)

With this in mind, in October 2007 the Executive Council created the Environmental and Renewable Industries Committee (ERIC). The Committee was given the mandate to collect relevant data on the quantity and quality of available feedstocks from primary,



processing and agricultural (bio-crops) sources and make recommendations to Executive Council on policy initiatives for how these resources can best be utilized in the support of renewable energy (ethanol, biodiesel, electric, etc.) and environmental industries for the benefit of Prince Edward Island. The committee contained representatives from various departments and agencies. The Committee considered the wide range of feedstocks that could be made available. The Committee’s report was placed before Executive Council in February of this year.

ERIC recommendations

The Committee recommended: • Establishing an Inter-Departmental Biofuels Committee (IDBC) • Designating the Deputy Minister of Agriculture as Chair of IDBC • Terms of reference for IDBC that addressed key areas of responsibility:

o Evaluate proposals for biofuels projects, o Work with biofuels proponents to identify applicable assistance

programs, o Recommendations to Cabinet by September on the feasibility of

mandated renewable fuel standards, o Identify potential biofuels demonstration projects.

The Committee recognized that for progress to be made on bioenergy there was a need to involve a number of departments and agencies including: • Agriculture • PEI Business Development Inc. • Development & Technology • Environment, Energy and Forestry (EEF) • Fisheries & Aquaculture • The Office of Bioscience and Economic Innovation, Transportation & Public

Works • Provincial Treasury.

Action areas

IDBC has already commenced its work and is dealing with the following action items: • Enhancing rural development by the sustainable use of biomass for space heating. • Implementing pilot projects, through government, using pure plant oils for heat

and/or fleet use. Biodiesel production is possible, but further work is required.



• Determining the viability of local ethanol for an ethanol/gas Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

• Building for the future by promoting sustainable development of biomass.

Biomass, biofuels, biogas

It is unlikely that one source of bioenergy will meet PEI’s energy goals. Biomass for heat, and possibly combined heat and electrical generation, certainly have a role to play. Biofuels for transportation have certainly received attention in other jurisdictions and are under active consideration. The beneficial impact on both agriculture and forestry through the production of crops or crop byproducts for biofuel and biomass will only be enhanced if environmentally friendly production cycles are adopted. Without a significant increase in biofuel consumption for heat, power and fuel, PEI will not be able to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets. Increased biofuel production could provide opportunities for the agricultural and forestry communities. Ten percent of transportation and heating fuels from biofuels is not an unreasonable target for PEI. PEI currently generates 15% of its electrical requirements from wind.

Energy strategy development process

A “Prince Edward Island Energy Strategy Discussion Document” has been developed, based on input from over 30 respondents. The document is being released in early April for public feedback. There will be public consultations in a number of island communities in late April or early May, and finalization and release of the energy strategy is expected in late May or June of 2008.

Summary – bioenergy policy

In summary, the Inter-Departmental Biofuels Committee will coordinate activities at the department and agency level. Policies will reflect PEI’s regional commitments on greenhouse gases. Policies will also reflect the interaction between the economy, society and the environment, and public input.

Nova Scotia – Nancy Rondeaux, Nova Scotia Department of Energy

We all recognize that a robust, secure and domestic energy supply depends on the contribution of a diverse array of resources. That diversity creates opportunities. Bioenergy presents many different opportunities for development in both the forest sector and the agricultural sector in Nova Scotia. A difficult question to answer, however, is which opportunities create the most value for our province and where should we focus our resources.



The reasons to develop bioenergy are, however, very clear. We have a potentially significant bioenergy resource. Bioenergy holds the potential for significant greenhouse gas reductions if both thermal and electrical energy are used. Bioenergy may be one of the lowest cost options for renewable generation, after wind energy, and has the added benefit of being a base-load renewable source of electricity. Bioenergy use could help maintain energy price stability. Bioenergy may help the forestry sector become more self-sufficient in a challenging global market. And economic development spinoffs could provide a direct benefit to rural Nova Scotians. On the forestry side, it is estimated that we have an annual biomass availability of over 909,000 dry tonnes per year. In energy terms, that’s 4.5 TWh/year, or 16 petajoules of primary energy – fairly significant. That said, almost all of the low-cost mill residue is currently being consumed or exported. Of the total, we estimate we have about 13,000 dry tonnes per year for bioenergy. A significant portion of available bioenergy consists of approximately 400,000 dry tonnes of unused potential harvest from hardwood species. And the largest portion of available biomass consists of harvest residues. Given a conservative scenario of 25% extraction of residues, that’s another 280,000 dry tonnes per year. On the agricultural side, we know that we have about 215,000 hectares of cleared farmland, and another 40,000 hectares of existing, underutilized farmland. If we were to cultivate canola on that land, we could produce about 48 million liters of biodiesel per year. Another 250,000 hectares of land could be made available by clearing a portion of the better soils that aren’t being farmed today. Another important bioenergy opportunity for Nova Scotia may be in the conversion of agricultural waste, such as manure, to biogas. Digestion presents the opportunity to not only address the energy issue, but also the waste management issue. Nova Scotia's current energy consumption, all sources combined, is approximately 55 TWh/year. A large part of this is in the form of refined petroleum products. In comparison, our electricity consumption is small, at around 11 TWh/year. On a greenhouse gas basis, electricity production accounts for 42% of our emissions, because we use coal almost exclusively for that generation. That’s the reason why a large part of our focus in policy development has been on the electricity sector and renewable electricity. The next largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Nova Scotia is the transportation sector, with 26% of emissions.



Current policy

Our current policy is to support the development of bioenergy, although somewhat indirectly. A key piece of legislation is the Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act. Within the Act the Province has identified 21 key environmental goals, with a large focus on actions to mitigate climate change. Our overreaching target is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 10% below 1990 by 2020. One of the tools to achieve these goals is the Renewable Energy Standard (RES) regulation, put in place in February of last year. What it will mean for Nova Scotia is that by 2013, up to 20% of our electricity generation will come from renewable resources. It will result in 500 MW of new renewable energy capacity. It is anticipated that much of our target will be met through wind energy. We expect the number of wind turbines to grow from 40 to up 250 over the next few years. However, there is a potential for bioenergy projects to also contribute to meeting this RES target. An option for very small bioenergy projects, and perhaps applicable to anaerobic digestion, may be the use of a Net Metering Contract. Under this type of contract, an electricity consumer can produce renewable energy and use it onsite. Any excess energy produced can be sent to the grid for credit for future energy use. Essentially, it results in the generator receiving retail rates for the renewable energy generated. However, the current limit for net metering is 100 kW, which is perhaps not sufficient. The Province has also put in place a fiscal incentive for biodiesel production. Biodiesel produced in Nova Scotia is exempt from the fuel tax of 15.4 cents per liter. We are also in the final stages of developing our renewable energy strategy. We’re talking to business, communities, academics, and renewable and non-renewable energy producers as we aim to both grow our economy and meet the challenge of climate change. In parallel with the RES, the Province is developing a Climate Change Action Plan, which is currently being formulated and will be released later this spring. Submissions were received from many stakeholders, including the Canadian Bioenergy Association. Official submissions to that strategy can be viewed on our website (www.gov.ns.ca/energy).

Policy proposals submitted to NSDOE

The key recommendations related to bioenergy were: • Develop a multi-year bioenergy strategy • Assist in the development of guidelines for sustainable biomass harvesting • Promote the use of chips, pellets and biofuels to heat public buildings



• Create the conditions for a fair market price for electricity produced from bioenergy sources

• Expand the net metering contract

Current programs

The Province has recently launched the EcoTrust fund. Both a $7.5 million municipal program and a $9.5 million Environmental Technology Program have a mandate to encourage bioenergy development. The first round of applications has just been received, and subsequent rounds will take place every three months until 2010. So if live in Nova Scotia, or do business in Nova Scotia, you have access to $17 million (in 50 cent dollars) to support projects that show a direct greenhouse gas reduction. I encourage you to find out more about the program at www.gov.ns.ca/ecotrust. In closing, a regional approach to renewable energy is an important part of Nova Scotia’s energy strategy. Interprovincial government cooperation, and cooperation between the energy, agricultural, and forestry sectors is required if bioenergy opportunities are to materialize. Cooperation is the objective of today's event, to bring together the leaders in each sector, to network, and to identify opportunities. Whatever the source of bioenergy to be developed, we must be strategic about what, where and how much bioenergy we can develop sustainably in our region. If we do it carefully, strategically, we’ll find those opportunities we are working towards for local research, local business, and local growth.

Building a sustainable future – Mike Bryan, BBI International

Bioenergy in Atlantic Canada can be and will be a reality. The question is how, and in what form it will be developed. I have a love-hate relationship with $110-a-barrel oil. On the good side, the opportunities created for the alternative industry are enormous. Unfortunately, the hardships of that $110-a-barrel oil for consumers and for agriculture is almost staggering. I want to talk a little bit about alternatives to fossil fuel, and alternatives to our current energy program and how we create energy. These can have a major impact on our lives. Despite what some say, alternative fuels are here to stay. We will never again, anywhere in this world, depend on a single fuel strategy as we have for the last 125 years. Oil will be with us for a long time, and that’s not a bad thing, but alternative fuels are going to be a part of our future. All fuels are transitional fuels. Once, wood was a major source of energy for us. Then coal came along, and then oil. Now it’s ethanol, and biodiesel, and biogas. These transitional fuels will transition us into something else 30, 40 or 50 years from now.



The discussions I’ve had in the last couple of days in this part of Canada have been encouraging because of the enthusiasm for alternative energy here, and for finding different avenues to alternative energy. People are looking at some incredible things here, including tidal power and wind generation along the shoreline. These are all alternatives. Sometimes we get too focused on liquid fuels. We’re all in this game together, whether it’s wind, solar or tidal power – these are all alternative energies, and we need to embrace them. New Brunswick is focused on renewable energy as the future, and bioenergy is the future of Atlantic Canada. The biofuels industry has been accused of starving people, of causing global poverty and destruction of the rainforest, and even for the high price of gasoline. That’s quite a track record for an industry that sells less than one half of one percent of the world’s fuel. The naysayers have no solutions, and no alternatives. It’s our responsibility, as members of this industry, to challenge those misconceptions. Biofuels are not perfect. Ethanol is not perfect. There are no perfect fuels. We need to be very careful not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. These are good, transitionary fuels. At a meeting several weeks ago in Mexico City amongst the three North American countries, we talked about a number of issues, including sustainability and what it will take to sustain the biofuels industry. Most people there believe that the future of the ethanol industry is in cellulose. That group felt that a lot of the future development of biofuels is going to be community-based, and personally I’m excited about that. We can make our communities more sustainable by using indigenous resources to produce energy, whether in the form of energy, ethanol, or biogas. We can’t make every community totally energy self-sufficient, but we can create jobs and save money and resources within these communities. There’s going to be a lot of focus in the years ahead on making communities more economically viable. All energy is driven by public policy. We have to have sound public policy all across Canada in order to create the incentives needed to have a viable, sustainable renewable energy industry. Atlantic Canada may not seem like the most obvious place to put large ethanol plants, but there are opportunities here. The ethanol industry has been somewhat sloppy. We have not been as environmentally responsible as we need to be. We haven’t checked our emissions until forced to do so. We haven’t checked fugitive emissions or odours. We need to become more environmentally responsible. If we’re producing environmentally friendly fuels, we need to clean up our act.



Feedstock capability is an issue here in Atlantic Canada. We need to begin looking at a variety of different feedstocks. The U.S. has been focused almost entirely on corn. Western Canada has focused heavily on wheat. We need to be more creative. Anything with sugar or starch in it can be used to create fuel ethanol. We also need to be very aware of the co-products that come out of these feedstocks. We need to ensure that our feedstocks create higher value. In terms of technology, there are a number of things coming into play because of $110-a-barrel oil. There’s a company in Toronto that’s been using pyrolysis to make chemicals out of oil for the last 20 years. Anything you can make out of oil, you can make out of wood. Some say that Canada’s not the best place for algae production, but I think it can work here, and that algae will be an important opportunity in the future. We have opportunities in biofuels that are absolutely enormous. The price of oil wakes us up to these opportunities. The people in this room are the catalysts for change in Atlantic Canada. You have the opportunity and responsibility to change our energy future. You can choose where your energy comes from in the years ahead. Your time is now. We need to fight back against the naysayers and the negative press. We are not causing world hunger or destroying the rainforest. We need to apply sound science and have third-party, credible voices to stop this in its tracks. We have to be positive, we have to be aggressive, and we have to be tough and say, “Enough!” I challenge you today to pick up that gauntlet and accept the challenges that lie ahead. I want you to welcome with open arms the opportunities that those challenges bring.

Growing beyond oil: the case for biofuels in Canada – Gordon Quaiattini, Canadian Renewable Fuels Association

Who is the CRFA

Founded in 1994, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA) is a non-profit organization with a mission to promote renewable fuels for transportation through consumer awareness and government liaison activities. The CRFA membership is comprised of representatives from all levels of the ethanol and biodiesel industry, including: grain and cellulose ethanol producers, biodiesel producers, fuel technology providers, and agricultural associations.



CRFA members include:

What are renewable fuels

Ethanol is a fuel-grade alcohol traditionally made by fermenting corn, wheat, or sugar cane. It is typically blended with gasoline at 10%, and can be used in gasoline engines without any modification. “Cellulose” ethanol can also be made using agricultural residues and biomass such as wheat straw, corn stover, and wood waste. Biodiesel is to diesel fuel what ethanol is to gasoline. Biodiesel can be produced from a variety of fats and oils, including rendered animal fats, recycled restaurant grease, palm oil, and oilseeds such as canola and soybeans. Biodiesel is typically blended with petroleum-based diesel between 2-20%, although it can be used up to 100% in a diesel engine without modifications.

Government commitment on renewable fuels

“Require 5 percent average renewable content in Canadian gasoline and diesel fuel, such as ethanol and biodiesel, by 2010.” Conservative Party Platform, p.37



What is driving growth?

• Agriculture – new jobs and investment in rural areas, new value-added markets for ag commodities, higher commodity prices for farmers

• Energy diversity – adds to our supply of refined fuel produced domestically (hedge against rising petroleum prices)

• Energy security • Climate change – helps reduce CO2 emissions - 4.2 mega tonne annual greenhouse

gas reduction – equivalent to taking over 1 million cars off the road every year.

Canadian biofuels market

2008 existing capacity: • Ethanol – 1 billion litres • Biodiesel – 100 million litres • 2010 capacity needed for RFS • Ethanol – 2.5 billion litres • Biodiesel – 500 million litres (no later than 2012)

Provincial renewable fuels standards currently exist in Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, with others moving in that direction.

Impact on agriculture and rural economies

The 2.5 billion litre RFS in Canada will create demand for over 200 million bushels of grains and oilseeds. This means higher commodity prices for local producers, and new investment opportunities for primary agricultural producers. This is a good hedge; 40% of the US ethanol industry is owned by primary agricultural producers. Distillers grains can be used for livestock feed.

Impact on environment

Use of ethanol and biodiesel result in significant reductions of: • Greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2 • Poisonous carbon monoxide • Ozone forming unburned hydrocarbons • Smog producing fine particulate matter • Acid rain forming sulfates

Ethanol and biodiesel are also biodegradable, and therefore do not harm groundwater.



Impact on crop science

• Attracting investment in new crop varieties • Higher starch, higher yielding varieties of grains • Higher yielding oilseed varieties • Grasses and increased straw output for cellulose ethanol

Barriers to development

There are barriers to any new technology or industry, whether it is oil sands, nuclear power, or renewable fuels. Identified barriers relate to market access, market price, finance risk, business risk, and inefficient regulation. Governments in the U.S., Europe, South America, and Asia have existing, proven policies in place to address these barriers – Canada is also moving in the right direction.



