november 2011 ethanol producer magazine

www.ethanolproducer.com

november 2011

INSIDE: MITIGATING POTENTIAL TANK AND PIPELINE CORROSION

The Critical Link of Feedstock Logistics Page 42

Cover Crops Aid Stover removal Page 50

Debating Cellulosic, Advanced biofuel volume mandates Page 56

Overcoming Cellulosic Challenges

Conversion:Beyond

LIFE CAN BE COMPLICATED LIQUOZYME® MAKES IT SIMPLE

Running low pH? High pH? It doesn’t matter. Liquozyme is optimized to run as low as pH 5.0. Contact our Customer Solutions team and find out how you can get the most out of your corn, with the best-selling alpha amylase on the market.

With Novozymes, we’ve been able to squeeze every drop of ethanol out of that bushel of corn. JASON MARQUIS, PRODUCTION MANAGER, MARQUIS ENERGY, ILLINOIS, USA

www.bioenergy.novozymes.com

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

Rethink Tomorrow

4 | Ethanol Producer Magazine | NOvEMbER 2011

november iSSue 2011 voL. 17 iSSue 11

contents

56 62

Ethanol Producer Magazine: (uSPS no. 023-974) november 2011, vol. 17, issue 11. Ethanol Producer Magazine is published monthly. Principal Office: 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. Periodicals Postage Paid at Grand Forks, North Dakota and additional mailing offices. POST-mASTer: Send address changes to ethanol Producer magazine/Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. n., Suite 304, Grand Forks, north Dakota 58203.

FeeDSToCK The Round and Square of ItThe logistics of cellulosic feedstocks present many challengesby KRIS bEvILL

rFSGauging 2012 VolumesRFS woes accompany lag in cellulosic ethanol production by KRIS bEvILL

mAinTenAnCeProtecting Those Workhorse Tanks A look at corrosion mitigation strategies by HOLLy JESSEN

68

bLenDSE15: Cracking the RVP NutThe largest barrier to the new blend may be the vapor pressure issue by JEREMy P. GREENHOuSE

CornWhen Product Development is Just the Tip of the IcebergNew enzyme-producing corn variety requires special handling by TIM TIERNEy

CONTRIBuTIONS

fEaTuRES

On The Cover In Denmark, Inbicon’s demonstration plant using straw for cellulosic ethanol is integrated with parent company, DONG Energy’s generating facility.

DEPARTMENTS

6 Editor’s Note Cellulosic Facets By SuSanne Retka Schill

10 The Way I See It Tout the benefits of Ethanol in Agriculture By Mike BRyan

11 Events Calendar upcoming Conferences & Trade Shows

12 View from the Hill ‘Can’t’ Never Did Anything By BoB dinneen

14 Drive The Renewable Fuel Standard Means Certainty By toM BuiS

16 Grassroots Voice Defending the Merits of the RFS By BRian jenningS

18 Europe Calling Is There Too Much Land in Europe? By RoB VieRhout

20 Business Matters Take Credit for Research and Innovation By tRina SwaRt

22 Business Briefs

24 Commodities Report

28 Distilled

78 Marketplace

82 ad Index

PHoTo: inbiCon

42 50

Cover CroPSCropping Between the LinesEnvironmentally friendly cover crops could pave the way for greater stover removal by HOLLy JESSEN

72

www.ethanolproducer.com

november 2011

INSIDE: MITIGATING CORROSION POTENTIAL IN TANKS AND PIPELINES

The Critical Link of Feedstock Logistics 2

Cover Crops Aid Stover removal Page 50

Debating Cellulosic, Advanced biofuel volume mandates Page 56

Overcoming Cellulosic Challenges

Conversion--Beyond

3.45milliongallons

12.9milliongallons


Conversion technologies are often the focus, but the emerging industry of cellulosic ethanol development is multifaceted. In this issue, Associate Editor Kris Bevill writes about the latest ideas on feedstock logistics. As we all know, a com-mercial plant will need mountains of feedstocks. Many are concerned about how getting all that biomass in motion is going to work. There’s an interesting divergence of views: Some say farmers will want to retain the added value and do the work themselves; others say a system for custom biomass harvest is required. Associate Editor Holly Jessen takes a different look at the feedstock issue. She reports on new cover crop ideas that could allow for more stover to be removed for cellulosic conver-sion. Cover crops have had a hard time catching on, in spite of their many benefits such as improving water quality by reducing nutrient leaching, because of the lack of economic return. Enhancing feedstock supplies for cellulosic production could have the ancillary effect of improving corn’s environmental performance—and might just take some of the heat off corn ethanol, too. Covering another facet of the nascent industry, there’s plenty of uncertainty on the market side. Bevill takes a look at the issues surrounding the volume mandates for cellulosic biofuels in the renewable fuel standard and the struggle to get the renewable identification number system for cel-lulosic and advanced biofuels functioning. From feedstock logistics to changing corn agronomics to market mechanisms—all areas have many unknowns, requiring input and ideas from many.

SuSanne Retka SChill, [email protected]

CELLuLOSIC faCETS

LETTERS

editor’s note

FOR INDuSTRy NEwS. FOLLOw uS: TWITTER.COM/ETHaNOLMaGazINE

a hawaiian ViewI have customers using up to 40 percent in their

cars with no problems, so what is the big deal on E15? We get great performance and gas mileage from this mix of more ethanol in the gas. In Hawaii the ethanol is blended up to 5 percent and no more. I don’t see why [there would be] a problem with more ethanol in the gas. I have a plastic bottle with E100 ethanol in it and no problems, nor with damage to rubber, plas-tic or fiberglass. I would be glad to give you a list of some of my customers that have used 30 to 40 per-cent ethanol for over a year now. My cars have been on it for 10 years at 50 percent with no damage to fuel lines or anything. I use E100 in my ’73 Pantera and have no problems. And, what about Brazil? They have been using more ethanol with no problems for 50 years now. Ethanol is the best fuel to use, I would like to see people prove that it is the ethanol that is causing all that they say it is.

George nitta50th State ethanol inc.

Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: donald Barry’s letter to the editor in the September issue

I can understand your frustration with trying to find a fueling facility that provides E85. You are “surprised that more produc-ers do not acquire pumps with their own money, rather than wait for the U.S. govern-ment to provide the funds.” Here is what it would take for a producer to dispense E85: local zoning laws must be confronted and overcome; state, local and federal fire/en-vironmental codes must be dealt with and roadway access negotiated. Then, construc-tion might take place, at an investment of more than $1.5 million for one retail facility.

Also, individual fueling facilities brand-ed from a major oil company have clauses in their contracts that prohibit “adulterated fu-els,” meaning fuels with additives that were not provided by the oil company. This means no E85, E10 or any other blend not autho-rized or supplied by the oil company.

Unfortunately, it all boils down to what people are willing to pay for. If manufacturers will produce motors that will take advantage of ethanol’s capabilities (Brazil’s auto industry did), people will be willing to buy the prod-uct. If people are willing to buy the product, more outlets will become available. As pro-ducers and marketers of renewable fuels, we need to reach out to the people we want to use the product, so that they can create the demand that will support the infrastructure that will be able to offer the product.

Sorry to say, but there are many more steps to take before we can make E85 a viable product across the country, but it is up to us to make it happen.

eric Hammerb2b Solutions LLC

Lake Forest, ill.

NOvEMbER 2011 | Ethanol Producer Magazine | 7

TM

EDITORIaL

EDITOR Susanne Retka Schill [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Holly Jessen [email protected]

Kris Bevill [email protected]

COPy EDITOR Jan Tellmann [email protected]

aRT

ART DIRECTOR Jaci Satterlund [email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGNERErica Marquis [email protected]

PuBLISHING

CHAIRMAN Mike Bryan [email protected]

CEO Joe Bryan [email protected]

vICE PRESIDENTTom Bryan [email protected]

SaLES

vICE PRESIDENT, SALES & MARKETING Matthew Spoor [email protected]

EXECuTIvE ACCOuNT MANAGER Howard Brockhouse [email protected]

SENIOR ACCOuNT MANAGER Jeremy Hanson [email protected]

ACCOuNT MANAGERSChip Shereck [email protected]

Marty Steen [email protected]

Bob Brown [email protected]

andrea anderson [email protected]

Dave austin [email protected]

CIRCuLATION MANAGER Jessica Beaudry [email protected]

ADvERTISING COORDINATOR Marla Defoe [email protected]

SENIOR MARKETING MANAGER John Nelson [email protected]

EDITORIaL BOaRD

Customer Service Please call 1-866-746-8385 or email us at [email protected]. Subscriptions to Ethanol Producer Magazine are free of charge to everyone with the exception of a shipping and handling charge of $49.95 for any country outside the united States, Canada and Mexico. To subscribe, visit www.EthanolProducer.com or you can send your mailing address and payment (checks made out to bbI International) to: Ethanol Producer Magazine Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. you can also fax a subscription form to (701) 746-5367. Back Issues, Reprints and Permissions 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 Ethanol Producer Magazine pro-vides a specific topic delivered to a highly targeted audience. we are committed to editorial excellence and high-quality print production. To find out more about Ethanol Producer 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 Ethanol Producer Magazine Letters to the Editor, 308 2nd Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203 or e-mail to [email protected]. Please include your name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity and/or space.

COPYRIGHT © 2011 by BBI International

Please recycle this magazine and remove inserts or samples before recycling

Chippewa valley Ethanol Co. LLLP Mike JerkeCilion Inc. Jeremy Wilhelm

Commonwealth Agri-Energy LLC Mick HendersonPinal Energy LLC Keith Kor

Golden Grain Energy LLC Walter Wendland

Neal Jakel Illinois River Energy LLC

Bert farrish Lifeline Foods LLC

Eric Mosebey Lincolnland Agri-Energy LLC

Steve Roe Little Sioux Corn Processors LP

Bernie Punt Siouxland Energy & Livestock Co-op

The New Ethanol.

Refined, retailed,and rolling across America now.


it must be my age that drives me to rant on about things, but the article in the Modesto Bee, from Modesto, calif., claiming that ethanol has put a large farm out of business because of the ethanol mandate, just made me angry. i have empathy for anyone going out of business, but to say that a farming operation that employs 185 people was put out of business because of the high cost of corn alone seems to me a bit of a stretch. no mention of the high oil prices, no mention of a weak economy, no mention of increased-cost fertilizers and other farm commodity issues. no, it was because of the ethanol mandate.

Just behind Canada, ethanol is now the second largest supplier of fuel in the u.S. ethanol supplies more fuel to America than six other major oil exporting countries. The renewable fuel standard that is driving the mandate is necessary because without it, the oil industry would not use ethanol. So the mandate that the Modesto Bee is talking about is literally helping keep oil and gasoline prices in check and thereby helping reduce farming costs. if America were to remove ethanol from the market, oil prices would skyrocket. eventually, with the advent

of cellulosic technology, ethanol could replace 90 percent of our gasoline demand.

ethanol production only uses 3 percent of the total world grain supply. it’s a well-established fact that the current, and previous, price spikes in corn are largely driven by Wall Street speculators, not ethanol demand. Average corn yields in the united States continue to increase, from 50 bushels per acre in 1960 to 150 bushels per acre in 2011, while ethanol production from corn has now stabilized. The share of the dollar that farmers get from the commodities they produce is a pittance compared to the overall cost of food. Farmers receive less than 16 cents for every dollar of food cost and, when it comes to corn, it only represents 3 cents for every dollar of food.

From an environmental perspective, ethanol production continues to play a greater role in greenhouse gas reduction. Today’s ethanol facilities are powered by natural gas and increasingly by alternative clean energy sources. As farming practices and ethanol production technologies advance, so will the environmental benefits of ethanol. included in these advancements are substantial reductions in the use of water, from nearly 6 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol in 1998 to 2.7 gallons today and projected to go down even

further in the decade ahead. Don’t even get me started on the whole indirect land use issue. While ethanol production has steadily increased over the years, deforestation has steadily decreased. in fact, deforestation of the Amazon has decreased by 72 percent since 2004. The indirect land use issue is a nonstarter when it comes to ethanol production.

if the Modesto Bee is serious about helping farmers in the region, then it should be touting the economic benefits that ethanol provides in agriculture. At a time when Wall Street is gouging America, ethanol provides a much needed boost to main Street. Come on Modesto Bee, get with the program and stop giving me things to rant about.

That’s the way i see it!

the way i see it

Tout the benefits of Ethanol in Agricultureby Mike bryan

author: mike bryanChairman, bbi international

[email protected]


events calendar

Biomass Event Hotspot:San francisco in January

bbi international’s regional biomass show heads to San Francisco in January. The Pacific West Biomass Conference & Trade Show, being

held Jan. 16-18 at the San Francisco marriot marquis, is produced jointly by Biorefining Magazine and Biomass Power & Thermal.

The conference, one of three regional offshoots of bbi’s international biomass Conference & Expo, will feature more than 60 speakers in four tracks. The Feedstock track will not only discuss resources and sustainability, but also dig into the details of logistics and pretreatments. The biomass Power and Thermal track will cover the use of biomass in electrical generation and industrial heat and power applications. Those attending the Biorefining track will learn more about low-carbon fuel standards as well as markets and market access. Themes of the Project Development track will also be covered in one of the general sessions that will feature investment bankers and their views of the biomass industry, their experiences and case studies.

This the third year, the regional conference is connecting the western u.S.’s current and future producers of biomass-derived electricity, industrial heat and power and advanced biofuels with all the players in this emerging industry. The list includes growers, aggregators, waste handlers, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, utility executives, municipal leaders, investors, policy makers and more.

For those wanting to extend their education into the field, conference organizers are lining up tours in the bay area.

For more information, and to find updates on the agenda as speakers are confirmed, check the website at www.biomassconference.com/pacificwest. Registrations are accepted online or by phoning (866) 746-8385. The deadline for early bird, discounted registrations is Dec. 5. Sponsorship and exhibiting opportunities are also available.

CRfS to Convene in Calgary Growing our energy Diversity is the theme for the 8th Annual Canadian renewable Fuels Summit to be held nov. 28-30 at the Westin Hotel in

Calgary, Alberta. Speakers from all sectors of the Canadian renewable fuels industry will be featured, including biodiesel, ethanol and advanced biofuels. General sessions will cover the Canadian outlook and global perspectives while two concurrent tracks will give attendees a chance to zero in on policy or technical issues. For more information and to register, visit www.greenfuels.org.

1/16

Pacific West Biomass Conference & Trade ShowJanuary 16-18, 2012San Francisco Marriott Marquis | San Francisco, CaliforniaWith an exclusive focus on biomass utilization in California, oregon, Washington, idaho and nevada— the Pacific West Biomass conference & trade Show will connect the area’s current and future producers of biomass-derived electricity, industrial heat and power, and advanced biofuels, with waste generators, aggregators, growers, municipal leaders, utility executives, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, investors and policy makers. (866) 746-8385www.biomassconference.com/pacificwest

California Biodiesel & Renewable Diesel ConferenceJanuary 16, 2012San Francisco Marriott Marquis | San Francisco, CaliforniaPresented by california Biodiesel alliance and Biodiesel Magazine CBA will kick off its first statewide conference Jan. 16, in downtown San Francisco. This one-day event, with evening reception, will take place as part of bbi International’s Pacific West Biomass Conference, which will also be held Jan. 16-18 in the marriott marquis. Details are being developed now and will be posted here as they become available.(866) 746-8385www.biomassconference.com/pacificwest

International Biomass Conference & ExpoApril 16-19, 2012Colorado Convention Center | Denver, Coloradoorganized by bbi international and coproduced by Biomass Power & Thermal and Biorefining Magazine, this event brings current and future producers of bioenergy and biobased products together with waste generators, energy crop growers, municipal leaders, utility executives, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, project developers, investors and policy makers. it’s a true one-stop shop—the world’s premier educational and networking junction for all biomass industries. Presentation ideas are now being accepted online.(866) 746-8385www.biomassconference.com

International fuel Ethanol Workshop & ExpoJune 4-7, 2012Minneapolis Convention Center | Minneapolis, Minnesotaevolution through innovationnow in its 28th year, the FeW provides the ethanol industry with cutting-edge content and unparalleled networking opportunities in a dynamic business-to-business environment. As the largest, longest running ethanol conference in the world, the FeW is renowned for its superb programming—powered by Ethanol Producer Magazine. Presentation ideas are now being accepted online.(866) 746-8385www.fuelethanolworkshop.com

11/28


view from the hill

‘Can’t’ Never Did Anythingby bob Dinneen

america has always been a nation of doers. We have never shied away from tackling the hard challenges that keep America President reagan’s shining city on the hill. Yet, when it comes to breaking our addiction to oil, all we seem to hear is the word “can’t.”

The latest report from the national Academy of Sciences is a perfect example of that can’t-do attitude surrounding energy innovation and domestic renewable fuels. The purpose of the report was to provide an assessment of the federal renewable fuel standard (rFS). instead, it became a rehash of every criticism leveled against American ethanol production and more fodder for the environmental, meat, fast food and oil lobbies to dismiss the innovation and evolution of the industry.

The top finding as listed in the summary of the report was, “Absent major technological innovation or policy changes, the rFS2-mandated consumption of 16 billion gallons of ethanol-equivalent cellulosic biofuels is unlikely to be met in 2022.” it is true that commercialization of next-generation biofuels will continue to be a challenge as long as the industry and investment community receive mixed signals from policymakers about whether there will be enduring support for biofuels. And, it is possible that the goals of the rFS could go unmet if we continually keep telling ourselves that we can’t do it.

