Download - 2016 July Biomass Magazine

AN EYE ON EMISSIONSEMISSIONSLandfi ll Gas ProjectMeets California's Rigorous Emissions Regs Page 26

READ:Diesel Technology ImprovesBiomass Energy Carbon Life Cycle Page 30

AND:University of Iowa ScoresLandmark Permitting Agreement4

www.biomassmagazine.com

July 2016

A S T E C

FINAL PELLET MILL MAG BKCOV.indd 1 4/25/14 11:40 AM

JULY 2016 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 3

INSIDE¦

JULY 2016 | VOLUME 10 | ISSUE 7

Subscriptions Biomass Magazine is free of charge to everyone with the exception of a shipping and handling charge of $49.95 for anyone outside the United States. To subscribe, visit www.BiomassMagazine.com or you can send your mailing ad-dress and payment (checks made out to BBI International) to Biomass Magazine Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. You can also fax a subscription form to 701-746-5367. Back Issues & Reprints Select back issues are available for $3.95 each, plus shipping. Article reprints are also available for a fee. For more information, contact us at 701-746-8385 or [email protected]. Advertising Biomass Magazine provides a specifi c topic de-livered to a highly targeted audience. We are committed to editorial excellence and high-quality print production. To fi nd out more about Biomass Magazine advertising opportunities, please contact us at 701-746-8385 or [email protected]. Letters to the Editor We welcome letters to the editor. Send to Biomass Magazine Letters to the Managing Editor, 308 2nd Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203 or email to [email protected]. Please include your name, ad-dress and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity and/or space.

04 EDITOR’S NOTEPermitting ProgressBy Tim Portz

06 BUSINESS BRIEFS 08 BIOMASS CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

POWER 12 NEWS13 COLUMN

A Simple Regulatory Solution for Biogenic EmissionsBy Bob Cleaves

14 FEATUREInnovation Breeds InnovationA unique, landmark permitting agreement will allow the University of Iowa to use not only more biomass, but a wider variety.By Tim Portz

PELLETS 18 NEWS19 COLUMN

Making Marketing NewsBy Bill Bell

THERMAL 20 NEWS21 COLUMN

A Unifi ed Renewable Heating and Cooling FrontBy Ben Bell-Walker and Jarrod Petrohovich

23 CONTRIBUTIONA Brilliant Backup PlanBiomass energy facilities could benefi t greatly from a second line of defense against fi res.By Rachel Gibbons

BIOGAS 24 NEWS 25 COLUMN

2022: A Cliff for Clean Fuels and the RFS?By David Cox

26 DEPARTMENTPermission to PowerMontauk Energy overcame regulatory hurdles to develop a 23-MW landfi ll gas-to-energy project within California's South Coast Air Basin.By Katie Fletcher

ADVANCED BIOFUELS 28 NEWS 29 COLUMN

US EPA Back on TrackBy Michael McAdams

30 FEATUREThe Future of FreightDiesels continue to provide cleaner, more fuel-effi cient and less carbon-intense transportation of goods such as biomass.By Ron Kotrba

Biomass Magazine: (USPS No. 5336) July 2016, Vol. 10, Issue 7. Biomass Magazine is published monthly by BBI International. Principal Offi ce: 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. Periodicals Postage Paid at Grand Forks, North Dakota and additional mailing offi ces. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Biomass Magazine/Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58203.

COPYRIGHT © 2016 by BBI International

TM

Please recycle this magazine and remove inserts or samples before recycling

ADVERTISER INDEX¦

4B Components Ltd. 12Astec, Inc 2Biomass Engineering & Equipment 20D3 Max 35Detroit Stoker Company 17Elemental Air 24Evergreen Engineering 6KEITH Manufacturing Company 16MonitorTech Corporation 7Pellet Fuels Institute 36SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America 5

14

30

4 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | JULY 2016

Permitting Progress

I never imagined that my stint as an art stu-dent at the University of Iowa would collide in any meaningful way with my career in biomass, but recently, it has.

Our staff has been closely following the ongoing story of the university’s efforts to dra-matically increase inclusion of biomass fuel at its

power plant for a couple of years. Currently, the university is cofiring oat hulls with coal, but together with Iowa State University, it has been working to establish en-ergy crop production in the area. The bulk of our coverage has centered on those efforts, but for this month’s issue of Biomass Magazine, dedicated to emissions, permitting and regulatory compliance, I took a close look at the innovative permit-ting approach that the University of Iowa is using to give it the flexibility required to efficiently ramp up its biomass program. The university has been awarded the state of Iowa’s very first Plant-wide Applicability Limit permit (PAL), made pos-sible by amendments to the New Source Review protocols in 2002.

During interviews for my page-14 story, “Innovation Breeds Innovation,” I learned that the university’s PAL allows the institution to manage the emissions from all of its sources against one limit for each of the seven regulated criteria pollutants. There are over 450 sources on campus, and for some context, I asked about sources on the other end of the spectrum from the power plant. It was at this point that my past and present collided. One of the smallest emissions sources at the University of Iowa is a student-built, wood-fired kiln operated just once or twice a semester, a kiln that, over 20 years ago, I helped fire. And there you have it.

In her page-26 department “Permission to Power,” Associate Editor Katie Fletcher outlines how projects that have been built to drive down greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane, must still comply with existing air quality regulations, and finds that the two sometimes work at cross pur-poses. Fletcher’s story focuses almost exclusively on the Bowerman Power landfill gas-to-energy facility, highlighting the challenges states have in maintaining cur-rent regulations while working toward emerging GHG reduction and renewable energy goals.

Senior Editor Ron Kotrba’s page-30 feature, “The Future of Freight,” is a fitting bookend for the issue. In it, he establishes the vital global role that diesel fuel plays, and the efforts underway to continue to drive down the emissions as-sociated with its use. Like the other stories in this issue, Kotrba’s showcases how the biomass industry is working to deliver air quality and environmental benefits while also complying with existing regulations.

TIM PORTZVICE PRESIDENT OF CONTENT & EXECUTIVE [email protected]

¦EDITOR’S NOTE

EDITORIAL

PRESIDENT & EDITOR IN CHIEFTom Bryan [email protected]

VICE PRESIDENT OF CONTENT & EXECUTIVE EDITOR

Tim Portz [email protected]

MANAGING EDITOR Anna Simet [email protected]

SENIOR EDITOR Ron Kotrba [email protected]

NEWS EDITORErin Voegele [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITORKatie Fletcher [email protected]

COPY EDITOR Jan Tellmann [email protected]

ARTART DIRECTOR

Jaci Satterlund [email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGNERRaquel Boushee [email protected]

PUBLISHING & SALESCHAIRMAN

Mike Bryan [email protected]

CEOJoe Bryan [email protected]

VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONSMatthew Spoor [email protected]

SALES & MARKETING DIRECTORJohn Nelson [email protected]

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Howard Brockhouse [email protected]

SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERChip Shereck [email protected]

ACCOUNT MANAGERJeff Hogan [email protected]

CIRCULATION MANAGER Jessica Tiller [email protected]

MARKETING & ADVERTISING MANAGERMarla DeFoe [email protected]

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Stacy Cook, Koda Energy

Ben Anderson, University of Iowa

Justin Price, Evergreen Engineering

Adam Sherman, Biomass Energy Resource Center


INDUSTRY EVENTS¦

SWANA’s WASTECON 2016AUGUST 22-25, 2016Indiana Convention CenterIndianapolis, IndianaWASTECON is the premier solid waste industry-focused conference that features the latest news, education, advancements and products to help you achieve success in your business, all in one setting. WASTECON offers opportunities to see what’s new in collection, processing, marketing and manage-ment of compost, recyclables and solid waste. Join thousands of industry professionals for training, technical sessions, exhibits and networking opportu-nities. Explore a variety of new topics and expand your knowledge of what’s happening in solid waste management.1-800-GO-SWANA | www.wastecon.org

International Biomass Conference & ExpoAPRIL 10-12, 2017Minneapolis Convention CenterMinneapolis, MinnesotaOrganized by BBI International and produced by Bio-mass Magazine, this event brings current and future producers of bioenergy and biobased products to-gether with waste generators, energy crop growers, municipal leaders, utility executives, technology pro-viders, equipment manufacturers, project develop-ers, investors and policy makers. It’s a true one-stop shop––the world’s premier educational and network-ing junction for all biomass industries.866-746-8385 | www.biomassconference.com

2017 International Fuel Ethanol Workshop & ExpoJUNE 26-28, 2017Minneapolis Convention CenterMinneapolis, MinnesotaFrom its inception, the mission of the event has remained constant: The FEW delivers timely pre-sentations with a strong focus on commercial-scale ethanol production––from quality control and yield maximization to regulatory compliance and fiscal management. The FEW is also the ethanol indus-try’s premier forum for unveiling new technologies and research findings. The program extensively cov-ers cellulosic ethanol while remaining committed to optimizing existing grain ethanol operations.866-746-8385 | www.fuelethanolworkshop.com

Biomass Magazine Webinar SeriesBiomass Magazine offers complimentary webinars to attendees looking to expand their knowledge of the biomass industry. Please visit the website to view upcoming and past webinar topics.866-746-8385 | www.biomassmagazine.com/pages/webinar/

New for 2016!Co-Located with

WASTECON2016-20MEDIA-2�3page-vertical.indd 1 6/8/2016 4:23:10 PM


Fecon adds regional manager

Fecon Inc. has add-ed Devin Chambers as regional manager of its Mid-South region, cov-ering Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Cham-bers has more than a decade of territory management experience. He is also experienced in the development and implementation of sales and marketing strategies, dealer recruitment and develop-ment, sales and service training, and direct sales.

Harvest Power adds to leadership team

Harvest Power Inc. has added Gary Agui-naga as chief operating officer of its energy business. Aguinaga has 25 years of experience in waste-to-energy, including the development, construction, and operation of multiple large-scale waste-to-energy facilities throughout North America and Europe. He most recently served as vice president of international opera-tions and business development at Wheelabra-tor Technologies.

Rural Energy earns certification

U.K.-based Rural Energy has completed the combined-heat-and-power (CHP) design and installation training course from Bosch Commercial and Industrial. The course was comprised of two days of training and means

the biomass specialist is now a certified tech-nology partner of Bosch, a manufacturer of heating and cooling products.

Enviva Forest Conservation Fund announces awards

The Enviva Forest Conservation Fund has announced the recipients of its 2016 grants. The fund, established by Enviva Holdings LP and administered by the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, is awarding $500,000 in 2016 to preservation and conservation programs that span more than 2,000 acres of environmentally sensitive bottomland and wetland forests in North Carolina and Virginia. The four awards were made to the Nature Conservancy North Car-olina Chapter, the Triangle Land Conservan-cy, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Nature Conservancy Virginia Chapter.

EPA announces Nutrient Recycling Challenge winners

The U.S. EPA has announced the win-ners of Phase I of the Nutrient Recycling Challenge, a competition to develop afford-able technologies to recycle nutrients from livestock manure. Two of the four winning projects focus on anaerobic digestion. Bo Hu, Hongjian Lin, and Xin Zhang of the Univer-sity of Minnesota were recognized for a pro-cess to create dry biosolids fertilizer by using a novel anaerobic digestion and solid-liquid sep-arations system. Hiroko Yoshida of Centrisys Corp. was recognized for a project that uses carbon dioxide stripping and other processes to create a range of fertilizers from anaerobi-cally digested manure. The American Biogas Council is among the nearly 20 partners in the challenge.

Pacific Ag opens new field office Pacific Ag has opened a field office near Fargo, North Dakota, to serve the increasing demand for wheat straw residue among the dairy, beef, mushroom and erosion control industries. The company has hired Tom and Stephanie Borgen, local farmers and wheat straw providers, as regional managers to develop partnerships with growers and drive sales of wheat straw to target markets.

PEOPLE, PRODUCTS & PARTNERSHIPSBusiness Briefs

Chambers

Carlyne Parillon, Rural Energy senior design engineer (left); Paul Clark, Rural Energy managing director; Jonathan Mann, Rural Energy estimating and bid manager; Carl Arntzen, Worcester Bosch managing director; Kevin Agutter, Rural Energy business development manager. PHOTO: RURAL ENERGY


Business BriefsUNTHA adds team member UNTHA has added Andreas Senkbeil to its team. Senkbeil has worked in the waste management sector for the past four years and will be responsible for the company’s growth in the Asian Pacific market, including Thailand, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Malaysia, China and Australia.