Keynote address: Energy production by America's farms, ranches and forests – Michael Bowman, 25x’25

25x’25: a national alliance

Formed through a grant from the Energy Future Coalition, 25 x ’25 was organized to explore agriculture and forestry’s role in energy production. The four-year old initiative has evolved to include a diverse collection of agricultural, forestry, conservation, environment and business organizations and leaders. The Energy Future Coalition is a broad-based, nonpartisan alliance that seeks to bridge the differences among business, labor, and environmental groups and identify energy policy options with broad political support. Its leaders include former Members of Congress like Senators Tom Daschle and Tim Worth, former senior Whitehouse officials like C. Boyden Gray and John Podesta, venture capitalists like Vinod Khosla, and philanthropists like Ted Turner. 25x’25 activities have been strategically phased in over four periods: • Phase 1 involved the development of the actual vision • Phase 2 focused on building an alliance of willing stakeholders that would commit

to the vision • Phase 3 was devoted to developing a plan of action to achieve the vision • Phase 4, which is currently underway, seeks to bring the 25x’25 vision to life.

Our vision

By the year 2025, America’s farms, ranches and forests will provide 25% of the total energy consumed in the U.S. while continuing to produce safe, abundant and affordable food, feed and fiber.

25 x ’25 evolves

2004- vision was formed 2005- alliance was organized 2006- began forming state alliances; completed two economic analyses 2007- published the 25x’25 Action Plan sought policy maker endorsements 2008- bringing the vision to life!



Partners

There are over 650 partners, including: • American Farm Bureau Federation • National Corn Growers Association • Forest Landowners Association • National Education Association • Deere & Company • Ford, Chrysler and GM • American Wind Energy Association • National Wildlife Federation • Environmental Defense.

25x’25 is a grassroots organization. We’re backed by over 600 organizations, including major groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation and American corporate icons like Deere & Company, Ford, and GM.

Governors’ endorsements

25x’25 is a true bi-partisan initiative that enjoys support at all levels of government. Twenty seven governors have endorsed the vision so far.



State legislature resolutions



State alliance activity

25x’25 is now a national renewable energy goal. This was passed by Congress as part of HR6, and signed into law by President Bush. This past fall, Congress passed a resolution affirming the country’s goal to derive 25% of its energy from agricultural, forestry and other renewable resources by 2025. 25x’25 is a big goal.

Active Alliances Forming Alliances Alliance Planning Underway



So how does 25x’25 intend to get to its goal? When we started this effort in 2004, renewables comprised roughly 6% of the nation’s energy mix. Making a twenty point leap is no small feat, so to ensure this initiative was more than just a name, 25x’25 commissioned a study with the University of Tennessee. It confirmed the 25x’25 vision is achievable. Specifically, more than half of the 31.7 quads of renewable energy would come from ethanol and biodiesel, while the balance would come from biomass and wind. For only an investment equal to 5% of what America spent on imported oil in 2006, 25x’25 will: • Create new markets • Generate $700 billion in economic activity annually • Result in 4-5 million new jobs • Reduce carbon dioxide emissions by one billion tons annually.

2004 Goal (2025) 5.74 Quads Renewable Energy

99.7 Quads Total Energy Consumed

31.7 Quads Renewable Energy

127.0 Quads Total EnergyConsumed

University of Tennessee Study Confirms the Vision

is Achievable!



Phase IV mission

Document and affirm the fact that America’s working lands can secure 25% of its energy needs from renewable sources. Perhaps the most important element of Phase IV is the establishment of a Renewable Energy Institute to counter the critics

Phase IV: Four primary goals

• Establish 25x’25 as a “source authority” • Engage partners on critical challenges and opportunities • Encourage enabling public policies • Equip and mobilize partners and state alliances

As noted earlier, 25’x25 has progressed through three important phases so far in its evolution. The first was to establish the vision. The second phase sought to identify and assemble the players needed to achieve it. The third phase focused on building the plan to 25x’25. This fourth phase is designed to bring the vision to life.

“Source authority”

25x’25 will create a Renewable Energy Institute that will be recognized as a highly credible, reliable and respected source of unbiased information for renewable energy champions, policy makers, the media and others seeking peer reviewed research, facts and data. The Institute will: • Certify information and studies • Provide objective reviews of claims, approaches and technologies • Serve as a referral agent for industry specific information requests • Track and record progress on enabling policy.



Renewable Energy Institute areas of focus

The Institute will focus on biofuels, biopower, geothermal, solar, and wind energy, guided by Councils composed of experts in each field

Critical challenges and opportunities

• Sustaining the resource base • Role of agriculture and forestry in a reduced carbon economy • Biofuel and infrastructure challenges • Woody biomass contributions

Sustainability

25x’25 is defined in the following way: Renewable energy production must conserve, enhance and protect natural resources and be economically viable, environmentally sound and socially acceptable.

Sustainability principles

• Biodiversity • Biotechnology • Air quality/greenhouse gas emissions • Invasive species • Land use • Public lands • Soil quality and quantity • Water quality and quantity • Wildlife habitat and health

Renewable Energy Institute

Biofuels Biopower Geothermal Solar Wind



25x’25 carbon work group

Mandate: To analyze agriculture and forestry’s role in a reduced-carbon economy and develop recommendations for how each sector can capitalize on efforts to reduce and capture carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

Public policy

• Increasing production • Delivering renewable energy to markets • Expanding renewable energy markets • Improving energy efficiency and productivity • Strengthening conservation and protecting the environment

Supporting partners

• Information exchange • Problem solving • Technology transfer • Common goals

Path forward

25x’25 is now a national goal. It’s time to bring the vision of 25x’25 to life. Working together we can realize and surpass our vision.



Food vs. fuel debate – Rick Tolman, National Corn Growers Association

National Corn Growers Association

NCGA is a federation composed of 25 grower-affiliated state associations, 23 checkoff boards, 300,000+ checkoff investors, and 32,000+ members.

Performance in 2007

• Production reaches 13.1 billion bushels • Largest crop in U.S. history • Average yield hits 151.1 bushels/acre • The second-highest yield estimate in history

Grower Members

State Organizations and Grower Members



2007 corn supply and demand

The total supply is 14.4 billion bushels: • Feed: 42% • Ethanol: 22% • Export: 17% • Other domestic: 9% • Surplus: 10%

NCGA’s vision – “15 x 15 x 15”

Fifteen billion bushel corn crop, and 15 billion gallons of ethanol, by 2015. NCGA has a vision for the corn industry and its future. That is 15 x 15 x 15. Corn growers in 2006 produced the third-largest corn crop at 10.5 billion bushels. The second highest yields on record were in 2006 at 149.1 bushels per acre. It is important to note that there is enough corn to satisfy demands – food, feed, exports and fuel. Corn growers are excited about our future and the many opportunities we have and will develop. Growers are already planning for the future crops. The market demand for corn is driving corn producers to plant more acres next year.

Feed

Ethanol

Export

Surplus

Other Domestic



But remember, our traditional customers are very important to our industry, and we are working to ensure they have the supplies they need, as well as meet the demands of other markets such as the steady demand of corn for ethanol. This is our future and this is our vision.

Meeting demand

Three steps to meeting demand

• Increase corn production by boosting average corn yield significantly • Displace more corn in feed use with coproducts • Improve efficiency to squeeze more ethanol from each bushel of corn

Increasing corn production



Corn yield trends are accelerating

Step-changes in corn potential

Corn has 40,000 genes spanning 10 chromosomes. The probability of finding one trait controlled by 20 genes using random crosses is one per trillion. Using marker-assisted breeding and other new tools, that probability is now one in five. This is a tremendous

60708090

100110120130140150160170180190

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

bu/a

cre

35 Year 15 year 10 year 5-year

164175178

200

Molecular Breeding Benefit

Biotechnology Yield Benefit

Historical Yield Projection

30-Year Trend, Based on Historical Yield Projection

0

5

197

Average Corn Yield (in

bushels per

acre)

10

15

20

25

30

199 201 203

Average U.S. Corn Yield in

2007 was 151.1 Bushels Per

Acre



rate of gain, and we have not seen anything yet. By 2030, we could see yields in the neighborhood of 300 bu./ac.

Transgenic field trial release permits 2005-June 2007

Pipeline traits that NCGA members are excited about include: • Drought tolerance • Nitrogen utilization • Yield enhancement • Ethanol-specific traits • In-seed enzyme • Fermentation enhancement • DDG feed enhancement

More corn to ethanol

We increase the portion of feed corn going to ethanol by replacing feed corn with high-nutrient ethanol coproducts.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

CornSoybeans

CottonForestryTobacco

AlfalfaWheat

TomatoPotatoesCanola/R

RiceFruits

Grasses S Beets

Other VegPeanut

Other



One bushel of corn yields: • 2.8 gallons ethanol

and either • 13.5 pounds gluten feed • 2.6 pounds gluten meal • 1.5 pounds corn oil

or • 17.5 pounds distillers grains

US corn demand – domestic livestock

0

1000

20003000

40005000

60007000

1980

1982

198419

8619

88199

0199

21994

1996

1998

2000

2002

200420

0620

08

Crop Year

Mill

ion

bush

els

Corn Corn Displaced by DDG

400

500

600

700

800

900

10001100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16

Cor

n di

spla

ced

by D

DG

S (m

mbu

)



Efficiency in ethanol production

Potential Ethanol Conversion Rates

2.8

3.3

2.94

2.52.62.72.82.9

33.13.23.33.4

Base Rate (2005) With HighFermentable Hybrids

With FiberConversion

Gal

lons

/Bus

hel



Corn available for feed, food and export

2002 2006 2007 2015 (Projected)

Harvested corn acres and yield

69.3M (129.3 bu/A)

70.6M (149.1 bu/A)

86.5M (151.1 bu/A)

85.0M (180 bu/A)

Total Corn Supply Available (prod = carry in)

10,573 Mbu 12,512 Mbu 14,393 Mbu 17,232 Mbu

Ethanol per A 350 gal/A 404 gal/A 435 gal/A 575 gal/A

Ethanol produced 2.96B gal 5.8B gal 8.3B gal 15.3B gal

Corn used for ethanol

1,093 M bu (10%)

2129 M bu (17%)

3010 M bu (21%)

4,695 M bu (27%)

Corn Supply (Less Used for Ethanol) DDG Disp (M bu eq) Total

9,480 189 9,669 Mbu

10,383 515 10,898 Mbu

11,383 792 12,175 Mbu

12,537 1,452 13,989 Mbu

Food and fuel: U.S. corn exports

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Crop Year

Mill

ion

bush

els

*Projected

**

All-Time Record (2.45 bbu.)



Food and fuel: Value of corn in retail food items

Product Qty. Corn Req. Value of corn in unit @ $2.40/bu

Value of corn in unit @ $4/bu

Beef 1 lb. 2.8 lbs. $0.12 $0.19

Pork 1 lb. 3.6 lbs. $0.15 $0.26

Milk 1 gal. 1.8 lbs. $0.08 $0.13

Eggs 1 dz. 4.0 lbs. $0.17 $0.28

Broiler Chicken 1 lb. 2.0 lbs. $0.09 $0.14

Corn Flakes 12 oz. 10 oz. $0.03 $0.04

Food and fuel

Farm inputs represent 19% of each food dollar.

A $1 per gallon increase in the price of gasoline has three times the impact on retail food prices as a $1 per bushel increase in corn prices.



Food inflation is not historically abnormal.







Myths and misinformation

Total ethanol costs market remanaged

$1.10

$1.30

$1.50

$1.70

$1.90

$2.10

$2.30

$2.50

$2.70

$2.90

2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

2006

$/g

allo

n

$0.29

$0.34

$0.39

$0.44

$0.49

$0.54

$0.59

$0.64

$0.69

$0.74

2006

$/li

ter

Thermochemical Cellulosic Paper Mill

Biochemical Cellulosic

U.S. Corn

Sugar Cane



Energy balance: Most studies show positive return

Sustainability: pesticide use in corn production

Increasing adoption of hybrids with insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant traits have greatly reduced the need for synthetic applications of herbicides and insecticides.

INSECTICIDE USAGE IN CORN PRODUCTION

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

poun

ds o

f a. i

. / a

cre

HERBICIDE USAGE IN CORN PRODUCTION

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

poun

ds o

f a. i

. / a

cre



Corn nutrient use improving

No-till trends

NO-TILL ACRES AS % OF REPORTING ACRES

31.5%

25.3%21.6%21.2%

7.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

% o

f Rep

orte

d A

cres

Note: Does not include other conservation tillage practices such as low-till, ridge-till, etc.

0.61

1.331.09

0.84

2.1

1.65

1.03

2.89

2.49

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Nitrogen Phosphate PotashBush

els P

rodu

ced

Per P

ound

of N

utrie

nt A

pplie

d



Erosion on U.S. cropland by year

Corn’s water needs

Approximately 20-25 inches of water are needed to produce an acre of average-yielding corn. This translates to about 597,388 gallons per acre per year, or nearly 4,000 gallons per bushel. However, nearly nine out of ten acres of corn require no water other than natural rainfall.

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

1982 1987 1992 1997 2001 2003

Mill

ion

Tons

per

Yea

r

Wind Erosion Sheet and Rill Erosion

87% Non-Irrigated

13% Irrigated



An acre of corn gives off 4,000 gallons of water a day in evapotranspiration, which is about 1 to 1.5 million gallons of moisture per acre annually. This means that corn is water positive. In aggregate, corn returns more moisture to the atmosphere than it withdraws from ground and surface water for irrigation. In fact, 12.4 million acres require 9.22 billion gallons of surface and ground water irrigation per day, but the entire corn crop (about 83 million acres) returns about 290 billion gallons of water per day to the atmosphere through transpiration.

Comparing crops

• About 4,000 gallons of water to produce a bushel of corn • 11,000 gallons to grow a bushel of wheat • 15,000 gallons to grow an equivalent amount of alfalfa

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Corn Wheat Alfalfa

Irrigated corn accounts for less than 20% of total irrigated cropland acres in the United States.

Water use in perspective

It takes 62,600 gallons of water to produce a ton of steel. And 39,090 gallons are needed to manufacture a new car, including tires. Processing a tonne of beet sugar to



make processed sugar requires 28,100 gallons, and 1,500 gallons is needed to process a barrel of beer. The average home uses 107,000 gallons of water per year. Twenty four gallons of water are needed to produce one pound of plastic. One hundred and one gallons of water are needed to produce one pound of cotton. Three hundred million gallons are needed to produce a single day’s supply of U.S. newsprint, and it takes 150 gallons to produce the average size Sunday newspaper.

Land use controversy

“Finally, these analyses published in Science may not be termed life cycle analyses. Life cycle analysis (LCA) follows a specific set of rules, one of which is that the most recent and most appropriate data be used. LCA is data driven, but these two analyses are not driven by actual data at all. “There are no real, verifiable data in either of these papers on the land use changes that actually occur as more corn is processed to ethanol—hence these are not LCA studies. They are in fact speculation. “Even if there were such data, ethanol produced in the United States under a specific set of production criteria would not be “responsible” for anything but its own environmental profile.”

Dr. Bruce Dale, Michigan State University

“Brazil can produce twice as much grain and ethanol as it now produces today without clearing another hectare of land. “Deforestation is driven by the hypocrisy of those that shout about saving the Amazon Forest, but are willing to pay a fortune for Amazon hardwood for their buildings, home and furniture. If trade in hardwood is prohibited, deforestation will stop.”

Alfredo Navarro





Corn available for feed, food and export

2002 2006 2007 2015 (Projected)

Harvested corn acres & yield

69.3M (129.3 bu/A)

70.6M (149.1 bu/A)

86.5M (151.1 bu/A)

85.0M (180 bu/A)

Total Corn Supply Available (prod = carry in)

10,573 Mbu 12,512 Mbu 14,393 Mbu 17,232 Mbu

Ethanol per A 350 gal/A 404 gal/A 435 gal/A 575 gal/A

Ethanol produced 2.96B gal 5.8B gal 8.3B gal 15.3B gal

Corn used for ethanol 1,093 M bu (10%)

2129 M bu (17%)

3010 M bu (21%)

4,695 M bu (27%)

Corn Supply (Less Used for Ethanol) DDG Disp (M bu eq) Total

9,480 189 9,669 M bu

10,383 515 10,898 M bu

11,383 792 12,175 M bu

12,537 1,452 13,989 M bu

Summary

There is a rational pathway for both food and fuel, and there need not be a conflict between the two. There has been an organized campaign to smear corn and ethanol, and facts have been misused and used selectively. Corn and ethanol’s contribution to the environment and economy is strong and getting stronger.



Bioenergy and climate change: Global initiatives and policy: Why invest in bioenergy projects? – Don O'Connor, (S&T)2 Consulting Inc.