This report is not the only evidence

of cold water being thrown on America’s evolving biofuels market. routinely, lobbyists for the environmental community tell us that the nation cannot produce ethanol and other biofuels because of scientifically unsubstantiated claims about indirect land use changes caused by American ethanol production. While these groups continue to erect roadblocks to America’s biofuel evolution, the world’s thirst for energy strengthens. As such, instead of harnessing the carbon-neutral benefits of renewable fuel production, America and the rest of the world is looking to marginal, environmentally devastating, and economically unsustainable sources of oil like Canadian tar sands.

Seeking to ensure its monopoly on the transportation fuels market, the oil lobby frequently points out its perceived challenges with renewable alternatives, such as the perpetual bogeymen about pipeline compatibility and cost competitiveness. We are told that America can’t satisfy its energy needs from renewable sources, so why bother.

The same can’t-do spirit even permeates offices on Capitol Hill where the lobbies intent upon stopping America’s march to greater reliance on ethanol and renewable energy sources have set up shop. bill after bill is introduced to weaken or repeal forward-looking policies that seek to foster the development of a robust ethanol industry producing low-carbon, cost-effective ethanol from a wide range of feedstocks. The most recent assault on the rFS by reps. bob Goodlatte and Jim

Costa, with the support of the corporate livestock industry, is a perfect example.

instead of wringing our hands about the challenges associated with revolutionizing our energy supply, we should embrace the challenge in a manner that only Americans can. We need to broaden our thinking on energy policy, starting with an immediate end to the billions in subsidies channeled every year to the mature fossil fuel industry. We should be fostering an environment of success for new renewable fuel technologies by investing in advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies. We must modernize our transportation fuel market, providing consumers with more choice in fuels, such as higher level ethanol blends, and vehicles that can utilize such choices. And, we need to ensure the bedrock of this evolving industry is sound by maintaining the integrity of the rFS.

America has never stood still or accepted the notion we can’t do something. Americans were the first to fly. Americans eradicated polio. It was an American that was first to set foot on the moon. And, by tapping into this unmatched entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, we can be the nation that leads the world toward an end of fossil fuel reliance.

it’s far past time we got started. As the old saying goes: “Can’t” never did anything.

author: bob DinneenPresident and Ceo of the

renewable Fuels Association(202) 289-3835

Advanced biofuels are the way of the future. Investing in them now gives you the edge in developing the most sustainable and economic biofuels solutions. Let Burns & McDonnell help you create a sustainable future.

All feedstocks. All fuels. All technologies. All industries. All services.

Comprehensive Services

Fueling a Sustainable Future

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

Ron Jones


drive

The Renewable Fuel Standard Means Certainty by Tom buis

when congress passed the energy independence and Security act in 2007, it strengthened the renewable fuel standard (RFS) as a means of promoting the renewable fuels industry so it could begin to displace foreign oil. That energy bill was adopted by a bipartisan Congress, and signed into law by President George W. bush. Across the political spectrum, we saw our elected leaders come together in agreement that it was critical for our nation to foster a renewable fuels industry that could make us independent of foreign oil.

Yet there are opponents of ethanol—the only viable alternative to foreign oil—who would block the growth of our industry. Their next goal is to dismantle the rFS.

America cannot allow that to happen. The rFS creates the market certainty that is crucial to both first-generation and second-generation ethanol.

over the years, our opponents have worked against us on several fronts—

they concocted the food versus fuel myth and blocked our efforts to redirect the volumetric ethanol excise Tax Credit away from big oil and toward building out flex-fuel pumps and other ethanol-delivery infrastructure.

When the veeTC expires at the end of this year, the only significant policy in support of ethanol will be the rFS. We must make it a point to remind this Congress of the original goal of the rFS, and show that while it has succeeded in some areas—today grain ethanol represents 10 percent of the fuels market—we are still short of the goal in other areas, particularly our efforts to make next generation ethanol commercially viable.

The rFS set a goal of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, with the majority of that being provided by a combination of grain and cellulosic ethanol. The one industry that is taking the greatest strides toward making cellulosic ethanol a commercial reality is the grain ethanol industry itself, in part because it already has access to an abundant source of biomass as feedstock.

but as we all know and recognize, the cost of developing next generation ethanol is high. The best way to draw the private capital needed to speed its development is to make sure the

market is certain. The rFS provides that certainty.

our industry needs to send Congress a clear message: keep the rFS intact. Weakening the rFS goals for cellulosic ethanol would not just block our progress toward a viable cellulosic ethanol industry, but it will literally turn the clock back to the 1970s—and put oPeC further in control of our economy. At this point, that’s the last thing our country needs.

A continued commitment to our nation’s renewable fuel industry will strengthen our energy security, generate more u.S. jobs that can’t be outsourced and improve our environment.

author: Tom buisCeo, Growth energy

(202)[email protected]

©201©201©201©201©2010111 Sy1 Sy1 Sy1 Sy1 Sy1 Syyyyngenngenngenngengenngenta. ttatatt EnogEnogEnogEnogEnogEnEnogEnoggenenenennTMTMM, th, th, thth, tht e Ale AlAe AlAA lianlianlianiananaianannce Fcece Fce Fce Fce Fe Fe ramerameramearamemm , th, th, th, ththht e Pue Pue PuPuPuPuurposrposrposrposposprpopose Ice Ice Ice Ice Ice Icon, ononononn and ndnd the he he e e SyngSyngSyngSSyngSyngSyngS entaentaentaentaentaenta log log log l logo aro ararro ara e tre tre tre tre trrademademademademademademademarksarksarksarksarksaarksa of of of of of o a Sya SySya Syyngenngenngenngenngeenngenennngeee ta Gta Gta Gta Gta Gta Gtata Grouprouprouproupoupoupp ComCom ComComComComomoCo panypanypanypanypanypanyyyyy.1 Ba1 Ba Ba1 Ba1 Baased sed sedsesed sedsed on 2on 2on 2onon 2n 2on 2on 007-007-007-007-070707-20092009200920092009092009202 Syn Syn SynSyn SynS gentgentgentgentgenengen a Tra Tra Tra TrTrTTrrialsialsialsialsialsialsalss

Introducing effi ciency on a whole new level. New EnogenTM trait technology. It drastically reduces slurry viscosity, which signifi cantly increases solids loading. And that dramatically improves throughput by 10% while reducing water and energy cost 8%-10%1. Learn more about how Enogen can change your world at 877-4ENOGEN. www.enogen.net

Approval Stock: Fortune McCoy Producto Pub News Supplied Epson Stock: Comm/Gracol Pub/Swop3 News

Epson Color Profile: Gracol Swop News SuppliedLpi:

GRACOL

Client:


Grassroots voice

Defending the Merits of the RFS by brian Jennings

life is full of uncertainties. While there’s been some hand-

wringing about the size of this year’s corn crop, as harvest comes to an end and the bushels pile up we’re reminded that American farmers are the most productive and efficient in the world. We won’t know for certain the final corn tally until the USDA collects and files its reports but it’s safe to say the doomsday crowd is wrong once again.

As of this writing, we also don’t know whether reforming the volumetric ethanol excise Tax Credit to support blender pumps, small ethanol producers and cellulosic ethanol will be enacted by Congress. inside the beltway, conventional wisdom would predict reform at this late stage is doubtful and therefore the tax incentives, including the tariff, will simply expire at year’s end.

What we do know is that ethanol opponents won’t be satisfied to witness VEETC’s demise; their sights are fixed on the renewable fuel standard (rFS) as well. indeed, for months groups such as meat packers and grocery manufacturers have been scheming ways to dismantle it. Already five bills have been introduced in Congress to modify, reduce or repeal the rFS. While this legislation poses more

headline-type public relations risk to our industry than a real threat, the drumbeat to repeal the rFS will only continue and we should expect serious legislative attempts in 2012.

As in previous policy battles, the ethanol industry has the facts on its side. The American Coalition for ethanol will be very aggressive in defending the merits of the rFS using those facts. For instance, according to a may 2011 report from the u.S. energy information Administration, “u.S. dependence on imported oil has dramatically declined since peaking in 2005.” eiA goes on to say, “by the broadest measure, u.S. dependence on imported oil fell from 60.3 percent in 2005 to 49.3 percent in 2010.” eiA’s report further notes that “increases in biofuels production also played an important role in moderating import dependence. u.S. ethanol net inputs grew from 230,000 barrels per day in 2005 to 779,000 bbl/day in 2010.”

This much is certain, the rFS is the single most effective policy enacted by Congress to increase supplies of domestic, affordable and clean biofuel and reduce foreign oil imports. We must fight and fight like hell to defeat any attempt to reduce or repeal it. not only would reduction or repeal of the rFS signal a retreat, turning the clock back to pre-2005 days when foreign oil comprised more than 60 percent of u.S. demand, but fuel prices would increase on American working families and small businesses as well.

We all know who stands to benefit from repeal of the rFS. meatpackers and grocery manufacturers who feel they are entitled to cheap corn forever, because it would once again require taxpayers to subsidize the production of cheap corn merely to their benefit. And let’s not forget oPeC, the seemingly untouchable oil baron of the world, just salivating at the thought of repealing the rFS. They hate the fact that in the u.S., we can grow our own fuel from our own farms.

This much is also certain, the law already provides ePA mechanisms to adjust the rFS if a legitimate case can be made by a petitioner. if grocery manufacturers, meat packers, and integrated livestock conglomerates have compelling evidence of inadequate corn supplies or extreme high prices they should prove it by making a credible case to ePA.

oil company actions prior to the rFS proved that, left to their own devices, they wouldn’t use a cleaner, safer, more affordable, domestic alternative in ethanol. The real-world benefits stemming from enactment of the rFS are unmistakable and we must stand up and fight to protect it.

of that we must be certain.

author: brian Jennings,executive vice President,

American Coalition for ethanol(605) 334-3381

[email protected]

Right Feedstock. Right Value.

More Ethanolper BushelMeasuring

the Results

Access to grain markets 24/7

BetterGrain Quality

PioneerQualiTrak®

System

DPPSM

Grain Desk

®, TM, SM Trademarks and service marks of Pioneer Hi-Bred. DPPSM is a service mark of Farms Technology.All purchases are subject to the terms of labeling and purchase documents. © 2011 PHII. ENDUS021973P238AVAR1


europe callinG

Is There Too Much Land in Europe?by Robert vierhout

the european common agricultural Policy is controver-sial. For some it is too expensive, while others cannot do without it. once driven by the necessity to guarantee enough of a domestically raised food supply for europe, the CAP now deals with opening international borders and environmental demands—new challenges that are caus-ing considerable strain on the farming community.

The supply-side approach of the early days resulted in a strong agricultural sector, but at the same time, more prod-ucts than europeans could digest. The butter mountains, wine lakes and cereal surpluses forced the CAP to become more market oriented.

one of the many CAP reforms resulted in the creation of a set-aside instrument taking land out of cultivation to reduce supply. initially set up in the late 1980s as a voluntary scheme, it became obligatory in the early ’90s. by 2000, 10 percent of all arable land of the eu15 was no longer used for growing crops for food purposes. The land could be used, how-ever, for growing crops for energy. Then, we had the food price spikes in 2007-’08. in no time, the set-aside policy was thrown into the shredder. more land for more crops was needed. unfortunately, only 7 percent was suitable for cultivation; the rest had been permanently converted.

With this history in mind, combined with the ever-growing demand for agricul-tural commodities and yearly increase of bioenergy demand, one would think that the eu would no longer move towards a policy of set-aside. even if that extra demand would not exist, why would eu-ropean politicians want to increase idled land, knowing that year-on-year, according to the Food and Agriculture organiza-tion of the united nations, arable land in europe is left idle?

This reality does not seem to have an impact on the thinking of the european Commission. As part of another reform of the CAP, the commission will soon intro-duce “ecological focus areas” and farmers will be required to devote at least 7 per-cent of their eligible program hectares to fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips and reforestation.

Well, it may have a nice name, but in reality is nothing else than set-aside in a different suit. if environmental concern is the name of the game, why then not force upon all crop production, whatever the end-use, sustainability criteria that already apply to biofuel crops? That would most likely deliver more than the 7 percent land being envisaged with this measure.

but what is most striking is the im-pression given that there is an abundance of arable land in europe and that we can do with less. if that is indeed the case, why are we having this silly debate on indirect land use change (iLuC)? A study published in march 2011, commissioned by a group of nongovernmental organiza-

tions and conducted by the institute for european environmental Policy, found the anticipated indirect land use by 2020 as-sociated with increased biofuels in the eu would require an area almost equal to the entire republic of ireland.

The 7 percent arable land set aside for ecological focus areas would comprise about 7 million hectares—more or less the size of ireland.

How ironic can this be: Trying to win land by abolishing biofuel policy while giving away an equal area of land at the same time, and through the back door, forcing it to be taken out of production.

The eu urgently needs to answer one question: Do we have enough arable land to fulfill our needs now and in the future? if the answer is yes, then forget about iLuC, at least for domestic biofuels. if the answer is no, don’t even think about mandatory set-aside, in whatever form or fashion. Worries about food shortages and the resulting risks of harmful land use changes are without substance, if europe has the luxury to sacrifice valuable pro-ductive hectares for ecological enhance-ment.

author: robert vierhoutSecretary-general, ePure

[email protected]


business matters

earning a tax credit for business research and development doesn’t require the use of a white lab coat. For years, the federal government and numerous states have rewarded companies that incorporate innovation and creativity to expand their product line. The credit has changed since it was originally put in place and currently the federal Credit for increasing research Activities is available to companies such as engineering companies, technology providers, agriculture operations and manufacturers—including ethanol production facilities.

As one of the most progressive, adaptive industries in the country, it makes perfect sense for biofuels companies to take advantage of this research and development tax credit. maximizing this benefit can be accomplished in many ways. if a plant is working to create a new product line, modify an existing coproduct or improve current operational processes to become more efficient, this tax credit could apply. A manufacturer could be contracting research labor, using in-house labor or utilizing new materials, all of which can be applied toward the tax credit.

For many years, the credit required research activities include a discovery test for patents and inventions and extensive documentation. in 2003, the regulations changed to keep innovation and creativity in the u.S. The government eliminated the discovery requirement and modified the documentation standard. Congress later made it clear through

legislative history that the credit should not impose unreasonable record-keeping requirements. And it increased the budget for this credit to $9 billion.

In 2005, 1,100 firms took $5.7 billion or 63 percent of the allowable credit. That year manufacturing alone earned 71.2 percent of credit dollars.

Currently, the rule identifies four criteria for the work to earn the tax credit. The work is 1) Aimed at implementing a new or improved business component, 2) Working toward the elimination of uncertainty, 3) using a process of experimentation, and 4) The work must be technological in nature. The rule also allowed new industries such as engineering, chemistry, biology and computer sciences to qualify.

manufacturing companies can take advantage of the credit through research and development activities already in place. A company could be working toward an improved product, incorporating new tooling or equipment fixture design, designing a unique computer numerical control program, redesigning manufacturing equipment, rolling out new products to clients, modifying machinery and equipment, implementing alternative materials testing, using new coating systems or implementing health and safety procedures or equipment. All of these things, and many more, are considered research and development eligible for the tax credit.

Keep in mind the end result of the research doesn’t have to be successful. merely the action of using innovation or

revamping a product is what this tax credit is all about.

one Kennedy and Coe client who manufactures equipment has utilized the Credit for increasing research Activities for the past four years. In the first year, the company saved approximately $40,000 in federal income tax by investing in new processes, design/model types and structures. The company continued to invest in engineering and new prototypes and in 2010, earned a $100,000 tax credit. These activities all made good business sense for the company and taking advantage of the research and development credit lets the federal government help pay the cost.

For every dollar of research and development, the average taxpayer receives seven cents back in tax credits. often the results are much higher and there is no federal limit on the amount per company that can be saved. it’s also important to note that dollars invested are still valid business expense deductions while, in addition, a credit is generated that can be used directly against a tax liability.

When the federal government provides an opportunity like this, it is a no-brainer. Companies should be exploring this opportunity right now, while the tax planning window for 2011 remains open. Consulting your tax advisor about the Credit for increasing research Activities could mean significant tax savings in 2011.

author: Trina Swart CPA , Senior Associate, Kennedy and Coe LLC

(800) [email protected]

Take Credit for Research and Innovation by Trina Swart

headline essenceheadline brow

GeneArt® gene synthesis, build your

next breakthrough

©2011 Life Technologies Corporation. All rights reserved. The trademarks mentioned herein are the property of Life Technologies Corporation or their respective owners. For research use only. Not intended for any animal or human therapeutic or diagnostic use. CO18747

Go to www.invitrogen.com/geneart

Experience the new generation of gene synthesis and assembly toolsGeneArt® solutions give you predictability, adaptability, and confidence. Whether increasing protein expression rates as much as 100X or assembling genetic constructs with unprecedented precision, GeneArt® gene synthesis and assembly tools enable youto break through your most complex challenges.


Three new members joined the board of the american Coalition for ethanol at its annual meeting in August: Bob Sather, director of public affairs, who will repre-sent Ace Ethanol llC, a 43 MMgy ethanol producer in Stanley, Wis.; Ron Wetherell, chairman, little Sioux Corn Processors, a 108 MMgy locally-owned ethanol plant in Marcus, Iowa; and, kevin dailey, president and CEo of north American Bioproducts Corp.

akin Gump Strauss hauer & Feld llP expanded its project finance and renew-able energy capabilities with the addition of partners Thomas Trimble and Jeremy Schw-er, who have re-joined the firm's Washington office. Trimble was co-head of the renewable energy practice group at his former firm, Hunton & Williams llP. Firm chairman r. Bruce Mclean remarked, "We are very ex-cited to welcome back Tom and Jeremy to the Washington office. Their arrival contin-ues the momentum of our project finance team expansion, which had a big boost last quarter on the West Coast with the arrival of Ed Zaelke and Adam Umanoff and their team from Chadbourne and Parke."