WPAC appoints president

Michele Rebiere resigned as president of the Wood Pellet Association of Canada in May, citing a need to focus on her role as chief financial officer of Viridis Energy as the company pursues the sale of its business. She served on the WPAC’s board for five years, and spent one year as president. WPAC has appointed former Vice President Rene Landry as president. He will assume the role until the next general meeting of the membership is held in September. Landry is director of pellet operations for Nova Scotia-based Shaw Re-sources, which operates two plants in Atlantic Canada.

SBP approves PwC as certification body for Canada, US

The Sustainable Biomass Partnership has announced PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada LLP has become the third SBP-approved cer-tification body. PwC has provided evidence that it meets the SBP requirements regarding its existing accreditations and has demon-strated sufficient resource and competence to manage the SBP certification scheme under the SBP Framework, which enables producers of woody biomass to demonstrate that they source their raw material responsibly and that the material complies with regulations, includ-ing sustainability requirements applicable to power generators burning woody biomass to

produce energy. PwC has been approved for certification of biomass producers in the U.S. and Canada. These producers typically include pellet or wood chip mills, and the biomass supply chain.

PFI qualifies new facilities under standards program

The Pellet Fuels Institute has announced the qualification of pellet fuel manufacturer NWP Jasper LLC of Jasper, Tennessee, into the PFI Standards Program. New England Wood Pellet, a company with several previ-ously qualified facilities, also added to the program a newly qualified facility, Allegheny Pellet in Youngsville, Pennsylvania. The PFI Standards Program is a third-party accredita-tion program providing specifications for resi-dential and commercial-grade pellet fuel, now representing 13 pellet manufacturing compa-nies, among them 22 facilities.

AFS, Greenlane Biogas sign 2-year contract manufacturing agreement

British Columbia-based AdvancedFlow Systems Inc., a subsidiary of AdvanTec Glob-al Innovations Inc., recently added Greenlane Biogas Ltd. to its existing portfolio of contract manufacturing clients by signing a two-year contract manufacturing agreement. AFS, along with its sister companies Surround Technolo-gies and Advanced Bending Technologies, is a vertically integrated industrial group that specializes in providing contract manufactur-ing solutions for a diverse group of companies with an equally diverse range of products.

WesTech, Cleanergy announce partnership

WesTech has partnered with Cleanergy to bring the Cleanergy GasBox biogas generator to the U.S. The Cleanergy GasBox generates electricity and heat from biogas using a Stirling engine. The GasBox requires minimal-to-no gas cleaning which allows for small and mid-size wastewater treatment plants to achieve the power-generating benefits of biogas utili-zation. The system can run on biogas with a methane concentration as low as 18 percent, which alleviates the need at larger plants to burn off this biogas with a natural gas supple-ment.

BUSINESS BRIEFS¦

Senkbeil

LandryRebiere


Templeborough Biomass Plant

Location Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England.Engineer/builder Interserve Construction Ltd., Babcock & Wilcox VølundPrimary fuel Commercial and municipal wood wasteBoiler type Babcock & Wilcox Vølund multifuel boilerNameplate capacity 41 MWCombined heat and power Yes

Government incentives

IPP/utility IPPGroundbreaking date Q2 2015Start-up date August 2017A key element of the project—replacement of the old River Don bridge near the plant—was completed in late May. The old bridge was lifted out, and a new bridge, lifted in as a single piece weighing 153 metric tons, was craned into position.

In most North American locations, warmer and dryer weather has arrived, bringing with it a clear view of the finish line for some projects, and for others, the opportunity to get shovels and backhoes in the ground and begin laying concrete.

Hanging up hardhats this quarter is the crew at Green Energy Team, which is now sending power to the grid via its 7.5-MW, albizia- and eucalyptus-fired power plant in Kauai, Hawaii, as well as the team at the U.S. DOE Savannah River Site district heating expansion. Blue Sphere’s 5- and 3-MW biogas plants in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Johnston, Rhode Island, are structurally complete, and though faced with some extended delays, will be online imminently.

Meanwhile, PHG Energy has advanced beyond dirt work at the Lebanon, Tennessee, waste-to-energy gasification plant, and after a robust fundraising and financing effort, ZooShare Biogas Cooperative broke ground on its animal waste-based power project in Toronto, Ontario.

On the other side of the globe, a host of coal-to-biomass conversions and greenfield developments have reached peak construction. DONG Energy’s Studstrup and Skaerbaek power stations will both provide district heating to Denmark homes via pellets and wood chips, respectively, and the 41-MW Templeborough Biomass Plant in South Yorkshire, England, is well beyond going

vertical, as is Covanta Energy’s Poolbeg, Dublin, waste-to-energy plant, which has secured its management team and is now filling plant operator positions.

While policy uncertainty is present in both the U.S. and Europe, next quarter’s BCUD is likely to report hefty progress and more completions, as well as new projects finally reaching the active construction milestone.

If your project is or will soon be under construction and you would like to see it featured in the Biomass Construction Update, email Anna Simet at [email protected]

Biomass CONSTRUCTION UPDATEThe Noise of Summer By Anna Simet

TEMPLEBOROUGH BIOMASS PLANTPHOTO: TEMPLEBOROUGH BIOMASS PLANT

DUBLIN WASTE-TO-ENERGYPHOTO: COVANTA ENERGY

Dublin Waste-to-Energy Ltd.

Location Poolbeg, Dublin, IrelandEngineer/builder Covanta Energy Corp.Primary fuel Municipal solid wasteBoiler type Duro Dakovic steam boilerNameplate capacity 58 MWCombined heat and power NoGovernment incentives Ireland’s renewable feed-in tariff IPP or utility IPPGroundbreaking date Q4 2014Start-up date 2017The plant is about 60 percent complete with startup scheduled for early 2017. The operations management staff is in place, and Covanta is now filling plant operator positions.

The River Don bridge is replaced at the Templeborough Biomass Plant.


Biomass Power Pellets Biogas Thermal Advanced Biofuel

City of Lebanon, Tennesee, Waste-to-Energy Facility

Location Lebanon, TenneseeEngineer/builder PHG Energy, Applied Chemical Technology Primary fuel Waste wood, sewer sludge and scrap tiresBoiler type PHG downdraft gasifierNameplate capacity 400 kilowattsCombined heat and power No

Government incentives $250,000 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation grant

IPP/Utility IPPGroundbreaking date April 2016Start-up date Fall 2016Work on-site is quickly progressing from concrete foundations to the erection of steel structures.

Green Energy Team LLC

Location Koloa, Kauai, HawaiiEngineer/builder Standardkessel Baumgarte Group (SKG)Primary fuel Eucalyptus and albiziaBoiler type Pusher-type grate with natural circulation steam generatorNameplate capacity 7.5 MWCombined heat and power YesGovernment incentives N/AIPP or utility IPPGroundbreaking date January 2013Start-up date Q4 2015The plant is online, selling its power to Kauai Island Utility Cooperative. It will supply about 11 percent of Kauai’s annual electricity needs.

Highland Pellets

Location Pine Bluff, ArkansasDesign/builder Astec Inc.Export Port Port of South LouisianaExport location EuropePellet Grade Industrial premiumAnnual capacity 500,000 metric tonsFeedstock tree stem and waste woodGroundbreaking date January 2016Start-up date Q4 2017Mechanical erection of line 1 began in early May, with work on line 2 to begin mid-June. Under-ground electrical is complete on line 1 and 2 and 50 percent complete on line 3 (four lines total). Wood yard and rail loop work has begun. The test production target of line 1 is November, with a goal of reaching full facility operations toward the end of 2017.

LEBANON WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITYPHOTO: PHG ENERGY

Chip Energy Inc.

Location Goodfield, IllinoisDesign/builder Chip EnergyExport port N/AExport location N/APellet Grade Pellets, briquettes and logsAnnual Capacity 36,500 metric tonsFeedstock Waste wood, energy crops, agricultural residueGroundbreaking date 2013Start-up date Q3/Q4 2016Plant employees and installers completed the roof in four days in early June. Work to finish internal equip-ment installation is ongoing.

Colombo Energy Inc.-Greenwood

Location Greenwood County, South Carolina

Design/builder The Navigator Company (previously called Portucel)

Export port N/A

Export location EuropePellet Grade Industrial premium pelletsAnnual Capacity 460,000 metric tonsFeedstock Forest wasteGroundbreaking date March 2015Start-up date Summer 2016By late April, most of the planned workforce of 70 had been recruited. Equipment fitting was due to be complete in May, followed by commissioning and trials. Production is planned to begin in late July.

Blue Sphere - Waste To Energy Power Plant Johnston

Location Johnston, Rhode IslandEngineer/Builder AUSTEP/T. Ortega GainesSubstrate(s) Organic/food wasteDigester type/technology Conical tank utilizing AUSTEP's Cruise Control SystemGas cleaning technology AUSTEP biogas washing system/wet scrubberBiogas production capacity N/ABiogas end use ElectricityPower capacity 3.2 MWGroundbreaking date March 2015Start-up date Summer 2016The plant is structurally complete, but not yet sending power to the grid.

CHIP ENERGYPHOTO: CHIP ENERGY

ProjectComplete


ZooShare Biogas Coop., Toronto Zoo

Location TorontoEngineer/Builder ReGenerate

Substrate(s) Combination of 3,000 tons of zoo manure and 14,000 tons of local food waste.

Digester type/technology Complete-mix wet anaerobic digester Gas cleaning technology N/A

Biogas production capacity N/A

Biogas end use ElectricityPower capacity 500 kilowattsGroundbreaking date Q1 2016Start-up date Q4 2016/Q1 2017A groundbreaking ceremony was held in late April. The project is projected to begin operations in December or early next year. Electricity will be fed into Ontario’s grid under a 20-year feed-in tariff contract.

Roeslein Alternative Energy of Missouri LLC

Location Northern MissouriEngineer/builder Roeslein Alternative Energy LLCSubstrate(s) Hog manureDigester type/technology Lagoon style, floating impermeable coverGas cleaning technology Molecular sieve/PSA

Biogas production capacity 2 million-plus MMBtu/year

Biogas end use CNG and LNGPower capacity N/AGroundbreaking date May 2014Start-up date First pipeline injections in June 2016The first RNG will be injected into the ANR pipeline sometime this summer. The second phase of the project, a prairie grass restoration effort that will produce additional feedstock, is underway.

DOE's Savannah River Site Biomass Heating Plant

Location Aiken, South CarolinaEngineer/builder Ameresco Inc.Primary fuel Forest residueBoiler type Fluidized bedHeat enduse District heatGovernment incentives/grants N/AGroundbreaking date May 2015Start-up date Spring 2016The plant is complete and was slated to be operational in June-July.

ProjectComplete

Blue Sphere - Waste To Energy Power Plant Charlotte

Location Charlotte, North CarolinaEngineer/Builder AUSTEP/T. Ortega GainesSubstrate(s) Organic/food wasteDigester type/technology Conical tank utilizing AUSTEP's Cruise Control SystemGas cleaning technology AUSTEP biogas washing system/wet scrubberBiogas production capacity N/A

Biogas end use ElectricityPower capacity 5.2 MWGroundbreaking date March 2015Start-up date Summer 2016The plant is structurally complete, but not yet sending power to the grid.

BLUE SPHERE CHARLOTTEPHOTO: BLUE SPHERE

¦CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

ZOOSHAREPHOTO: ZOOSHARE BIOGAS CORP.

SURREY ORGANIC BIOFUEL FACILITYPHOTO: ORGAWORLD CANADA

Surrey Organic Biofuel Facility, Shanks Group

Location Surrey, British Columbia

Engineer/Builder Design: Orgaworld Canada; Contractor: Smith Bros & Wilson; Engineer: Waste Treatment Technologies-NL

Substrate(s) 115,000 metric tons of organic waste annuallyDigester type/technology Orgaworld’s Biocel, dry AD

Gas cleaning technology Greenlane Biogas water scrubbing biogas upgrading technology

Biogas production capacity 7 million-plus cubic meters

Biogas end use RNG, heatPower capacity N/AGroundbreaking date Q1 2015Start-up date Early 2017Construction is ongoing and on track to meet operational target. Biogas will be upgraded and used by the city of Surrey.