Climate change

Canada’s temperature





Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions



Change in greenhouse gas emissions, 1990-2005

International bioenergy initiatives

European Union

2020 Climate and Energy Package: • 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (30% with international agreement) • 20% improvement in energy efficiency • 20% overall share of renewable energy • 10% share of renewable energy in transport • 36 million tonnes of oil equivalent • 11.4 million toe for gasoline (about 20 billion litres ethanol)



• 18.2 million toe for diesel (about 22 billion litres biodiesel) • 6.6 million toe for kero and other (7 billion litres biodiesel)u

United States

The Energy Independence and Security Act provides the following targets: • 136 billion litre renewable fuel target by 2022 • 56.7 billion litre cap for corn ethanol • 79 billion litres for advanced biofuels (less than 50% reduction in greenhouse

gases) • 60 billion litres of cellulosic fuels (less than 60% reduction in greenhouse gases)

The U.S. uses about 1,000 billion litres of petroleum products – 50% gasoline, 25% diesel, and 25% other.

US renewable fuels

Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)

In the July 2005 Gleneagles Plan of Action, the G8 +5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) agreed to "promote the continued development and commercialization of renewable energy by launching a Global Bioenergy Partnership to support wider, cost effective, biomass and biofuels deployment, particularly in developing countries where biomass use is prevalent". The Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) was launched during the Ministerial Segment of the 14th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD14) in New York on 11 May 2006, with a signing ceremony of the Terms of Reference.



In 2007 it was given a renewed mandate by the G8 Heiligendamm Summit to "continue its work on biofuel best practices and take forward the successful and sustainable development of bioenergy".

Canada

The Government of Canada is moving to create a requirement for renewable fuels in gasoline and diesel fuel by 2010. This will create a demand for more than 2 billion litres of ethanol. The biodiesel demand will be at least 500 million litres/year. Budget 2007 introduced producer payments for ethanol and biodiesel for seven years starting in 2008. The ecoABC program will provide assistance for primary producers to become biofuel producers. Canada will need 2 billion litres of ethanol in 2010. Today it can produce 600 million and another 400-800 million is under construction. Two billion litres will consume 5.5 million tonnes of feedstock. Canada will need at least 500 million litres of biodiesel and today can produce 100 million litres. Five hundred million litres of biodiesel will require 500,000 tonnes of vegetable oils and animal fats.

World biofuel growth

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Eth

anol

, 1,0

00 li

tres

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Bio

dies

el, 1

,000

litre

s

Ethanol Biodiesel



Policy drivers

Biofuel drivers

• Energy diversity and security – a very significant driver in many regions of the world, but less so in Canada.

• Air quality and climate change – Over the years the air quality aspect of biofuels has lost traction as a result of vehicle improvements and changes in gasoline quality. Climate change is replacing air quality as the environmental driver.

• Rural economic development – the real economic development benefits of biofuels are starting to become apparent in many regions.

Bioenergy business case

BioEnergy benefits

Bioenergy and public policy

“Organic” Bioenergy growth is likely to be slow to develop in spite of the business case. The incumbent energy supplies have a vested interest in the status quo. There is a perception of no economic reason to address climate change at the corporate level. “In the business world, the rear-view mirror is always clearer than the windshield.” Warren Buffett. As shown earlier, governments are responding with public policy to encourage increased bioenergy adoption.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

03/0

1/86

03/0

1/88

03/0

1/90

03/0

1/92

03/0

1/94

03/0

1/96

03/0

1/98

03/0

1/00

03/0

1/02

03/0

1/04

03/0

1/06

03/0

1/08

Oil

Pric

e $/

BBL



Biofuels: from heaven to hell!

Bioenergy business case

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan,

1986

Sep, 1

987

Jun,

1989

Mar, 19

91Nov,

1992

Aug, 1

994

May, 1

996

Jan,

1998

Oct, 19

99Ju

l, 200

1Apr,

2003

Dec, 200

4Sep

, 200

6

Oil

Pric

e, $

/BBL

0

50

100

150

200

250

Corn

pri

ce, $

/tonn

e

Oil Corn

Agricultural economics

Agricultural producers throughout the world face the same economic problems. “No one seems to understand that corn and other crops are being overproduced and sold at depressed prices. Crop subsidy systems in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere developed to support farm incomes and to encourage continued overproduction in order to provide cheap food to their populations.” Morris W. Dorosh. Agriweek August 21, 2006.



The weather and increased demand for biofuels has led to an increase in crop prices. Primary producers can now earn a return without government help. Is this good or bad?

Biofuels and the environment

Despite the controversy in the popular press, the benefits of biofuels with respect to climate change appear to be accepted by most governments. The discussion is starting to turn to how the benefits can be maximized. Two billion litres of ethanol will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost three megatonnes. One billion litres of biodiesel will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost three megatonnes.



Corn ethanol energy balance

Farming efficiency



Greenhouse gas emissions – Canada

Fuel Gasoline Ethanol Biodiesel Feedstock Average Oil Sands Corn Canola Soy Bean G/GJ Fuel Dispensing 137 196 215 154 154 Fuel Distribution 561 608 1,453 1,224 1,224 Fuel Production 12,532 25,364 28,111 6,937 12,373 Feedstock Transmission

908 142 1,507 1,288 2,965

Feedstock Recovery 6,364 9,791 7,309 10,558 13,570 Land-use changes 2 8 9,727 17,109 65,379 Fertilizer manufacture 0 0 5,316 10,715 7,704 Gas leaks and flares 2,109 940 0 0 0 CO2, H2S removed from NG

0 0 0 0 0

Emissions displaced 0 0 -17,337 -30,624 -79,538 Total 22,613 37,048 36,301 17,360 23,831 Combustion 63,887 63,887 2,222 2,100 2,100 Grand Total 86,500 100,936 38,523 19,460 25,931

Cumulative dry grind ethanol production [106 m3]

0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64

Ener

gy re

quire

men

ts [G

J/m

3 ]

8

16

32

Energy use in ethanol processingPR = 0.84 + 0.01 (R2 = 0.89)

1983

2005



Greenhouse gas emissions – United States

Fuel Gasoline Ethanol Biodiesel Feedstock Average Corn Canola Soy Bean G/GJ Fuel Dispensing 417 654 468 468 Fuel Distribution 738 1,612 1,343 1,343 Fuel Production 12,267 48,258 9,312 19,117 Feedstock Transmission

1,212 1,596 1,354 3,117

Feedstock Recovery 4,872 7,715 11,259 15,009 Land-use changes 1 6,898 13,968 64,808 Fertilizer manufacture 0 8,171 12,008 6,865 Gas leaks and flares 2,444 0 0 0 CO2, H2S removed from NG

0 0 0 0

Emissions displaced 0 -17,705 -31,028 -81,250 Total 21,950 57,200 18,683 29,476 Combustion 63,887 2,222 2,100 2,100 Grand Total 85,837 59,422 20,783 31,576

However, recent studies indicate that biofuel production is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that some biofuels could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels, if the cost of land conversion is taken into account.

Food vs. fuel and land use emissions

The question of food vs. fuel and “land use emissions” are really the same problem. Is it possible to increase crop production (to reduce prices) without bringing new land into production (and especially high carbon land like rain forests and peat bogs)? Crop production is influenced by: • Land • Crop variety • Fertilizer and nutrients • Labour • Machinery • Weather.



Land

About 38% of the world’s arable land is actually in use today. Most of the rest is unimproved grassland or summer-fallowed land. Some of the remainder will be required for food production in future years, but there are still significant amounts of arable land available for biofuels without resorting to the conversion of forests to crop production. Much of the land currently in production is less than fully productive as a result of low prices.

Corn

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

United Stat

esChina

Brazil

Mexico Ind

ia

Argenti

na

France

Indon

esia

Italy

Canada

Romania

Hungary

South

AfricaEgy

pt

Nigeria

Ukraine

Philipp

ines

Serbia, R

epubli

c of

Eth iopia

Viet N

am

Cor

n pr

oduc

tion,

tonn

es

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,000

Corn

Yie

ld, k

g/ha

Corn Production Corn Yield



Wheat

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

China India

United Stat

es

Russian

Federa

tionFranc

e

Canada

German

y

Pakist

anTurk

ey

United King

dom

Iran,

Islam

ic Rep

of

Argenti

na

Ukraine

Kazakh

stan

Austra

liaEgy

ptIta

ly

Poland

Morocc

o

Uzbek

istan

Tonn

es

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Tonn

es/h

a

Wheat production Wheat Yield

Soybeans

010,000,00020,000,00030,000,00040,000,00050,000,00060,000,00070,000,00080,000,00090,000,000

100,000,000

United Stat

es Braz

il

Argenti

naChina Ind

ia

Paragu

ay

Canada

Bolivia

Ukraine

Russian

Federa

tion

Indon

esia

Urugua

y

Nigeria

Italy

Serbia, R

epubli

c of

South

Africa

Korea,

Dem Peo

ple 's Rep

Romania

Viet N

am

Iran,

Islam

ic Rep

of

Tonn

es

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Tonn

es/h

a

Soybean production Soybean Yield



Canola and rapeseed

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

China

Canada

India

German

y

France

United King

domPola

nd

Czech

Rep

ublic

United Stat

es

Russian

Federa

tion

Austra

lia

Denmark

Pakist

an

Hungary

Slovakia

Bangla

desh

Sweden

Romania

Lithu

ania

Finlan

d

Rape

pro

duct

ion,

tonn

es

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Rape

Yie

ld, k

g/ha

Rape Production Rape Yield

Do we need more land for biofuels?

We can produce almost 50% more crop with existing land by better utilization. This means: • More fertilizer • Better varieties • Better cultivation practices • Increased demand and higher prices, which also lead to accelerated crop yields.

The environmental benefits of biofuels are maximized by using the existing land base better. The challenge is to increase food and fuel without having prices revert back to the disastrous levels of the past 40 years.

Has the press overreacted?

The academic papers looked at worst cases and did not consider the possibility of increased production from the same land. This is an extremely difficult topic to model with computers. We have had 50 years of declining real prices for crops so there is little direct evidence to suggest how producers would react in the future to higher prices, other than to say they would produce more, and there are lots of ways to do that.



Summary

There is interest and action in expanding bioenergy production throughout the world in both developed and developing countries. Like any other activity, bioenergy and biofuels can be well done or poorly done. If they are done poorly, then the environmental and social benefits will not be delivered. If they are done well, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, achieve economic benefits in the developed world and more importantly in the developing world, and reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. There are some lessons for government: • “Systems” don’t respond well to shocks. • Programs and encouragement must be well developed to avoid “irrational

exuberance” while at the same time ensuring that change happens. • Bioenergy and biofuels are neither as good as some proponents make them out to

be, nor as bad as some opponents claim. • We have a problem with climate change and we need to do some things differently. • Whenever there is change, there are going to winners and losers.

Pyrolysis: Bio-energy, bio-chemicals, and renewable transport fuel from residuals – David Boulard, Executive Vice President, Ensyn Technologies Inc.

European directive

• Must address environmental and economic aspects of complete life cycle of each biofuel

• Growth of the plant • Transport to the refinery • Refining process, including co-products • Wastes • Distribution of the biofuel to consumer • End use • Potential for pollution.

Primer on pyrolysis

Ensyn’s core competency is the conversion of solid bio-mass into liquid material (RTPTM Technology), and the ability to fractionate the liquid economically. The process is based on: • Fluidized bed • Proven technology.



This isn’t a “severe” process. It uses low pressures and very fast heat addition.

Commercial RTP™ Equipment, Wisconsin, USA – 40 dry TPD, operating since 1995

45 dry TPD, operating since 2002



Renfrew Ontario - 100 Dry TPD

Pyrolysis of biomass produces three primary categories of products: • BioOil (liquid) – 75% of original volume of the biomass • Syngas (gas) – 12.5% of original volume of the biomass • Char (solid) – 12.5% of original volume of the biomass.

Bio-energy: boiler applications

• Consistent and predictable fuel characteristics • Robust boiler technologies (combustion – emissions) • Multiple locations and broad customer opportunities • Co-firing opportunities (bunker C, # 2 or #6 diesel).



Bio-energy: electrical turbines

• Long history of development • 2.5 – 25 MW packages • Pyrolytic liquids tested and certified in turbine • Commercially available



Bio-chemicals: food ingredients

• Commercial sales since 1989 • Strategic relationship with a major food ingredients company • Products made from multiple feedstocks (not just wood) • A commercial energy/product template and credibility • Controlled and consistent product history

Bio-chemicals: natural resins and polymers

• Natural resin ingredients for engineered wood products • Meets or exceed control • Binders and adhesives - additives used to enhance durability of non- wood building

materials • Cross-linkers - building blocks • BioPhenolic compound

Food Flavoring



Bio-energy and bio-chemical: CHAR

• High energy value - 13,500 btu/lbs – an energy alternative • Activated carbon for gas and liquid filtration • Industrial decolourization applications • Soil restoration applications



Pathway to renewable transport fuel



Small scale rural ethanol plant - Keith Rueve, Pound-Maker Agventures

Pound-Maker started in 1970 with 50 local area farmers as shareholders looking for alternative markets for their commodities, and originally had a capacity of 2,500 head. In the late 1980s, a feasibility study was launched into an ethanol plant and feedlot expansion. In 1990, a 10,000 head feedlot expansion and construction of the ethanol plant took place, bringing together over 200 shareholders, 70% of whom lived within 30 miles of Pound-Maker. A feedlot expansion in 1994 provided an additional 5,000 head. Another expansion in 1998 added another 5,000 head. The current one-time capacity is 28,500 head, producing 13 million litres of fuel ethanol each year.



Ethanol production

• Consumes soft white spring wheat • 35,000 mt annually • Also use CPS wheat, triticale, durum • Capacity to produce 13 million litres annually

Current Western Canada ethanol production

Plant Million litres/yr

Husky Energy, Minnedosa, Mb 130 Husky Energy, Lloydminster, Sk 130 Permolex, Red Deer, Ab 40 Noramera, Weyburn, Sk 25 Pound-Maker Agventures, Lanigan, Sk 13

Future Western Canada ethanol production

Plant Million litres/yr

Terra Grains, Belle Plain, Sk 150 North West Bio-Energy, Unity, Sk 25

Co-products

The grain and liquid by-products from the distillation tower are further separated to produce two by-products: • Wet distillers grains (WDG) • Thin stillage

Thin stillage

• Water that has gone through the plant process • This water is rich in protein as it is concentrated by the ethanol production process

and includes 7 – 8% grain solids • Circulated under ground to the cattle in the feedlot

Wet distillers grain (WDG)

• Sixty one to sixty five percent of the wheat kernel is starch, which is used in the production of ethanol.

• The remaining third of the wheat kernel is protein, which is the WDG. • WDG is very moist, and is high in protein.



Benefits of co-products

• Protein source for cattle produced on-site • Do not need to purchase protein • By-products consumed as is • No further process required • No additional costs • No degradation from heat

Saskatchewan wheat production

In 2007, about 40% of cropland was seeded to various types of wheat – Hard Red Spring, Durum, Winter Wheat and Canada Prairie Spring.

Starch content of wheat

Most wheat in Western Canada is bred for high protein. High protein wheat will have lower levels of starch. Starch content can range from 61% to 65% depending on quality and variety of wheat. Pound-Maker’s historic yield is 360 litres per tonne (undenatured).

Ethanol production issues

• Viscosity issues caused by pentosans need to be controlled by wheat-specific enzymes

• Foaming in fermentation • Protein deposits on piping and in distillation column



Closed loop biofuel projects and benefits to rural communities – J. Ken Graham, Canadian Integrated BioSolutions Ltd.

Biofuel represents the greatest opportunity for rural economic development and revitalization that we have seen since the development of modern agriculture.

Producer and rural community ownership

Two years ago, farmer-owned facilities in the United States represented 39% of the total capacity for production. However, more than half of the operating ethanol plants at that time were farmer-owned or had significant farmer investment. Producer ownership offers 56% higher contribution to the local economy, when compared with plants owned by “absentee owners”. Producer ownership allows plants to move up the food chain and capture value. It also gives producers stronger bargaining positions, and provides additional sources of income. Producers and rural residents become stakeholders in their industry, creating expanded profit centres based on both raw commodities and finished products. Other benefits include an expanded skill base, higher gross and net income per acre, new jobs, a reduced impact on infrastructure, a broader tax base, and increased accountability. This reduces the need for farm support, strengthens local communities and economies, and provides increased return on public investment.