Pacific ethanol inc. announced its subsidiary, Kinergy Marketing llC, has en-tered into a two-year extension of its exclu-sive ethanol marketing arrangement with ae advanced Fuels keyes inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AE Biofuels Inc. The compa-nies extended a nov. 11, 2010, agreement to sell all the ethanol produced by AE Keyes’ 55 MMgy facility located in Keyes, Calif. The AE Keyes facility became operational in the second quarter of 2011.

Petro Serve uSa received the Paul Dana Marketing Vision Award from the american Coalition for ethanol for its support of E85

and its efforts in urging its oil company sup-pliers to allow blender pumps. Petro Serve General Manager Kent Satrang also played a crucial role in getting state funds allocated to improve blender pump infrastructure in north Dakota which has the largest number of blender pumps of any state in the nation.

iCM inc. has coupled its feedstock-flexible gasification system with eisenmann Corp.’s dual-field WESP (wet electrostatic precipitation). ICM chose this emission abatement technology based on work at ICM’s commercial-scale demonstration gas-ifier adjacent to the Harvey County munici-pal solid waste transfer and recycling facility in Newton, Kan. The gasifier can test mul-tiple feedstocks, include refuse-derived fuel (rDF), tire-derived fuel mixed with rDF, wood chips, wheat straw, switchgrass and corn stover.

Missouri-based lll transport inc. has been sold to a private ownership group led by Gary Waller and Joshua Wheeler, who will assume the roles of CEo and chief financial officer, respectively. “I have come to know and respect Gary Waller and Josh Wheeler over the past few years. They know the transportation and biofuels industries, and I am confident they will continue the legacy of lll Transport,” said Jeff littrell, who founded the company 25 years ago. He and his sons, Jason and Daniel, will remain in leadership roles, as will Greg Davis, opera-tions manager. The company has no plans for workforce reductions among its 130 em-ployees.

expertune inc. is offering a no-cost upgrade for existing users of rockwell rS-Tune and rS loop optimizer, both devel-oped by the company for rockwell systems. ExperTune’s PID loop optimizer software provides a direct replacement for the rock-well products, with many feature upgrades included.

BuSINESS bRIEFSPeople, Partnerships & Deals

eco-energy holdings inc. is partnering with J.T. russell and Sons Inc. for the develop-ment, construction and day-to-day operations of a unit train facility at its ethanol distribution facility in Denton, n.C. It will be equipped to receive up to 96-car unit trains via both the CSX and nS railroads and will have tank storage for more than 95,000 barrels of ethanol. The part-nership will offer throughput agreements to ethanol suppliers and end-users desiring to lower their supply chain costs. Focusing on the marketing and distribution of biofuels, Eco-Energy is one of the largest full-service marketing companies in north America with over $2.5 billion in sales and handling nearly 10 percent of the biofuels market.


Founders Jeff and larry DeGraaf cel-ebrated the 25th year of business for their company, industrial Construction & en-gineering Co. Missouri-based IC&E began as a regional contractor providing insulation services and has since expanded to become a national contractor serving industries such as renewable energies, power and process, refrigeration and food and beverage. “The renewable energies market has been a big growth area for us,” Jeff DeGraff, president, said. IC&E’s dedicated renewable energy crews have completed more than 30 ethanol projects and 13 biodiesel plants.

Gavilon llC became heron lake Bioenergy llC’s exclusive corn supplier and marketer of ethanol and distillers grains Sept. 1. "We are extremely pleased to be se-lected as Heron Lake's exclusive provider and marketer of the ethanol plant's inputs and outputs," commented randy Ives, di-rector of ethanol services at Gavilon. "This agreement leverages our core capabilities and will enable Heron lake to reduce its work-ing capital requirements and more effectively manage its processing margins in both the spot and forward markets." Heron lake pro-cures approximately 18 million bushels of corn per year and produces approximately 50 million gallons of ethanol and 160,000 tons of DDGS.

trillium FiberFuels inc. received a $150,000 Small Business Innovation re-search grant from the national Science Foundation to support enzyme develop-ment for cellulosic ethanol. Trillium can now compete for a larger Phase II award in 2012. Trillium will use the funds for the develop-ment of a novel, naturally occurring enzyme

that was isolated by Stephen Giovannoni at oregon State University that converts xylose into a sugar fermentable by brewing yeast.

CPM announced a new industrial market manufacturers’ sales representative agreement with Synertek Process equip-ment inc. Scott Engle and Scott Holland of Synertek will be industrial market sales representatives for CPM roskamp Champi-on in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee and the Florida Panhandle. Synertek has been a leader in dry process equipment applica-tions since 1990, representing equipment manufacturers who weigh, batch, blend, mill, screen and classify, measure, monitor and convey dry solids or powder material. CPM business units include Crown Iron Works, roskamp Champion, California Pellet Mill, Beta raven, Century Extrusion, Wolverine Proctor and Greenbank Technology.

GreenShift Corp. announced the suc-cessful commissioning of its patented corn oil extraction technology at advanced Bio-energy llC’s 110 MMgy ethanol plant in Fairmont, neb. “We are consistently extract-ing our desired yield without use of chemical additives,” said richard Peterson, Advanced BioEnergy CEo. “The turn-key system de-signed by GreenShift has a payback of sub-stantially less than one year. We look forward to the additional income this system will gen-erate for our business.”

A multi-year agreement between Pacific

Convenience and Fuels llC and redwood City, Calif.-based Propel Fuels inc. allows Propel to co-locate its Clean Fuel Point al-

ternative fuel dispensers at more than 80 of PC&F’s 300 gas stations and convenience stores located in California, Washington oregon and Colorado. PC&F will provide Propel with access to its retail sites while Propel will own and operate the alternative fuel equipment, provide E85 and biodiesel for the system and handle customer outreach and education.

Clean Burn Fuels llC’s primary lend-er, Cape Fear Farm Credit, has taken posses-sion of the plant in raeford, n.C., following an unsuccessful foreclosure auction. neces-sary maintenance is now being done on the plant, which has been idled since it filed for bankruptcy early this year. Cape Fear will also invest in completing the necessary repairs to restart the facility while continuing to seek a buyer for the plant, according to CEo Mi-chael Jackson.

enerkem inc. has signed an offtake agreement with Methanex Corp. for metha-nol that will be produced at Enerkem’s 36 MMly (10 MMgy) facility in Edmonton, Alberta. The facility is currently under con-struction and is expected to begin produc-ing methanol from municipal solid waste (MSW) in the second half of 2012. The offtake agreement allows Enerkem to gener-ate revenues from an intermediate product while construction of the ethanol island is finalized. Enerkem is also developing a 10 MMgy MSW-to-ethanol facility in northeast Mississippi near Pontotoc.

Sponsored by

business briefs

share your industry briefs to be included in business briefs, send information (including photos and logos if available) to: business briefs, Ethanol Producer Magazine, 308 second ave. n., suite 304, Grand forks nd 58203. you may also fax information to (701) 746-8385, or e-mail it to [email protected]. please include your name and telephone number in all correspondence.


Sept. 30—occassionally it is useful to take a long view and assess potential mar-ket dynamics over the coming decades. The “MIT Study on the Future of natural Gas” published this summer gives that opportunity. Following are some of the most interesting observations.

The U.S. has tremendous supply poten-tial. At current usage, the U.S. has roughly 100 years of recoverable gas resources assuming no price constraints. If prices stay in the $5 per million Btu (MMBtu) range in constant dollars, available supply shrinks to roughly 40 years.

Carbon policy matters. With “business as usual” assumptions, natural gas demand will increase 60 percent by 2050 and prices will es-calate to $10.40 per MMBtu. With a targeted 50 percent carbon reduction by 2050 from 2005 levels, natural gas demand will increase by only 14 percent and prices will rocket to $21.90 per MMBtu. Much of the price is re-lated to carbon pricing and does not flow back to the producer.

Globally, other than the Middle East and russia, the U.S. has the most recoverable gas resources. Interestingly, neither China nor In-dia has a material amount of recoverable gas resources.

There are massive potential recoverable gas resources in the form of gas hydrates that are not presently included in estimates due to technology constraints. If economical, safe,

Natural Gas Report

Corn Report

Natural Gas: The Long View By CaSEy WHELaN

Evidence of demand rationing behind supply/demand moves By JaSON SaGEBIEL

COMMODITIES REPORT

oct. 3—The corn market spiraled down in late September as the world economy sput-tered, overall commodity liquidation occurred and yield expectations improved. December corn plummeted $2.06 from Sept. 29 to oct.1 on the bearish quarterly grains stocks report.

The first culprit in September’s wild ride was the bullish monthly supply/demand re-port, with USDA estimating corn yield at 148.1 bushels per acre, down from 153 in August. Yield prospects improved, however, particularly in the Western Corn Belt. The up-dated numbers in the october report will be closely watched.

The USDA’s quarterly grain stocks figure at the end of September was grossly bearish as corn stocks through September totaled 1.13 billion bushels—larger than what traders expected, though still down 34 percent from the year before. The report revealed demand

rationing had been occurring. Many other grains, oilseeds and coproducts have seen historical highs, yet, with high corn val-ues and tight corn basis, feeders were focused on other feed in-gredients to incorporate in their rations.

For the 2011-’12 marketing year, the USDA kept ethanol demand at 5.0 billion bushels and export demand at 1.65 bil-lion bushels, projecting feed demand at 4.70 billion bushels as compared to the current old crop demand figure of 5.0 billion bushels. The old crop fig-ure should be reduced in the october report. World carry-out should increase as well, due to the increase in the U.S. and good prospects for China and Eastern Europe. Wheat could

environmentally responsible recovery tech-nology is developed, which we may not see for decades, gas resources will expand materially.

There is significant potential to convert natural gas to liquid fuels for transportation, using existing technology. natural gas has a much lower carbon footprint than crude-de-rived liquid fuel. In addition, natural gas has stronger supply fundamentals which may sup-port a continued wide spread between natural gas and crude prices.

The MIT study is very thoughtful and prepared with input from a variety of experts. While it is impossible to forecast precisely what will happen next year, let alone in 20 years, this report does a good job of discuss-ing factors that will drive supply and prices well into the future. If you are an energy geek like I am, it’s a good read.

be a precursor to a positive fundamental out-look as continued dry conditions are exhibted in the central and southern plains. Southern hemisphere weather will be watched because any production disruption could lead to global supply concerns.

on the web

For the full report, The “miT Study on the Future of natural Gas,” visit: http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/naturalgas.html


DDGS Report

Ethanol Report

DDGS value gaining relative to corn, demand stays strong By SEaN BRODERICK

Energy, ethanol prices pressured by outside markets By RICK KMENT

COMMODITIES REPORT

DDGS Prices ($/ton)

LOCaTION NOV 2011 OCT 2011 NOV 2010

minnesota 195 190 115

Chicago 215 205 135

buffalo, n.Y. 225 220 170

Central Calif. 254 253 160

Central Fla. 238 228 146SourCe: CHS inc.

Natural Gas Prices ($/mmbtu)

LOCaTION OCT 1, 2011 SEPT 1, 2011 OCT 1, 2010

nYmeX 3.67 3.94 3.84

nnG ventura 3.77 4.00 3.86

CA Citygate 4.10 4.23 4.10

SourCe: u.S. energy Services inc.

Regional Ethanol Prices Front month Futures (AC) $2.489

REGION SPOT RaCK

West Coast $2.720 $3.045

midwest $2.560 $2.950

east Coast $2.680 $2.945SourCe: DTn

Regional Gasoline Prices Front month Futures Price (rbob) $2.6220

REGION SPOT RaCK

West Coast $2.679 $3.000

midwest $2.604 $2.672

east Coast $2.641 $2.730SourCe: DTn

Corn futures Prices (Dec. Futures, $/bushel)

DaTE HIGH LOW CLOSE

Sept. 30, 2011 6.36 5.92 1/2 5.92 1/2

August 31, 2011 7.75 1/2 7.67 7.67 1/2

Sept. 30, 2010 5.08 1/4 4.78 1/2 4.95 3/4SourCe: FCStone

Cash Sorghum Prices ($/bushel)

LOCaTION SEPT 29, 2011

auG 26, 2011

OCT 1, 2010

Superior, neb. 5.93 7.12 4.06

beatrice, neb. 5.78 7.18 4.06

Sublette, Kan. 5.73 7.08 3.91

Salina, Kan. 6.05 7.34 4.10

Triangle, Texas 5.99 6.89 4.18

Gulf, Texas 6.68 8.12 4.31

SourCe: Sorghum Synergies

u.S. Ethanol Production (1,000 barrels)

PER Day MONTH END STOCKS

July 2011 891 27,624 18,700

June 2011 902 27,064 18,833

July 2010 858 26,584 17,809SourCe: u.S. energy information Administration

Sept. 30—Energy and ethanol mar-kets had a turbulent ride in the second half of September, sparked by continued domestic and global economic unrest due to continued high unemployment numbers as well as renewed concerns about European debt. It first appeared that moderate to strong continued sup-port would hold for rBoB gasoline and the energy market, but this quickly changed due to expected weakening global gasoline demand and a pullback from noncommercial or investment trader interest. The gasoline market tumbled as the Dow Jones fell nearly 700 points through the month of September and rBoB gasoline futures fell nearly 30 cents per gallon. The retail implications of the lower market has yet to be fully

seen, although pump prices are starting to ease and could continue to erode over the next several weeks.

Corn markets were hit extremely hard, with the Sept. 30 quarterly stocks report plunging the market into a bear-ish tailspin. Through September, corn futures prices fell $1.83 per bushel as demand faded due to higher prices, and production estimates were slightly better than expected. The lower corn market slashed ethanol prices by nearly 50 cents per gallon on the futures market through September. Additional pressure will like-ly develop across both the spot and rack ethanol markets in order to adjust to the new, lower production costs associated with weakness in the corn complex.

Sept. 30—DDGS has been gain-ing value against corn. Prices were slow to move up, and now are slow moving down. Users can’t switch rations over-night. Many traditional DDGS users have been evaluating soybean and canola meal options, as DDGS strengthens rela-tive to corn. As biodiesel demand for oil stays strong, meals will be in good sup-ply. Many nutritionists are revisiting a corn/soymeal mix, which will pressure distillers grains prices.

That being said, U.S. demand is still very strong, especially from dairy, cattle and hogs. Internationally, in addition to increases from Mexico and Canada, we are seeing many more countries increase DDGS use, including Saudi Arabia, Ma-laysia, Spain and the UK. In addition to

private efforts, groups including the US Grains Council have done a great job of educating feeders and nutritionists worldwide in the advantages of DDGS usage.

overall DDGS exports are down about 10 percent from last year, but un-like years past, more volume has shipped in containers, rather than bulk vessels. The Chicago container market has been the best-paying destination for many Midwestern plants, and both rail and truck have been moving in aggressively. Containers enjoyed a $25-per-metric-ton discount to bulk, delivered to Asian ports. There is an impending freight rate increase, though, and with the oncoming grain harvest, competition for available empty containers will be fierce.

FEBRUARY 22-24, 2012Gaylord Palms Resort & Convention Center | Orlando, Florida

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN!

NationalEthanolConference.com

INDUSTRY INNOVATION


distilled Ethanol News & Trends

The fall 2011 edition of the Fuel Etha-nol Plant Map enclosed with this issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine shows few changes in the existing corn-based ethanol industry while second-generation projects continue to develop.

The stragglers from the big corn-etha-nol buildout—Hereford renewable Energy llC, Aventine renewable Energy-Aurora West llC, and Aventine renewable Energy-Mt. Vernon llC—have completed construc-tion. But, because the Aurora West plant has not yet started up, it remains on the under construction list. notably, it’s now the only grain-based U.S. ethanol plant on the under construction list.

one of the best-read features in past is-sues of Ethanol Producer Magazine was the an-nual review of proposed plants, which often covered multiple pages. Beginning in spring 2010, EPM added the list of proposed proj-ects to the twice-yearly map. In the past two years, some of those projects have slowly dropped off the list as developers come to terms with the reality that the ethanol boom has fizzled. That spring 2010 list of U.S. grain/sugar-based proposed plants num-bered 35—this time around, the number is 26. of those projects, many are in a holding pattern, not willing to give up on the idea, but not able to move forward due to high corn prices or lack of financing.

That’s not to say there’s no move-ment. Highlands EnviroFuels llC, a proj-ect of U.S. EnviroFuels llC, reported at the end of September that it had received its air construction permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The company plans to break ground in the early second quarter of 2012 on a 30 MMgy sugar cane and sweet sorghum plant near lake Placid, Fla., that will also produce up to 30 megawatts of renewable power from bagasse.

Financing continues to be the black cloud hanging over many proposed cellulosic ethanol projects. nearly every proposed proj-

ect that has not advanced in the past year cit-ed the difficulty in acquiring financing. Many project leaders also commented that unclear policy messages from Washington have caused hesitation in the investment commu-nity. Some proposed projects are now look-ing to Asia for financing, while others have decided to drop their projects completely. “It’s been four and a half years of research and spending money with good results, but the financial situation in this country is ‘wait and see,’” said one project developer who has decided to shelve plans indefinitely. Many other projects say they are in “wait and see” mode until the financial climate improves.