Biomass Power Pellets Biogas Thermal Advanced Biofuel

Diamond Green Diesel

Location Norco, LouisianaDesign/builder Darling and Valero Energy Corp.Process technology UOP/Eni Ecofining process technologyBiofuel/biochemical product(s) Renewable DieselFeedstock Recycled animal fat, used cooking oil, corn oil

Production capacity 275 Mmgy

Type of RINs D4Coproducts N/AGroundbreaking date Under expansion

Start-up date Late 2017Completion is expected late 2017, with production to ramp up in early 2018. The plant will operate at full capacity throughout the expansion phase, excluding up to 30 days of downtime for final tie-ins.

Central MN Renewables LLC

Location Little Falls, MinnesotaDesign/builder WeitzProcess technology Advanced fermentation processBiofuel/biochemical product(s) N-butanol, acetoneFeedstock Corn

Production capacity 21 MMgy

Type of RINs Green Biologics Ltd.Groundbreaking date Q4 2015

Start-up date Q3 2016

Green Biologics has selected Acme Hardesty and Nexeo Solutions as its U.S. distributions partners and aims to start up the plant in late 2016.

ENVIA Energy Oklahoma City LLC

Location Oklahoma City, OklahomaDesign/builder Ventech Engineers International LLCProcess technology Velocys Fischer-Tropsch reactorBiofuel/biochemical product(s) Diesel, synthetic waxes and napthaFeedstock Landfill gas and natural gas

Production capacity TBA

Type of RINs D3

Coproducts TBAGroundbreaking date May 2015

Start-up date First half of 2016

Fabrication of all the modular process units was recently completed. The project is currently expected to be mechanically complete by mid-2016

Skærbæk Power Station, Dong Energy

Location Kolding, DenmarkEngineer/builder B&W VollundPrimary fuel Wood chipsBoiler type B&W Vollund fluidized bedNameplate thermal capacity 280 MWth

Heat enduse District heat and electricity

Government incentives/grants N/AGroundbreaking date September 2014Start-up date Early 2017The conversion is in full swing. In April, the two 85 metric-ton steam drums were hoisted 45 meters to on top of the station's boilers. Cladding of the boiler house began in May. DONG expects to start commissioning in the fall, enabling the station to supply district heating in the 2016-'17 heating season.

SKÆRBÆK POWER STATIONPHOTO: DONG ENERGY

Studstrup Power Station

Location Aahus, DenmarkEngineer/builder Dong ENERGYPrimary fuel Wood pelletsBoiler type 350 MWe Deutsche Babcock CHPNameplate thermal capacity 455 MJ

Heat enduse District heat

Government incentives/grants N/AGroundbreaking date Conversion of Unit No. 3 began in 2014.Start-up date Q4 2016The 65,000 metric ton-capacity silo was completed in May. More than 800 meters of closed conveyor belts have been installed to transport the wood pellets from the harbor to the silo and into the boiler. Once testing of the transport system and silo is complete, the first wood pellets will arrive at the station's harbor by ship, in preparation for the coming heating season.

STUDSTRUP POWER STATIONPHOTO: DOKA

DIAMOND GREEN DIESELPHOTO: DARLING


The Federal Energy Regulatory Com-mission Office of Energy Projects recently released its Energy Infrastructure Update for March 2016, reporting the U.S. added nine bio-mass units with a combined 33 MW of capac-ity during the first quarter of this year. All nine units were added in March. During the same period of 2015, only 10 biomass units with a combined capacity of 16 MW were placed into service.

Overall, the U.S. added 67 generating units during the first quarter with a combined capacity of 1,309 MW, down from 90 units and 1,786 MW during the same period of 2015.

As of the close of March, the U.S. had 16.71 GW of biomass capacity, which equates to 1.43 percent of total capacity. Of the non-hydro renewables, only wind has a higher share of installed generating capacity.

PowerNews

In May, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delayed oral arguments on the U.S. EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Oral arguments were originally scheduled to be heard June 2 by a panel of three judges, but will now go en banc, or before a full 11-judge panel bench, on Sept. 27. The new court date is expected to speed up the case’s final resolution, as the losing party likely would have appealed for an en banc hearing.

The Clean Power Plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The EPA published rule-making for the plan in the Federal Register in October 2015. Several lawsuits were filed in response to the CPP, including one signed by 24 states. Earlier this year the Supreme Court granted a request to delay implementation of the CPP until the legal challenge field in the lower appeals court is resolved.

Also in May the EPA announced it defer-ring action on a petition for reconsideration regarding the treatment of biomass in carbon pollution standards for new, modified and re-constructed electric generating units pending “further on-going consideration of the un-derlying issue of whether and how to account for biomass when cofiring with fossil fuels.”

FERC: 33 MW of biomass capacity added during first quarter

Court delays CPP oral arguments

New generation in-service (new build and expansion)Primary fuel type

Jan.-March 2016 (MW)

Jan.-March 2015 (MW)

Coal 0 0Natural Gas 18 458Nuclear 0 0Oil 0 0Water 29 2Wind 707 861Biomass 33 16Geothermal steam 0 45Solar 522 404Waste heat 0 0Other 0 0Total 1,309 1,786SOURCE: FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Corporate Half Page Vertical Ad - BM.indd 1 3/23/2016 2:58:04 PM


There’s a lot about the Clean Power Plan that remains unsettled, including whether it will survive legal challenges. Also at the top of the list is how the plan will eventually treat biomass.

For us, there is a very simple solution: If fuel is derived from residues, whether it’s forest, agricultural or urban wood waste, it is renewable. Power generated us-ing these fuels should fully qualify as a carbon reduction strategy.

The U.S. EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board has ad-mirably set out to try to definitively calculate emissions from all biogenic sources, including many different scenarios like land use change, energy crops, and other situations that might produce biogenic fuel. The prob-lem with this approach is that it’s nearly impossible to account for these widely varying conditions in a simple, clear equation that, for example, could help guide a state policy director who is trying to determine the role for biomass in his or her state’s carbon reduction plan.

The good news is that a complicated equation is really not necessary to create a role for existing bio-mass within the Clean Power Plan. In the absence of a comprehensive biogenic carbon calculation tool, we know plenty about the carbon benefits of using residues for biomass power. Virtually all scientists who have studied this issue agree that utilizing low-value materials and byproducts as fuel for biomass power is beneficial to the environment and vastly preferable to the use of fossil fuels.

We continue to urge the EPA to make this distinc-tion as soon as possible to encourage states to include biomass power in their state implementation plans. The EPA has emphasized flexibility for states in meeting their carbon reduction targets, but failing to clearly define biomass could have the unintended effect of discouraging states from building new and existing biomass into their plans. A positive signal from the EPA would ensure that states use every tool at their disposal for reducing greenhouse gases, maintaining a steady economy and keeping a stable power supply coursing through the electric grid.

It’s important for biomass to have clarity under the Clean Power Plan. Across the country, facilities are challenged to compete with low natural gas prices, and regulatory certainty could influence states to support facilities now so that they can be relied on in the future.

Carbon reduction is just one among the many benefits of using residues for biomass power. Biomass gives value to materials that are often worthless or even detrimental. Biomass facilities purchase or remove hazardous fuel, slash piles, thinnings and overgrowth from federal lands and forests, reducing the risk for catastrophic wildfires. Because of biomass, foresters, landowners and loggers are able to get more value from their harvests, promoting land maintenance and preservation rather than selling it for development. Many farmers sell their orchard prunings and other agricultural waste to biomass facilities rather than open burning, the traditional way to dispose of these materi-als. According to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, using biomass in a boiler with up-to-date environmental control technologies is a way to remove up to 99 percent of the particulate matter released by burning wood.

The EPA could ensure that states are able to con-tinue reaping these benefits now and well into the future by designating biomass from residues as an accepted renewable fuel under the Clean Power Plan. The SAB process for determining how to treat other types of biogenic fuels could still continue while excluding what we already agree on: Biomass from residues is carbon beneficial.

It would be a shame—for the biomass industry and its supply chain, the power grid, the EPA, states and the U.S. Forest Service—to exclude biomass by default.

Author: Bob Cleaves

President, Biomass Power [email protected]

A Simple Regulatory Solution for Biogenic Emissions

POWER¦

BY BOB CLEAVES


I n n o v a t i o nBreeds InnovationThe University of Iowa was issued the state’s first Plant-wide Applicability Limit, granting its biomass program much-needed operational flexibility. BY TIM PORTZ

Just upstream from the Univer-sity of Iowa’s power plant is a wood-fired kiln that is utilized each semester by art students in

the university’s ceramics program. This kiln, fired intermittently, is one the smallest of 456 individual emissions sources on campus. Still, the kiln car-ries an insignificant emission unit num-ber and is identified in the university’s operating permit. In stark contrast, the power plant contains the largest of the 456 sources on campus. It generates more than 90 percent of the univer-sity’s annual emissions, and is a key ele-ment of the university’s ambitious sus-tainability and clean energy goals. “In 2010, our then-President Sally Mason and Karl Brooks, the U.S. EPA Region 7 administrator, developed and agreed to seven different sustainability targets for the university, the second of which was to obtain 40 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2020,” says Ingrid Anderson, J.D., an environmen-tal compliance specialist at the univer-sity.

The responsibility of meeting that goal in a cost-effective manner fell on the shoulders of the university’s facili-ties management team. “Our facilities folks looked at all of the options, and recognized that biomass was the most

viable option because it didn’t require significant up-front capital require-ments,” Anderson says. “We could use our existing assets and infrastructure and switch to a renewable fuel source, that being biomass.”

The university began searching for local, reliable sources of biomass waste streams, eventually focusing on oat hulls from a grain processing facil-ity in nearby Cedar Rapids. At the same time, work began on the development of purpose-grown energy grass infra-structure in the local area. In order to cofire a growing percentage of bio-mass with coal at the power station, the university began committing time and resources to feedstock procurement, energy crop establishment and farmer recruitment. While the energy and in-novation these critical efforts require are vital if the university is to achieve its goals, a less-celebrated, but no-less important permitting approach may ultimately be regarded as the project’s most important innovation.

Plantwide Applicability LimitIn March, the Iowa Department

of Natural Resources issued the Uni-versity of Iowa the state’s first Plant-wide Applicability Limit (PAL) permit. More accurately, the Iowa DNR issued

the university seven PALs, one for each criteria pollutant. “That’s how a PAL is organized, one for each criteria pollut-ant,” says Sarah Piziali, supervisor of air quality construction permit pro-gram at the Iowa DNR. “So there is a PAL for each of three types of partic-ulate matter (PM). There’s PM, PM10 and PM2.5 and then there are PALs for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sul-fur dioxide and volatile organic com-pounds (VOCs).”

A PAL is an alternative permit-ting approach that provides entities with multiple emissions sources an increased flexibility across their emis-sions landscape when it comes to as-set utilization, modification and fuel sources. PALs were made possible by some reforms to New Source Review provisions in the Clean Air Act in 2002. “There wasn’t a lot of flexibility built into those regulations, which is part of why, in 2002, they came out with these alternate regulatory approaches,” An-derson says. “Institutions needed more flexibility to try new things.”

Simply stated, a PAL moves an in-stitution away from a source-by-source approach to emissions compliance, and toward a facility-wide approach, giving institutions flexibility that they would not otherwise have. Previously, if the

¦POWER


The power plant at the University of Iowa is the largest source of criteria pollutants on campus. It is also the key element in its sustainability initiatives. The Iowa DNR awarded the university with a Plant-wide Applicability Limit, which provides it with the flexibility it needs to continue to ramp up the use of biomass fuel at the plant.