Closed loop agriculture

Closed loop agriculture minimizes waste and increases the value to the organization of co-products through utilization options and the development of additional revenue streams. It provides an opportunity to combine two or more value-added projects that offset downturns in either. It can spread costs over several communities, allow self-utilization of many co-products, and provide a higher energy return from feedstock consumption.

Feeding wheat DDGS

Feeding research on wheat DDGS was conducted by Dr. John McKinnon, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, U of S, Saskatoon, 2005 and 2006. It used front end handling – debranning, fractionation, and protein recovery, and “bolt-on” technologies to process additional feedstock. This provides a number of waste-to-energy opportunities.



What must governments do

Governments need to be proactive, and target 10% RFS to grow with production capacity. They need to acknowledge and financially support rural-based ownership, and rural plant locations. Governments should also acknowledge and financially support FFV and E85.

Overcoming air quality fears in urban areas – Gideon Richards, Consulting With Purpose Ltd.

How far does the fear go?

NOx and PMs are feared around the world.

What are the perceptions?

• Wood combustion hasn’t changed in decades. • The plant is inefficient. • Going to put NOx and PM emissions over urban limit levels – which are often at

limit levels already due to transport and industry. • Very large numbers of small less efficient furnaces and stoves will be installed.



• There will be large volumes of trucks moving around the urban areas delivering fuel.

Biomass, its context and urban areas

Principal heating equipment in Canada in 2004: • Steam or hot water furnace - 13.1% • Hot air furnace - 52.7% • Heating stove – 4.5% • Electric heating – 29.4% • Other – 0.3%

Age of the principal heating equipment in Canada in 2004: • 5 years old and under – 21.7% • 6 to 10 years old – 14.1% • Over 10 years – 64.2%

Principal heating fuel in Canada in 2004: • Oil or other liquid fuel – 10.4% • Natural gas – 49.6% • Bottled gas – 1.0% • Electricity – 33.6%



• Wood – 4.8% • Other – 0.6%

Principal fuel for hot water in Canada in 2004: • Oil or other liquid fuel – 4.5% • Natural gas – 48.9% • Electricity – 45.3% • Other – 1.4%

Electric accounted for 92.6% of the principal cooking fuel. Energy for heating and hot water used in commercial properties is about 30%, and in households is about 70% (based on UK data). Distributed energy reduces transmission loses, and DH/CHP provides better carbon savings than individual systems. These systems can also be designed to take multiple fuels. Pellets are more densified and have more consistent quality. Haulage is reduced, and is three times less than for chips. This means reduced emissions (rail carload at 10-tonne is124tCO2e; truck at 28BDt/load is 80tCO2e).

Offsetting fossil fuels

The forests and woodlands must be managed to reduce CH4 and N2O releases from decaying wood. Arboreal wastes can be used, as can construction and demolition wood (in an appropriate plant).

How we can overcome the fears

Biomass technologies – current and future uses

Key considerations are: • Project scale – individual systems, community, district heating and CHP • Use of advanced burning technologies • Appropriate appliances and appropriate fuels • Consistency of fuel quality • Quality technology design, installation, set-up and maintenance • Emission abatement technology



The fuel and technology hierarchy includes: • Community or district heating, CHP or tri-gen schemes – water and heating using

electric, pellet, chip, EFW • Community heating – water and heating using pellet, chip, straw or grains • House or small commercial furnaces – water, heating and microCHP using log,

pellet or chip • Multiple room space or water heating (water jackets or ducted air using log or

pellet) • Room space heater – log or pellet

Biomass CHP technologies

Steam turbines larger than 2MWe are economically and technically feasible. Between 200kWe – 2MWe, the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) process is technologically mature. For units 200kW or less, at present only Stirling engines are potentially viable. Examples are outlined on the following pages:

Biomass – medium/large CHP

Pfaffenhofen, Bravia - Germany • Steam to baby-food producer (950m) • District heating – 150 customers between 15kW & 3.5MW (high-temp 13.4km,

medium-temp. 4.0km, low temp. expanding for domestic) • Cooling: 1 x hosp. cooling cap. 300kw, 1 x 2 offices 700kW, 1 x NH3 absorption

chiller and electric piston compressor chiller (2 x 125kW), brewery (at night) and offices (district cooling during daytime, 650kW)



Biomass – small/medium CHP

Mawera, Austria • Steam turbines • 100 – 2.5MW electric



Talbotts, UK • 200kW thermal • 100kW electric

Biomass heat technologies

KWB pellet furnace, Austria • 150kW



Rotary grate furnace and internal combustion cyclone

This design is said to reduce emissions through efficient fly ash separation and flue gas recirculation.

Integrated flue gas condensation

• Needs low flow return temperatures (35°C) • Tested as having 103% efficiency (against 85%-90+% of conventional pellet boiler

Courtsey of KWB/Econergy, 2007



Total suspended particles – Examples of improvements

Courtsey of Őkofen, Austria, 2004



Dust emissions improvements in biomass technology

Biomass – microCHP

Sunmachine, Germany • 4.5 – 10.5kW Thermal • 1.5 – 3kW electric



KWB, Austria • Believed to be 1+ kWe

Torrified chip and pellet fuel

Torrified chip and pellet fuel is created by burning biomass without oxygen. The result is a cleaner burning fuel from which volatiles have been removed.



Air quality abatement technologies

Air quality abatement technologies can be used to reduce the flue emissions in small systems. However, they need maintenance and must be replaced relatively frequently. They also get poisoned easily.

KÖB – electrostatic precipitator • 100kW to 540kW • Only to be connected to their own furnaces • At present, adds considerable cost to a project



Fabric-Filter (FF) baghouse

Baghouses are usually associated with larger systems.

Electrostatic precipitator

Electrostatic precipitators are also usually associated with larger systems.



Summary

Air quality fears are widespread, but Canada has some great opportunities. Resources, hierarchy and technology should be carefully matched. There is the potential for biomass technologies and emissions abatement technologies at all scales (or there will be soon). There is an opportunity for a Biomass Centre of Excellence in New Brunswick, offering R&D, testing, certification, information dissemination, etc. There are some difficulties to overcome, but plenty of opportunities for the brave. There are more benefits than risks.

Cellulosic fractionation biorefining technology – Carl Lehrburger, PureVision Technology Inc.

PureVision has developed and patented one of the most advanced biorefining technology in the world, and is scaling it up. PureVision is 100% focused on cellulosic biorefining, and is partnering with established industry leaders and technology companies.

PureVision's biomass fractionation process

Benefits include: • Continuous operation • Countercurrent • In-situ separation • Modular design • Scalability • Use of any biomass.



Platform

• Sugars to biochemical • Pulp and paper applications • Lignin to industrial products

Enabling technologies

• Novel countercurrent processing • Rapidly separates biomass into solid and multiple liquid fractions (10-12 minutes) • Different solid and liquids residence times • High purity solids • Continuous stepwise operating conditions • Upstream and downstream integration • Designed to provide all energy needed from renewable sources • Modular, scalable

Platform technology

• Sugars to biochemicals • Two separate sugar streams • Purified cellulose-to-glucose, using less enzyme • Liquor is rich in C5 sugars, allowing separate fermentation • Low molecular weight lignin derivatives

BiomassFractionation

Biomass

Cellulose

Hemicellulose

Lignin



• Non-sulfur, high-value lignin product, PhenolenalTM • Many higher value markets (such as jet fuel) versus burning lignin • Pulp production • Paper and high-value dissolving pulps • Specialty fibers, such as composites • Mini pulp mills – small in-the-field biorefineries providing market pulps to

industry • Represents a true biorefinery

PureVision’s two-stage process

Process development unit – 2007

Biomass Feed

5C SugarsLiquor

(1st Stage) Water/Acid Alkali

1st StageCountercurrent Hot

Water/Acid Extraction with in situ S/L

Separation

2nd Stage Cocurrent Alkali Extraction

Cellulose Product

Lignin Liquor

S/L Separation

Discharge Valve

Feeder Reactor Barrel with Screws

DynamicPlug

Dynamic Plug

Motor



Cellulosic Biomass

Agricultural Residues Corn Stover, Wheat Straw, Bagasse, Rice Straw, etc.

Energy Crops Switchgrass, Shrubs,

Hybrid Poplar, etc.

Woody Biomass, Other Wood, Forest, Industry Mill Residues, Paper from MSW,

PureVision Technology

Xylose

Ethanol, Xylitol, BioPlastic,

Energy, Furfural, etc.

Lignin

Energy, Liquid Fuel Addictives, BioPlastic,

Binders, Sealers, Adhesives, etc.

Cellulose

Glucose Ethanol,

PLA, etc.

Pulp Paper,

Dissolving Pulp, etc.

Feedstock Studies to Date Corn Stover, Sugarcane Bagasse

Wheat Straw, Triticale Straw, Different Woody Biomass

PureVision Technology

Xylose Lignin Cellulose



PureVision biofuels platform

Our biofuels platform offers greenfield or co-location opportunities at existing corn ethanol plants. Benefits include: • Greater cellulose reactivity: less enzymes are needed to convert cellulose to

glucose • Fermentation sugars from both C5 and C6 streams can be used to produce ethanol,

butanol, etc. • High solids loading of cellulose, HSF, which lowers the cost of producing biofuels • Ability to produce different biofuels using a lignin-derived oligophenol.

PureVision pulping platform

The pulping platform relies on a novel pulping technique: • Extruder-based, modular, scalable • Environmentally friendly, minimal water and reagents • Pulp from agricultural residues and woody biomass • Paper-making, specialty fiber products (composites), pure cellulose products

(Lyocell), cellulose derivatives • Versatile processing regimes • Target cellulose purity to vary pulp hemi content • Use different solvents and reagents, multi-stages • Many pulping scenarios • Co-located at existing pulp mills • Developing new “mini” mills • Potentially new greenfield mills in future

Four different fractionation processing regimes resulting in varying degrees of lignin contained in each of the solid cellulose fractions.



PureVision lignin platform

PVT process creates a unique lignin derivative: • Lower molecular weight than conventional and natural lignins • PhenolenalTM is too valuable to burn

Conventional lignins have limited applications: • P&P industry is the largest source of conventional lignins • Burn for energy in paper mills, proposed biorefinery schemes • Many applications for PhenolenalTM • Binders for feed, concrete, asphalt (anti-oxidant qualities) • Glues and adhesives and in paint manufacturing • Feedstock for producing many industrial biochemicals • High-end uses include substitute for phenol plastic resins • Feedstock for producing different biofuels • High octane gasoline, ethanol and bio-diesel additive • Jet and rocket fuels

Lignin markets and value

• Current lignin market: about 1.8 million mt/yr with approximately 65 products • Current market value of lignin for two products • Concrete binder: $275/mt



• Feed binder: $385–465/mt • PureVision biorefinery (1,000 t/d) produces <100,000 mt/yr lignin • Few such biorefineries can be built without saturating existing markets • PureVision’s low MW lignin derivative has significant high-volume applications in

the future—raw materials for industrial products, biofuels, binders in producing hot-mix asphalt

Molecular weight distributions of lignin derived products

PureVision’s commercialization timeline

• 2002-2007: Patented and perfected fractionation technology at process development unit scale. Began to develop design specifications for 3-ton/day prototype.

• 2008-2009: Design, procure, build, operate 1-t/d in US and 3-t/d prototype in

Alberta Canada. Undertake feedstock assessments, commercial feasibility studies.

0 20K 40K 60K 80K

100K 120K 140K 160K

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Lignin removal efficiency, % theoretical

Molecular weight of dissolved lignin

Kraft process

Acid sulfite process

Bisulfite process

PureVision



Develop design specs, identify site/funding for demo biorefinery in Alberta and US.

• 2009-2011: Finalize design, procure, build and operate 75-t/d demonstration

biorefinery in US for ethanol, 40-t/d commercial demonstration in Canada, and develop plans to build biorefineries.

• 2012- Ongoing: Commercialization of PureVision’s fractionation technology in

North and South America and throughout world.

Biorefining center initiatives

Initiatives include: • Collaborative programs aimed at commercializing cellulosic biorefineries • PureVision collaboration with Auburn University

o Focus is woody biomass o Next step is technology transfer

• PureVision collaboration with Province of Alberta o First phase complete - triticale straw fractionation o Next phase is building a 3-ton/day fractionation reactor to establish a

biomass research center (2008) o Collaboration includes other Canadian stakeholders

• PureVision involves partners/collaborators • Multidisciplinary initiatives

Platform technology to transform the biorefining world

Industry

Biofuels

Pulp & Paper

Biochemical

Agriculture

Other

Applications

Ethanol, Butanol, Jet Fuel, etc.

Paper Pulps, DissolvingPulps, Lignin Products

Lignin Derivatives, Fermentation Products

Biorefinery Projects, Food Processing, etc.

Proprietary ApplicationsNon-Biomass

Feedstocks

AgricultureResidues

Woody BiomassSpecies

Energy Crops

Genetically Modified Species for Biorefining

Other

Marketing Licensing

PureVision Collaborations

Licensing Opportunities

End-Products

Territories

Feedstock

Equipment

InvestmentFinance

PVT EquityIPO/M&A

Scale-up Project

Financing

Financing ofSpin Offs

Establish Manufacturing



Pre-treatment vs. fractionation

In conventional pretreatment the lignin remains with the cellulose, ending up in fermentation bottoms for eventual combustion-to-energy. Conventional pretreatment includes size reduction, dilute-acid pretreatment and steam explosion, and prepares cellulose for hydrolysis and fermentation. In fractionation, biomass is separated into three streams: a purified cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose steams. The fractionation process can be operated in multi-stages: a two-stage process provides a liquid stream with the hemi-cellulose, and a second stream with the lignin. Additional stages can be added to accomplish additional unit operations.



Forest bioproducts research in Maine – Hemant Pendse, University of Maine

FBRI’s core research

From the forest floor to the factory floor, researchers, students, and project partners' goals are to: • Promote forest health for a stable bio-economy • Understand and separate wood components • Create and commercialize new bioproducts

UMaine’s investment in research infrastructure for FBRI is $13.2 million and counting.

Laboratory instrumentation highlights

1. Chemical analysis 2. Microscopy 3. Fermentation and biocatalysis 4. Biomass processing

2003 Maine wood supply model

Most of the sustainable harvest is currently being used by Maine forest products industry. Maine can sustainably harvest about 600 million cubic feet (7 million cords) of wood annually.

Maine Wood Harvest Trends

0

1

2

3

4

5

67

1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2002

Year

Cor

ds (m

illio

ns)

SW Sawlog HW Sawlog SW Pulp HW pulp

Data Source: Maine Forest Service



Various pieces and components have varying levels of utility. Stumps, roots, and shrubs are pretty marginal sources in Maine.



Challenges with other recoverables

Current harvesting already includes some portions of the biomass components of branches, cull trees, salvable dead trees, and saplings: • Branches - Most likely additional and available biomass component deliverable

roadside with existing equipment. However, not all of the biomass is available because branches are already used in harvest operations to minimize skid trail erosion and rutting.

• Cull trees - Next most likely and available biomass component but is needed to meet sustainability benchmarks for wildlife trees, and is the source for future large dead snags (larger than 16” DBH).

• Dead trees - Only make up a minor source of biomass, but are also needed to meet existing sustainability benchmarks.

• Saplings - Largest pool of potentially available biomass, but are critical to maintain sufficient stocking for regenerating the next stand.



Wood flows

Red Shield Environmental (RSE)

RSE is focused on renewable energy at the Old Town, Maine facility. RSE is currently generating steam and electricity for on-site use and electricity for sale to the electrical power grid.

RSE Pulp & Chemical

RSE is host to RSE Pulp & Chemical which is a separate entity currently at Old Town manufacturing pulp and working closely on new technologies with UMaine for commercial production of cellulosic ethanol and other wood-based chemicals. An old, spare pulp digester is already being converted to a new extractor.