Despite the many difficulties, there are bright spots on the cellulosic map this fall. Several plants are actively under construc-tion, including the 23 MMgy Abengoa Bio-energy Biomass of Kansas llC project in Hugoton, Kan. and the 8 MMgy Ineos new

Planet Bioenergy llC plant in Vero Beach, Fla. Both facilities have received federal loan guarantees for their projects. To further at-test to the power of federal loan backing, Poet llC, which has already installed storage space and conducted preliminary construc-tion activities at the site of its 25 MMgy plant in Emmetsberg, Iowa, is also expected to soon begin constructing its main biorefinery now that it has received final approval for a U.S. DoE loan guarantee. Ineos expects to begin producing cellulosic ethanol next year. Abengoa and Poet will come online the fol-lowing year. BP, which is financing its $400 million 36 MMgy plant in Florida indepen-dently, has not yet begun construction of the facility, but planted feedstock in the form of energy grasses this fall. The company expects to have its facility up and running in 2013.—Kris Bevill, Holly Jessen, Susanne Retka Schill

fall Ethanol Plant Map Many proposed projects in holding pattern

Feedstock Check Corn ethanol dwarfs all other feedstocks

when the numbers are analyzed from the Fall Ethanol Plant Map:

The grand total of all first- and second-• generation, existing, under construction and proposed plants is 17.27 billion gal-lons. Straight corn and corn combined with • milo or small grains totals 15.94 billion gallons of ethanol capacity, proposed and existing. of that, 13.77 billion gal-lons is existing ethanol capacity using straight corn. Other feedstocks using the first-genera-• tion, starch/sugar conversion platform are miniscule in comparison, with 115 million gallons using barley and wheat and 136 million gallons using sugar crops or waste sugars. The cellulosic ethanol scene is far more • diverse, although dominated by hybrid plants using corn, stover and other cel-lulosic feedstocks, totaling 380 MMgy in

capacity. of that, 70 MMgy is listed as corn stover only. Just 9 MMgy in capacity has been built, and another 86 MMgy is now under construction, leaving this cat-egory represented by nearly 650 MMgy in proposed capacity—a number that will undoubtedly be very fluid as new projects are proposed and others put on the back burner. The accompanying chart shows the breakout by broad feedstock catego-ries for all the cellulosic ethanol plants on the list this fall.


Ethanol News & Trends

distilled

Bunge north America and Syngenta Corp. are locked in a court battle over wheth-er Bunge should still accept Syngenta’s genet-ically modified (GM) Agrisure Viptera trait corn despite the fact that the trademarked product doesn’t yet have regulatory approv-al for the export markets of the European Union and China.

An issue of contention is whether China is a “major importer” of U.S. corn. In Sep-tember 2010, the north American Grain Association urged the Biotechnology Indus-try Organization to “define the minimum markets in which regulatory requirements should be met prior to commercialization” to include eight countries, one of which was China. The recommended list of countries was not changed, however, and Syngenta followed BIo’s existing recommendations for import approvals when offering Viptera corn for commercial sale in the U.S. Further, Syngenta says approval for China is expected in early 2012.

In court documents, Syngenta argued that Bunge could separate Viptera corn to nonexport users, such as ethanol plants, food processors or feed mills. Bunge, however, said such a separating system would cost $6 to $8 million per facility and that if a ship-ment to China were rejected for contami-nation with an unapproved transgenic trait, such as Viptera, the cost to redirect that corn could be from $4 to $20 million. In addition, it was pointed out that some ethanol facili-ties may not accept Viptera corn because distillers grains from that plant couldn’t be exported to the EU or China if produced with Viptera corn.

Viptera corn became commercially avail-able to U.S. corn farmers for the 2011 plant-ing season. The corn variety provides protec-tion from 14 insects, including corn borer and

corn rootworm. It also reduces development of fungus and mycotoxins in stored corn, due to reduction in insect damage. The ge-netically modified corn has received the nec-essary regulatory approvals from the USDA. It has also received approvals for cultivation in Canada, Argentina and Brazil and import in several countries, including Brazil, Canada, Japan, Mexico and more.

Legally, Bunge scored the first point in late September when a judge in U.S. District Court for the northern District of Iowa ruled against Syngenta’s motion for a prelim-inary injunction against Bunge. regardless of that ruling, Syngenta is still moving forward with a lawsuit against the Bunge. “This law-suit is only part of Syngenta’s determination to secure greater clarity for growers regard-ing industry marketing practices for newly approved technologies, enabling them to market their grain with confidence,” a Synge-nta spokesperson tells EPM. “From this per-spective, our determination is unchanged.”

Bunge, on the other hand, says the court decision denying the preliminary injunction was a sign that the court would ultimately rule that Syngenta’s case is without merit. “We be-lieve the court’s final ruling will further vali-date the actions Bunge took to protect the integrity of our export supply chain.”

Bunge is not the only major player to an-nounce it won’t accept Viptera corn. Archer Daniels Midland Co. said it wouldn’t take it at any of its north American wet mill facilities until the corn receives regulatory approval from the European Union.

Cargill Inc. also isn’t accepting the corn at its wet-milling facilities, says Mark Klein, spokesperson. He points to a long-standing policy of not accepting product not approved for use in the EU—a policy that was in place before Syngenta’s Viptera corn was commer-cialized. The fact that exports of corn and distillers grains to China have increased in recent years is also a factor for Cargill. The company joins others such as Bunge in con-sidering China to be a major export market. “Cargill strongly values its right to accept or restrict products of agricultural biotechnol-ogy, dependant on the approval status in ex-port markets and needs of our customers,” Klein tells EPM.

The company’s policy at its grain eleva-tors is different. Cargill requires written noti-fication before delivery of Viptera corn to its grain elevators, Klein says. Still, the company doesn’t guarantee the corn will be accepted at Cargill grain elevators, even with written notification. —Holly Jessen

Market Questions Syngenta has filed suit against Bunge North America for not accepting deliveries of its genetically modifed Agrisure viptera corn variety, saying farmers need assurance for Gm varieties.

Battle of the GM CornSyngenta moves ahead with bunge lawsuit

PH

oTo

: SY

nG

en

TA


distilled

Whenever possible, the agricultural community should speak with a single voice, said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Whether it’s the livestock industry, corn growers or bioenergy producers, all should focus on telling one of the greatest untold stories—the extraordinary innovation of agriculture.

Vilsack tackled the topic of the live-stock industry’s perceived concerns over feed availability during his keynote address, Sept. 21 at Growth Energy’s Second legisla-tive Conference. Corn growers and bioen-ergy producers should be considered friends of the livestock industry, not foes, he said in answer to a question from an audience member. When these groups waste time “fussing” with their friends they are losing an opportunity to talk about the power and

ethanol Supporter Secretary of Agriculture Tom vilsack has been a strong supporter of the ethanol industry. He spoke Sept. 21 at Growth energy’s invitation-only Second Legislative Conference, held in Washington, D.C.

Speaking with a Single VoiceAg industry needs to present united front, vilsack says

PH

oTo

: uS

DA

importance of the U.S. agricul-tural industry. “We don’t have the luxury—that’s what it is, in my view—of fussing with each other,” he said. “We have to have a concerted effort to speak to the other 99.9 percent.” It’s a message, he added, that he’s

brought to groups such as the national Cat-tlemen’s Beef Association and the national Pork Producers Council.

Vilsack also talked about advances in technology that have allowed agriculture to substantially expand productivity. Agricul-ture has not been static. “Instead of fussing with each other, figure out how you can do it all,” he said. “Part of it involves a commit-ment to research.” Billions in research fund-ing is going into programs to do wonderful things like find a cure for cancer. Agricul-tural research, on the other hand, has flat-lined and even declined somewhat, Vilsack said. Further productivity gains are needed at a time when U.S. agriculture needs to find ways to feed billions of people, at home and overseas.

Finally, Vilsack pointed to the biore-

fineries of the future. The biofuels indus-try is working on alternative feedstocks and alternative fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol. “My sense of this—we are now at a tipping point. We are going to start seeing a lot of these biorefineries pop up like mushrooms,” he said, “and people are going to say where did this all come from?”

The ethanol industry has always had his emphatic support, Vilsack said, because of its role in providing jobs and revitaliz-ing rural communities. “Your industry is a great example of American ingenuity and American opportunity and it is important and necessary that this industry be allowed to progress,” he said.

There are challenges, of course. “At the end of the day, you are producing something that the rest of the world is very interested in,” he says. “And as we perfect the process, as we create alternative ways to produce en-ergy from waste products and from a wide variety of feedstocks, you are going to es-tablish and set the table for the rest of the world.” —Holly Jessen


distilled

A coalition of biofuel producers, tech-nology providers, cleantech investors and supporting companies have formed a new lobby campaign focused on convincing lawmakers to open the U.S. fuel market to alternative fuels. The campaign, called Fu-elChoicenow, supports the deployment of technologies that will enable all types of al-ternative fuels the opportunity to compete in the consumer fuel space, including methanol, natural gas, electricity and biofuels.

“The only way to free the American consumer from the vicious cycle of world oil price spikes is to give them a choice at the pump,” Matt Horton, CEo of alterna-tive fuel pump retailer Propel Fuels, says. “There are alternatives, but we need to un-leash them.”

In response to the group’s introduction to the biofuels community, Advanced Bio-fuels USA, a biofuels education group and staunch advocate of the advanced biofuels industry, chastised FuelChoicenow for its inclusion of fossil fuel-derived alternatives in its plan. “This organization appears to have hijacked a biofuels train for non-renewable fossil fuel cargo and has introduced more confusion to a complex topic,” Advanced Biofuels said in a statement.

But Sue Hager, vice president of corpo-rate communications and government affairs for Qteros Inc., a member of FuelChoice-Now, says promoting one specific alterna-tive fuel over another is not the point of the new group, and to do so would be detrimen-tal to the overall mission. “The purpose of FuelChoicenow is to make the transport system open and competitive to other fuel types,” she says. “By giving consumers a choice, they will pick the winners. We’re not having the right debate if we keep advocat-ing one fuel type over the other. This is one reason for FuelChoicenow—to elevate the

conversation beyond one fuel over another and address the fact that we have a closed fuel market.”

Early this year, rep. John Shimkus, r-Ill., and three co-sponsors introduced the open Fuel Standard, a bill which would re-quire auto manufacturers to make 95 percent of the vehicles they produce flex-fuel capa-ble by 2017. Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Dick lugar, r-Ind., introduced a similar bill to the Senate in September, calling for 80 percent of vehicles produced to be flex-fuel capable by 2018. Members of FuelChoice-now say they agree with many of the objec-tives introduced in the open Fuel Standard, but hadn’t publicly endorsed the legislation as of early october.

Brooke Coleman, director of the Ad-vanced Ethanol Council and coordinator of FuelChoicenow, says while vehicles are certainly key to the consumer’s ability to use alternative fuels, infrastructure is perhaps equally important, and the coalition will devote attention to the need for expanded alternative fuels infrastructure. “It’s a well-recognized chicken-and-egg problem where vehicle makers say, ‘If you make the pumps, we’ll make the vehicles,’ and station own-ers don’t think there are enough vehicles to change pumps,” he says. “Both arguments are somewhat reasonable. The problem is:

one has to change. The easiest and cheapest way to cut that knot is to have automakers make a commitment to putting more flex-fuel vehicles into the space.”

Denmark-based enzyme producer no-vozymes signed on to the coalition because it believes consumers deserve the chance to choose what fuel to use in their vehicles and because the cleantech industry will provide much needed jobs to the U.S. economy, says Adam Monroe, president of novozymes north America. “The formation of this new coalition proves that momentum is continu-ing to build behind biofuels,” he says. “no-vozymes is proud to be working with these forward-thinkers to give consumers more choices when buying a car and filling it up. By freeing our country from costly foreign oil, we are helping consumers and our econ-omy at the same time.”

other supporters of the group include Abengoa Bioenergy, Agrivida, BlueFire re-newables Inc., Coskata Inc., Enerkem, Ful-crum Bioenergy Inc., Inbicon, Iogen Corp., Mascoma Corp., osage Bio Energy and venture capital firms @Ventures, Advanced Technology Ventures, Battery Ventures, Cra-ton Equity Partners, Globespan Capital Part-ners, Mohr Davidow Ventures, nth Power, Paladin Capital Group and Venrock. —Kris Bevill

Choices, ChoicesNew group focuses on fuel choice in the marketplace

Power at the Pump The FuelChoicenow campaign wants the transportation fuel system to be open to any fuel, providing consumers with the power to choose the winners.


distilled

lPP Combustion llC recently an-nounced that its technology to vaporize various liquid fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, into natural gas equivalent has successfully been used to operate a com-mercial Capstone C30 combustion turbine for 1,000 hours. The turbine generated electricity to power lights, computers and heating, venting and air conditioning units. Excess electricity was delivered to the grid.

Light your fireLPP Combustion technology reaches milestone

Considering it was the first year that the USDA allowed rural Energy for Amer-ica Program funds to be used for blender pump installations, and considering that officials had just two months to get the word out to potential applicants and guide them through the process, the end result was not bad. In total, blender pump proj-ects received less than $3 million of the to-tal $38.6 million in rEAP grants and loans the USDA awarded to hundreds of proj-ects in rural areas throughout the U.S. this year. But 54 blender pump projects, and even more actual pumps, will be installed as a result of the funding assistance.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has been an aggressive crusader for the ex-pansion of biofuels infrastructure since last fall when he declared a goal of establishing 10,000 blender pumps throughout the U.S. over the course of five years. In announc-ing the rEAP awards, he noted that the expansion of biofuels infrastructure sup-ports the obama administration’s vision of building a clean energy economy and providing much-needed jobs for people in rural areas. “This funding is an important part of the obama administration’s plan

Not BaduSDA ends REAP year with $3 million for blender pumps

to help the nation’s farmers, agricultural producers and rural small businesses con-serve natural resources, cre-ate more green jobs and lead us on the path to becoming

an energy independent nation,” he said.While there are notably few blender

pumps across the country, agriculture-centric Midwestern states have the greatest numbers, and that is also where most of the rEAP funding will be used to install more. In Wisconsin, for example, Unit-ed Cooperative plans to use a $448,500 rEAP grant to install 33 ethanol blender pumps and 17 biodiesel dispensers in the south-central part of the state. Six projects in Missouri received a total of more than $290,000 in rEAP grants. Meanwhile Cali-fornia, which has more flex-fuel vehicles on the road than any other state, received just $135,000 for four projects. one unfor-tunate caveat to the rEAP program that automatically rules out urban applicants is that projects must be located in areas with populations of 50,000 or less in order to qualify. Vilsack made it known that he was aware of this issue when he announced the first round of REAP awards in August and said that USDA officials were working with other programs within the agency to determine whether other types of funding could be made available. —Kris Bevill

The turbine operated for 14-18 hours per day, five days a week for most of the 1,000 hours.

lPP has previously iden-tified ethanol production fa-cilities as a potential market

for its technology, stating that producers could use low-grade ethanol or the over-capacity ethanol to supply fuel to turbines in place of natural gas. A benefit of using its patented technology is the reduction of emissions by up to 80 percent compared to fossil fuel-powered turbines, according to lPP. —Kris Bevill


distilled

Stop losing money on energy costs.

Increase your efficiency with a step

grinding solution from CPM.

Ethanol producers are turning to

CPM for step grinding solutions to

reduce operating costs and improve

particle size control.

For a free consultation,

call 800-336-2563.

800-366-2563 | WWW.CPM.NET

WATERLOO, IOWA

STEP UPYOUR GRINDWITH CPM

Green it upGreat Plains Institute hosts Minneapolis meeting

Is California’s low Carbon Fuel Stan-dard the primary reason ethanol producers are going greener? That perception exists, said Geoff Cooper, vice president of the renewable Fuels Association, but it’s not one he buys into. “My view is that, in most cases, technology adoption and efficiency improvements are happening—and were happening long before the lCFS came along—primarily because it enhances a producer’s bottom line.”

Cooper was one of the speakers at the Innovation in the Midwestern Biofuels Industry meeting held Sept. 12-13 in Min-neapolis. The event was organized by the Great Plains Institute, co-hosted by the Midwestern Governor's Association, and attended by several ethanol, agriculture and environmental groups.

The event’s planning committee members included representatives from rFA, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Monsanto, natural resourc-es Defense Council, Poet llC and the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Meeting participants agreed that there are areas of common ground, and that they should be working together to figure out how to en-courage investment in the existing indus-

greening ethanol industry representatives and environmentalists met in September to discuss the “greening” of the existing ethanol industry.

PH

oTo

: Gr

eAT

PLA

inS

inS

TiTu

Te

try, just as we work to encourage investment in second generation facilities,” Great Plains said in a statement following the gather-ing.

The event provided an op-portunity to update stakeholders from gov-ernment, academia and the environmental community with current information on the tremendous progress the grain-ethanol industry has made in the past decade, in-cluding technology adoption, energy ef-ficiency, water use and greenhouse gas emissions. “More broadly, this event rep-resented an opportunity to revive a con-structive dialog between the environmental community and the biofuels industry—two groups that haven’t done much talking in the past few years,” Cooper said.