PHOTO: UNIVERSITY OF IOWA


university was going to add or modify emissions generating equip-ment, it would be required to complete prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) analysis. In other words, the university would have to determine if the new or changed emissions source would deteriorate the local air quality. This process is labor-intensive, can tax an institution’s busy facilities staff, and can also create some uncertainty around the emissions control equipment that will ulti-mately be required for the project. “The opportunity that we have with this PAL permit is that we take a facility-wide cap on emis-sions, and then because of that, the campus is considered to be in compliance with all of those PSD requirements,” Anderson says. “So now, we can do a project, we can modify or add equipment, and we don’t have the ambiguity of, ‘does PSD apply’ and what controls we might need to install to comply with those require-ments.”

With a PAL permit, the university is free to manage all of its emissions sources as it sees fit, as long as it remains under the cap for each criteria pollutant. For example, the university’s facility-wide cap on carbon monoxide is 444.74 tons per year. If all of the sources together do not exceed this cap, the university is in com-pliance with that PAL. This flexibility is a perfect fit for the ongo-ing work at the power plant to increase the amount of biomass fuel that it uses, work that will likely result in biomass inclusion rates changing each year. Without a PAL, the power station would likely find itself in a nearly perpetual permit review process, bog-ging an effort the university is hoping to accelerate. “In the past, if the university wanted to include a new biomass fuel in its boilers, without the PALs, they would have to do a PSD analysis showing that this new fuel will not increase their emissions above the PSD significance levels for each criteria pollutant that they would emit,” Piziali explains. “And traditionally, carbon monoxide would be the pollutant that they were most concerned about. So they would have to show that the addition of this new fuel would not trigger a PSD requirement. Now that they have the PAL, they are allowed to increase their emissions from the boilers to whatever they need, as long as the overall emissions for that pollutant at the university do not exceed the cap set out in the PAL.”

The university is still required to meet emissions limits set forth in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Piziali adds, as well as the New Source Performance Standards and hazardous air pollutant standards.

Capped Emission Levels

Pollutant and AbbreviationPotential Emissions

(Tons per Year)Particulate Matter 2.5 PM2.5 85.90

Particulate Matter 10 PM10 97.72

Particulate Matter PM 111.51

Sulfur Dioxide SO2 1602.97

Nitrogen Oxides NOx 751.84

Volatile Organic Compounds VOC 172.75

Carbon Monoxide CO 444.73

POWER¦


This operational freedom does call for increased monitoring and tracking of monthly emissions, however. “This freedom to construct new or modify their existing equipment comes with the added responsibility and burden of having to track their emissions to a great detail,” Piziali says. “They weren’t having to do that be-fore. They are getting some flexibility to shift their emissions al-lowances of the pieces of equipment that they’d like to modify or operate differently over the whole facility, but in exchange, they are to track what they are doing very closely.”

In order to make monthly emissions tracking more feasible, the university uses emissions factors and worst-case scenarios on a sizeable number of the emissions sources at the university. “Con-sider the wood-fired kiln at the art school,” Anderson says. “We had to go with a worst-case scenario for that source, because put-ting in some sort of monitoring apparatus in the kiln just wasn’t feasible. We worked hard, in collaboration with staff from the Iowa DNR, with one-off situations like that to make sure that we were protective of our environmental quality, while also arriving at a workable way to account for those emissions.” Because the vast majority of the university’s emissions emanate from the power plant, those emissions will be monitored very closely.

Ramping UpTo meet the ambitious goals the university established for it-

self—40 percent renewable energy by 2020—the inclusion of bio-mass will have to more than double from current inclusion rates. “In 2015, we were at 15 percent renewable, and I’d say all of that was from biomass cofiring,” Anderson says. In 2016, she expects to see inclusion rates closer to 20 percent. “I always tell people that this isn’t a linear progression,” she says. “A lot of the groundwork we’re laying now should allow us to ramp up significantly in the last few years before 2020. We’re doing some really innovative stuff with biomass, and this permit was another innovative solution to remove some hurdles and to pave the way to increased biomass usage on campus. Innovation breeds innovation, that’s how I like to look at it.”

Whether the university is ultimately able to grow its biomass inclusion rate to 40 percent in less than four years remains to be seen. However, with the issuance of the PAL, its air permit will not be the bottleneck in its efforts. The permit, valid until 2026, provides the university the flexibility to ramp up its biomass in-clusion well beyond the goals set forth in 2010. “Our hope is to keep increasing the percentage of biomass as much as possible,” Anderson says. “We’re not interested in hitting 40 percent and then staying there. We want to keep working toward as much biomass as possible.”

Author: Tim PortzExecutive Editor, Biomass Magazine

[email protected]

POWER¦


PelletNewsAdvanced Torrefaction Systems LLC recently collaborated

with Idaho National Laboratory to test a catalytic oxidation tech-nology that aims to address problems that have hampered the de-velopment of torrefaction plants.

Highly volatile gases, mainly carbon monoxide (CO) and a wide range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are produced during the torrefaction process. Those contain significant energy that is wasted if not beneficially utilized. ATS’s patented TorreCat technology uses an oxidation catalyst to combust those volatile gases and convert them to an inert gas stream of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and steam. The inert gas can be used as an industrial heat source. When cooled, it can also be used in downstream processes.

ATS worked with INL to design and install an oxidation cata-lyst in the INL’s torrefaction system in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Two rounds of tests were performed at different temperature levels. Tyler Westover, an INL engineer who oversaw the experiment, said that “the tests were successful and the catalyst destroyed CO and VOCs below detection levels. In additi on, the inert gas stream from the catalyst was successfully used directly in the reac-tor as a heat source.”

Wood Resources International’s North American Wood Fiber Review reported North American overseas pellet exports increased for the third consecutive quarter during the final three months of 2015, increasing 7 percent from the prior quarter and reaching more than 1.7 million tons.

During the fourth quarter of last year, Canadian exports increased 17 percent when

compared to the previous quarter, with ship-ments to both Europe and Asia increasing.

In the U.S., exports from the industrial pellet sector in the South are all flowing to Eu-rope, primarily to the U.K. Newly operating fa-cilities in the South helped exports from Gulf ports to increase by nearly 70 percent between the second quarter of 2015 and the final quar-ter of the year. However, shipments to Europe

fell during the first quarter of this year. The NAWFR predicts the decrease is a temporary pause caused by lower demand in Europe due to the unusually warm winter.

For the full year, pellet exports reached 6.1 million tons, 2 percent higher than 2014 and nearly four times higher than 2010.

ATS, INL test oxidation catalyst

North American pellet exports continue to increase

IMPROVING TORREFACTION: Representatives of Advanced Torrefaction Systems (seated) monitor a test of an oxidation catalyst designed to make torrefaction safer, cleaner and more efficient.

PHOTO: IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY

The U.K.-based Port of Tyne has an-nounced plans to start building new facilities to handle, store and transport wood pellets for Lynemouth Power Ltd. following its conver-sion to biomass. Under the agreement, the port will handle, store and transport up to 1.8 mil-lion metric tons of pellet annually.

According to the port, construction has begun on its estate at the Tyne Dock in South Shields to build a 75,000 metric ton storage facility, three enclosed conveyors and transfer towers, three silos, a rail loading silo and other works. The Port of Tyne is contributing £13 million ($18.99 million), with the majority of the investment being made by LPL.

“We have been at the forefront of devel-oping expertise and facilities to handle the re-newable fuel, wood pellet, and I am delighted that LPL have chosen the Port of Tyne as a key partner in this significant development,” said Andrew Moffat, CEO of the Port of Tyne.

Port of Tyne secures agreement to handle pellets for Lynemouth facility

Lynemouth signs investment contract with UK government for biomass conversion

European Commission opens in-depth investigation on UK government’s support of biomass conversion

European Commission approves state aid for Lynemouth conversion

Lynemouth facility burns its last coal

JUN2014

FEB2015

DEC2015

DEC2015

JAN2016

Subsidiary of Energetický a prumyslový holding buys Lynemouth plant from RWE Supply and Trading


“Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me,” Richard Farina, 1996 novel; The Doors, 1971

As pellet producers and heating equipment fi rms limp into the summer, there are numerous plans underway to im-prove the marketing of “modern wood heat,” a phrase the industry has found to be more consumer-friendly than “bio-mass thermal.”

Optimism abounds. This spring’s well-attended North-east Biomass Heating Conference & Expo in Vermont had an unoffi cial theme: “We all know that oil prices will go back up; we’ll be back selling.”

The Northern Forest Center, an excellent nonprofi t dedicated to supporting the economies and citizens of Northern New England and upstate New York, recently drafted a “Modern Wood Heat Communications Plan,” for which it interviewed numerous pellet boiler owners and in-dustry stakeholders across the region. The plan, noting that consumers understand that oil prices are volatile, suggests that pellet heating equipment be sold based on homeowner values, not price considerations. Buying local and environ-mental considerations top the values list. The Northern For-est Center has put together a work group to move the plan forward. Vermont Solar’s marketing slogan, “Building Clean Energy and Local Jobs,” will serve as a model.

Marketing programs should also fi nd assistance in the $130,000 USDA Wood Energy Assistance Team grant just received by the Maine Forest Service. Vermont, New York state, and New Hampshire have previously received similar funding. To assist with the implementation of these grants, the U.S. Forest Service’s regional offi ce in New Hampshire just added a forest products utilization specialist position and fi lled the slot with the Maine Forest Service employee who wrote the Maine grant.

With its pellet boiler incentive (30 percent, up to $5,000) sparsely used this winter, Effi ciency Maine’s trustees recently had the opportunity to reduce funding for the program. The board instead agreed that the program remains valid and should continue as planned.

Perhaps more important than any of these marketing programs is the realization (fi nally!) by Maine’s legislature that our state’s entire forestry sector is facing serious challenge, with thousands of jobs at stake. Three pulp and paper plants

have closed recently, along with two biomass electric plants. The future of the remaining four biomass electric plants is in doubt, as result of changes in Massachusetts and Connecti-cut policies on renewable electricity credits. Using the phrase “an economic hurricane,” Maine Sen. Angus King organized a large meeting of forestry fi rms and federal agencies, with the intention of seeing how federal policies and programs might assist the industry.

Specifi cally important to our four pellet producers was a state legislative proposal, passed in the fi nal days of the session, whereby the state will pay up to $13 million for two-year contracts of electricity generated from renewable fuels, presumably biomass. This measure is vital to maintaining the wood harvesting infrastructure that provides fi ber not only to Maine’s biomass electricity generators, but also to our four pellet manufacturers, numerous papermakers, lumber mills, specialty wood products fi rms, and many other forest prod-ucts enterprises. Forestry is Maine’s largest economic engine, along with tourism, and legislators are recognizing that their support is sometimes needed.

Potentially, of even greater importance is a measure passed as part of the biomass electric package, creating a Maine Biomass Industry Study Commission. This commis-sion, charged with studying the economic, environmental, and energy benefi ts of the biomass industry, is not limited to biomass electric. One of the 15 members just appointed by the speaker of the Maine House is Bob Linkletter, owner and operator of Maine Woods Pellet Co., and also a director of the Maine Pellet Fuels Association. Linkletter intends to direct some of the commission’s attention to thermal bio-mass.

So, what we have now is a strong planning infrastruc-ture. As I write this piece, I was interrupted by a phone call from a Vermont consumer asking where he could go to pur-chase Maine pellets. What we really need is thousands more such calls.

Author: Bill BellExecutive Director, Maine Pellet Fuels Association

[email protected]

Making Marketing Moves

PELLET¦

BY BILL BELL


ThermalNews

A German-designed Wittus pellet stove has been named winner of the third Pellet Stove Design Challenge, an event coordinated by the Alliance for Green Heat and this year hosted by the U.S. DOE’s Brookhaven Na-tional Lab, that aims to promote innovation in wood and pellet heating.

The Wittus Pellwood, distributed by a New York company, is an innovative proto-type that can burn both pellets and cordwood,

achieving very low emissions of less than half a gram per hour, according to John Ackerly, president of the Alliance for Green Heat.

A stove made by Seraph Industries, the smallest U.S. pellet stove manufacture, won sec-ond place, consistently burning under 1 gram per hour, and has innovative features to help and encourage the consumer to keep the stove operating well.