3. Saw

dust

2. Hog Fuel Chips to Heat & Power

4. Wood Strands to OSB plant

5. Wood Chips to Pulp Mill

New carbohydrate feedstock

Syngas

Mixed Sugars

1. Unmarketable Biomass Pyrolysis Liquid

Direct Conversion Products

Wood Logs to Saw Mill



Using pre-extraction integrated with pulping operations, we can produce 80 dry metric tons per day of new carbohydrate feedstock for the ethanol plant.

Van Heiningen process – from lab to mill floor

Building on Old Town’s manufacturing assets and UMaine’s intellectual property, Maine is changing the way business is done.

Research portfolio overview



Research thrusts

There are 20 projects across 3 themes and 4 thrusts, covering: • Bioprocessing • Nanotechnology • Human dimensions • Thermal processing

Examples: • Wood extract conversion • Microfibrilated cellulose (MFC) study • Stakeholder attitudes analysis • Pyrolysis oil and syngas upgrade

The Canadian Biomass Innovation Network – Alex MacLeod, Office of Energy Research and Development, Natural Resources Canada

Canadian context

Canadian energy supply

Coal , 11%

Oil , 32%

Renewables & Hydro, 17%

Natural Gas, 33%

Nuclear, 7%

Hydro

Biomass Others less than 1%

Tidal Solar Wind Ethanol Earth Energy Municipal Waste Landfill gas 11%

6%



Possible NRTEE greenhouse gas ‘wedges’

Integrated bio-industry (Bio-plex) – Keys are integration and multi-products

Federal initiatives and policies

Canadian federal funding

Biofuels

• ecoEnergy for Biofuels NRCan up to $1.5B over 9 years (Apr. 1/08)

NRTEE, 2006-06

CO2 Captureand Storage

Renewable Energy

Energy Efficiency, Conservation

NRTEE Report: Advice on a Long-term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change, 2006

BioconversionBiorefining

Forest Residues & Plantations Agricultural Crops, Residues, Manure Municipal Waste Industrial & Commercial Wastes Aquatic and Fishery Sources

Gasification Pyrolysis Combustion Co-Firing Extraction-PurificationFermentation Digestion Esterification

Biomass Feedstocks

Products

Co - Products

Power Electricity Heat Steam Pressure Biofuels

Materials Chemicals Food and Feed



• NextGen Biofuels Fund

SDTC $500M over 8 years (Sept. 12/07)

• EcoABC: ecoAgriculture Biofuels Capital Initiative AAFC $200M over 4 years (Apr. 23/07)

• Ag-CDI: Agriculture - Co-operative Development Initiative AAFC $3.25M over 2 years (Oct. 07)

• BOPI: Biofuels Opportunities for Producers Initiative AAFC $20M over 2 years (announced July 06)

Electricity

• ecoENERGY for Renewable Power NRCan up to $1.5B over 9 years (Apr. 1/08)

Federal research funding and initiatives

• Technology and Innovation Research and Development (T&I R&D) Initiative – Biotechnology Program NRCan $14 M over 3 years (ends Mar. 08)

• Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD) – Bio-based Energy Systems and Technologies (BEST) Program NRCan $7.5M over 3 years (on-going)

• Promoting Forest Innovation and Investment – Forest Industry Long-Term Competitiveness Initiative NRCan $70M over 2 years (2007-09)

• Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program (ABIP) AAFC $145M over multi-years (announced Dec. 20/06)

• Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

• National Research Council of Canada (NRC) – National Bioproducts Program



What is CBIN

CBIN is an NRCan-led network of federal researchers, program managers, policymakers and expert advisors, together with partners from industry, academia and the provinces. It is focused on developing and advancing next generation technologies for bioenergy and bioproducts. Outputs: • New technologies for demonstration and pre-commercialization programs • Information on guidance to policymakers • Support for technology developers and end-users

CBIN’s vision

To make strategic R&D investments that advance the development of bioenergy, biofuels, and industrial bioproducts and bioprocesses that: • Reduce fossil fuel energy consumption • Directly or indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air

contaminants (CAC) emissions • Seed the development of Canada's bio-based economy

External advice, partnerships and international relationships

Policies Energy, Environment

Forestry, Agriculture, Science

Interdepartmental Committee on the Bio-Economy

CBIN ExCo AAFC, EC, IC, NRC, NSERC, NRCan (CFS, CETC, OEE, OERD), HC & DFO (TBC)

PERD, T&I

International IEA, GBeP, APEC NAEWG, OECD

Brazil, India, Germany

CBIN External Advisory Panel

(EAP)

Provincial Organizations

e.g. BioAtlantech, PEI BioAlliance,

etc.

Provincial Departments

Energy/Forestry/ Agriculture

National Organizations

CanBio, Biotech Canada

DG Committee Energy R&D

National Bioproducts

Program

Other federal programs – bio specific and non-bio specific

Industry and University Partners (Project specific)

Forest Innovation Program

Sustainable Development Technology

Canada

Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program



Highlights from CBIN activities

Collaborative RD&D

CBIN operates committees at multiple levels to dialogue and exchange information, build relationships, engage and identify opportunities: • Executive Committee (representatives from five federal departments) – identifies

R&D gaps and recommends strategic R&D activities that will advance industrial bioproducts innovation in Canada

• Interdepartmental DGs committee (director generals and other senior managers) – oversees CBIN operation from the perspective of broad Government of Canada objectives and policies, offering advice and direction for strengthening the federal government’s coordinated effort to advance the bioeconomy

• External Advisory Committee (industry, university, provincial and international members) – provides independent advice on strategy and the project portfolio.

Buy-in and active participation by all members helps to build a supportive network with common goals. Individual technical experts from CBIN expand the reach into national and international networks and communities of practice. All executive committee members feel engaged in the network, that they are equals, and that they can each speak for all the others in any forum. The network provides linkages that encourage increased partnering between research providers, adopters and end users, and increased involvement on the part of provincial governments and industry stakeholders.

ST&T technology activities and themes

Activity 1: Existing and New Biomass Supply Theme 1.1 Biomass Inventory Theme 1.2 Purpose-Grown Woody Biomass Production Theme 1.3 Technologies for Harvesting, Preparing, Storage and Transportation Theme 1.4 New and Improved Biomass Feedstock Activity 2: Biomass Conversion and Utilization Technologies Theme 2.1 Direct Conversion of Biomass for Heat and Power Theme 2.2 Conversion of Waste to Bio-based Gases Theme 2.3 Key Separation and Conversion Processes for Bioproducts Theme 2.4 Biocatalysis for Industrial Applications Theme 2.5 Advanced Biomass Conversion and Utilization Technologies Theme 2.6 Biofuels for Transportation Applications



Activity 3: Integrated Bio-Applications Theme 3.1 Integrated Biorefining Theme 3.2 Regionally Clustered Enterprises Activity 4: Cross-Cutting Issues Theme 4.1 Strategic Work, Communication & Dissemination Theme 4.2 Policy Support & Assessment Frameworks

Mobile pyrolysis

Partners: Advanced BioRefinery Inc. and NRCan. Objective: To demonstrate that a mobile auger pyrolysis system developed by Advanced BioRefinery Inc. can be used to convert chicken litter and straw to a pyrolysis oil that can be combusted to generate energy for on farm applications. Achievements: Successful technical and economic demonstration of a one ton/day unit on a farm site. Chemical analysis of bio-oil and co-products. Design of larger farm units (up to 15 tons/day) and a 50 ton/day forestry unit. Next steps: ACA Farm cooperative, in Nova Scotia, will evaluate the production of bio-oil from chicken litter and utilization for on-farm heat applications.

Biodiesel

Partners: NRCan, Nova Scotia Government and Halifax Regional Municipality. Objective: To evaluate whether a fish oil derived diesel fuel could be used as a fuel in industrial boilers. Achievements: Blends of B5, B10 and B20 with both No 2 and No 6 fuel oils burned satisfactorily in the CETC tunnel furnace without having to change the existing fuel delivery system or the combustion equipment. Benefits of reduced SO2 emissions in stack exhaust. Nova Scotia government and the Halifax Regional Municipality proceeded with a test program for heat production in some of their commercial boilers. CETC-O investigated the effects of prolonged use of fish oil fuel on pump components and provided operating recommendations. Next steps: No further work anticipated.

Direct firing of syngas for lime kiln and power boiler applications

Partners: Led by NRCan, in collaboration with 22 performers and partners.



Objective: To evaluate the replacement of natural gas with biomass derived fuels for kiln heating and power boiler applications. Achievements: Preliminary results indicate the potential to offset more than 50% of NG with Syngas with minimal effects to regular lime kiln operations. This will help the P&P industry dramatically reduce energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. There are currently two demonstration projects on-going investigating the suitability of gasification technology for such applications. Next steps: Validation of technical, environmental and commercial performance, first at pilot scale and then at a commercial scale.

GIS-based biomass inventory

Partners: AAFC and NRCan, in collaboration with Above Board Inc., FPInnovations – FERIC, Manitoba Conservation, SOBIN, Sweitzer-Mauduit, and University of British Columbia. Objective: To design and implement a publicly-accessible web-based biomass information portal that will serve as a resource for interested users to learn about the industrial accessibility of both herbaceous and woody biomass. Significance: A GIS inventory that spatially presents opportunity inventories for the bio-industry will be invaluable to investors and energy users (if it identifies, at source, biomass feedstock availability, costs to recover, and type or characterization of feedstock). Next steps: The web portal is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2008.



Short-rotation plantation and agroforestry systems

Partners: Led by NRCan, in collaboration with 32 performers and partners. Objective: To assess the biomass potential of promising native species and to select superior clones for operational, commercial biomass plantations. Achievements: Network of sites established in various ecozones across Canada. Selection of native willows for short-rotation intensive culture, CFS, Fredericton New Brunswick. Development of a functional cutter-shredder-baler at a reasonable material cost. Next steps: Establish technical and cost data for energy conversion of the biomass to establish more accurate cost data for conversion facilities. Policy recommendations will be made about the most important research needs.

Environmental criteria for siting of cellulosic bioethanol facilities

Partners: EC, in collaboration with Canadian/Indian Science and Technology Agreement (CISTA) and NRCan/OERD. Objective: To develop an environmental assessment framework with environmental criteria validated under representative Canadian conditions to be used in the siting of lignocellulosic biomass sources to ethanol. Achievements: Environmental assessment framework used by AB Environment, BC Environment and ON Environment for siting of biofuel facilities. Framework integrated into AAFC/EIA guidelines for BOPI and ABIP biorefineries. Framework under consideration by NRCan for SEA reporting and Renewable Fuel Facility Environmental Performance Benchmark. Emissions data to be used by EC for calibration of the RFS Data generated was considered critical to developing the architecture for the RFS. Next steps: No further work anticipated.



Inventory of federal and provincial initiatives and programs

Inventory of expertise

PLATFORM: NAME:

Expertise: Higher than project level

Assets: e.g. equipment, facilities, patents, IT products, technologies

Accomplishments: international lead/reputation

Location: e.g. department and address

Long term Objectives: Telephone: E-mail:

Information source: Website :

Asset maps

Asset maps will be used for: • Provincial initiatives • Liaising and co-funding.

We need to develop a common format. Our interest is to link with their websites through CBIN. The initial asset maps are being developed by Saskatchewan and British Columbia.



CBIN communication

CBIN communications addresses: • Program plans • Annual reports • Strategic plans • Project progress reports • Project descriptions • Public and private website • CBIN brochures

Next activities for CBIN

• Meetings with provinces • National Strategic Thinking meeting • International cooperation • Wrap-up of T&I • PERD allocation for 2009/2010 • Enhanced collaboration • Meetings with NSERC and SDTC • Federal Bio Programs meeting

Technology is only one piece of the puzzle. In addition to developing and building the technology, we need: • Consumer-friendly infrastructure • Government policy instruments to encourage consumers to make the technology

purchase • Incentives and subsidies • Taxes and tax relief • Public procurement • Public acceptance • Market forces • Industry activity.

This will not be an overnight change. It will take time.

Concluding remarks

To make the bio-economy happen, we need: • Persistent long-term governmental vision and policy coherence – federal and

provincial



• Sustained funding and momentum for the full innovation spectrum (with partners) • Promotion of domestic coordination and integration to spur innovation (research

infrastructure, education, deployment infrastructure) • Capitalizing of international linkages – cooperation in S&T and technology

deployment.

Commercial biogas production from potatoes processing plant residues – Veselin Milosevic, J.D. Irving Ltd.

Project introduction

Project background: • Impact of raising fuel cost on profitability • Renewable energy option • Environmental benefits (for example, CO2 emissions reduction) • Location: New Annan, PEI • Construction April-November 2008 • Start up late November 2008 • Full gas production Spring 2009

Biogas basics: Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic digestion is a process in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. Main phases: 1. Bacterial hydrolysis of the input in order to break down insoluble organic polymers

(that is, carbohydrates). 2. Acidogenic bacteria then convert the sugars and amino acids into carbon dioxide,

hydrogen, ammonia, and organic acids. 3. Acetogenic bacteria then convert these resulting organic acids into acetic acid, along

with additional ammonia, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. 4. Methanogenic bacteria convert these products to methane and carbon dioxide.

Process setup

Three-stage mesophilic AD: 1. Hydrolysis (retention time is three days) 2. Primary digestion (over 90% of gas production, long retention time)



3. Secondary digestion (below 10% gas production, long retention time and gas storage)

All system stages are under constant mixing, with the digestion process at 37°C and a pH of 7-8.

Upright large digester (up to 7,000 m³ Volume)

Input

Heat Exchanger

Mixer

Output





Top-mounted mixer



Standard digester design (up to 5,000 m³ Volume)

Output

Input

Mixer

Heating

Gas Holder Double Membrane Roof



Van Gennip – 70,000 m³ pig manure



Inputs

Inputs are needed only from the Cavendish Farms plants: Potato residues 97,500 t/y Aerobic sludge 6,500 t/y Spent frying oil 650 t/y [Starch 4,500 t/y] Total: 104,650 t/y Average solids input 24.5% Average volatile solids 95%

Outputs

Outputs: 1. Biogas 2,300 m3/hr (about 60% methane, 40% carbon-dioxide, equivalent of 1,450

l/hr of diesel) will be used in a boiler 2. Biosolids 30 t/day (at 20% solids, Class B) 3. Wastewater up to 250 m3/day



If it were to make electricity, the output would be 5.6 MWe. The expected payback period is 4.5 – 7 years, depending on price of oil. Biogas is a direct replacement of petroleum usage for heat at the plants.

Project team

Our team includes: • Owner: Cavendish Farms/Irving Group Moncton • Manager: Irving Group Moncton • Engineering: Stantec (Fredericton) • Process consultant: Krieg + Fischer Ingenieure GmbH • Construction: Acadia Construction • Government of PEI

Landfill gas: Making energy from waste – Greg McCarron, SCS Engineers Modern sanitary landfill

LFG generation

• Anaerobic decomposition of organic matter • Methane (60%), carbon dioxide (40%) and trace constituents, inc. H2S • Amount of organic waste and degradability • Moisture, temperature, pH



These factors are not easily modified.

LFG collection and control systems

• There are hundreds of systems on-line • Components • Vertical wells • Horizontal collectors • Condensate management • Blower/flare stations • Flares destroy more than 98% of methane

Landfill gas and green power

LFG is generated 24/7 and is available over 90% of the time. This serves as the “baseload renewable” for many green power projects. With the carbon credit revenue, LFG is among the most cost-competitive renewable resources available ($0.04 - 0.06/kW). LFG can act as a long-term price and volatility hedge against fossil fuels.