Cooper’s presentation focused on some of the challenges associated with the renewable fuel standard and the lCFS. The fact is, no two ethanol plants are ex-actly the same and accounting for differen-tiation/uniqueness is a challenge for life-cycle analysis-based regulations, he pointed out. Both the rFS and lCFS take “bucket approaches” to default pathways but allow biofuel producers to petition for new or modified pathways, attracting numerous petitions for both.

Ethanol producers can reduce emis-sions and increase energy efficiency through a variety of technologies and prac-tices. The bottom line is, those technolo-gies and practices have to make financial

sense. “An ethanol company isn’t go-ing to sink tens of millions of dollars into a capital proj-ect that might lower its carbon intensity score by 10 or 20 percent unless there is a very high prob-ability of a quick payback and a clear benefit to the bot-tom line,” he said. —Holly Jessen


distilled

www.cashco comInnovative Solutions

When quality counts, choose Cashco. For 91 years, the industry has turned to Cashco for precision control solutions. The Ranger QCT is a universal control valve. It offers versatility, adaptability and ease of maintenance in almost any application. The Ranger is designed for use in steam, chemical, gas and cryogenic liquid applications.

• Broad product lines provide solutions for virtually any project.

• Superior quality product surpassed only by the service and support.

• Strategically located Service Centers with factory-trained specialists.

Don’t wait any longer to partner with the industry’s leader in process control. Call us today at 785-472-4461 for immediate assistance and technical support.

www.cashco o ww comInnovative Solutionssts.

Cashco, Inc.P.O. Box 6, Ellsworth, KS 67439-0006

Ph. (785) 472-4461, Fax: (785) 472-3539

CashQ

ityste ic

e s

urp

e Cllis

When quality counts, choose the industry has turned to Cascontrol solutions. The Ranger control valve. It offers versatiliease of maintenance in almosThe Ranger is designed for usgas and cryogenic liquid appl

• Broad product lines providefor virtually any project.

• Superior quality product suby the service and support.

• Strategically located Serviceh f d lwith factory-trained special

Where the ethanol industry turns for process control.

it l t t

CAS-196A.indd 1 1/21/11 1:38 PM

In response to growing demand for ethanol in Florida, the Tampa Port Author-ity, CSX Corp., and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners lP have agreed to invest in a joint intermodal expansion project that will allow for unit train delivery of ethanol to an off-loading yard at the Hooker’s Point terminal in the Port of Tampa. richard Wainio, port director and chief executive said the first-of-its-kind intermodal project is a “win-win” for the parties involved, consumers and the environment. The project is expected to be complete by September 2012.

As part of the agreement, the Tampa Port Authority and CSX will build new rail track and supporting infrastructure to handle

Build It, Because They’re ComingKinder Morgan, CSX, Tampa Port expand ethanol handling in Florida

100-car unit trains. CSX will transport ethanol from Midwest produc-ers to Kinder Morgan’s Tampa Terminal where it will be offloaded with-in 24 hours and distrib-uted to blending termi-

nals and other markets via Kinder Morgan’s 2-mile Inter-Terminal Transfer pipeline.

Kinder Morgan will expand its ethanol receipt and distribution system within its port terminal and complete several modifi-cations to its pipeline. Changes will include the addition of ethanol-compatible pumps, the replacement of parts on the pipe, pumps and valves to ensure their compatibility with ethanol, the installation of an additive injec-tion system to protect the pipe from etha-nol, and new connections from the pipeline to all blend terminals. The port authority and CSX will invest more than $10.9 million for rail facility construction. Kinder Mor-gan is not releasing details of its financial

investment in the project. “We’re happy to be a part of a project that improves etha-nol transportation within the Port of Tam-pa and offers quick turnaround time to our customers who are working to meet Central Florida’s growing demand for ethanol,” said Tom Bannigan, Kinder Morgan’s products pipeline president in a statement following the project announcement.

Approximately 70 percent of all etha-nol produced in the U.S. is moved by rail, with the other 30 percent being hauled by truck or barge. of the ethanol moved by railcar, it is estimated that up to 35 percent is currently shipped by unit train. logistics experts within the industry believe that unit trains will continue to increase in popular-ity in the coming years because they are ef-ficient and cost effective. More terminals are expected to make modifications to handle unit trains as a result, particularly in the Southeast where access to blending termi-nals via train is lacking. —Kris Bevill


distilled

Texas-based Breitling Gas & oil Co. is a small independent upstream explora-tion and production company. CEo Chris Faulkner wants to remind the obama ad-ministration that there are more than 10,000 small companies like his in the U.S. that would be negatively impacted by a decision to repeal petroleum subsidies. “Everybody takes advantage of these tax incentives if they’re available, but if you look at the capi-tal available to Big oil and compare that to the capital available to a small independent, a large portion of the capital they are re-in-vesting back into their business comes from two major components that the administra-tion is targeting,” he says. “The first is the deduction for intangible drilling costs and

Don’t Hurt the Little GuyIndependent oil producers fight against possible repeal of subsidies

the second is the depletion a l lowance. Both of those things are capital

initiatives that small oil and gas companies use to power their business.”

According to Faulkner, the federal gov-ernment should continue to incentivize oil and gas production because it is an industry with a lot of risk. The oil industry is also a huge job creator and booster of the econo-my, he says. He also points to the less-than-ideal situation of the U.S. importing much of its oil from unfriendly countries and says the feds should open up new opportunities for domestic fuel production.

replace “oil” with “ethanol” and the argument sounds very familiar. Except for the part where the subsidies stay in place. Unlike oil, the ethanol industry has commit-ted to the expiration of its main tax incen-

tive in December and says it’s only fair that the petroleum industry should give up some if its incentives as well. “Given the state of the U.S. economy and taking oil industry profits into consideration, especially profits from the big oil companies, it’s a shame that they have been unwilling to step up to the plate like the ethanol industry did and of-fer to sacrifice some of their tax subsidies,” says Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol. “Congress ought to summon the courage to repeal Big oil’s unnecessary tax subsidies and work with the ethanol industry to enact policies providing consumers with mean-ingful fuel choice.”

The American Jobs Act, which was introduced by President Barack obama to Congress in September, would repeal a host of oil subsidies, but Faulkner says he is con-fident Congress won’t pass them. —Kris Bevill


cist Ken Vogel tells EPM. “The main cost is sample prepa-ration which also has to be done for wet-lab or conventional analyses and equip-ment costs.”

Five USDA researchers, including Vo-gel, a University of nebraska researcher, used nIrS to measure 20 components in switch-grass, such as cell-wall sugars, soluble sugars and lignin. That information was used to de-termine 13 traits, including how efficiently the sugars will be converted to ethanol. Hexoses, or six-carbon sugars, were used as the basis to predict actual ethanol yields. With improved conversion technologies, additional ethanol can be produced from pentose or five-carbon sugars, meaning the nIrS method can be used to estimate total potential yield if all sug-ars were converted to ethanol. “It will now be possible to determine the best switchgrass cul-tivars and management practices, Vogel says. “The technology can be expanded to other

species but it will require additional compre-hensive work.”

The nIrS equations developed in this study are already being used to develop new cultivars in breeding programs in nebraska and Wisconsin. It could also be used to iden-tify methods for growing grasses for the best ethanol yields. ArS and the near Infrared Spectroscopy Consortium have a cooperative agreement to get the switchgrass composition calibrations out to other public and private laboratories researching switchgrass. —Holly Jessen

distilled

OPERATING LEASES ASSET-BASED LENDING LEVERAGED LEASES SYNTHETIC LEASES

Young Fleet. Rail Experience. Leasing Expertise.CIT Puts It All Together.

CIT Rail leverages industry-leading experience and equipment management capabilities to develop leasing solutions that maximize flexibility and free up capital for your growth priorities. With one of the youngest, most diversified railcar and locomotive fleets in the industry, we can help you increase efficiencies and reduce out-of-service time.

To learn more, visit www.citrail.com or call 312-906-5701.

© 2011 CIT Group Inc. CIT and the CIT logo are registered service marks of CIT Group Inc.

Using near-infrared sensing (nIrS) to predict ethanol yields for corn isn’t new. In a different twist, however, USDA Agricultural Research Service researchers figured out a way to use the same system to measure the poten-tial of perennial grasses.

The real bonus is that grading grasses costs only about $5 a sample with nIrS. Com-pare that to $300 to $2,000 per sample using conventional analytical methods, which utilize chemistry laboratory tests on each plant com-ponent, from cell-wall sugars to starch and more. nIrS, on the other hand, uses wave-lengths of reflected light to determine sam-ple composition. “Instead of running weeks of analyses, a sample can be analyzed in less than 5 minutes using nIrS analyses,” geneti-

energy from grass Switchgrass can yield almost twice as much ethanol as corn, estimates geneticist Ken vogel, who is conducting breeding and genetics research on switchgrass to improve its biomass yield and its ability to recycle carbon as a renewable energy crop.

Grading Grasses on the CheapResearchers use near-infrared sensing to measure yield in switchgrass

PH

oTo

: br

eTT

HA

mP

Ton


Co. and assistance from ADM researcher Ahmad Hilaly, ladisch and fellow Purdue researcher Youngmi Kim characterized varying sizes of tapioca pearls and

found that ladisch’s initial speculation was correct—the pearls were excellent at absorb-ing water from fuel-grade ethanol. In fact, the tapioca collected about 34 percent more water than corn grits, which is another natural alternative to nonrenewable molecular sieves. Some ethanol facilities use corn grits packed into towers to absorb water from ethanol, but those grits are irregularly shaped and contain fiber, protein and other unnecessary substanc-es. Tapioca pearls are a spherical structure and are comprised of 100 percent starch. They can be dried and reused and have the potential to become feedstock for ethanol when they are no longer useful as drying agents. “Tapioca is very efficient and it’s all natural,” Ladisch says. “There are no disposal issues. It’s much more environmentally friendly.”

Tapioca is derived from the cassava plant,

which is grown mostly outside of the United States. While tapioca is readily available in north America, ladisch believes South Amer-ican facilities would be the most likely to use it. ladisch’s starch-based research is a continuing effort at Purdue, and he believes there could be other products like tapioca that could also be used to replace molecular sieves. “It’s a fun-damental research area, but it’s still very fas-cinating,” he says. “now that we understand how they work, we could make them from other forms of starch.” —Kris Bevill

distilled

Inspiration can come from anything at any time, even the Thanksgiving dinner table. A few years ago, Michael ladisch, a distin-guished professor of agricultural and biologi-cal engineering at Purdue University, was at his mother-in-law’s for Thanksgiving when a tri-angular-shaped bag of ingredients usually re-served for pudding caught his eye. “I saw this bag of tapioca pearls on the counter, looked at the contents and it turned out to be starch,” he says. “It led me to wonder whether these ma-terials, which look a little like molecular sieves, would work for drying ethanol.”

In his role as a professor at Purdue, and as chief technology officer at cellulosic etha-nol developer Mascoma Corp., ladisch is very interested in various starch properties and how they could be used in industrial applications. With funding from Archer Daniels Midland

thirsty Pearls michael Ladisch, distinguished professor of agricultural and biological engineering at Purdue university, has found that tapioca pearls are very effective in absorbing water from fuel-grade ethanol.

Delicious InspirationThanksgiving table offers ideas for new drying agents

PH

oTo

: Ke

iTH

ro

bin

So

n, P

ur

Du

e

AG

riC

uLT

ur

AL

Co

mm

un

iCAT

ion

S


distilled

In Mozambique, in southern Africa, a small-scale ethanol plant currently under con-struction is expected to have a big impact on the incomes, health and livelihoods of area residents. The 300,000 gallons of ethanol pro-duced there a year will be sold as cooking fuel, replacing charcoal, which is harmful to the en-vironment and human health.

It’s a project of novozymes and CleanStar Ventures, which have together formed Clean-Star Mozambique. The food and energy busi-ness will work with 3,000 smallholder farmers, to help with a transition from slash-and-burn agriculture to sustainable farming. Whatever crops the families do not consume will be sold to CleanStar Mozambique.

The crops will be used to produce a wide range of food products as well as an ethanol-based cooking fuel made from cassava, which will be sold into urban markets, novozymes says. The business is intended to improve nutri-tion, increase incomes by up to 500 percent, im-prove degraded soils, save thousands of acres of forest and safeguard lives from charcoal smoke. “By rethinking biofuel and the African household energy market, we will help poor African farmers make more out of the little

they have—and jump-start a whole new indus-try that can provide clean and affordable energy to the urban poor,” Anders lau Tuxen, energy strate-gist for novozymes, tells EPM.

Another partner in the project is ICM Inc., which will design and manufacture parts for the ethanol plant. The only exception is fermentation tanks, which will be produced in the region. “These parts will be shipped any day and we expect assem-bly to start later this year with commissioning taking place next year,” Tuxen says, adding that once the business model has been proved, the companies will consider increasing capacity or building additional plants in other locations.

Eighteen pounds of locally grown cas-sava chips can be converted to 1 gallon of 185+ proof ethanol, ICM tells EPM. (It takes 20 pounds of corn to make 1 gallon of etha-nol.) The cassava milling and cook process is sized to operate 10 to 12 hours a day while the distillation portion of the plant is sized to op-

Ethanol for CookingNovozymes, ICM project aims to improve health, stop deforestation in Africa

Quicker, cleaner A resident of maputo, the capital of mozambique, cooks with an ethanol cookstove. Faster and cleaner than charcoal, cooking with ethanol allows her to return to her market stall more quickly to earn an income.

PH

oTo

: Je

FFr

eY

bA

rb

ee

, no

vo

ZYm

eS

erate continuously, though it can start or stop as needed. ICM is providing all shop-fabricated and specialty equipment, plus a small custom-built biomass boiler manufactured by Victory Energy for steam production and a generator engine for electricity, modified to run on hy-drous ethanol. In addition, ICM will provide training for the local operators.

The biggest design challenge for ICM was selecting small, reliable and low-maintenance pumps. “ICM put a lot of thought into de-termining what equipment will work best for a location that may not have reliable overnight delivery,” says Dennis Vander Griend, ICM se-nior process designer. —Holly Jessen


distilled

The USDA believes the Southeast region of the U.S. offers huge potential for a variety of dedicated energy crops and in September, the agency agreed to provide $15 million to form the Southeast Partnership for Integrated Biomass Supply Systems (IBSS) to develop that potential. The grant was one of five issued by the USDA’s national Institute of Food and Agriculture as a means to accelerate renew-able energy feedstocks throughout the country. IBSS will be led by Tim rials, director of the Center for renewable Carbon at the University of Tennessee’s Institute of Agriculture, and is comprised of a wide range of partners, includ-ing multiple universities and technology provid-ers.

The multifaceted project includes a num-ber of goals, but the immediate focus will be on sustainability research, workforce training and, of course, feedstocks. “one of the strengths and weaknesses of the region is that we have a very diverse landscape and sources of bio-mass,” rials says. “What we’re looking to do is take this to the next level, where we are opti-mally providing feedstock that is designed and tailored to different conversion technologies. It’s really about feedstock delivery and develop-

ing a sustainable biomass supply system for the region.”

Switchgrass, already proven to hold great potential for the Southeast through work car-ried out by the University of Tennessee and Dupont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol llC, will continue to be developed at IBSS. Woody crops are another area of focus, particularly short-ro-tation hardwoods such as eucalyptus and hybrid poplar. “If you look at this particular region, we’ve got 20 million acres of pine production out there in plantations, but the hardwood plan-tations have not seen the same type of success,” rials says. “As we talk about feedstocks for bio-chemical and thermochemical conversion tech-nologies, it’s important for us to make progress in that hardwood system.”

Information is already being compiled for IBSS extension and outreach programs, includ-ing an internship program with several univer-

sities to introduce students to various biomass considerations and conversion methods. Plant-ing of new biomass crops will begin in earnest in the spring, rials says. Forestry product devel-oper ArborGen is a core member of IBSS and will focus on optimizing wood characteristics for biofuels feedstocks and developing sustain-able methods for harvesting, transporting and storing those types of trees. “our entire team of scientists, silvicultural and forestry experts work every day to develop new solutions for short-rotation woody feedstocks and biofuels- and bioenergy-related technologies,” says Maud Hinchee, chief science officer at ArborGen. “We will lend our collective expertise toward this effort, which we believe will help meet the Southeast region’s need for biomass and our nation’s growing demand for wood, fiber and energy.” —Kris Bevill

woody Resources The Southeast Partnership for integrated biomass Supply Systems will be looking at woody biomass resources as well as switchgrass and other feedstocks in the Southeast.

Building SupplyuSDA grant focuses on Southeast biomass supply

Protect your profitability.

©2010, Phibro Animal Health Corporation. LACTROL is a registered trademark of Phibro Animal Health Corporation and its affiliates.

Bacterial contamination in ethanol plants can eat up profits. Are you sure that your profits

are protected?

LACTROL® offers today’s ethanol producers the best ROI in the industry by controlling the bacteria

that do the most damage to your plant’s bottom line. With LACTROL, you produce more for less.

Prevent, protect and produce. Take microbial control seriously—

make sure your plant is using LACTROL. Contact your Phibro Ethanol

Performance Group Sales Specialist at 800-223-0434.LACTROL®

Spezyme® CLConventional Liquefaction, Superior Performance Call 1-800-847-5311 to add us to your teamwww.genencor.com


feedstock

long haul in Denmark, shown above, wheat straw is a major component of energy production. The u.S. cellulosic ethanol industry has been researching crop residues as feedstocks for years but just recently began large-scale harvest trials.