Tequila Cazadores, a tequila manufac-turer in Mexico, has announced the instal-lation of a biomass boiler at its distillery in Jalisco, Mexico, has drastically reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) at the facility. The boiler, which has been in operation for more than a year, produces steam that powers the agave sugar extraction process, cooking and distillation of the brand’s tequila.

Approximately 60 percent of the biofu-el used in the boiler comes from spent agave fibers, amounting to about 11,000 tons per year. The other 40 percent is made up of 8,000 tons of clean waste wood, biomass briquettes, sawdust, coconut shell, and tree cuttings.

Prior to the installation of the biomass boiler, the facility utilized two boiler sys-tems that consumed a combined 2,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually. Tequila Casa-dores, part of the Bacardi portfolio of spirit brands, estimates the new boiler has reduced GHG emissions by 80 percent. Noise pollu-tion has also been reduced by an estimated 20 percent. Ashes created by the boiler are used for composting, creating a nutrient-rich soil supplement.

Pellet Stove Design Challenge winner announced

Mexican distillery benefits from biomass boiler

A HOT COMPETITION: Niels Wittus (left) and René Bindig of Team Wittus are congratulated on their win by Alliance for Green Heat staff.

PHOTO: ALLIANCE FOR GREEN HEAT


To supporters of biomass heating and cooling, it sounds like a broken record when we talk about how thermal energy makes up roughly 40 percent of our nation’s energy consumption. Yet, it still does not get anywhere near the amount of attention or funding that electricity and transportation fuels receive. Consequently, the Biomass Thermal Energy Council enthusiastically applauded the fi rst-ever inclusion of thermal energy in federal department renew-able energy goals in the recently passed, though not-yet-reconciled House and Senate energy bills.

The neglect of the biomass industry also applies to its thermal brethren in the solar and geothermal renewable energy industries. While uniting these thermal sectors seems like a logical and laud-able goal, this concentrated and coordinated action has not lived up to its potential. Nevertheless, there are signs that change may be in the air. An early example of this was the passage of the Renewable Thermal Bill in August 2014, opening up the Massachusetts Alter-native Portfolio Standard to heating and cooling systems that use any of those renewable energy sources, plus others like bio-oils. A robust coalition, including the Solar Energy Industries Association, the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, the Biomass Thermal Energy Council and the New England Geothermal Professional Association worked together to push the bill across the fi nish line.

The state policy environment in the Northeast has become the epicenter of support for the idea of a unifi ed coalition to sup-port renewable thermal energy. New Hampshire has pioneered the use of a full-on carve-out for thermal renewable energy credits, beautifully dubbed “T-RECs,” for sustainably produced heating and cooling. A number of other states, including Maryland, Colo-rado and Indiana, have fl irted with the idea or have more limited support for renewable thermal. And, in the past year or so, two large northeastern states, Massachusetts and frenemy New York, have unveiled, respectively, the $30 million Clean Heating and Cooling Program and the $28 million Renewable Heat New York program. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Clean Heating and Cooling program covers solar hot water plus air- and ground-source heat pumps, as well as biomass pellet (and soon, woodchip) heating systems. New York state’s program does not incentive any woodchip systems, but it does include pellet and advanced cord-wood boilers installed with water thermal storage systems.

Anyone with knowledge of statistics knows that three or four points are not indicative of a trend, but these actions will shine more light on thermal. To keep this momentum going, we ar-gue for more collaboration between renewable thermal interests through avenues such as renewable energy conferences, as well as

legislative and regulatory participation at state and federal levels (thermal energy tax credits could certainly help). But these actions are still not enough. We also need further standardization. Given that the U.S. and United Kingdom are some of the very few coun-tries in the world that measure heat and electricity differently (the watt for electricity and British thermal unit for heat), the progress of the proposed U.S. national heat metering accuracy standard is crucial to this effort, to which the EPA says:

“…manufacturers would no longer compete in the market on accuracy, but instead compete on product cost and other fea-tures […] standardization would instill confi dence in parties who exchange payments for useful energy delivery and could support greater confi dence in the deployment of renewable heating and cooling technologies through innovative third-party fi nancial struc-tures such as energy purchase contracts. This benefi t also extends to several states that have included thermal energy as an eligible re-source under state renewable portfolio standard policies and states that have implemented performance-based incentives to develop renewable thermal markets.”

Appliance standards and certifi cations are also a key aspect of this market. The relatively well-established rating structure for different components and combinations of solar thermal systems, under the leadership of the Solar Rating and Certifi cation Cor-poration, is an example of this. On the biomass side, since 2014, BTEC has been actively engaged in developing materials in sup-port of an effi ciency test protocol for commercial boilers. This will create a single standard that provides all of the benefi ts described above, and would provide a key metric for programs like New York’s or MassCEC’s, which now require effi ciency measurements but either rely on European test methods or test methods that were developed for smaller residential systems.

We are seeing the positive beginnings of a trend, but it will be up to the biomass thermal industry to continue to fi nd strategic ways to partner with other thermal interests to make renewable heating and cooling the no-brainer, household concept that it truly should be.

Coauthors: Ben Bell-Walker Technical Affairs Manager, BTEC

202- 596-3974

Jarrod PetrohovichTechnical and Policy and Government Affairs Fellow, BTEC

202- 596-3974

A Unified Renewable Heating and Cooling Front BY BEN BELL-WALKER AND JARROD PETROHOVICH

THERMAL¦


When fires occur, especially in bio-mass energy facilities, a quick re-sponse is crucial to worker safety and minimization of facility dam-

age. That’s why plant managers rely on a range of equipment to minimize the risk of fires, from spark detection technology to fire sup-pression systems. And, since fires occur even with the best systems in place, having a backup plan is key.

For one Alabama pellet mill, this story is a familiar one. Each year, the mill processes for-est products into as much as 303,000 metric tons of wood pellets for use in power plants as a renewable energy source. Before process-ing the woodchips, the mill stores them in its

two 150-foot silos, but they can’t be filled and simply forgotten about.

Burning UpAs the woodchips sit in silos, they begin

to naturally decompose and generate heat en-ergy. The heat creates hotspots that can lead to spontaneous combustion. In January, a hotspot caused one silo’s woodchips to catch fire inside. With smoldering woodchips inside one silo, the plant needed to act quickly to get the fire put out before it started heating the woodchips in the other nearby silo.

The plant’s permanent fire suppression system controlled the fire, but because it was using a generous amount of resources, it put

the rest of the plant at risk if another fire oc-curred. The mill needed a backup system. The facility manager contacted Tripp Brown, branch manager of United Pump Rentals Solutions, in Mobile, Alabama, asking for a solution. United Rentals Pump Solutions is a specialty division of United Rentals, one of the largest equipment rental companies in the world. Brown rents and sells temporary pump solutions to customers in Alabama for projects in the municipal, construction, industrial, min-ing and oil and gas markets. He and his team know that tight deadlines are common in the pump industry and, for many projects, time is of the essence to minimize costly damage and ensure safety of everyone involved. And when

A Brilliant Backup Plan

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

Having the right fire suppression system and a plan B for when fire emergencies happen are a must for biomass energy facilities. BY RACHEL GIBBONS

Via a rental center, an Atlas Copco electric submersible pump came to the aid of a pellet mill that was experiencing a fire and needed a backup system.

PHOTO: ATLAS COPCO

¦THERMAL


THERMAL¦

customers feel the hot breath of fire start to burn up and damage productivity, finding the right solution quickly is imperative.

With a deadline of only two days to bring in equipment and have it ready to start fight-ing the fire in the plant’s silos, Brown needed a simple-to-set-up, cost-effective and environ-mentally friendly pump solution, and he need-ed it fast.

Picking the PumpBrown had to take into account a few

considerations before choosing a pump, one of which was the environment, especially since the river and riverbank area are environmental-ly protected. Because of this, a hydraulic leak or fuel spill from a diesel-driven hydraulic pump could cause damage and risk the integrity of the habitat and wildlife, as well as possibly con-taminate the water supply. That scenario would impose heavy costs for remediation and hefty fines. “Because the area was environmentally sensitive we couldn’t use a diesel or hydraulic powered pump for risk of contamination if a spill occurred, so we knew we needed an elec-tric pump,” Brown says.

Brown asked Atlas Copco for help find-ing the right pump. The plan was to run water

from the nearby river through the pump and to a holding tank at the base of the burning silo. The water would then flow through another pump and into the silo to dowse the fire, cool-ing the hotspots and saturating unburned wood to prevent future hotspots from forming. That way, the plant could remove and dispose of the damaged unusable chips safely. “We helped Tripp choose the right submersible pump for the application based on the environmental concerns, required flow, elevation and distance from the river,” says Joe Moser, Atlas Copco portable energy product manager. “Looking at the situation, their best option was the WEDA 90 electric submersible pump.”

The WEDA 90 offered the power needed to handle the discharge head from the river and transfer the water up the 70 feet of hose from the river to the silo; a standard centrifu-gal pump didn’t have the suction lift capacity to meet the requirements of the project.

The team also had to consider the pump weight. The crane needed to suspend, sup-port and lower the pump into the river with custom 50-foot slings and couldn’t handle anything weighing more than 600 pounds. For-tunately, Atlas Copco’s WEDA 90 is compact and weighs about 400 pounds, easily fitting within the crane’s limitations. After working together to determine the right pump, Atlas Copco shipped the WEDA 90 pump directly to Brown in one day.

A Simple SetupBrown and one other United Rentals

Pump Solutions member set up the WEDA 90 in about an hour. Brown said the fast and easy setup was another benefit of using an electric pump over hydraulic. Had it been a hydraulic pump, setup could have taken as long as three hours to secure the hydraulic lines and prevent them from ripping or tearing. The team hard-wired the pump to the nearby permanent elec-trical power source and began pumping. The WEDA 90 moved water from the river into a frak tank for temporary water storage at the base of the silo. From the tank, Brown used a diesel pump to control the flow and pump wa-ter into a manifold that split the upper column into three separate lines at different stages of the silo for uniform water dispersal.

The WEDA pump ran 24/7 for three months, pushing 550 gallons per minute at more than 100 feet total dynamic head. After the water extinguished and saturated the smol-

dering wood chips, the plant was able to safely extract and dispose of the damaged chips.

“For this job, the submersible pump was the simplest, most cost-effective and envi-ronmentally friendly option,” Brown says. “It worked so well that the energy plant that origi-nally rented the pump purchased the system for permanent backup fire suppression.”

Resourceful ResultsBesides the environmental benefits, the

WEDA 90 provided the plant with a less-expensive option than a diesel model. “The WEDA 90’s power consumption cost us $2,268 per month in kilowatt-hours. If we had used a diesel hydraulic submersible pump, the monthly fuel consumption would equal about $4,240,” Brown says.

Because the project was planned for six months, Brown saw a projected cost savings of $11,832 over the project duration by using an electric pump rather than a hydraulic model. To purchase a new WEDA 90 costs almost $18,000 less than buying a submersible pack-age with hydraulic lines, and that’s not includ-ing about $370 spent monthly on maintenance. “Both the rental price and operating expenses of using the electric submersible pump were cost effective,” Brown says. “The WEDA 90 lowered operating costs since it was virtu-ally maintenance free, needing no hydraulic oil changes or filter replacements. And, most im-portantly, we saved on paying fuel costs with lower electric costs.”

Putting Out the FireWhen a fire emergency happens, innova-

tive thinking and the right fire suppression sys-tems are a must. Having a plan A and a plan B can keep chaos from occurring, minimize dam-age and increase worker safety. It’s also impor-tant to not only have enough resources, but the right resources available. Part of any solution also comes through strong partnerships. When a rental center and manufacturer work together closely and quickly to find the best solution, it’s guaranteed the customer won’t get burned.

Contact: Joe MoserProduct Manager, Portable Energy,

Atlas Copco Construction Equipment303-898-6978

[email protected]


BiogasNews

Potrero Hills Energy Producers, a part-nership between DTE Biomass Energy Inc. and Pacolet Milliken Enterprises, recently started generating electricity from landfill gas at the Potrero Hills Landfill in Suisun City, California, which is operated by Waste Connections Inc. of The Woodlands, Texas.

The 8-MW power plant uses advanced engine-generating technology to deliver

enough renewable electricity to power 10,000 California homes. Gas generated at the landfill will be used to produce renew-able energy for Pacific Gas & Electric under a long-term purchase agreement.