Landfill gas utilization alternatives

Electric Power Generation Medium-Btu Gas High-Btu Gas

• Reciprocating engines • Combustion turbines • Steam cycle plant • Fuel cells, microturbines

• Industrial boilers and furnaces

• Com’l and institutional boiler

• Co-firing

• Membrane • Solvent absorption • Molecular sieve

Electric power to distribution system and/or for on-site use

Direct substitute for fossil fuel via dedicated LFG pipeline

Connection to existing pipelines



Typical schematic

Direct gas use

• Simplest technology • Users include power plants, industrial boilers, kilns, and dryers • Pipelines: 1 - 15 miles

Direct LFG use



Direct use projects

• Niagara Falls, ON • Cambridge, ON (steel) • Surrey, BC (wallboard) • Jackman Landfill, BC (greenhouse) • Coquitlam, BC (paper recycling)

Electrical generation

• Size - 200 kW - 50 MW • Internal combustion (IC) engines • Gas turbines • Steam turbines • Combined cycle • Microturbines

I.C. engines

Engine projects

• Toronto – Beare Rd, ON • Waterloo, ON • Vancouver, BC



• Kirkland, QC • Lachenaie, QC

Combustion gas turbine

Steam turbine

Steam turbine projects

• Edmonton, AB • Brock West, ON • Montreal, QC • Keele Valley, ON (combined cycle)



Waste heat – greenhouse

Microturbine experience

• Ottawa, ON (demo) • SCS: 70 kW to 550 kW in size • SCS: Total capacity of 2,680 kW • Capstone 30 kW and I-R 70 and 250 kW

Siloxane impacts on microturbines



Microturbine

LFG conversion to pipeline quality gas

• Limit air entry (nitrogen and oxygen) into the wellfield • Remove moisture • Remove hydrogen sulfide • Remove carbon dioxide and VOCs • Compress to pipeline pressure (100 psi to 600 psi)

Pipeline quality gas versus raw landfill gas

Typical Pipeline Quality Gas Specification

Typical Raw Landfill Gas Quality

Higher Heating Value (Btu/ft3) > 970 450 to 550

Hydrogen Sulfide (ppmv) < 4 25 to 1,000

Water Vapor (lbs/mmscf) < 7 3,500

Oxygen < 0.4% 0.5% to 4.0%

Carbon Dioxide < 3% 30% to 35%

Nitrogen + Carbon Dioxide < 5% 44% to 54%

Note: Can sometimes negotiate a less stringent gas quality specification



Carbon dioxide removal

• Solvent absorption • Selexol and Kryosol • Carbon dioxide temporarily dissolves into liquid • Pressure swing adsorption (PSA) • Molecular sieve • Carbon dioxide temp. attach to surface of media • Membrane separation • Different gases pass through membrane at different rates • Carbon dioxide wash (Acrion)

Membrane



Solvent absorption

Alternative use projects

Infrared heaters – two in Quebec



200 kW fuel cell

CNG vehicle fuel



Major corporations using landfill gas

The sectors these companies represent include: • Automotive • Agriculture • Pharmaceuticals • Telecommunications • Consumer products • Aggregates • Food production • Petroleum • Paper

Integrated biorefinery concept & research – Adriaan van Heininigan, University of Maine

Value prior to pulping within forest biorefinery

• Extract hemicelluloses before pulping for sugar based products because heating value is 0.5 lignin.

• Convert hemicelluloses into transportation fuels + chemicals. • Pulp yield and quality remain virtually unchanged compared to conventional pulp

production.



• Reduce chemical charge in pulping process because hemicelluloses have been pre-extracted.

• Use existing infrastructure and permits of pulp mill.

Process flow diagram

Near-neutral hemicellulose extraction process

• Green liquor – 3% total titratable alkali + 0.05% AQ • Extracted for 110 minutes at 160 C • H-factor 700 Hours • Extract 10% of wood mass • Pulping conditions • Effective alkali = 12% EA • Cooking temperature = 170 °C • H-factor 800 hours • Same total H-factor as base case (1500 hrs.) • Pulp yield about 47% based on wood

The total pulp yield is similar to that of Kraft control. Strength properties of the pulp are preserved.



Pulp yield versus kappa no.

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

10 20 30 40 50

Kappa Number

Tota

l Pul

p Yi

eld,

%

90min@140oC-HX(100H:12%EA)60min@160oC-HX(400H:12%EA)110min@160oC-HX(790H:12%EA)Kraft Control(15%EA)



Paper strength properties

Kraft Control

New Process



Water extraction followed by Kraft pulping

Process advantages

• Pulp yield and physical properties unchanged • Off-load recovery boiler • Organics in black liquor is reduced • Off load lime kiln • Less white liquor is needed for pulping. • Potential for Increase pulp production rate • If recovery cycle is the bottleneck • Environmental advantages • 40% reduction in methanol content of black liquor • TRS is reduced • New sugars feed stock • Possible biofuels and renewable chemicals

Process disadvantages

• Relatively low yield of sugars in extract • Relatively small production of biofuels • Extract contains inorganic salts originating from green liquor • Inhibition of fermentation processes

Increasing extraction yield correlated with significant decrease in total yield of pre-extracted-kraft pulp

Kraft Control

Water Extraction plus Kraft Pulping

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

38.00

39.00

40.00

41.00

42.00

43.00

44.00

45.00

46.00

47.00

48.00

120 130 140 150 160 170

Pu

lp Y

ield

(%

)

Extraction Temperature (oC)

Control

So

lid

Co

nte

nt

(%)



Basis for economic analysis

• Mixed US southern hardwoods – 35% gum, 35% oak, 15% maple, 12% poplar and sycamore and 3% magnolia

• Kraft mill sizes • Small mill - 750 tonne/day pulp mill • Medium mill - 1,000 tonne/day pulp mill • Large pulp mill - 1,500 tonne/day • Base case

o Existing Kraft pulp mill o Technical economics relative to base case o Utilities and waste treatment facilities

• Case A – need upgrading • Case B – adequate – no upgrade needed

Extract composition (1000 TPD)

Flow rate 3,171 Tonne/day

Suspension solids content 8.5%

Dissolved organics Arabinan Galactan Mannan Glucan Xylan Acetyl group 4-O-MGA Lignin

5.61% 0.06% 0.17% 0.11% 0.22% 1.89% 1.11% 1.33% 0.73%

Dissolved inorganic compounds H+ Na+ SO42- HCO3-

2.84% 0% 1.11% 0.70% 1.03%

Water 2,900 tonne/day



Production rates versus plant size

Steam use for 1,000 TPD

Modified pulp mill produces 35% less steam than conventional Kraft mill.

Capital cost – Case A. utilities upgrade

Utility upgrade costs are about 20% of capital investment.



Effect on recovery and lime kiln

• Twenty percent less Na2CO3 needs to be processed in the lime cycle, saving nine tonnes of fuel oil/day for 1000TPD mill at a pulp yield of 47% and a causticizing efficiency of 80%.

• At $2.2/gallon, oil saving are $2 million dollars per year. These savings offset the value of the loss of steam of about $10 million dollars per year.

• Organics off-loading in the recovery cycle allows an increase in the production rate if recovery is bottleneck for production.

Unit production cost – Case A. utilities upgrade

Unit production cost proportioned based on mass.

Profitability analysis



Discounted case flow rate of return – Case A. capital required for upgrade of WWT system

Economy analysis results and DCFROR Case B. No upgrade of WWT system

DCFROR comparison of north eastern and southern mixed hardwoods – 1000 TPD, Case B. No upgrade of WWT system

Conclusions

Near-neutral hemicellulose extraction is a promising version of a forest biorefinery. A 1,000 TPD pulp mill can produce 40 TPD ethanol and 32 TPD acetic acid. Steam production is reduced by only 35%. Lime kiln oil savings are 9 tonne/day. DCFROR varies between 1.1 and 13.0%, and ethanol production costs about $1.8/GL.

Growing Power integrated biorefinery – Trevor Nickel, Growing Power Group

Growing Power Group

• Highmark Renewables Research LP • Growing Power Hairy Hill LP • Other Growing Power organizations



The Group is dedicated to the development and commercialization of renewable energy technologies.

Highmark Renewables Research

• R&D in anaerobic digestion and in enhanced biofuels productivity • Technology has the unique ability to treat high-solids, high-fibre materials • Demonstrated at scale for the past 3 years • Integrated BioRefinery™ process

Current biorefinery

• Commissioned February 2005 • 100 tonnes/day feedlot manure and co-substrates • Produces about 1 MW of electrical output, about 1.3MW of usable thermal output,

and about 20 tonnes/day of BioFertilizer.

Growing Power Hairy Hill

• Limited partnership • Project begun Nov, 2007 • Integrates:

o Expanded and improved anaerobic digesters o Canada’s fourth largest feedlot o 40 MML/an fuel ethanol plant



Integrated biorefinery™

Standalone feedlot/biogas

Feedlot

Beef

Trucks

Barley

Trucks

IMUSManure CoGen

Excess Heat

Green Power

Bio Fertilizer

Trucks

Land Application

Trucks

Diesel

Diesel

DieselLoss

Commodity Price

N2O and CH4



Standalone ethanol plant

TrucksWheat

Milling

Fermenting

Drying

Separation

Distilling

DDGS

Stillage

Ethanol

Treatment

Trucks

Trucks

Diesel

Diesel

DieselNatural Gas

Natural Gas

Natural Gas

Electricity

Electricity

Cooking



Integrated biorefinery

Energy synergies and benefits

There is no drying required, which results in a 30% energy savings. The energy for distillation from biogas produced represents an additional 60% energy savings. For example, if the standalone energy balance is 1.24:1, then without drying it becomes 1.24:0.7 or 1.77:1. Using biogas to power the process makes it 1.77:0.4 = 4.42:1.

Economic synergies and benefits

• Energy savings are savings in operational costs • Energy input costs and supply risks reduced • Co-product market risks avoided • Production matched with local area’s ability to produce feedstock • Economic benefit to the co-located feedlot improves its competitive advantage

Environmental synergies and benefits

• Renewable feedstock for ethanol. • Renewable energy for distillation. • Greenhouse gas credits for regular ethanol (64,000 tonnes/an), in addition to a

reduction in carbon used in fuelling production, carbon used in electricity

TrucksWheat

Milling

Fermenting

Drying

Separation

Distilling

WDGS

Stillage

Ethanol

Feedlot

Trucks Cooking

ManureIMUS CoGenGreen Power

BiogasGrid



production, carbon captured in heat recovery, and carbon emitted from manure spreading (75,000 tonnes/an). This reduction totals an estimated 139,000 tonnes/an.

• Less nutrient loading. • Fifty percent less water used than stand alone systems.

Food versus fuel

If the RFS mandate is met, approx 16.6% of the Canadian prairie wheat crop will be committed to domestic value-add by 2010. This is only 21% of the exported portion of the crop. Exports must compete with highly subsidized production in other regions. Distillers grains offset significant proportions of barley demand.

Right-sized biofuel production

Biofuel thinkers have been married to the logic that increasing scale is the only way to improve production costs. Increasing the number of processes in a biorefinery and exploiting synergies is what other industries would do. However, right sizing removes risks of increased costs due to transport issues, crop production shifts, and environmental liabilities.

Renewable energy in Canada

• Wholesale electrical prices average $0.07/kWh • Gasoline and diesel retail near $1.00/L • Low taxes on energy • Low royalties • Provincial rebates on natural gas • General attitude that energy is abundant and cheap

Renewable energy in Alberta

• Booming economy due to oil and gas activity • Construction costs heavily inflated • Labour, material, and equipment shortages • Heavy competition for capital, especially recently (post sub-prime, Soc-Gen

events)

Commercialization

• Integrated BioRefinery™ roll-out • Sites in Canada, the US, and elsewhere (up to 400 sites worldwide) • Productivity enhancements • Demonstrated at Integrated BioRefineries • Marketed to the biofuels industry



• Enhances industry competitiveness

Biomass co-firing electric utility opportunity – James Taylor, Nova Scotia Power Inc.

Nova Scotia Power (NSPI) is a vertically integrated, traditionally regulated, investor-owned electric power monopoly in Nova Scotia. It is a legacy of provincial and federal policy of late 1970s. It generates 70-75% of its electrical energy from coal/pet coke. Since 1994, NSPI has been transforming electricity generation: • Natural gas conversions and additions • Renewable energy additions • Energy conservation and efficiency and demand side management

Trenton Generating Station

• Two unit station (5 and 6) totaling 315 MW net capacity • Produces 18% of electrical energy of province • Current fuel is local coal, imported coal and pet coke • Among the lower cost producers in NSPI thermal fleet • Northern Nova Scotian location with sustainable supply of wood based biomass



Co-firing of biomass

Benefits include use of a local fuel and environmental improvements. There are two broad options: • Direct firing • Separate combustor

Direct firing

There are two options for direct firing: • Introduce in fuel stream • Introduce directly into boiler furnace

Pros and cons: • Less capital required • Possible increase in reduced unit output • Main furnace/convection surfaces fouling/corrosion • Fuel preparation equipment difficulties • Opacity excursions

Separate combustor (CFB)

Pros and cons: • Fuel preparation minimal • Outages do not affect main generating units output • Capital investment required • Additional staffing possible

Separate combustor

• Supplies thermal energy to cycle • Auxiliary steam supply and primary air supplement • About 5% of total energy in plant • Circulating fluidized bed design • Flue gas ties into existing unit ducting between air heater and electrostatic

precipitator and future bag house • Feasibility study shows a business case (sensitive to capital cost and fuel price)



An example of external combustor co-firing

The photograph shows an external CFB combustor attached to a 220 MWe PC boiler. The low pressure steam is fed into the LP steam header of the plant. Flue gas at 440 C enters the suction side of the ID fan, obviating the need for a separate ID fan and dust clean up system. The unit was designed, developed and built by Greenfield Research Incorporated of Halifax.



A study undertaken on Trenton to identify potential location of an external combustor

Next steps

The next step is a feasibility study and a pre-engineering study to fully develop capital costs. This will establish a role for biomass firing in meeting provincial Renewable Energy Standards.



Bioenergy: NB Power perspective – George Dashner, NB Power

NB Power’s generation system

Hydro 895 MW

Nuclear 635 MW

Thermal 1,903 MW

Combustion 526 MW

Total 3,959 MW

Future Wind

400 MW



Developing renewable generation in New Brunswick

Source Total Capacity (MW)

Run Time Annual Energy Production (GWh)

Wind 387 34% 1,169

Biomass 50 83% 364

Hydro 53 50% 232

Landfill gas 2 90% 16

Total 492 1,781

NB Power’s environmental commitment

New Brunswick was the first province in Canada to adopt RPS to obtain energy from renewable energy sources. The target is 313 MW of wind energy by 2009. NB Power will continue to explore new opportunities, including biomass, landfill gas, small hydro and tidal.

The Renewable Portfolio Standard

The RPS requires that 10% of New Brunswick’s energy come from Ecologo-certified renewable sources by 2016. The goal of up to 400 MW of new wind projects by 2010 will contribute to RPS.

Bioenergy at NB Power

NB Power purchases 38.5 MW of bioenergy from Fraser Papers. NB Power also offers two programs that allow for bioenergy net metering, connecting up to 100 kW of certified renewable energy through the customer’s meter. The customer pays only for net energy usage. Embedded generation allows the connection of up to 2 MW of energy to NB Power’s distribution system. Benefits: • Diversification • Opportunity to meet climate change goals (using CO2 credits) • Taking advantage of the natural resource of New Brunswick



Challenges: • Traditional fuel cost pressures impact biofuel prices (for example, transportation

costs) • Bioenergy fuel source prices

NB Power is currently in discussions towards further bioenergy developments. The Department of Environment and Regional Solid Waste Commissions are exploring opportunities for embedded generation. NB Power will continue to work with the Department of Energy, other government agencies, developers and customers to facilitate bioenergy development and to introduce bioenergy opportunities to the NB Power system.