PHoTo: inbiCon A/S


feedstock

Round

Proving the sustainability of crop residue removal By KRIS BEVILL

of it

three years ago, ag giants John deere & Co., archer daniels Midland Co. and Monsanto Co. pooled their re-spective areas of expertise and embarked on an experiment. Each company had its own specific reasons for wanting to determine whether stover could truly be harvested from the nation’s corn fields in a sustainable fashion—questions regarding equipment, processing and field productivity, respectively—but without extensive testing of the various harvest, storage and transportation theories, it would be impossible to know whether hypotheticals could become reality. Soils needed to be sampled. Fields had to be harvested. Bales needed to be made, and storage areas needed to be acquired. But, most importantly, they had to get farmers onboard.

The

and

Square


feedstock

Finding Farmers“Initially, that was difficult,” says Steve

Petersen, end-use market manager for Mon-santo. At first, many farmers were skeptical of removing stover from their fields for fear that it would be a detriment to soil health. A few exceptions, those with the largest corn on corn yields, were eager to have the excess residue removed, but many were cautious. They needed convincing, and that took a little time. Many farmers who participated in field trials, which took place in the heart of corn country near Cedar rapids, Iowa, were willing to commit only one field the first year of the project. “But once they gained a com-fort level with it and saw that we were not taking all the stover off the ground and that we were doing this in a sustainable manner, we had a lot of them that then put all of their fields in,” Petersen says.

In all, 38 fields were enrolled in the DAM [Deere, ADM, Monsanto] project in 2008, 36 in 2009 and 25 in 2010. of the farmers who participated, 18 returned ev-ery year to contribute their fields to the ex-periment. Fewer fields were harvested than enrolled, for various reasons, but project leaders determined it is necessary to sign up more fields than needed as a way to mitigate weather and timing issues.

While the project evaluated many of the smaller details of stover harvesting, the overall conclusion was that sustainable stover harvests are certainly possible, but as with everything agriculture, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. “It depends on what your yields are, it depends on what the slope of the ground is, it depends on what the possible wind and water erosion is and it depends on the organic matter of

the soils,” Petersen says. “In every area it’s a little different and that’s why we’ve done as much research as we have.”

All uncertainties aside, Petersen is con-vinced the need to harvest stover will in-crease. Monsanto has publicly committed to providing corn varieties that will average 300 bushels per acre by 2030 and as corn yields increase, so will stover yields. This will likely inspire more farmers to entertain collaboration opportunities with biorefin-eries looking for stover. “It becomes a real issue for the grower,” Petersen explains. “They have to either use additional tillage passes or they grow less corn, because they have all of the issues with the residue that's left on the soil. So we want to find a way to make corn stover a coproduct of corn farming and not a byproduct."

The DAM project is not the first, and

PH

oTo

: mo

nS

An

To

Pennies on the Pound research conducted by monsanto Co. has concluded stover removal equates to the need for about $10 worth of additional fertilizer per 1,200 pound round bale.


feedstock

certainly not the last, to explore the finer points of regularly harvesting ag residues. In Minnesota, long-time ethanol industry consultant larry Johnson began conduct-ing stover research on behalf of Inbicon A/S, a Denmark-based technology client, after becoming inspired by the wheat straw-to-power practices he saw in use in Den-mark. He knew farmers in the U.S. would be getting frustrated with the ever-accumu-lating amounts of stover in their fields and believed the Danish model for collection and storage of the feedstock could easily be replicated here. In 2009, he began evaluat-ing the logistical challenges associated with collecting, storing and transporting thou-sands of tons of biomass within the short harvest window.

Custom vs. FarmerOne of the first issues that drew John-

son’s attention was the need for harvesting equipment. Manufacturers and innovative

farmers have been developing a variety of implements for harvesting large amounts of stover for a while now, but in order to supply individual farmers with the equip-ment needed to bring their own stover into ethanol plants, a serious ramp up of manufacturing would be required. John-son explains the mind-boggling logistical requirements necessary for farmer har-vests: “If we need 450,000 tons [of stover] for a 20 MMgy plant, and we’re getting 3 tons per acre, that’ll require 150,000 acres,” Johnson says. “If we’re going to do 500 acres per farmer, that’ll require 300 farm-ers. If you’re going to harvest right behind the combine, you’d have to have a baler be-hind 300 separate combines for one plant.” Expanding that view to what he expects could be 100 cellulosic ethanol plants using stover by 2022, Johnson figures manufac-turers would need to produce 30,000 sto-ver balers, just for farmers to bale stover for ethanol plants.“Considering that most

combines pass no more than one and a half tons of cobs and stover per acre through the combine, that would double the acreage required,” he says. I think that eliminates that possibility.”

Aside from the equipment require-ment, another issue with farmers harvesting stover themselves is the unknown quality of the product, he says. “Farmers are aware of how to collect stover and bale corn stover in large round bales. They’ve been doing it for livestock for decades. But they don’t care if they’ve got dirt lumps or roots in there. As an ethanol plant, we are not going to want to see any dirt in there. And some-times it has a high moisture content, leading to product degradation and shrink.”

Because of these issues, Johnson be-lieves third-party custom harvesters are the only feasible way to collect and deliver stover to ethanol plants. That way farmers don’t have to invest in purchasing or leasing new equipment and third parties can con-

PH

oTo

: Po

eT

LLC

Full house Poet’s 2009 Project Liberty Field Day drew a large crowd of people interested in learning more about the opportunities available with corn cob collection.


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

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

•••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

BOILERSSELL•RENT•LEASE

IMMEDIATE DELIVERYCALL:800-704-2002

24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE

wabash444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090

POWEREQUIPMENT CO.

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

150,000#/hr Nebraska 1025 psig 900OTTF


150,000#/hr Nebraska 350 psig



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





20,000#/hr Erie City 200 psig

10-1000HP Firetube 15-600 psig

ALL PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURECOMBINATIONS SUPERHEATED

AND SATURATED

RENTAL FLEET OF MOBILETRAILER-MOUNTED BOILERS

75,000#/hr. Nebraska 350 psig

75,000#/hr. Optimus 750 psig 750°TTF





75-300HP Firetube 15-600 psig

ALL BOILERS ARE COMBINATION GAS/OIL

ENGINEERING • START-UP

FULL LINE OF BOILER AUXILIARYSUPPORT EQUIPMENT.

Electric Generators:• 50KW-30,000KW

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

E-mail: [email protected]

feedstock

trol the quality of the feedstock, as well as handle the storage and transportation as-pects. “Farmers will be glad to have people come and take their stover away,” Johnson says. “They don’t want to bother with it.”

Dave Simpson, owner of Sharpsville, Ind.,-based custom harvesting company Simpson Straw Co., says he’s experienced growing interest from farmers who would like to remove excess residue from their fields without having to invest their own time or money. Farmers planting corn on corn, especially, are in need of stover re-moval because excess residue clogs equip-ment, he says. His business owns five balers and can cover between 500 and 600 acres per day, harvesting about 10,000 acres of wheat straw and 2,000 acres of corn stover annually. Simpson believes there is enough manpower and equipment available for widespread commercial stover harvests. “There’s no way to make it easier, it just takes hard work,” he says.

Custom harvesters were used for the DAM project trials, and Petersen agrees that most of the stover acquired by ethanol

plants will probably be brought in by third parties. “There may be some extremely large farms that may do it as a profit center and have their own equipment, but I think those will be extremely large operators,” he says. “Most of these are going to be cus-tom operators.”

on Their ownThere is one big exception to the

growing consensus that custom operators will be key to stover collection. This fall, Poet will begin its third annual stover har-vest near Emmetsberg, Iowa, with approxi-mately 100 area farmers participating. Poet continues to believe that farmers can and will deliver the stover necessary to feed its 25 MMgy cellulosic ethanol plant, dubbed Project liberty, and expects about 70 per-cent of the participating farmers to harvest the stover themselves. “The farmer has as valued of an interest in this as we do,” says Adam Wirt, regional biomass coordinator for Poet Biomass. “Plain and simple, the way to do this the cheapest is to cut out the middle man. So if the producer is willing

PH

oTo

: LA

rr

Y Jo

Hn

So

n

take it (almost) all off Following stover harvest, fields are left with a certain percentage of residue to protect against erosion and replenish nutrients lost through the growing cycle.


feedstock

and wants to do that work, we know he can do it cheaper than adding in a third party and why not let the money go to his op-eration if he wants to? our whole model is built on farmer investment and farmer participation, so this is just another carry on that.” Poet has been conducting stover harvests since 2009 and signs four-year contracts with farmers to collect and deliv-er biomass to the plant, according to Wirt. last year, 85 farmers participated in Poet’s stover harvest. This year, all of them re-turned and brought a few newcomers into the mix, indicating that they are pleased with the results so far.

Square vs. roundOnce the fields are enrolled and a

harvest method is determined, the next item on the stover acquisition to-do list is to choose which way the stover should be collected. There are a variety of ways to do it—chopping it into windrows and bagging it or baling it, either into square or round bales. The DAM project explored all of these methods and found that, again, the preferred method will likely vary depend-ing on the geography of the fields and the end-user’s preference. Differing slightly, Johnson has determined that square bales are the most economical method and be-lieves that will be the way most stover is harvested, at least for the near-term. “large square bales, at this point, are the only way to get maximum tonnage on a semiload of bales,” he says. “And then, once you have it loaded to capacity, it’s much more effi-cient to travel long distances.” While most of the stover will likely be collected within a 25-mile radius of ethanol plants, John-son says the square bale method will allow stover to originate as far as 50 miles away from the plant and still be economical.

It is believed that ethanol plants will need specialized processing equipment to handle one particular form of feedstock, be it round bales, square bales, pellets or otherwise. But, once again, Poet is branch-ing out on its own and forging a different path by planning to take in both round and square bales. “We need all the feedstock we can get and until we’re getting that 300,000

tons that we need on an annual basis, we don’t feel we can make the switch to either rounds or squares, nor have we decided that we want to,” Wirt says. “It’s a matter of getting the tons and, if a guy wants to do it one way or another, we’re open to that.”

Storage is another issue directly re-lated to the feedstock’s form. While round bales shed rain, square bales are easier to stack in a storage area. It’s an important de-termination to make, because proper stor-age is vital to the feedstock’s longevity and, considering that farmers are lucky to have a 30-day harvest window, ethanol plants need to be prepared to store feedstock ad-equately for up to 12 months. And that will require a lot of space. Poet has its own rel-atively small storage yard but plans to ask farmers to store their bales themselves. “If we were going to take on storage, there’s a huge cost,” Wirt says. “Twenty-two acres sounds like a lot, but in terms of overall amount that it can hold for a yearly basis, it’s really small.”

Harmful to Health?As mentioned, one of the early con-

cerns voiced by some farmers and observ-ers was that stover removal would also re-move vital nutrients, potentially damaging the health of the field and perhaps requir-ing greater use of fertilizers. This concern has largely been debunked through vari-ous studies conducted by universities and industry participants. The DAM project found that, on average, the removal of a 1,200-pound round bale of stover equated to an additional $10 worth of fertilizer. For farms that also have livestock operations, as is often the case in Iowa, the manure from livestock delivers so much phospho-rous, nitrogen and potassium back to the fields that, for them, removing the stover was an advantage, Petersen says. Addition-ally, stover removal reduces the number of required tillage passes, which in turn reduc-es the amount of emissions from farming equipment and wear and tear on the field. Some stover is left behind for protection and the USDA offers planning tools that can help estimate the amount needed to


feedstock

control erosion and provide organic matter. The DAM project utilized those tools and determined they can guide sustainable stover harvests.

Wirt says Poet has engaged several uni-versities to conduct studies analyzing soil health, but when it comes right down to it—the farmer usually knows best. “The farmer’s never going to jeopardize his field or the pro-duction or health of it,” he says. “He knows where that limit is.” Wirt believes farmers are more concerned about the timing and finan-cial aspects of stover harvests than studying the health of a field that they already know needs stover removed. “For the time they’re going to put into this, they want to make sure there will be a return on investment,” he says.

money TalksThe return on investment is also a large

part of ethanol producers’ concerns. An eco-nomic evaluation of stover harvest activities conducted by Purdue University, sponsored

in part by Monsanto, concluded that the total cost of stover collection would likely range between $73 and $90 per dry ton. Assuming custom harvesters are used to collect 15,000 round bales from 5,000 acres of land, har-vesting operations would cost about $40 per ton for fields in a corn-soybean rotation. That number is cut almost in half, down to about $23 per ton, when considering corn-on-corn fields because the stover harvest would elim-inate one tillage pass, the researchers found. once the stover is harvested, Purdue econo-mists estimate that loading and unloading the bales would cost about $7 per ton, transport-ing them adds another $23 per ton, assum-ing 26 round bales are hauled 42.4 miles on a flatbed trailer, and storing the bales onsite under a tarp for 12 months would cost about $19 per ton.

Purdue’s calculations provide an easy breakdown of the various input costs re-quired to bring stover from the field to the factory, but it is important to remember that commercial facilities may require at least

300,000 dry tons of feedstock annually. Using that figure as a starting point, and assuming that each round bale weighs 1,200 pounds, Purdue’s high-end calculation of $90 per dry ton in total costs equals a total cost of $27 million annually to collect, store and trans-port stover to a nearby ethanol plant.

“It’s going to take some serious financ-ing,” Johnson says. The Purdue economic evaluation didn’t include payments to farm-ers, which will add even more to ethanol producers’ initial out-of-pocket expenses because, as Johnson points out, farmers are skeptical when it comes to IoUs. “Especially after the debacle with VeraSun Energy Corp., farmers are not going to be likely to let you take the stover without at least a large down payment,” he says. Also, farmers aren’t likely to be clamoring over each other to jump on with a project that hasn’t been built yet, and banks aren’t seemingly too excited to finance a project without guaranteed feedstocks. Johnson believes that’s where the govern-ment should step in. “It all ties together and,


feedstock

in my mind, that is a role for government to be able to see this vision and, if not guaran-tee the capital to make it happen, at least put together some reasonable energy policies so that the private sector can see that this has a future.”

The first federal steps in that direction finally came in late summer when the U.S. DOE finalized loan guarantees for Poet’s Project liberty and Abengoa’s cellulosic eth-anol plant near Hugoton, Kan. Certain Con-gressional members continue to wage war against the renewable fuel standard (rFS), however, and the U.S. EPA will issue its final decision by the end of november on next year’s rFS volumes, once again lowering the cellulosic biofuels mandate in the face of lagging production options. It’s a worrisome signal to some investors, but those involved in the actual stover harvest activities believe it will soon become standard practice in many areas of the Corn Belt. Petersen notes that land surrounding ethanol plants happens to be particularly well-primed for stover har-

vests, which is a benefit to plants considering bolt-on cellulosic additions. Fields surround-ing ethanol plants are typically flat, many of them are planted with corn-on-corn and yields are very high, Petersen says. “In those areas, you’re going to see stover harvests on an annual basis,” he predicts.

Johnson says that given enough money and manpower, large-scale stover harvests could happen this fall. realistically, however, stover harvests probably won’t start ramp-ing up until next year at the earliest, which still puts it on track with the building sched-ule of the first few commercial-scale plants. According to Johnson, Inbicon has several cellulosic ethanol projects in the U.S. in plan-ning and preliminary engineering phases, but policy is a factor in getting them started. “These projects will be ready to go when the conditions are right,” he says.

As for the first step of the stover puz-zle—getting farmers to agree to participate—Petersen, Johnson and Wirt all say education and information is the key. Petersen rec-

ommends a good testing protocol to show exactly what you are removing from the farmer’s fields, backed up with information to illustrate how it can be done sustainably as a way to convince them to participate. Wirt says education is the main area of focus for Poet when working with farmers on stover harvests and he believes that coordinated ef-forts between ag producer and ethanol pro-ducer will be a success. “We may not know all of the answers and they may not either, but we’re working together to try to get the best results,” he says. “So far, it’s working for us. This is a matter of all of us succeeding together, no matter the pathway. It’s a matter of figuring out how we collect stover as one part of the giant scheme of converting that into energy. We all need to be successful in this.”

author: Kris bevill Associate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine



cover crops


cover crops

getting growing researchers Jeremy Singer and Ken moore, who worked on an iowa State university study of cover crops for corn, examine perennial grasses planted between rows of corn. PHoTo: DAn KueSTer, iSu

Conventional wisdom has long held that cropland should sit fallow over winter, with nothing growing on it. “That was absolutely the stupidest thing we have ever thought of in the world,” says Jim Hoorman, a member of the executive committee of the Midwest Cover Crop Council.

Today, no-till or strip-till farming is gaining ground, and researchers are ex-amining systems that combine reduced tillage with planting perennial or annual cover crops. Instead of competing with the primary crop for nitrogen and water, as once was feared, planting cover crops offers farmers a way to improve the soil. Other benefits range from reducing erosion and water quality problems to increasing soil organic matter levels as well as providing insect and weed suppres-sion.

The bull’s-eye on corn ethanol could fade if the industry steps up and makes corn production and stover harvesting more environmentally friendly By HOLLy JESSEN

Cropping between the Lines


cover crops

This summer, Iowa State University re-vealed the results of a three-year study of cover crops in corn fields. The study found that planting a perennial cover crop with corn can keep soil, nutrients and carbon in the fields while providing corn yields equal to traditional farming methods. Unlike an-nual cover crops, which are planted in the fall and killed off in the spring, perennial cover crops save time and money on seeding, says Jeremy Singer, a research agronomist with the national laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, who participated in the ISU study.