The facility is equipped with advanced environmental controls that treat incoming landfill gas to reduce sulfur content prior to combustion, thereby reducing emissions of

sulfur dioxide. Post-combustion catalytic re-duction, not unlike a vehicle’s catalytic con-verter system, further lowers carbon mon-oxide and formaldehyde emissions.

Landfill gas-to-energy plant begins operations in California

Clean Water Services, Energy Trust of Oregon and the Oregon Department of En-ergy have implemented a new cogeneration system that converts wastewater and grease into renewable energy. The innovative system, which is part of Clean Water Services Durham Treatment Facility, is the third cogeneration system in Oregon to codigest fats, oils and grease (FOG).

Since 1993, Durham has operated a 500-kW cogeneration system using biogas from the communities’ wastewater to offset its own energy usage. By replacing this smaller engine with two Jenbacher 848-kW engines, Durham now has a 1.7-MW cogeneration system fueled by biogas produced from the anaerobic diges-

tion (AD) of municipal waste-water solids, as well as FOG from Washington County restaurants, commercial food processors and others. Aver-age gallons of FOG codigest-ed per week will start at 70,000 gallons and is expected to in-crease to 100,000 gallons with-in the next six months. The Durham campus hosts two 1.3 million-gallon digesters.

Prior to being fed to the engine, the biogas must be treated with a Uni-son Solutions gas treatment system that will remove hydrogen sulfide particulates, siloxane

and moisture from the raw biogas.

Oregon biogas project expands

UTILIZING FOG: Fats, oils and grease is pumped for codigestion.PHOTO: CLEAN WATER SERVICES


BIOGAS¦

The year 2022 looms large over alternative and clean fuel industries participating in the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS). But not for the reason one might initially think. Every day, fuel procurement, project financing and infrastructure investment decisions are heavily influenced by misinforma-tion. Rumor and myth are embraced over statute and fact. Harmful reports of a 2022 RFS expiration persist.

Remarkably, however, the ominous date that so many have come to fear is easily demystified once the statutory lan-guage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is unpacked. The RFS is, after all, a product of law. With a vote of Congress and the president’s signature, federal policy was set in motion. And while it grows more complex with each U.S. EPA rulemaking, regulators’ hands are tied to the statute.

The RFS is codified in regulation at 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart M. It is part of the U.S. Clean Air Act, authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and subsequently amended by the EISA. The programmatic goal is to diversify the fuels and sources of fuel that power our nation. To some, the RFS is a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil. To others, it is a subsidy to ethanol run amuck. But as written, at least from 2014 forward, it is unmistakably America’s single great-est market driver for the development of low-and ultra-low carbon fuels.

The RFS mandates that a percentage of our annual fuel consumption come from renewable fuels, advanced biofuels, and cellulosic biofuels. Gasoline and diesel producers and importers bear the burden of ensuring their share of the fuel meets the annual renewable volume obligation, or RVO.

It is in the context of the RVO that the rumors about the year 2022 begin. EISA Section 202(a)(2)(B) addresses “Applicable Volumes” for the annual mandate. Clause (i), titled “Calendar Years After 2005,” contains tables that de-lineate the applicable volume that the renewable fuel (Sub-section I), advanced biofuel (Subsection II), and cellulosic biofuel (Subsection III) categories should meet though 2022.

The following text is copied directly from EISA Section 202(a)(2)(B)(i)(III).

(III) CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL.—For the purpose of subparagraph (A), of the volume of advanced biofuel required under Subclause (II), the applicable volume of cel-lulosic biofuel for the calendar years 2010 through 2022 shall

be determined in accordance with the following table: Appli-cable volume of cellulosic biofuel. Calendar year: (in billions of gallons):

2010 .............................................................................. 0.12011 .............................................................................. 0.252012 .............................................................................. 0.52013 .............................................................................. 1.02014 .............................................................................. 1.752015 .............................................................................. 3.02016 .............................................................................. 4.252017 .............................................................................. 5.52018 .............................................................................. 7.02019 .............................................................................. 8.52020 .............................................................................. 10.52021 .............................................................................. 13.52022 .............................................................................. 16.0After a cursory review of the tables, somewhere along

the way, someone stopped reading and wrongly concluded that because the table ends in 2022, the program must also end in 2022.

However, Clause (ii), titled “Other Calendar Years,” im-mediately follows Clause (i). It says that “for calendar years after the calendar years specified in the tables,” (i.e., after 2022), the EPA administrator will set applicable volumes us-ing specified criteria, which are thereafter laid out.

(ii) OTHER CALENDAR YEARS. —For the pur-poses of subparagraph (A), the applicable volumes of each fuel specified in the tables in clause (i) for calendar years after the calendar years specified in the tables shall be determined by the Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture, based on a review of the implementation of the program during calendar years specified in the tables, and an analysis of—

The accurate conclusion? The RFS continues beyond 2022, without sunset and in perpetuity, unless or until an-other act of Congress shall intervene.

It is time that we in the alternative and clean fuels indus-tries stop the rumor mill. We must work together to ensure that fuel procurement, project financing and infrastructure investment decisions are made with reliance on the fact of law that the RFS will continue beyond 2022.

2022: A Cliff for Clean Fuels and the RFS?BY DAVID COX

Author: David CoxGeneral Counsel, Renewable Natural Gas Coalition

[email protected]


¦BIOGAS

Permission to PowerOrange County’s third landfil gas-to-energy facility began commercial operations this year, but not without meeting the region’s strict air quality standards.BY KATIE FLETCHER

T he transition from vision to reality involves many challenges for re-newable energy projects. Without a sufficient energy source, capital

and consent, the transition is impossible to make. One might assume that in compari-son to conventional energy projects, proj-ects focused on reducing environmental im-pacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have an easier time obtaining permits and meeting regulatory requirements, but often, this isn’t the case. The same challenges in

obtaining permits for conventional energy projects apply to renewable energy ven-tures, in addition to other unique require-ments.

Pennsylvania-based Montauk En-ergy has experienced this reality firsthand.Through its Bowerman Power subsidiary, the company developed a 23-MW renew-able energy project located within the South Coast Air Basin, a nonattainment basin. This means any incremental increase in air quality must meet strict requirements when

undergoing the permitting process with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The $60 million landfill gas-to-re-newable-energy (LFGTE) facility, financed by Cat Financial Services Corp., is located on 2.6 acres of the 725-acre Frank R. Bow-erman Landfill near Irvine, California. This project joins other large LFGTE projects in the area (Olinda in Brea and Prima Deshe-cha in San Juan Capistrano) with the aim of reducing GHG emissions. The Bowerman facility is estimated to reduce CO2 emis-

DEPARTMENT

PROJECT LAYOUT: Pictured on the bottom left is gas refrigeration and water removal at the Bowerman Power landfill gas-to-energy plant. Toward the image center is the siloxane removal system, with four vessels on the right for bulk removal of siloxanes from the gas stream and four vessels on the left for the final polishing siloxane removal. Top center is the sulfur removal system composed of four stainless steel vessels, and upper right are the plant's seven engines. PHOTO: MONTAUK ENERGY HOLDINGS


BIOGAS¦

sions by approximately 53,000 tons annu-ally. The plant will generate roughly 160,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity, suf-ficient to serve the equivalent of 26,000 energy-efficient homes in Southern Cali-fornia, and sold to Anaheim Public Utilities under a 20-year power purchase agreement. Collectively, the three LFGTE operations produce approximately 380,000 MWh of electricity annually, enough to power some 56,000 Southern California homes.

In order to begin contributing to the improvement of air quality through its re-duction of GHG emissions, the Bowerman project had to meet air quality requirements itself. “We believe this project is fundamen-tal in demonstrating our ability to achieve emissions that have been set by the board,” says Dylan Wright, director of Orange County Waste and Recycling, the land-fill owner and operator. Wright adds that one of the challenges associated with the project was due to a new rule passed (Rule 1110.2), which precludes the use of internal combustion engines that don’t meet a cer-tain standard. “This is a very strict standard, and a number of facilities are having to shut down as a result of that—even though they’d be offering a beneficial use—just because it’s cost prohibitive,” Wright says. “This facility is really an engineering feat, because it meets those standards.”

This professed engineering feat com-bines gas feedstock cleanup, large-scale Cat reciprocating engine generators and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technol-ogy. The project was championed by Todd Spitzer, Orange County board chairman and Third District supervisor, and won ap-proval from the full Orange County Board of Supervisors in October 2014, after a pre-vious agreement for the facility was revised and updated. Ground was broken in Janu-ary 2015, and the plant became operational just over a year later, in March 2016.

This achievement was no small feat. “There were a series of externalities, which were beyond anyone’s control,” says Chris Davis, vice president of business develop-ment with Montauk Energy. “There were issues in obtaining an air permit, and it wasn’t particular to our project, it was the entire landfill and methane industry that was struggling to get air permits in South-

ern California.” The issue was related to a court challenge on an unrelated project, which brought into question whether proj-ects such as Bowerman can be permitted as an essential public service to qualify them as exempt from providing their own emis-sion offsets. Landfill gas projects operate under a special criterion in the Air Quality Management District New Source Review requirements, exempting them from pur-chasing NOx offsets, but AQMD still pro-vides the offsets to comply with federal and state laws.

Davis says that Bowerman’s draft air permit was completed in 2009, but the lawsuit put the project on hold for nearly two years. “Once the court challenge had been addressed, development of the proj-ect was restarted, but new air modeling was required given the delays in commencing construction,” he says.

AQMD’s permitting requirements and other local, state and federal air quality rules played a big role in selecting equipment deployed at the plant. For example, the gas cleanup system that includes Sulphur-removal, an off-the-shelf design utilized by Montauk on other projects, and a siloxane removal system by Willexa. Davis says the heart of the gas cleanup configuration is the Willexa system. According to Davis, silica or silicone, which are found in many things that go into a landfill such as cosmetics, de-odorant, toothpaste, silica gel, etc., end up in the landfill gas as a broad category of compounds known as siloxanes. When put under high heat, siloxanes can quickly ruin a catalyst system, so all of it is scrubbed out front.

Besides gas cleanup, two other im-portant components of the project are the power generators themselves and the SCR technology that helps the engines meet project requirements. According to Davis, the local air management district strongly favored combustion turbines in lieu of re-ciprocating engine technology, and during and during 2010-’14, few, if any, reciprocat-ing engine projects were approved for LF-GTE projects. But, the cost of operations for combustion turbines on landfill meth-ane is greater than reciprocating engines, Davis says, and the fuel efficiency of com-bustion turbines was unattractive relative to

reciprocating engines. Therefore, Caterpil-lar’s CG260 (reciprocating) engine genera-tors were evaluated for their ability to meet the needs of the project and satisfy the lo-cal AQMD’s emissions requirements. It was found that with the addition of the SCR system for NOx and oxidation catalysts for CO, the project would be acceptable to the AQMD. And, given the drought conditions in California, Davis adds, it was a key objec-tive to pursue a technology that had no wa-ter needs for process or cooling, an added benefit of the CG260 configuration.

The sale of power produced by the seven Cat generators helps Anaheim Public Utilities meet its renewable portfolio stan-dard goals. “We have a need for renewable energy to serve our customers,” says Manny Robledo, integrated resource manager with APU. “There is a state mandate to increase the amount of renewable energy by 50 per-cent by the year 2030, so this project fits into that goal.” According to Robledo, the Bowerman project represents 6 percent of the utility’s renewable energy needs.

The average annual royalty payment to Orange County is projected at $1.62 mil-lion, representing an estimated $31 million over the 20-year life of the agreement with Anaheim. In addition, Bowerman Power is providing $1 million in LFG collection sys-tem operation and maintenance services to the county. “Creating clean energy power from landfill gas is a smart investment that helps the environment and advances sci-ence and engineering,” Spitzer says. “Ad-vancing important technology that helps the environment and potentially generates revenue is the best way for Orange County to do business as a leader in clean energy projects.”