Wood biomass utilization in Europe … the Austrian showcase: markets, technologies and R&D – Walter Haslinger, Austrian Bioenergy Center, GmbH

Bioenergy markets in Austria

Primary energy consumption in Austria

Total number of plants: more than 1.000 Total power: more than 1.100 MW Total primary energy consumption: 1.393 PJ (2003) [1.440 PJ in 2005]



“Other” renewable energy sources

“Other“ renewables come to 168 PJ, including industrial wood residues: • bark: 29 PJ, 17% • forestry wood chips: 10.0 PJ, 6% • wood pellets: 2.9 PJ, 2% • log wood: 71.8 PJ, 43%



Biomass consumption for different purposes

Market development of automated small-scale biomass boilers (less than100 kW)

425 1.32

3 2.12

8

3.46

6

4.93

2

4.49

2

5.19

3

6.07

7

8.87

4 10.4

67

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

pellets boilerswood chip boilersenergy crop boilers

District heating: 8%CHP,thermalpower

stations:11%

Process heat:21% Small-scale combustion

systems: 60%



Austrian market for biomass boilers

Production and domestic demand for Pellets in Austria

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Tonn

en

Österr. Pelletproduktion

Inlandsverbrauch

Prognose

Quelle: proPellets Austria, November 2007



23 pellet production plants in Austria (2007)

Domestic production and demand for Pellets in Austria

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Tonn

en

Österr. Pelletproduktion

Inlandsverbrauch

Prognose

Quelle: proPellets Austria, November 2007



Biomass district heating plants in Austria

Technologies – state-of-the-art

• Small-scale combustion technologies • Medium- and large-scale combustion technologies • Cogeneration • Gasification

Small-scale combustion technologies (SSCs) – fuels

• Log wood • Chimneys and open fireplaces • Tiled stoves • Boilers and stoves • Wood pellets • Automated tiled stoves • Boilers and stoves • Wood chips • Boilers • Other biomass – miscanthus (pellets), cereals, etc. • Boilers



Combustion principles of manually stoked SSCs

Combustion principles of automatically stoked SSCs

• Differentiation according to feeding principle • Underfeed burner • Horizontal feed burner • Top feed burner • Differentiation according to grate design • Retort/no grate • Fixed grate • Moving grate • Dumping grate



SSC products – overview

Characteristics of modern biomass SSCs

• Staged combustion • Low NOx emissions • Low dust emissions • Good mixing of flue gases and secondary air • Low CO and TOC emissions • Complete burn-out of char • High efficiency • Combustion control



• Lambda probe • Temperature probe • Air flow probe

State-of-the-art small-scale biomass furnaces



Most innovative technologies

• Flue gas condensation boiler, with an efficiency >100%, and dust emissions of only 3 mg/MJ

• Pellets/log wood/combined boiler – an integrated system, in which both parts of the

system have full individual functionality. Automatic detection and switch between modes.



Medium- to large-scale combustion technologies

• 400 kWth • Heat (and power) production • District heating, industrial applications

Medium-scale combustion technologies

• Differentiation according to feeding principle • Underfeed stoker • Moving grate, according to orientation of heat exchangers

Fuel Ash

Air

Fixed bed furnace(grate furnace)

Fuel

Ash

Air

bubbling fluidisedbed furnace

circulating fluidisedbed furnace

Air Air

Fuel

Fuel

dust firing



Cogeneration

Micro-scale (< 10 kWel) biomass CHP systems

• Stirling engine under development • Swinging piston technology under development

Small-scale (< 100 kWel) biomass CHP systems

• Stirling engine in demonstration

Medium-scale (100 – 2.000 kWel) biomass CHP systems

• Steam engine proven technology • ORC processes proven technology

Large-scale (> 2 MWel) biomass CHP systems

• Steam turbine proven technology

Biomass gasification – the Güssing plant



Research and development

• Kplus Centre of Competence – Austrian Bioenergy Centre • Knet Network of Competence – RENET Austria • K1 Centre – BIOENERGY 2020+u

Company overview

The National Centre of Competence in biomass research was founded as Kplus Centre in 2003, with funding from Kplus, COMET and other sources. It has three locations – Graz, Güssing, Wieselburg – and 55 employees. It has an annual turn-over of about 5 mill € (4 mill € Kplus business, and 1 mill € services, with an annual growth of about 100%).

Gasifier & Gas cleaning

Fuel-Storage

Gas

Control



Services – overview

• Cooperative and contract research • Engineering • Consultancy • Strategically, technically, methodological • Trainings and seminars • Networking services

Idea Fundamental-

research

Pre-competitive

research Industrial

R&D

Value added chain

Market-introduction

Combustion andenergy utilisation

Samll-scale systemsMedium and large-

scale systems

Gasification and gas utilisation

Gas productionGas cleaningGas utilisation

Modelling andsimulation

Data, analyses andmeasurement techniques

MANAGEMENT

Combustion andenergy utilisation

Samll-scale systemsMedium and large-

scale systems

Gasification and gas utilisation

Gas productionGas cleaningGas utilisation

Modelling andsimulation

Data, analyses andmeasurement techniques

MANAGEMENT

+ Biofuels



R&D highlights

• Micro-scale biomass CHP for grid independent automatic systems • Advanced gasification technologies • Second generation biofuels

Micro-scale CHP based on thermoelectrics

• Prototype operation realized for proving concept of grid independent operation • Development of stove and boiler • Scientific cooperation with German Aerospace Centre (DLR) and TECCOM

GmbH • Industrial cooperation with three boiler and stove manufacturers

Advanced gasification technologies

• Staged gasification concept/melting ash gasifier with plasma injection • Successfully implemented in laboratory • About 50 kg/h feed rate • Pressurized bubbling fluidized bed gasifier • In operation in laboratory • About 5 kg/h feed rate • Dual fluidized bed steam gasifier – the Güssing concept • Available at industrial-scale and at lab-scale

Second generation biofuels

• Synfuels from product gas from Güssing gasifier



Biomass-to-liquid

Fischer-Tropsch bio-fuels: chemistry

GASIFICATION SYNTHESIS

CO + H2 (C6H10O5)n

Carbon (C) and hydrogen (H)

bound in wood

C- and H- building blocks

WOOD SYNTHESIS GAS

Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbons

CnH2n+2

-CH2- + H2O

CARBON CHAIN FT-PRODUCT

CH2

CH22

Hydrocarbon „monomer“ -CH2-



Schema biomass-to-liquid

Conclusions and summary

Small-scale biomass combustion is the most relevant bioenergy application. SSC markets are well developed and mature technologies are available. The young pellets market is still very fragile, but respective technologies give the industry a world-wide technology leadership. The supply of pellets is secured (with Austria as a net exporter of pellets). Medium- and large-scale biomass combustion technologies are well developed for district heating systems. Country wide biomass-based district heating projects use steam engine, Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) and steam turbine state-of-the-art cogeneration. Stirling engine and swinging piston systems are being run in field tests and demonstration projects. Micro-scale CHP used for grid-independent automatic biomass combustion systems have been proven in the lab. The dual fluidized bed steam gasifier and the Güssing concept is now a world-leading biomass gasification technology. Advanced biomass gasification technologies are

Flue gas

gasification Gas cleaning Gas utilisation

Biomass

heat electricity

Steam

Fluidised bed 850 °C

Particle tar

H2S HCl

Gas engine

compression FT-Synthesis Product separation

Liquid fuel

240 - 280 °C 20 - 30 bar

catalyst

Gaseous products, off-gas

BioFiTBIOMASSBIOMASS--TOTO--FISCHERFISCHER--TROPSCHTROPSCH



available at the laboratory scale, and Syngas production has been extensively investigated.

Capturing the opportunity: Motivation and model for the Colorado Center for biorefining and biofuels – Dr. Will Medlin, C2B2, Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels

Opportunities in Colorado

Colorado offers a number of bioenergy opportunities: • World leadership in renewable energy • World leadership in agriculture for semi-arid land • Strong biotechnology industry • Traditional center for energy R&D • Diversified energy production • Gateway to the West – well suited for biofuel expansion • Most educated state in the U.S. • Entrepreneurial culture

Creation of the Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory, March 2006

Leaders met to discuss the formation of a Colorado energy research partnership. Participants included Senator Ken Salazar, CU President Hank Brown, CSU President Larry Penley, CSM President John Trefny, and NREL Director Dan Arvizu. The working group was charged with creating a collaborative effort, pursuing federal funding, and seeking immediate state support. As a result, CU, CSM, CSU and NREL formed the “Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory”. The group is now working jointly to compete for a U.S. Department of Energy contract to establish a solar research center. House Bill 06-1322 provided $2 million per year for three years to serve as matching funds for collaborative research projects in renewable energy.

Timeline for launch of C2B2

• Fall 2005: “Dream” of 2 PIs • Spring 2006: initial discussions among PIs, identification of site directors • Summer 2006: initial contacts with 6-8 potential sponsors • Fall 2006: hammering out the structure with potential sponsors



• Spring 2007: Agreements finalized, C2B2 announcement • July 2007: C2B2 officially begins operations, C2B2 Launch at Colorado

Statehouse

C2B2’s mission

C2B2 will become the world’s leading center for biorefining and biofuels research and education, will pay attention to all stakeholder needs (members, partners, students, citizens), and will work to satisfy those needs.

Research thrusts

Cross-boundary projects



Organizational Structure – developed with input from sponsoring companies

C2B2’s uniqueness

Single point of entry to cross-boundary, multi-disciplinary research (“one stop shopping”) for both shared and sponsored research (all institutions within 1 hr of CU) 3 major universities in Colorado and NREL’s National Bioenergy Center combine their faculties and facilities to allow sponsors to carry out R&D and to provide educational training and future opportunities for students on a scale that no single institution in the world could manage on its own

Sponsored research: the “tailored interface”

Sponsored research agreements are developed on an individualized basis. Sponsors can interact with C2B2 through a variety of means, including: • Direct access to PIs • RFPs developed by sponsors and/or C2B2 • C2B2-facilitated teaming of PIs



A 10% sponsored research fee defrays cost of membership on the “shared side”.

Shared research: a uniform interface

A shared research component is based on the NSF-IUCRC structure. Sponsors have a non-exclusive right to practice IP if sharing in patent costs: • Tiered fee structure • Large companies: $50k/year • Small companies (SBIR definition): $10k/year

Creating value for sponsors

Four members helped write the bylaws over a six-month period. The bylaws addressed the following priorities: • shared research (non-exclusive, royalty-free IP) • sponsored research (option for exclusive license) • equitable fee structure ($50K/$10K; 10% operations fee for sponsored projects –

up to $300K/yr to shared research) • Center Advisory Board that recommends shared projects for funding; votes of large

and small companies are equivalent • semi-annual meetings for networking, project reviews and interaction with fellows

and students.

Meetings

Meetings are generally held at one of four institutions, twice a year, on rotating basis: • Fall meeting: Selection of new research projects • Spring meeting: Poster presentations by students and postdocs • All meetings: Poster presentations by rotating group of sponsors, lots of

networking time, review of center business, panel discussions of biofuels topics, guest speaker

State and partner matching support

• State of Colorado matching funds of $500K, $750K, and $1M in Years 1, 2, and 3 for shared research

• Partner institutions providing 10% of modified direct costs up to $300K/yr for shared research

• C2B2 is anticipating $5 to $10 M/yr research program within 2 years, $10 to $20M/yr within 5 years



People and technology pipeline

The summer REU (Research Opportunities for Undergraduates) program attracts the best undergraduates to C2B2, leading to possible graduate school placement. Postdoctoral graduate opportunities lure the best recent Ph.D.s to C2B2, providing a pipeline for new technologies and helping to keep C2B2 at the forefront of biorefining and biofuels R&D. Shared research includes “seed grants” for higher risk/higher return projects.

Seed grant projects funded in Fall 2007 (based on sponsor evaluations)

• Bush, Daniel - CSU • Enhancing yield in sugar beet as a model energy crop • Darzins, Al - NREL • Establishment of a bioenergy-focused microalgae strain

collection using rapid, high-throughput methodologies • Gill, Ryan - CU • Biofilm engineering for production of cellulosic biofuels • Jimenez, Ralph - CU • Multifunctional, high-throughput optical screening of fuel-

producing microbes* • Reardon, Kenneth - CSU • Proteomic investigation of the mechanisms for lipid

storage in microalgae • Davis, Robert - CU • Sugar and enzyme recovery during saccharification with high

solids loading • Noble, Richard - CU • Alcohol/water separations using il-based polymer

membranes • Weimer, Alan - CU • Rapid solar-thermal conversion of algae to syngas • Dorgan, John - CSM • Biorefinery integration through coproduction of bioplastics • McKinnon, J. Thomas - CSM • A field-to-wheel systems optimization and process

design for a thermochemical lignocellulose-to-biofuels plant

Postdoctoral fellows program

Six-ten fellowships will be awarded in the spring of 2008. Research areas within biofuels and biorefining are open. Applications are judged primarily on the strength of the applicant. Fellowships are awarded for up to two years, covering $65,000 in direct costs per year. Diverse fellows are expected across thrusts and institutions.

Undergraduate summer research program

A 10-week summer program modeled after NSF REU program includes projects at four institutions, including cross-disciplinary and cross-institution projects. The primary objective is to recruit top graduate students. Twelve applicants were awarded positions in the current cycle; the program expects to double in size in the next 1-2 years.



Future programs

Future programs are expected to include: • Exchanges with other institutions • Exchanges with industry • Summer short courses • Special seminar series • Development of new courses

A newsletter highlights institutions and sponsors, and a website (http://c2b2web.org) provides news, project updates, meeting summaries, and job information.

What are C2B2’s overall goals?

C2B2’s goals include: • Fostering industry growth in biofuels and biorefining in the state and region • Announcements of new facilities in the Denver area • Facilitating integrated and cross-disciplinary projects to address major problems • Establishing Colorado institutions as leaders in biofuels and biorefining • Creating opportunities for our students.

Corporate sponsors

Corporate sponsors include: • Archer Daniels Midland • ASD Inc. • Aurora Biofuels • BioExtraction • Blue Sun Biodiesel • Ceres • Chevron • Cobalt Biofuels • ConocoPhillips • Copernican Energy • Dow Chemical • DuPont • General Motors • Korth O’Neil Engineering • LiveFuels • LS9 • Mascoma



• OpX Biotechnologies • PureVision Technology • Range Fuels • Rocky Mountain • Sustainable Enterprises • San Juan Bioenergy • Shell Global Solutions • Solix Biofuels • Suncor • UOP • Weyerhaeuser • W.R. Grace & Co.



Appendix A – Green Light session

This appendix summarizes the discussions that occurred during the Conference’s ‘Green Light’ session. During a Green Light session, an idea – once stated – is a good idea. Ideas are not subject to correction, modification, or debate. The purpose of this session was to identify policy ideas that we would like our regional and federal governments to consider, and ideas that would help the advancement of the bioenergy agenda in this region. Ideas identified during the Green Light session included the following:

Support a capital cost funding scheme

One of the big mechanisms that we need is to put in place is a capital cost funding scheme, perhaps even with a recharge scheme that allows residential customers to add the cost to their house payments. When they sell their property, or pass it on, then the capital cost comes back and they can then recycle it. This would allow people to get access to capital funding (for example, for home improvements), paying it off over time, and perhaps once a house is sold having those funds put back in to the pot to use again.

Model community/living lab

We were presented in the conference this week with an example of a community in Austria that seemed to be turning things around to become an energy producer. Perhaps we could take an Atlantic Canadian community that may be under siege, for whatever reason, and look at ways of treating that community as a model community or a living lab for sustainable energy practices.

Provide disincentives for electric heat and remove impediments to bioenergy alternatives

If we’re really serious about supporting bioenergy, we should take the subsidies off of installing electric heating systems and put them on bioenergy, and get rid of any taxes on bioenergy to avoid disincentives.

Make net metering more flexible and remove disincentives

Experts in the field say that net metering is an impediment to the spread and implementation of distributed bioenergy solutions. We need to remove any disincentives in current net metering schemes and make them more flexible and amenable to the actual development of in-home or small energy generation.



Bioenergy producers’ association

We come to these meetings and have lots of ideas, and one thing that would help us when thinking about producing biofuels would be a producers’ association in the Maritimes. We all face issues with the three levels of government we have to deal with, and we seem to have a shotgun effect with all these ideas going out. We need to focus our ideas in one direction, perhaps through a commodity producers’ association for biogas and biofuels. This bioenergy producers’ association would advocate a regional or Maritimes/Atlantic vision that would be able to work towards consistent policy throughout the region. We need to encourage the provincial governments to implement consistent policy throughout the region, in relation to bioenergy and biofuels.

More aggressive knowledge transfer for the agricultural sector

I’m a dairy farmer from St. Stephen. I’m here representing the dairy farmers of New Brunswick. The agriculture industry does about a billion dollars worth of business in this province. Our overall cost structure is what we’re looking for. We have to stay competitive, and we – as individual businessmen on our farms – need some knowledge transfer about efficiency and the benefits. We may want to put in some pellet stove heating and so on, but it’s actually the energy that we send out that gives us the best bang for our buck. We need more aggressive knowledge transfer with respect to available cost and operational efficiencies in order to drive cost structures down.

Create a bioenergy technology centre

We need a bioenergy, biotechnology centre – a centre of excellence – that will take us from knowledge transfer right through to technology development, R&D, the whole works, with proper government support.