It’s exciting news not just for corn pro-ducers, but for the ethanol industry. With corn stover high on the list of possible cellu-losic feedstocks, many have wondered how much of it can be harvested before the scale tips and the practice harms the land. It’s clear that harvesting all the stover wouldn’t be a good idea. “[That would remove] the

last buffer against se-vere soil erosion and severe environmen-tal issues related to that practice,” says Ken Moore, a distin-guished professor of agronomy at ISU and one of the research-ers who worked on the perennial cover crop study.

In this way, cover crops provide an an-swer to the food vs. fuel debate—corn

producers can truly produce feed and fuel from their corn crops, Singer says. “By using the cover crop you are protecting the soil, you are increasing nutrient cycling, you are offsetting a lot of the carbon that is being harvested in the stover,” he says. “We feel like you can harvest as much of the corn stover as you want, basically.”

Cover cropping addresses water quality concerns as well, such as the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico where nutrient runoff from the Mississippi river watershed creates a dead zone. Crops growing on the land only four months out the year add up to “sort

of a leaky system,” Singer says. nitrogen in the soil turns into nitrate, which can leach through the soil and contaminate sur-face and ground wa-ter. Cover crops help capture that nitrogen in the spring and fall. “It could help take corn off the bad list—that’s sort of the take home message of this,” he says.

Moore agrees. “This will make the whole system sustain-able,” he says. “nobody can really complain, under this system, that corn production is having severe adverse impacts on the envi-ronment.” From Lawn to the Field

In every study, there are winners and losers. ISU’s study, which was funded by a Sun Grant for biobased research, identi-fied Kentucky bluegrass—a common lawn turf—as a recommended perennial cover crop for corn. Thirty-five potential ground covers were screened to identify crops that, with little or no suppression, did not com-pete with corn, Moore says. Different corn hybrids were also tested to discover if there were varieties that worked better in a cover cropping system. The final component was determining which agronomic practices would be required to grow corn with peren-nial cover crops.

on the ground cover side, researchers identified a number of species that would work. “It turns out, based on our work, that just about any one will work as long as it’s suppressed and can take the suppression,” Moore says.

What made Kentucky bluegrass stand out from the crowd is how easy and inex-pensive it is to purchase the seed. “It’s a very common plant in the Midwest,” he says. “It’s in everybody’s lawn—if everybody is lucky, it would be the only one in their lawn.” In addition, farmers are already very familiar with controlling it. “I think if we brought

in an exotic species for a ground cover they would balk at that initially,” he says.

The study also revealed some winners and losers in corn hybrids. In other words, some hybrids performed better with cover crop competition, leaving the door open for further research and genetic work. “We be-lieve there is scope for improving the corn hybrids to grow better in a companion situa-tion with a cover crop,” he says.

Finally, researchers mapped out exactly how to grow cover crops with corn. The combination that worked the best was a fall strip till about 4 inches wide combined with herbicide use, Singer says. In the spring, ei-ther before corn is planted or before it has emerged, they applied Paraquat, a contact herbicide, to burn back the green tissue of the grass without killing the plant completely. “So that buys corn some time,” Singer says. Then, as the corn starts to canopy, they applied a 10-inch band of round Up to the herbicide-tolerant corn. “Just to make sure that we have that zone of no competition right over the row,” he adds. Then, during summer and fall, the grass begins to grow back before going dormant in the winter. Maintenance seeding may be needed every three to five years.

The most exciting results of the study were that corn yields with cover crops under this system were essentially the same as the control. In addition, no extra fertilizer was needed. “We didn’t have to increase the nitro-gen rate to achieve that,” Singer says. “That’s a significant finding.”

At this point, the researchers aren’t rec-ommending wide-scale perennial cover crop-ping for corn growers. “We’re not ready for prime time yet, but we think it’s absolutely do-able,” Moore says. Additional research needs to be done to quantify the impact on nitrogen levels in a cover crop system. The question is, what’s the actual financial benefit—the return to producers—in increased soil productiv-ity? If soil improves, that could be a selling point for producers. “The struggle with cover crops, whether they are annuals or perenni-als, any type of cover crops, has just been penciling out the cash benefits, the return to the producer, because a lot of the functions cover crops perform are longer term,” Singer explains.

Strip till Jeremy Singer, a research agronomist with the national Laboratory for Agriculture and the environment, worked on developing agronomic practices for planting perennial cover crops with corn.

looking to the lawnKen moore, a distinguished professor of agronomy at iowa State university, screened more than 30 cover crops to identify Kentucky bluegrass as an ideal perennial cover crop for corn.


Ethanol is a global industry, and it takes a company with a worldwide reach to understand it.

That’s INTL FCStone, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Whether your operations are centered in Brazil, Europe, Australia, China or the United States, we can make your world a little easier to manage and understand.

With deep roots in agribusiness, we have a wealth of resources to help you cope with uncertainty and price volatility in grain, energy, ethanol, and other renewable fuels.

With customers in more than 100 countries around the world and wide-ranging expertise in interest rate and currency risk management, we’ve got you covered no matter where you are or what you need.

A GLOBAL UNDERSTANDING

FCStone, LLCRenewable Fuels GroupWest Des Moines, Iowa2829 Westown Parkway, Ste. [email protected], ext. 3728

Commodity trading involves risks, and you should fully understand those risks before trading.

www.intlfcstone.com

cover crops

So what needs to happen for cover cropping to catch on nationally? Iowa has seen a pretty dramatic increase due to a cost share program that provides USDA funding for cover crops in watershed states bordering the Mississippi river. Funding is available through the natu-ral resources Conservation Service, with varying funding levels in different states and even among different counties within the same state. Still, Singer doesn’t feel that type of incentive is what’s going to work in the end. “I don’t think that government cost share is sustainable,” he says. “Gov-ernment is shrinking right now—funding is shrinking for conservation practices. You can’t rely on cost sharing to increase adoption for producers.”

What’s really needed is for an indus-try or service sector to step up and help establish cover crops. That could mean agribusiness or, specifically, the ethanol industry. The motivation there would be a mutual effort to get the bull’s-eye off the back of corn-ethanol. “The corn ethanol industry depends a lot on farming and it’s important to your industry that farming keep sustainable,” Moore says.

other AnglesIt’s clear that soil should have some-

thing living and growing on it year round, says Hoorman, who, besides serving on

the cover crop council, is a cover crops and water quality specialist for ohio State University extension service. The more soil is used—the more plants growing on it—the healthier it becomes. He, like oth-ers, sees the exciting possibilities of using cover crops in concert with bioenergy feedstocks. “It would be a great way to give us that three-legged stool, for food, fiber and also fuel,” he says.

research at oSU has shown that cov-er crops in a continuous, no-till corn/soy-bean/wheat rotation can produce enough nitrogen to compliment or even replace fertilizer for corn production. Seven years of research identified two annuals, cow pea and winter pea, as ideal cover crops. “Cover crops produce enough nitrogen to where farmers many not need to add nitro-gen fertilizer to their corn crop, but if they want to be sure of maximizing their yields, farmers can supplement the cover crops with 25 to 30 pounds of nitrogen fertil-izer,” says Rafiq Islam, an OSU Extension soil scientist in a 2010 press release about the research. “That’s more than enough a farmer needs to support the corn crop.”

Commercial fertilizer wasn’t widely used until about World War II, Hoor-man tells EPM. As time went on, farmers started using more fertilizer and growing more monocultures. In the 1980s, the U.S. imported 24 percent of the nitrogen used

ground cover researchers in michigan have been eyeing cereal rye as an annual cover crop for use with corn.

PH

oTo

: STe

ve

De

min

G

|article continued on page 55|


cover crops

Cover Crop veteran Dave Brandt, a farmer from Carroll,

Ohio, first incorporated no-till into his op-eration in 1971 and added cover crops in 1978. He uses a corn/soybean/wheat rota-tion on his farm and is an enthusiastic pro-moter of cover crops. When Brandt talked to EPM in September, he had about 350 acres of radishes and winter peas already planted for the winter cover crop. He was in the midst of harvesting another 300 acres of corn on land in which radishes and win-ter peas were planted the previous fall, and another 40 acres of corn that had been pre-viously planted with hairy vetch as a winter cover crop.

Cover crops supply nitrogen and nutri-ents to the next crop. Brandt has found that planting winter peas and radishes reduces needed nitrogen inputs by about 75 per-cent, while hairy vetch reduces it by about 60 percent. In addition, it costs much less to

plant cover crops than it does to fertilize, he says. Planting winter peas and hairy vetch costs him only $17.50 an acre, although that doesn’t include his time and equipment. Fertilizer, on the other hand, costs about $120 an acre at this fall’s prices. “We saved about half of our nitrogen costs, including the seed,” he says.

He’s also gotten some good results protecting sloped ground from erosion. Starting at normal tolerated soil loss, Brandt has reduced soil erosion on his farm to less than 50 to 80 percent using cover crops.

The long-term benefits are perhaps even more impressive. Brandt’s soil has gone from organic matter readings of half a percent to as high as 4.5 and 5 percent. That gain in organic matter adds up to measur-able improvements in the crops themselves.

“We have done some work with grain sam-pling and we found that our no-till corn with cover have more nutrients than corn that is in a corn/bean conventional rota-tion,” he says.

In general, Brandt finds that winter peas and radishes freeze out over a hard winter, while still providing the benefits of a cover crop. Hairy vetch, on the other hand, stays green all winter and needs to be suppressed in the spring before planting.

no-till and cover crops do take a little more management, he says. It can be a diffi-cult switch for those used to doing things a certain way—some ever since their grandfa-thers farmed the land. “You have to change your mindset if you are going to grow cov-ers,” he says, advising farmers to start small so they can see the benefits for themselves.

long Reach Dave brandt, an ohio farmer that has been using cover crops since 1978 in a corn/soybean/wheat rotation, shows off a diakon radish in a field of cover crops.

PHoTo: brAnDT’S FArm

NOvEMbER 2011 | Ethanol Producer Magazine | 55For more information call 1-800-BUCKMAN (1-800-282-5626) or visit buckman.com

©2011 Buckman Laboratories International, Inc.

Scale can quickly build up on equipment surfaces and dramatically interfere with the heat transfer efficiency of an evaporator, lowering capacity and productivity while raising maintenance costs.

Buckman’s antiscalant programs prevent or reduce fouling, extending the operating

Sshlr

Bo

time between off-line maintenance cleanings and softening remaining deposits so they are easier to clean. Use of these programs improves the heat transfer capacity of the evaporator and results in increased production.

Let Buckman help you maximize evaporator performance and cut your plant’s total operating costs.

Evaporator Costs DOWN DOWN

cover crops

and by 2010, that number had increased to more than 60 percent, according to infor-mation from oSU.

Changing fertilizer practices is part of a movement to ecological farming—ecofarming—which includes eternal or ex-clusive no-till, cover crops and other best practices. “By working with Mother nature, we’re finding we can produce maybe even better crops, higher yielding crops, than what we could before,” he says, “Because the one thing we really ignored was our soil quality.”

Brazil has used the concept of ecofarm-ing or eco-agriculture for the past 30 years. Starting with worn out soils, the country has increased its soil productivity through the use of cover crops and is now produc-ing 40 to even 60 bushel soybeans. “As our soils in the United States are decreasing in value and productively, theirs are increas-ing,” Hoorman says. “They are taking worn out soils and making them better.”

In Michigan, researchers looking at ce-

real rye, another annual cover crop, for use with corn, combined cereal rye cover crops with 10- to 15-inch strip till. Since cover crops keep the soil temperature lower, the strip till gives the soil a chance to warm up to encourage faster corn germination, says Dale Mutch, a senior extension agent at Michigan State University.

With an annual cover crop, one of the challenges is timing. Michigan has a shorter growing season than Iowa and it can be dif-ficult to get the cover crop planted quickly enough in the fall to provide the full ben-efit through the winter. One idea research-ers are looking into is aerial applied cover crops, Mutch says. With a corn crop, the cover crop seed would probably be applied in the last part of August, giving it time to establish itself before harvest.

author: Holly JessenAssociate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine

(701) 738-4946 [email protected]

head Start researchers in michigan say aerially applied cover crops could allow farmers to plant before corn harvest, giving cover corps longer to establish before winter.

PH

oTo

: STe

ve

De

min

G

|article continued from page 53|


rfs

3.45

12.9

2012CellulosicVolumes

milliongallons

milliongallons


rfs

it’s an already too-familiar routine to ethanol producers and petroleum refiners. By nov. 30, the U.S. EPA will issue its renewable fuel stan-dard (rFS) volumes for the upcoming year and, once again, it will dramatically ratchet down the cellulosic biofuels category. At the time this article is being written, one could still specu-late on how low the volume could go. Would agency officials settle on the lowest proposed amount—3.45 million gallons, less than 1 percent of the initial 500 million gallons initially set by the RFS? Or would they remain optimistic and final-ize a volume on the high end of the proposed range, closer to the 12.9 million gallon mark? It’s difficult to say that 12.9 million gallons is the high side when considering Congress initially believed 500 million gallons could be attainable by now, but that’s the uncomfortable reality of cellulosic ethanol production at the end of 2011.

no matter what end of the proposed volume spectrum the final needle points to, someone will be unhappy. This is due mostly to the renewable identification numbers [RINs] attached to each gallon of fuel produced. In the case of non-existent cellulosic biofuel up to this point, the rIn is replaced by a certificate issued by the EPA in place of actual gallons produced. For refiners who must pay for the cellulosic RIN certificates, this presents a case for them to argue against the rFS. Why should they be required to pay for rIns meant to track their compliance with consumption mandates when there is no existing fuel for them to consume? In July, rep-resentatives from the petroleum industry emphasized that point during a public hearing held by the EPA to gain feed-back on its proposed 2012 rFS volumes.

“The Clean Air Act directs EPA to project the amount expected to be sold or introduced into commerce based on credible facts, not based on press releases, hopes or wishes,” said Greg Scott, who was serving at that time as executive vice president and general counsel of the national Petrochemical and Refiners Association. “No cellulosic biofuel RINs have been generated for the 11-month period of July 2010-May 2011. This should suggest caution when selecting the regula-tory volume for 2012. If the EPA is wrong or if a biodiesel trade group representative or cellulosic ethanol spokesperson is wrong in his or her rosy predictions for production, it is our members that will experience the economic and regula-tory pain.” Scott equated the cellulosic biofuel mandate and subsequent waiver credit requirement to a tax on refiners. “rFS obligated parties can buy up to 6 million cellulosic bio-fuel waiver credits in 2011,” he stated. “This is a $6.78 million tax that nPrA’s members must pay due to EPA’s misguided optimism regarding cellulosic biofuels production this year. Refiners should not have to pay millions of dollars in compli-ance taxes because of EPA’s gross miscalculation, and EPA must not repeat this miscalculation in 2012.”

At What Cost?The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

provides the EPA with the authority to adjust the rFS each year based on anticipated production levels for the coming 12 months. In the case of a cellulosic biofuel production short-fall, EISA requires the EPA to establish a price for waiver credits, which are then purchased by obligated parties as a substitute for rIns to prove their rFS compliance. The price

Gauging volumes

2012 will RINs prove that the RFS needs modifying?By KRIS BEVILL


rfs

of each waiver credit is set on an annual basis and is calculated by determining the differ-ence between the average wholesale price of a gallon of gasoline and $3, not to drop below 25 cents per credit. In 2010, the price of cellu-losic biofuel waiver credits was $1.56 per gal-

lon. This year, credits were priced at $1.13 per gallon.

Ethanol industry rep-resentat ives

believe optimism is required to entice inves-tors into the space. The renewable Fuels As-sociation asked the EPA to choose the high side for next year’s cellulosic volume mandate because it would provide a policy signal in support of cellulosic technology. “By setting the standard near the high end of expected in-dustry production, EPA will provide certainty to projects under development and assist the industry in meeting the increased production requirements of the rFS2 over time,” the

rFA stated in its comments. “If EPA sets the 2012 standard well below what the industry is likely to produce in 2012, the urgency of proj-ect development will dissipate, making each subsequent annual target that much more dif-ficult to achieve.”

But for oil companies, the balance sheet rules. Several petroleum groups presented the EPA with alternatives to the cellulosic waiver credit situation this year, each of which re-sults in refiners being exempt from paying for unproduced gallons of cellulosic biofuels. BP suggested that the EPA could waive any shortfall of production, eliminating the need for obligated parties to purchase waiver cred-its, but still provide the obligated parties with the option to comply through the purchase of credits or rIns. “This approach would con-tinue to provide cellulosic producers assur-ance of a market, based upon the project vol-ume to be made available, while eliminating the unjustified cost to obligated parties only after it was clear that the obligation was im-possible to achieve,” robert leidich, BP regu-

latory and advisory manager, stated in written comments submitted to the EPA.

Patrick Kelly, senior policy advisor for the American Petroleum Institute, expanded that idea further, suggesting the cellulosic bio-fuels industry produce measurable amounts of fuel before refiners are required to pay for anything. He recommended that mandated volumes for the upcoming year be based on three consecutive months of proven cellulos-ic biofuels production. If no fuel is produced in that three-month period, then the next

year’s mandate should be zero. “This type of cer t if icat ion process would help the agen-cy develop

more realistic estimates and thus, achievable standards,” he said.

of course the ethanol industry rejects this notion and says it flies in the face of what Congress intended when it established the

$1.56per gallon2010 price for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits

$1.13per gallon2011 price for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits


2X7. 125SI

2X7. 125SI

2X7. 125SI

rfs

rFS, which was to encourage the expansion of renewable fuels. “Basing annual cellulosic biofuel requirements on past production lev-els does absolutely nothing to encourage the construction of new cellulosic biofuel and discourages innovation,” the rFA stated.