Author: Katie FletcherAssociate Editor, Biomass Magazine

701-738-4920 [email protected]


AdvancedBiofuelsNews

AMP Americas, a provider of com-pressed natural gas (CNG) infrastructure and fueling solutions for the heavy-duty trucking industry, recently announced the launch of ampRENEW, its newly formed biogas division. In addition, Dillon Trans-port and Ruan Transportation Management Systems have signed fueling agreements with ampRENEW to fuel a portion of their

fleets at ampCNG’s public access fueling stations.

The renewable compressed natural gas (RCNG) will be completely sourced from ampCNG’s biogas operation at Fair Oaks Farms in Indiana. ampRENEW’s ultra clean fuel is processed entirely from agricultural waste produced at ampCNG’s anaerobic di-gester.

Dillon Transport will be served by ampCNG’s two fueling stations in Jackson-ville, Florida. Ruan, one of the first fleets to use RCNG from Fair Oaks Farms, will continue to fuel at ampCNG’s three stations in Indiana.

AMP Americas launches biogas division, announces fuel agreements

On May 18, the U.S. EPA released a proposed rule to set 2017 renewable volume obligations (RVOs) under the renewable fuel standard (RFS), along with 2018 RVOs for biomass-based diesel.

The agency has proposed to set the 2017 RVO for cellulosic biofuel at 312 mil-lion gallons, with the advanced biofuel RVO at 4 billion gallons and the RVO for total

renewable fuel at 18.8 billion gallons. The 2018 RVO for biomass-based diesel has been proposed at 2.1 billion gallons.

The proposed percentage standards call for renewable fuel to comprise 10.44 percent of the transportation fuel pool next year. The cellulosic standard would be 0.173 percent, with the biomass-based diesel stan-dard at 1.67 percent, and the advanced bio-

fuel standard at 2.22 percent.While many in the biofuel industry

commended the EPA for the timely release of the proposed rule, the agency has been criticized for its interpretation of the waiv-er authority provided in statute to reduce RVOs below statutory levels. The EPA’s in-terpretation cites infrastructure concerns as a reason to reduce RVO levels.

EPA releases 2017 RFS proposal

Renewable fuel volume requirements2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cellulosic biofuel (million gallons) 33 123 230 312* n/aBiomass-based diesel (billion gallons) 1.63 1.73 1.90 2.00 2.1*Advanced biofuel (billion gallons) 2.67 2.88 3.61 4.0* n/aRenewable fuel (billion gallons) 16.28 16.93 18.11 18.8* n/a

* Proposed volume requirementsSOURCE: U.S. EPA

EPA releases first quarter RIN data

U.S. EPA data has shown more than 4.37 billion renewable identification num-bers (RINs) were generated during the first quarter of the year, including a net total of 30.15 million D3 cellulosic biofuels RINS. More than 1 million D3 RINs have been generated for ethanol so far this year, along with 17.83 million for renewable compressed natural gas and 12.7 million for renewable liquefied natural gas. In addition a net total of 114,835 D7 cellulosic diesel RINs were generated in March for cellulosic heating oil.

A net total of 12.6 million D5 advanced biofuel RINs were generated during the first quarter of 2016, including nearly 6.2 million for ethanol. Nearly 3.68 billion D6 renew-able fuel RINs were generated during the first three months of the year. The majority, 3.6 billion, were generated for ethanol. In addition, approximately 650.25 million D4 biomass-based diesel RINs were generated during the first quarter.

Net RINs generated during Q1 2016 (in millions)D3 30.15D4 650.25D5 12.60D6 3,676.04

D7 0.11SOURCE: U.S. EPA


For almost three years, the advanced biofuels industry waited for the U.S. EPA to issue the renew-able fuel standard (RFS) renewable volume obliga-tions for 2013, 2014 and 2015. Now, EPA is ahead of schedule, having proposed the 2017 RVO in May, but certain special interests are once again threaten-ing to derail the program if the EPA does not bend to their will.

It is no surprise that the oil industry is unhappy with this rule. However, much of the opposition to new 2017 proposed RVOs is coming from agricul-ture. Well, to my friends in the agriculture industry, I say, this is not an agriculture program, it is an energy program designed to cultivate the next generation of biofuels.

I take my hat off to EPA for finally finding its groove; the rule proposed by EPA is a good step for-ward for advanced biofuels. For the past three years, we have all been asking for consistency from EPA, a clear and concise path forward so that banks can gain confidence. EPA listened!

Unfortunately, the program continues to suffer from uncertainty as lawsuits challenge the program and its rules. The RFS was not designed to protect the special interests dedicated to any one molecule; rather, it is meant to help bring a wide range of sus-tainable fuels to compete in the market place. It is a portfolio approach to fuels of the future, or what

many refer to as an “all-of-the-above energy policy.”EPA sent a clear and consistent message to

investors across the world with the proposed rule, a signal of its support for advanced biofuels and greenhouse gas reductions, which come from these fuels. This year’s rule raises the advanced pool from 3.6 billion gallons to 4 billion gallons. It also raises the biomass-based diesel pool by 100 million gallons in 2018 to 2.1 billion gallons, and it increases the cel-lulosic pool to over 300 million gallons. Again, this rule is good for advanced biofuels and a good start for EPA. The biofuels industry should be working with EPA to strengthen and finalize this rule.

In the coming weeks, ABFA will be submitting comments to help EPA finalize this rule and get the program back on track for the good of the industry. ABFA believes there is additional room for growth in the advanced and biomass-based diesel pools, and will be working with industry members to support the highest possible targets for advanced biofuels.

Author: Michael McAdamsPresident, Advanced Biofuels Association

[email protected]

US EPA Back on TrackBY MICHAEL MCADAMS

ADVANCED BIOFUELS AND CHEMICALS¦


THE FUTURE O F F R E I G H TThe primary mode of biomass transport—diesel power—continues to get cleaner and more efficient. BY RON KOTRBA

Whether it is hauling logs from the forest to the processing site, or shipping wood pellets from the U.S. to Europe, virtually 100 per-

cent of biomass is transported by diesel power. And that won’t change. What has changed is that diesels continue to provide cleaner, more fuel-efficient and less carbon-intense transpor-tation of goods such as biomass.

Diesel power is the workhorse of the global economy. Compression-ignition engines are more fuel-efficient, long-lasting and provide much-needed torque for load-bearing transport compared to gasoline engines. “There’ll always be diesel engines,” says Allen Schaeffer, execu-tive director of the Diesel Technology Forum. “There’s no suitable alternative at the moment.”

Over the years, there has been much dis-cussion of natural gas conversions, but Schaef-fer says even after decades of investment in bellwether states such as California, the air resources board still considers it a niche fuel. “The diesel industry doesn’t feel like natural gas is a threat,” he says. “It’s been talked about so long, it’s not even funny. As soon as the technol-ogy comes along, fuel prices move in the other direction.”

Criteria PollutantsHistorically, die-

sel transport has been pegged as dirty. Plumes of soot, or particulate matter (PM), and smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions have character-ized diesel for a century.

U.S. diesel technology changes that stem from regulations by the U.S. EPA and target these criteria pollutants have been nothing short of a revolution. “Clean diesel” has become part of the new vernacular.

“Beginning in 2000, EPA established a framework for getting to what we call new clean diesel technology today,” Schaeffer says. “It be-gan in the on-road commercial truck sector and filtered down into other sectors, including off-road, locomotives and marine.” While the jour-ney started in 2000, the big switch to ultra-low sulfur diesel came in 2006. Sulfur is problematic for catalysts in aftertreatment systems used to cut PM and NOx. In 2007, heavy-duty truck manufacturers introduced the first trucks with diesel particulate filters (DPFs), which slashed PM by 95 percent compared to previous mod-els. Manufacturers had a phase-in period from 2007-’10 for lower NOx emissions. One perva-sive technology used to greatly reduce NOx is what’s called selective catalytic reduction (SCR). “In 2010, commercial trucks effectively had 95 percent lower NOx and 95 percent lower PM emissions compared to 2006 models,” Schaef-fer says. “At the end of 2010, we find ourselves with very different diesel technologies, and the new trucks that have hit streets since are ‘near zero’ [for PM and NOx emissions].”

Today, more fine-particle emissions come from grilling a one-third pound hamburger than from driving a new clean diesel tractor-trailer 140 miles, according to the DTF. A 1988 diesel truck would generate a penny’s weight in NOx in just a quarter mile, while a 2016 truck would have to drive 5 miles. Today in Southern California, brake dust and tire wear contrib-

ute more to fine particle emissions than do heavy-duty diesel truck engines.

For marine vessels, Schaeffer says much of EPA’s recent work has been reducing port emissions for social and environmental justice reasons. “A lot of communities are in close proximities to major ports,” he says. “EPA is going to release three documents in June that will identify a range of things, including control strategies and technical guidance to reduce emissions in environmentally sensitive areas around ports.” He says EPA has invest-ed “a lot of retrofit dollars” under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. Even though new vessels are regulated under tighter emissions standards, legacy models are in service for de-cades, making retrofitting a necessary path to reduce port emissions. “This money has been used, for instance, to repower a ferry with a Tier 0 or Tier 1 engine with a Tier 3 or 4, so the boat might be 20 years old but with brand new power and a whole new emissions profile,” he says. “That kind of activity will increase.”


Schaeffer


There is also a move afoot to bring more of these marine criteria pollutants in control 100 miles off the coast of California and else-where, Schaeffer says. “Some vessels have two fuel tanks, using bunker oil to transit across the ocean, and then as they get close to shore, they switch to ULSD,” he says. Furthermore, some boats pull into the dock for unloading and are plugged into the electrical grid as to not run diesel at all in the ports. “These trends will con-tinue to get bigger,” Schaeffer says.

Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ clean vehicles program, says it makes sense that biomass pro-ducers and users would take interest in how clean transport is for their sup-ply chain. “The renewable industry should work together to get the clean-est fuel, and to create and use clean fuel,” he says. “It’s about cleaning up the supply chain. If

you’re trying to clean up electricity, for instance, then the supply chain is part of that as well.” Today, great focus is on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to combat climate change, and while this is important, Martin says emis-sions such as PM and NOx have major health impacts on local communities.

The U.S. is not alone in its push to reduce crite-ria pollutants from diesel transport. Salman Zafar, CEO of India-based Bio-Energy Consult, notes that NOx and PM emis-sions from heavy-duty transport in Europe have improved considerably over the past two decades, thanks to fuel qual-ity and emissions legislation implemented by the EU. And, he says, India is hoping to follow suit. “In February, the Ministry of Road Trans-port and Highways issued a draft notification of Bharat Stage VI emissions standards for all major on-road vehicle categories in India, in-

cluding heavy-duty vehicles,” Zafar says. The regulations follow Euro VI specifications. India has not, however, worked out a comprehensive strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in freight transport, he adds.

GHG ReductionsZafar says only four governments—the

U.S., Canada, China and Japan— have adopted fuel economy, or GHG reduction, standards for heavy-duty vehicles. Dave Cooke, a vehicles analyst with UCS, says Japan was the first coun-try to implement heavy-duty truck standards. “However,” he says, “those standards expired in 2015 and no follow-up standards have been implemented.” Cooke says Europe continues to work towards a model-based standard, “but

SUPERTRUCK: Daimler Trucks North America LLC’s Freightliner SuperTruck, unveiled last year at the Mid-America Trucking Show, employed existing and future innovations to reduce freight and brake thermal efficiencies by 50 percent. PHOTO: DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC

Martin

Zafar


¦ADVANCED BIOFUELS AND CHEMICALS

there is nothing on the books to-date,” he says, adding that countries like India have used Eu-rope’s lack of regulation as reason for their own delays. “The U.S. is a clear global leader on this front, with Canada having adopted Phase 1 standards and planning to adopt Phase 2 upon finalization,” Cooke says. “China is the only real mover on this front, having recently passed standards, but their engine technologies are sufficiently behind those of manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe, so the standards are not as strong. However, they do plan further standards on a timeline similar to that of the U.S.”

The U.S.’s GHG emissions and fuel ef-ficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles comes in two phases. Phase 1 began imple-mentation in 2014 and will be fully implemented in 2018, mostly using what the industry re-fers to as “off-the-shelf ” technologies. The proposed Phase 2 standards would be met through wider deployment of existing and advanced technologies, according to EPA, and will begin in model-year 2021. Phase 2 will, for the first time, include requirements for trailers, and will begin implementation in model-year 2018. Phase 2 will culminate in standards for model-year 2027. The Phase 2 final rule is ex-pected to be released by EPA in August.