Provide a standard offer program or seasonal price premiums for small energy producers

An impediment here in the province, and certainly in the Maritime provinces, is created when utilities such as Nova Scotia Power and New Brunswick Power go out for requests for proposals with the sole purpose of getting energy at the cheapest price possible. This impedes small developers from trying to get small biomass plants online. It’s fine for someone with ten megawatts, or twenty or thirty, but a four megawatt plant is very difficult to operate at the lowest cost possible. We need a standard offer program, as they use in Ontario, or an approach like that used by Hydro Quebec, where they reward small generators by during peak periods (for example, December 1st to March 31st). They may get paid six and a half cents a kilowatt hour during off-peak periods, and at other times twelve or thirteen cents.



Rather than have the incumbent power producers and utilities bid for absolutely rock-bottom price, offer either a feed-in consideration or seasonal price premiums for energy from small producers that would not only help the utilities meet peak power requirements but also provide a less difficult hurdle for small producers to overcome when trying to contribute to the overall energy solution.

Establish base information and base policy with respect to biomass harvesting and available biomass

I’m a forester here in New Brunswick. We need a clear biomass harvesting policy in this province, especially in relation to crown lands. We need to know what we can do and where we can do it, if we want to develop a supply chain with contractors to feed those plants. We have to know how much fuel we have to deal with. We also need some good studies to quantify the available biomass. We have to know how much we have to deal with.

Establish estimates of available agricultural biomass

Building on the last point, there is an incredible biomass store in this province beyond forestry. Looking at the unutilized farm material, there is a potential for enormous volumes of biomass. That needs to be considered when calculating the overall biomass energy resource. This also has implications on land use.

Pursue all viable bioenergy technologies and alternatives

We need a clear bioenergy policy to pursue all of the available bioenergy technologies, and not just the ‘best’ one.

Standardization, in association with a centre of excellence

If there was an Atlantic Bioenergy Centre, there should be a mandate for that centre (or other governing body) to push for proper standards so we don’t face a ‘wild west’ here, and so we have some control from an equipment manufacturer’s point of view over the quality of fuel that would be used.

Standardized, predictable pricing for biofuels and additives

We’ll never have a first generation of biofuels until we know what the price is. We do not have classification like any of the other provinces for B100 as a transportation fuel. I can’t see making any public or private investment to build biodiesel, and then have somebody else tell you what your price is going to be after the fact.



Understand the full consequences of action (for example, nutrient depletion)

The study must look at all of the effects, including nutrient depletion. University of New Brunswick is doing a study which is almost irrelevant because they’re not looking at the total atmospheric deposition of nutrients, and they’re not looking at putting any of the ash back, which is quite a practical way to put nutrients back if you have your plant within a reasonable range of where you’re harvesting your forest. Everything must be taken into account before you say that you cannot harvest from a given area (which in some cases is what we’re hearing).

Take a regional approach

Being a biofuels person, I spend a lot of time and money working with St FX developing and testing ethanol, biodiesel and things like that. A concern I have regarding the concept of the energy centre of excellence is that we’re going to fall into the trap of each province wanting to have its own version of the same thing, leading to redundancy. What I’d really like to see is a way to work together as a region. That’s the biggest challenge of all. It would be a shame to fragment ourselves. A regional approach will be much more powerful.

Provide good information for policy makers and decision makers

I support the concept of a unified stand. As an industry we have to respect each other. There are many sectors that can produce bioenergy. Foresters and farmers need a voice as much as the people making decisions on projects. Farmers shouldn’t be obligated to feed the poor of the world; oil tycoons aren’t. People have to realize that we don’t get these industries developed for our foresters and farmers, they needn’t worry about food because there won’t be any people left to produce it. The people making decisions on big projects (like sugar beets), face a challenge because of a lack of good information. More knowledge is more power.



Appendix B – Preliminary observations – Tim Curry, Event Chair and President, Atlantica Centre for Energy

This appendix summarizes Tim Curry’s preliminary observations, made during the Conference itself, about the progress and content of the Conference and of bioenergy in Atlantic Canada. Drivers for the evolution of the bioenergy industry include a number of forces: • Climate change is at the forefront of those forces, along with all of the things that

flow from society’s understanding of the factors affecting climate change.

• Diversity and security of our energy supplies continues to be an important issue going forward. We can no longer contemplate a future where we have one primary fuel source that comes from a long way away.

• The world price of crude oil, in and of itself, has significantly disrupted the economics around energy applications and solutions. That’s happened in a very short time. Not very long ago we were talking about the disruptive changes associated with $50-a-barrel oil, and that was just a couple of years ago.

• Rapid technological innovation in this area is now well established as a driver of change in and of itself. The art of the possible is changing, and we’re beginning to see more and more ideas become viable.

• Overriding all this is an increasingly broad and public discussion about sustainability – both in the context of climate change and in the context of our realization that it’s incumbent on us all to use all the resources at our disposal – and the notion of societal sustainability.

In terms of the benefits that we are looking to achieve, we’ve had discussions about reductions in emissions, and we’ve looked at bio-solutions that tend to support the diversity and security of energy supplies. The discussion of economic benefits clearly addressed economic disruptors, but it also included observations about energy dollars remaining closer to home, and about cost improvements and productivity improvements associated with our local industries (whether they are farms or factories or larger industrial installations) and the improvements in costs and productivity that come from integrating bio-solutions into existing processes. Coupled with that is the notion of the sustainability benefits that you can achieve when you get more complete and more intensive use of all the so-called waste streams or product streams that flow through your processes.



If we look at opportunities for this region, I think that there is an increasing commitment to the renewable sector in society, and public interest in green energy is growing. People are more aware of the need to be green, and are starting to talk about it, think about it, and make decisions on it … whether it’s what grocery bag they use coming out of the store, what fuels they put in their cars, or what they wish to use as alternative transportation. People are much more prepared to talk about green energy and green applications. We’re also fortunate in that we have a well-established presence in the region, in both the forestry and agricultural sectors, of large-scale investors and small-scale investors. That’s interesting and important. We do have pretty good diversity of the bio-space within our own relatively low population region. We also have some bright people around. We’ve had access to world-class experts at this conference, but we’ve also had access to experts who live here and do their work and innovation not very far from us. That’s encouraging. The combination of being informed by solutions in use elsewhere in the world and also developing innovations and applications at home is an important advantage for us. And as we’ve heard from a number of presenters, there’s an increased focus on policy in this area in this region by governments at both the provincial and federal level. If we now think about challenges, first we had a discussion about programs and incentives to promote investment in this area. In the context of that discussion, we also had a caution about the economic shock effect, and we had people graphing corn prices with oil prices and pointing out a period of two or three years where they got severely disrupted. That had some interesting impacts. So we need to beware of unintended consequences. If you’re going to stimulate or encourage change, what else is going to happen? It’s important that we think that through. There is also a strong possibility of real contention regarding feedstocks. There is not an unlimited supply of any resource, even a bio-resource. Sometimes you’ve got people pulling and tugging on access to feedstocks to make their business cases. That’s not new to us. It’s been a fact of life even in traditional energy applications, but it’s still there. The other thing that appeared as a theme is the need to identify and mitigate some of the institutional barriers that are still in place, that impede access to development in this sector. A one-size solution does not necessarily fit all, and we’ve had reference to a silver shotgun rather than a silver bullet, with pretty fine-gauge pellets in the barrel. We’re going to need multiple solutions to get there.



There was discussion about tipping points, and the fact that certain energy infrastructures are so dominant and so entrenched that there’s a huge amount of inertia to overcome before new ideas and applications have a chance in the market. There were some examples around E85 and flex-fuel vehicles, and the distribution infrastructure for fuels, and transportation methodologies. There are similar discussions regarding electrical generation at the edges of the grid, and about heating applications. When you have significant dominant infrastructures in place, in order to get to that so-called tipping point when things start to flow a little more freely, there’s a lot of inertia to overcome. That’s a challenge. We’ve had some really interesting practical applications of the technologies and energy solutions that have been discussed at this conference. But the ones that are most attractive economically at this stage are not simple; they involve a lot of moving parts, they involve putting applications together that haven’t in the past gone together. It’s not simple, and it isn’t something that can be easily captured in a 15-second soundbite. We’ve had discussions about challenging misconceptions, and the fact that almost any time you come up with a new idea or a new perspective, there’s someone in the wings ready to shout you down. Educating the public and addressing misinformation and misconceptions is going to be a continuing part of the effort. That includes everything from the food and fuel debate to the fear of particulates. The point is that better is good. There may not be a perfect solution, but if the solution you come up with today is better than the one you had yesterday, at least you’ve made some progress. So let’s not get too discouraged about making progress. There may not necessarily be a perfect solution to the fuels situation, or the electrical generation situation. We might need to get on the bandwagon to show that better is good, and work from there. Another thing that is a little bit foreign to someone who has spent a lot of time on large industry applications is the notion that there are benefits attainable from both large-scale and small-scale applications. They might not be the same benefits. They might not work the same way. But let’s not shut out a solution that works well at a small scale just because it doesn’t have as far-reaching an economic impact as a larger-scale application. Logistics work very differently in large-scale and small-scale applications, and sometimes that is the defining difference that determines which one works better.

What’s next

Whatever comes next in the Atlantic region, it is absolutely imperative that we think about working together in ways that we perhaps haven’t been able to do in the past. Regional cooperation and coordination is going to be absolutely critical to our success in helping move the yardsticks forward. We also need to continue to drive for better information bases, both for policymakers and for the public. There was discussion about getting detailed information about the biomass resource that’s available in both the forestry and agricultural sectors. That’s



one example of the need for better, more complete information. I don’t necessarily think that we have to wait until we have every last detail of that information base figured out, but we need to strive for better, more complete information. Lateral thinking appears to work. Again, it’s the notion of thinking outside whatever box you happen to be in, and looking at what’s going on in the next guy’s box. We really have to keep our own feet to the fire and make sure that we continue to focus on solid, practical, sustainable, economically viable solutions. There is lots of room for pie-in-the-sky and out-there thinking, but we won’t be able to make the small changes we need today to lead to large changes tomorrow unless we keep focused on things that will work in our context. We don’t need to wait for magical change to make this work. Bioenergy applications will impact our region. Are we going to make them happen, watch them happen, or wind up wondering what happened?



List of figures, charts and tables

PEI’s current energy mix .............................................................................................................. 16 Governors’ endorsements ............................................................................................................. 29 State legislature resolutions .......................................................................................................... 30 State alliance activity .................................................................................................................... 31 Renewable Energy Institute areas of focus................................................................................... 34 Increasing corn production ........................................................................................................... 38 Corn yield trends are accelerating................................................................................................. 39 Step-changes in corn potential ...................................................................................................... 39 Transgenic field trial release permits 2005-June 2007 ................................................................. 40 US corn demand – domestic livestock.......................................................................................... 41 Efficiency in ethanol production................................................................................................... 42 Corn available for feed, food and export ...................................................................................... 43 Food and fuel: U.S. corn exports .................................................................................................. 43 Food and fuel: Value of corn in retail food items......................................................................... 44 Total ethanol costs market remanaged.......................................................................................... 48 Sustainability: pesticide use in corn production ........................................................................... 49 Erosion on U.S. cropland by year ................................................................................................. 51 Corn available for feed, food and export ...................................................................................... 55 Canada’s temperature.................................................................................................................... 56 Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions ............................................................................................. 58 Change in greenhouse gas emissions, 1990-2005......................................................................... 59 US renewable fuels ....................................................................................................................... 60 World biofuel growth.................................................................................................................... 61 Bioenergy business case ............................................................................................................... 62 Biofuels: from heaven to hell! ...................................................................................................... 63 Bioenergy business case ............................................................................................................... 63 Corn ethanol energy balance......................................................................................................... 65 Farming efficiency ........................................................................................................................ 65 Greenhouse gas emissions – Canada ............................................................................................ 66 Greenhouse gas emissions – United States................................................................................... 67 Corn............................................................................................................................................... 68 Wheat ............................................................................................................................................ 69 Soybeans ....................................................................................................................................... 69 Canola and rapeseed ..................................................................................................................... 70 Commercial RTP™ Equipment, Wisconsin, USA – 40 dry TPD, operating since 1995............. 72 Renfrew Ontario - 100 Dry TPD .................................................................................................. 73 Pathway to renewable transport fuel............................................................................................. 77 Current Western Canada ethanol production................................................................................ 79 Future Western Canada ethanol production.................................................................................. 79 Total suspended particles – Examples of improvements.............................................................. 89 Dust emissions improvements in biomass technology ................................................................. 90 PureVision’s two-stage process .................................................................................................... 96



Process development unit – 2007 ................................................................................................. 96 Molecular weight distributions of lignin derived products......................................................... 100 Platform technology to transform the biorefining world ............................................................ 101 Maine Wood Harvest Trends ...................................................................................................... 103 Wood flows................................................................................................................................. 106 Canadian energy supply.............................................................................................................. 108 Possible NRTEE greenhouse gas ‘wedges’ ................................................................................ 109 Integrated bio-industry (Bio-plex) – Keys are integration and multi-products .......................... 109 External advice, partnerships and international relationships..................................................... 111 Inventory of federal and provincial initiatives and programs..................................................... 116 Inventory of expertise ................................................................................................................. 116 Upright large digester (up to 7,000 m³ Volume) ........................................................................ 119 Top-mounted mixer .................................................................................................................... 121 Standard digester design (up to 5,000 m³ Volume) ................................................................... 122 Van Gennip – 70,000 m³ pig manure.......................................................................................... 123 Modern sanitary landfill.............................................................................................................. 125 Landfill gas utilization alternatives............................................................................................. 126 Typical schematic ....................................................................................................................... 127 Combustion gas turbine .............................................................................................................. 129 Steam turbine .............................................................................................................................. 129 Waste heat – greenhouse............................................................................................................. 130 Siloxane impacts on microturbines............................................................................................. 130 Microturbine ............................................................................................................................... 131 Pipeline quality gas versus raw landfill gas................................................................................ 131 Membrane ................................................................................................................................... 132 Solvent absorption ...................................................................................................................... 133 Infrared heaters – two in Quebec ................................................................................................ 133 200 kW fuel cell.......................................................................................................................... 134 CNG vehicle fuel ........................................................................................................................ 134 Major corporations using landfill gas ......................................................................................... 135 Process flow diagram.................................................................................................................. 136 Pulp yield versus kappa no. ........................................................................................................ 137 Paper strength properties............................................................................................................. 138 Water extraction followed by Kraft pulping............................................................................... 139 Extract composition (1000 TPD) ................................................................................................ 140 Production rates versus plant size ............................................................................................... 141 Steam use for 1,000 TPD............................................................................................................ 141 Capital cost – Case A. utilities upgrade ...................................................................................... 141 Unit production cost – Case A. utilities upgrade ........................................................................ 142 Profitability analysis ................................................................................................................... 142 Discounted case flow rate of return – Case A. capital required for upgrade of WWT system... 143 Economy analysis results and DCFROR Case B. No upgrade of WWT system ....................... 143 DCFROR comparison of NorthEastern and southern mixed hardwoods – 1000 TPD, Case B. No upgrade of WWT system......................................................................................... 143



Integrated biorefinery™.............................................................................................................. 145 Standalone feedlot/biogas ........................................................................................................... 145 Standalone ethanol plant ............................................................................................................. 146 Integrated biorefinery.................................................................................................................. 147 An example of external combustor co-firing .............................................................................. 151 A study undertaken on Trenton to identify potential location of an external combustor ........... 152 Biomass consumption for different purposes ............................................................................. 157 Market development of automated small-scale biomass boilers (<100 kW).............................. 157 Austrian market for biomass boilers ........................................................................................... 158 Production and domestic demand for Pellets in Austria............................................................. 158 23 pellet production plants in Austria (2007) ............................................................................. 159 Domestic production and demand for Pellets in Austria ............................................................ 159 Biomass district heating plants in Austria .................................................................................. 160 State-of-the-art small-scale biomass furnaces ............................................................................ 163 Biomass gasification – the Güssing plant ................................................................................... 166 Fischer-Tropsch bio-fuels: chemistry ......................................................................................... 170 Schema biomass-to-liquid........................................................................................................... 171

Date post:	25-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Atlantic BIOEnergy Conference Conference proceedings · 2008. 8. 26. · Rotary grate furnace and...

Documents