“This is a program that looks at three categories of vehicles and trailers, which is a new thing,” Schaeffer says. “Each one of those three categories of vehicles have different tar-gets to achieve, fuel economy improvements and GHG emissions reductions, the largest and most significant of which is heavy-duty Class 8. The vision was to slash GHG emis-sions by 40 percent from the 2010 baseline.”

Cooke says in total, the combined Phase 1 and 2 regulations should increase average fuel economy from tractor-trailers from just under 6 miles per gallon (mpg) to more than 10 mpg for the average new tractor-trailer. “However,” he says, “with growing miles traveled by freight and commercial traffic, these rules will only act to maintain current levels of emissions from this sector in the 2030-’35 timeframe. Further improvements will be necessary to meet long-term GHG objectives.”

Since most of the technologies employed to date have been off the shelf, there has

not been a tremendous physical appearance change in heavy-duty transport so far. “We’re talking basic things like idle reduction has be-come more standard, greater optimization of the combustion process of the engine, and making the powertrain work better together,” Schaeffer says. “But with Phase 2, now things get interesting.”

In part, these new standards will help off-set fuel economy losses resulting from criteria pollutant reductions through use of aftertreat-ment systems that use extra diesel fuel for re-generation in DPFs, for instance, and greater backpressures from additional catalysts in the exhaust system. “Improving the engine effi-ciency is first and foremost, via reducing losses from aftertreatment systems, recovering wast-ed exhaust heat and turning that into usable energy, improved air flow and more efficient turbochargers, and more,” Cooke says. “The rise in automated manual transmissions allows for not just more efficient drivers, but also an integrated powertrain that maximizes the amount of time an engine spends at its most efficient points. And, of course, we continue to see reductions in road load, both through improved rolling resistance tires and especially aerodynamic improvements. Aero improve-ments to the tractor and trailer are critical to achieving the types of gains we anticipate.”

Schaeffer says almost never are the truck and trailer thought of as a single unit—until now. “They’re owned by different people,” he says. “Trailers are a fungible commod-ity. We’re not that far into the regulatory rule for trailers, but it’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.” Matching the truck and trailer can produce what Schaeffer says is a “super-optimal, highly efficient outcome.” He refer-ences Daimler Trucks North America LLC’s Freightliner SuperTruck, unveiled last year at the Mid-America Trucking Show.

“By incorporating a mix of available technologies with future innovations, we were able to use the SuperTruck program to take the first steps in seeing what may be techni-cally possible and commercially viable,” said Derek Rotz, principal investigator for Super-Truck, DTNA. The U.S. DOE’s SuperTruck program was a five-year research and develop-ment initiative to improve freight efficiency by at least 50 percent, brake thermal efficiency by 50 percent, and reduce fuel consumption and GHG of Class 8 trucks. One key initiative of Daimler’s SuperTruck was exploring how the

tractor and trailer should be designed and op-timized as a single system, not separate units. Closing the gap vastly improves aerodynamics.

Though Schaeffer notes engines will con-tinue to get more efficient, it’s not from where the bulk of the benefits are to come. “Because we’ve been working on optimizing the diesel combustion process for so long, we’ll have less gains there than from areas that have not been dealt with before,” he says. These new areas in-clude, for instance, deliberately lightweighting trucks and trailers by using aluminum instead of steel wheels, or by use of super single tires. “Instead of having a tractor with dual wheels on twin rear axles, now we’re looking at replac-ing them with one large tire, which will main-tain the needed footprint on the road, but cut down on inherent inefficiencies on two wheels running together, while also losing weight, given no extra hub assemblies.”

With Phase 1 and 2, there is a direct mon-etary payback that far surpasses the costs as-sociated with implementation. According to EPA, the buyer of a new long-haul truck in 2027 would recoup the extra cost of the tech-nology in less than two years through fuel sav-ings. Phase 2 will save vehicle owners about $170 billion in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the regulatory time frame. Furthermore, the standards will result in ap-proximately $230 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the regula-tory timeframe, while costing the affected in-dustry less than one-tenth that amount (about $25 billion over the same period).

The consensus is that similar GHG emis-sions and fuel economy standards will not be implemented for locomotive and marine sec-tors in the U.S. “It’s too complicated to do at this point,” Schaeffer says. And developing an international GHG reduction strategy would be an even more tremendous feat to accom-plish. “We need standards that govern interna-tional freight, but the detailed process to work that out is beyond my expertise,” Martin says. “The climate doesn’t care which jurisdiction the CO

2 came from. It has the same effect of warming the climate, so as we move into con-sidering international shipping, it’s big enough that we can’t ignore it.”

Rail and marine transport per ton of cargo is quite efficient compared to over-the-road trucking. As a sector, Schaeffer says, ma-rine emissions are low on the pecking order for GHG emissions. “For energy use, ships

Cooke



and boats only account for 3 percent in 2014, according to EPA, while heavy-duty trucks and buses account for 20 percent,” he says. However, in a scientific research study titled, Potential Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Trans-atlantic Wood Pellet Trade, by Puneet Dwive-di, Madhu Khanna, Robert Bailis and Adrian Ghilardi, the authors indicate that while GHG emissions from transportation of feedstock is relatively small (3 percent) of the overall GHG emissions for wood pellets, the GHG emis-sions from the transatlantic shipment of pel-lets are second only to the manufacturing pro-cess itself, meaning there is significant room for improvement. The actual burning of the wood pellets comes in a distant third.

“Transportation is absolutely part of the life-cycle analysis,” Martin says. “But we’ve got some pretty dirty fuels as part of the mix. You’re not going to get any deep reductions without addressing all sectors.”

Fuels“When we talk about the diesels of the

future, the idea of getting to clean and near zero, it’s the ticket just to get in the door for future discussion,” Schaeffer says. “We have to think about how diesel can improve efficiency, reduce its carbon footprint, reduce barriers. Just envision, what if in 10 years diesels are not even running on diesel fuel? That’s happening today. With some of the renewable diesel fuels out there, like from Neste, that whole area of producing lower carbon fuels from renewable sources is a major lifeline to the future as we like to think of it.”

Biodiesel, renewable diesel, synthetic diesel from biomass—they all can contribute significantly to reducing GHG emissions and criteria pollutants like PM from legacy heavy-duty vehicles, marine vessels and locomotives. “That’s definitely important,” Martin says. “As this administration moves toward heavy-duty efficiency standards, cleaning up those fuels is definitely relevant. We could make a significant difference cleaning up the fuel supply chain.”

More than 78 percent of the diesel ve-hicles coming off U.S. production lines today are approved for use with 20 percent biodiesel (B20), according to the National Biodiesel Board. Notably, all of Detroit’s Big Three Automakers—Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler—have supported high biodiesel blends for nearly a decade. Among U.S. heavy-duty truck segments, which account for more

than 87 percent of actual diesel fuel usage, every major engine manufacturer supports B20 in their new engines, except for Daimler’s Detroit Diesel, which remains at B5. Further-more, ISO 8217, the prevailing marine fuel specification, recently passed an allowance of 7 percent biodiesel.

As fuel economy standards and concerns increase, it is fair game to question where bio-diesel and renewable die-sel stand in this context. “B100 biodiesel contains about 10 percent less energy per gallon than conventional diesel fuel, such that a B20 blend contains 2 percent less energy,” says Robert McCormick, principal en-gineer at National Renewable Energy Labora-tory in Golden, Colorado. “To a first approxi-mation, mpg fuel economy is proportional to fuel energy content. In my opinion, a 2 percent reduction in fuel energy content is too small for a consumer to measure or notice, given all of the other factors that affect fuel economy and the variation in energy density of conven-tional diesel fuels.” McCormick says renewable diesel has about 5 percent lower energy con-tent per gallon than conventional diesel.

Scott Fenwick, tech-nical director for NBB, says while B100 has a slightly lower energy content than petroleum diesel, he doesn’t believe this necessarily translates to lower fuel economy. “A study performed by Pur-due University concluded that there was no difference in fuel economy when comparing trucks after an entire calen-dar year operating on ULSD vs. B20,” Fen-wick says. “Engine oil analysis, along with the service and maintenance were also found to be similar for the two fleets analyzed.” He says many additional vehicle and engine manufac-turers are just now investigating the qualities of renewable diesel. “Some have approved its use while other applications, such as the rail-road industry, are just beginning to evaluate its performance,” Fenwick says.

How biodiesel and renewable diesel per-form in new diesel technologies is also an area of concern. Since biodiesel first got its ASTM

fuel quality specification in 2002, it has gone through 21 revisions, many of which were adaptations to concerns from OEMs over changing diesel technologies, such as imple-mentation of aftertreatment systems. “Our in-dustry prides itself on being responsive to the concerns of OEMs,” Fenwick says.

“With support from NBB, NREL has done research on how B20 blends affect the performance of diesel emission control sys-tems for more than eight years now,” McCor-mick says. “The main concern has been the very low levels of sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium that can be present in B100 as residues from the manufacturing process. These are limited in the ASTM standard for B100 (D 6751) to 5 parts per million (ppm) of sodium plus potassium, and 5 ppm of calcium plus magnesium—although quality surveys show that actual levels are usually well below these limits. Calcium and magnesium are pres-ent in engine lubricant, and so are not expected to impact the performance of diesel oxidation catalysts or selective catalytic NOx reduction catalysts. For heavy-duty trucks, full useful life is over 400,000 miles. We have conducted tests simulating 435,000-mile exposure of emission control systems to engine exhaust from B20 blended from B100 at the metals specifica-tion limit. In these tests, we have not observed significant loss of catalyst activity. Questions remain about the potential for these ash-form-ing metals to increase the frequency of diesel particulate filter clean out, although this seems unlikely given the very low, below-specification limit levels observed in the field.”

Cooke adds, “As we look out to 2030 and beyond, we know that fuel switching will need to play a greater and greater role to continue to drive down emissions. And investments in those technologies will need to be incentivized over the next decade to bring them to market in sufficient capacity.”

Author: Ron KotrbaSenior Editor, Biomass Magazine

[email protected]

McCormick

Fenwick


Biomass Magazine Marketplace

ADHESIVES& COATINGSCOATINGSCOAEPOXY

www.masterbond.com

+1.201.343.8983 • [email protected]

COMPOUNDS RESIST:• Chemicals• High temperatures• Abrasion

WEBINAR SERIES

GAIN MAXIMUM EXPOSURE& CONTACT INFO

L i v e + O n D e m a n dwww.BiomassMagazine.com/pages/webinar

� Website� All emails� Advertisements� Webinar page on

BiomassMagazine.com� OnDemand material� Attendee Information

Sponsor Featured On:

Contact us today for more information [email protected] or 866-746-8385

BROWSE CATEGORIES BROWSE COMPANIES

cleaning| FIND

Experience & Innovation Working for You

mseco.com501-321-2276

From the feedstock handling to the final emission controls, let us utilize our expertise and 46+ years of experience to engineer solutions for your specific needs.

CONTACTUS TODAY

Visit www.pelletheat.org/pfi-annual-conference for more information

Key Topics: • Enhancing Pellet Operations • Preparing for OSHA Inspections• Exporting Pellets • Policies & Regulations Impacting the Industry • Pellet Fuel Standards

Who should attend:• Pellet Fuel Manufacturers• Industry Suppliers• Equipment Manufacturers• Pellet Buyers from International Markets• Retailers and Distributors• Federal, state, and local government biomass experts• Anyone interested in learning more about the densified biomass industry

For more information, contact PFI at [email protected] Pellet Fuels Institute, located in Seattle, Washington, is a North American trade association promoting energy independence through the efficient use of clean, renewable, densified biomass fuel. For more information, contact the Pellet Fuels Institute at (703) 522-6778 or visit www.pelletheat.org.

• Educational Sessions • Industry Exhibits • Networking Opportunities

Register Today

July 24-26, 2016The Omni Grove Park InnAsheville, North Carolina

Download - 2016 July Biomass Magazine

Top Related