Advanced at a Premiumof greater interest to many grain-based

ethanol producers is the advanced biofuels portion of the rFS. The EPA proposed to maintain the initial 2 billion gallon require-ment for next year’s advanced biofuels cat-egory, a significant increase over the 2011 requirement of 1.35 billion gallons. In order to qualify as an advanced biofuel, the fuel must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent and, to the dismay of corn ethanol producers, cannot be produced from corn. This could create an interesting scenario in 2012, says Clayton McMartin, president of the Clean Fuels Clearinghouse, which owns and operates the rinstar renewable Fuels registry. “There’s going to be more and more

demand for advanced biofuels, and sugarcane ethanol is pretty much the only option,” he says. This situation could drive up the prices for advanced biofuels rIns as obligated par-ties fight to comply with the RFS, he says.

In his remarks at the EPA hearing, Growth Energy President Jim nussle asked EPA officials to reconsider the corn discrimi-nation clause in the advanced biofuels cate-gory. “We believe that excluding corn ethanol risks many unintended consequences, such as increased costs, reduced supply pressures and market uncertainty, which would harm invest-ment,” he said. other ethanol producers have requested that the EPA reduce the advanced biofuels category but leave the overall 2012 mandate of 15.2 billion gallons untouched so that corn ethanol could be used to make up the difference.

Crystal ball It is risky to attempt to predict the EPA’s

actions, but if history tells us anything, one can assume that the agency will land some-

where in the middle of the rFS debate. The petroleum industry has been requesting the

elimination of cellulosic biofuels mandates since 2009, and the EPA has yet to agree with it. In issuing its final volume require-ments for 2011, the agency noted that it must remain optimistic when establish-

ing cellulosic biofuel mandates because if actual production exceeds the mandate the industry will be at risk for weak product and rIn demand. The agency has also never agreed that corn ethanol should be allowed to make up for shortcomings in other categories. For the past two years, the EPA has settled on a cellulosic biofuels mandate of approxi-mately 6 million gallons, and with little change in the industry it is likely to do the same this year.

Cellulosic producers agree it will be neces-sary to reduce next year’s mandate. of the six ethanol producers expected to produce next

6ProducersExpected to produce cellulosic ethanol in 2012


rfs

year, several have a lot of unfinished business to attend to. Fiberight llC has an existing 5.5 MMgy facility in Blairstown, Iowa, to work with, but it has been fine-tuning its technol-ogy and equipment this year and hasn’t yet begun steady commercial production. Earlier this year CEo Craig Stuart-Paul said the delay in market value for cellulosic rIns was a fac-tor in the company’s lack of production. The EPA expects Fiberight to contribute 3 mil-lion ethanol-equivalent gallons of cellulosic biofuel next year, but until commissioning is complete at the plant, Stuart-Paul was hesitant to predict whether that would be possible. As of late September, Fulcrum Bioenergy Inc. had not yet begun full construction of its 10 MMgy facility in McCarran, nev. ZeaChem Inc.’s 250,000 gallon per year demonstration-scale facility in Boardman, ore., was expected to produce biochemicals by the end of the year, but ethanol production would not be complete until 2012.

In Florida, Ineos new Planet BioEnergy llC’s 8 MMgy facility was 25 percent com-plete by mid-September. Dan Cummings, vice president of Ineos Bio, said his company was comfortable with the projected 3 million eth-anol-equivalent gallons anticipated from the plant and expected to be able to produce that much in 2012.

No matter what the final volumes are next year, the petroleum industry will likely

continue to cry foul. Certain Congressional members have renewed the call to revise the rFS and the ethanol industry is furiously bat-tling those efforts, but 2012 could prove to be a make-or-break year for the cellulosic indus-try. With so many federal government pro-grams under fire for “wasteful” spending, it

is inevitable that the rFS will get lumped into a big picture argument and without a success story to point to it will only get harder to fight the opposition.

author: Kris bevill Associate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine


How Soon?In its proposed volumes for the 2012 re-

newable fuel standard, the U.S. EPA included a list of cellulosic biofuel producers it expects to contribute to next year’s fuel supply. Several of the producers on that list have made advance-ments or changes to their production plans since the proposal was released in June. The following offers an updated look at their prospects for pro-duction as of late September.

dupont danisco Cellulosic ethanol llC—DDCE still expects to produce 250,000 gallons of switchgrass- and corn stover-based ethanol at its Vonore, Tenn., demonstration-scale facility next year and has also selected nevada, Iowa, as the location for its first 27 MMgy plant. The start-up of that facility is also expected to occur next year.

Fiberight llC—Fiberight’s Blairstown, Iowa, plant has not yet begun producing continu-ously. The EPA expects it could contribute 3 mil-lion ethanol-equivalent gallons of municipal solid waste (MSW)-based ethanol to the 2012 volume.

Fulcrum Bioenergy inc.—engineering ac-tivities have taken place at the site and construc-tion of the 10 MMgy MSW-to-ethanol plant is expected to begin by the end of the year. In September, the company announced its intent to go public.

kl energy Corp.—The EPA listed Kl’s Upton, Wyo., plant as having the potential to produce 1 million ethanol-equivalent gallons of ethanol next year, but the company carried out an extensive overhaul of the plant earlier this year to begin testing sugarcane bagasse pro-cesses and has reduced its operating capacity to 500,000 gallons. The company said it is cur-rently producing ethanol at the facility.

ZeaChem inc.—The EPA predicted that ZeaChem could produce 250,000 gallons of cel-lulosic ethanol next year, but in comments filed with the agency, the company said full capacity will not be reached in 2012 and requested that the EPA reduce its expected amount to 50,000 gallons.

IF YOU'RE LUCKY, I MAY EVEN DANCE.

The Load Toad® uses patented technology to load grain more evenly than is humanly possible. As a result, it loads 5%* more grain into every railcar. This translates into a 5% savings on your grain shipping costs. Meet the Load Toad in person. Call (605) 965-6414 to put the Toad to the test with a custom trial at your plant. Or email [email protected].

*Results may vary. LoadToad.com

CONVENTIONAL GRAIN LOADER

Traditional grain loading isn’t very efficient. Grain piles in the middle and top edges remain unfilled.

WITH LOAD TOAD

The Load Toad’s patented technology loads grain more evenly, resulting in 5% more grain loaded into every railcar.


maintenance

Metal Maintenance Tanks are the workhorses of the ethanol industry. Corrosion mitigation is important at critical stress points, and as the tanks age.

PHoTo: HoLLY JeSSen, bbi inTernATionAL


maintenance

As the ethanol industry matures, potential corrosion issues call for a watchful eye By HOLLy JESSEN

Protecting

Compared to the oil industry, the ethanol industry is relatively young. That puts the ethanol industry on a steep learning curve on matters already mastered by other industries. Jim Dooley, account executive for Corrpro Companies Inc., believes one of those areas is corro-sion protection for tanks—including fermentation, water and fuel tanks.

The reality is, he says, some ethanol plants were built with little to no corrosion protection. “When the ethanol industry had designed a lot of these sites, they were unaware of a needs basis when it came to controlling [corrosion,]” he says.

As these plants age, ethanol producers are beginning to examine exist-ing infrastructure to determine where corrosion protection is needed to prevent metal loss. That process starts with tank inspections. Corrpro, a corrosion solutions company with offices worldwide, has worked with etha-nol plants that don’t have the special coatings or cathotic protection in place that they should have. In some cases, those ethanol producers are starting to have problems with leaks. “What they are seeing is that their structures are showing some signs of wear, with corrosion, things are starting to happen now, that maybe weren’t predesigned into their systems,” he says.

Those

TanksWorkhorse


The bottom line is, corrosion might not be the sexiest subject, but it is one ethanol producers need to have on their radar. If not, it could mean costly repairs or possible contamination someday down the road, par-ticularly for some older ethanol facilities.

Corrosion expertsSteel tanks containing fuel-grade etha-

nol develop leaks due to stress corrosion cracking, says oliver Moghissi, president of the national Association of Corrosion En-gineers. Corrosion can be an issue near vents and any external appurtenances exposed to air, allowing ethanol to pick up moisture. Storing hydrous ethanol can produce even more corrosion due to higher water content.

There are a number of corrosion miti-gation strategies, he adds, drawing on techni-cal input from narasi Sridhar, vice president of DNV USA, a classification society, and

a fellow member of nACE. Galvanic sac-rificial coatings, such as zinc or aluminum, will protect steel tanks containing ethanol. The main limitation to this system of corro-sion mitigation is that it could have a nega-tive effect on product quality. “Any dissolved metal species in the ethanol can render the ethanol unaccept-able to the automotive

industry, its main customer,” he tells EPM. “Any galvanic coating therefore must be test-ed rigorously by the end-user, the automo-tive community, which can be time consum-ing and expensive.”

When corrosion or stress-corrosion cracking is observed, stress-relief anneal-ing, a heat treatment, can be used to reduce weld stresses. In addition, chemical inhibi-tors can be added, water can be minimized and the entrance of oxygen minimized. The American Petroleum Institute also recom-mends internal polymeric coating.

Water tanks need corrosion protection as well. Unlike tanks containing ethanol, cathodic protection can be used to protect tanks containing water. Cathotic protection involves either using sacrificial anodes that protect the tank by attracting corrosion to itself, or an impressed current from an ex-ternal source. These same methods can be used to protect the bottoms and outsides of aboveground or underground tanks ex-posed to soil.

Cathodic protection, however, doesn’t work for the insides of metal structures containing ethanol, the corrosion engineers add. The fuel has low electrical conductivity when compared to water and, as a result, much of the applied voltage is insulated from the metal needing to be protected. “Therefore, impressed or sacrificial cathod-ic protection systems will not work in etha-nol,” Moghissi says. “In ethanol-gasoline mixtures, the situation is even worse since gasoline has a lower electrical conductivity than ethanol.”

API offers two guidance documents detailing the inspection and maintenance of ethanol tanks and other infrastructure developed by an API task group: “Tank in-spection, repair, alteration and reconstruc-tion” and “Identification, repair and mitiga-tion of cracking of steel equipment in fuel ethanol service.” Moghissi says they provide helpful information. “These documents provide a variety of inspection and mitiga-tion methods as well as the latest results of the survey of industry on ethanol corrosion and stress corrosion cracking issues.”

In addition, nACE has a technical ex-change committee that meets annually to share information on corrosion mitigation methods for ethanol tanks, piping and pipe-lines. The committee also is working on a standard for stress corrosion cracking test methods for steel. Finally, Moghissi says,

count on us to keep your pl ant cle an.Get back to full operating efficiency with cleaning experts who understand your needs.

(888) 549-1869www.premiumplantservices.com

hydroblasting | industrial vacuuming | surface chemical cleaning sandblasting | tube bundle and heat exchanger cleaning

maintenance

help available APi has two helpful guidance documents on inspection and maintenance of ethanol tanks, says oliver moghissi, president of the national Association of Corrosion engineers.


the Steel Tank Institute holds regular meet-ings on the issue of ethanol storage tanks, typically from the perspective of ethanol storage at gas stations. For corrosion miti-gation services, ethanol producers should work with a NACE-certified service pro-vider, he adds, and for more information, they can also attend a nACE biofuels com-mittee meeting.

bacteria bad newsEthanol’s impact on steel requires a

closer look for another reason, as more consideration is given to moving ethanol via

pipelines. This summer, new experimen-tal evidence came out, showing that etha-nol contaminated with a common bacteria boosts fatigue crack rates in pipelines by 25 percent when compared to air. (researchers didn’t look at crack rates for petroleum in this study.) national Institute of Standards and Technology researchers presented their findings at the Department of Defense Corrosion Conference held Aug. 1 in la Quinta, Calif. The findings are the first to emerge from nIST’s biofuel test facility.

Testing of tank materials is under way now, says nIST postdoctoral researcher Jef-

frey Sowards. Although funding received from the Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Ad-ministration was used up in the first half of the study, researchers believe there is more to learn. “The timeframe of the project is actually over, but we’re continuing it on our own,” he says.

The second half of the study will ex-amine degradation of tank materials within the same parameters of the pipeline study, although fatigue loading isn’t as much of an issue for tanks as it is for pipelines. “I would say by the end of this calendar year

maintenance

800-505-9665 • 717-898-7665www.hammertek.com • [email protected]

HammerTek Smart Elbows®

save you money.Ethanol producers are using HammerTek’s Smart Elbow

to eliminate maintenance and replacement costs, reduce plant downtime, and save product.

Visit hammertek.com to view case studies and videos to see for yourself why the Smart Elbow is built to endure.

100% AMERICAN MADE

SourCe: nATionionAL inSTiTuTe oF STAnDArDS AnD TeCHnoLoGY

Pipeline Materials Evaluated for Fatigue Crack Rates


maintenance

we should have preliminary results,” he says, adding that researchers hope at some point to expand testing to other biofuels such as biodiesel and butanol.

The pipeline study involved testing two common pipeline steels, X52 and X70. For the study, the pipeline steels were installed in hydraulic test frames and subjected to mechanical forces while immersed in fuel. researchers observed fatigue crack growth over a period of up to 10 days.

When immersed in fuel-grade etha-nol, crack growth increased significantly at stress levels found in typical pipeline oper-ating conditions, but not at low stress levels. Finer-grained X70 pipeline steel is known to better resist fatigue and had lower crack growth rates at all stress levels. The ethanol solution that contained bacteria promoted crack growth at stress intensity levels found in typical pipeline operating conditions. “We have shown that ethanol fuel can in-

crease the rate of fatigue crack growth in pipelines,” Sowards says. “Substantial in-creases in crack growth rates were caused by the microbes. These are important data for pipeline engineers who want to safely and reliably transport ethanol fuel in repur-posed oil and gas pipelines.”

The bacteria was isolated from indus-trial ethanol storage tanks. Samples were provided by the Colorado School of Mines, he says. Preliminary testing suggested that a biocide used in oil and gas operations, glutaraldehyde, could help control bacterial growth.

Cost Benefit Dooley acknowledges planning cor-

rosion mitigation is a challenge when tight margins mean ethanol producers need to carefully evaluate expenditures. “Everything comes down to a cost basis,” he says.

Take water tanks. With no danger of contamination, a water leak it may not seem concerning. However, Dooley points out, depending on plant design and water source, some plants use water tanks as backup sys-tems, to provide a day or two of water sup-ply for its ethanol production needs. If these water tanks need maintenance or even fail, this could disrupt production, something an ethanol plant can little afford in a time of tight margins.

Protecting metal structures such as wa-ter tanks from corrosion, whether at instal-lation or retroactively, can help save money. For example, it may cost $5,000 to put in a system of cathotic protection, Dooley says, but compare that to $50,000 to repair a damaged tank or the cost of completely replacing that tank. “[Cathotic protection is] going to extend the life of their service infrastructure,” he says.

author: Holly JessenAssociate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine

(701) 738-4946 [email protected]

•

••••

Essential Expertise

for Water, Energy and Air

SM

Introducing Distillers Grains Production & MarketsThe leading source for distillers grains industry information.

Ad Space is Now AvailableContact us today to explore your new opportunities.

For more information, contact us at866-746-8385 [email protected]

Follow us: twitter.com/EthanolMagazine

Produced by Ethanol Producer Magazine, Distillers Grains Products & Markets is the only publication to exclusively cover the diverse, growing international industry of distillers grains production, marketing and use. This exciting publication provides in-depth feature articles, news, information and analysis targeted toward professionals interested in the principal coproduct of dry grind ethanol production.

Distillers Grains Production & Markets provides departments and/or features focused on:

• Product innovations and new uses• Testing and analytical methods• Energy and drying• Compliance and regulations• Marketing • Commodities

• Feed trials• Storage and logistics • Research and development• Process technology • Equipment

Reserve Your Advertising Space Now for the Winter Issue - February 2012Insertion Date: December 19, 2011Bonus Distribution:• National Ethanol Conference• International Biomass Conference & Expo


contRiBution

blends

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

E15: Cracking the RvP NutNew blend won’t qualify for One Pound waiver, presenting huge hurdle By JEREMy P. GREENHOuSE

When the u.S. ePa granted Clean air act fuel waivers allow-ing gasoline containing 10 to 15 percent by volume of ethanol (e15) for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehi-cles, the agency included the fol-lowing condition, as published in the Jan. 26, Federal Register:

“The final fuel must have a Reid Vapor

Pressure not in excess of 9.0 psi [pounds per square inch] during the time period from May 1 to September 15.”

This succinct requirement presents the single largest barrier to the successful in-troduction of E15. The situation has left the ethanol industry scratching its collective head on how to proceed and, in the words of Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa renewable Fuels Association, “Very frustrated.”

The Waiver Problem The root of the problem is that E15, in

spite of having almost identical physical char-acteristics to those of E10, does not qualify for a decades-old exemption for E10 from the Clean Air Act’s fuel volatility limitations. As gasoline evaporates, volatile organic com-pounds (VoCs) enter the atmosphere and contribute to ozone formation, a problem that is exacerbated by warmer air temperatures. To address this issue, EPA has promulgated regulations, under section 211(h) of the act, prohibiting the sale of gasoline with a reid va-por pressure (rVP, a measure of volatility) that


blends

exceeds 9.0 psi in “volatility attainment areas” and 7.8 psi in “volatility non-attainment areas.” These standards apply to all persons from June 1 to Sept. 15 and from May 1 through Sept. 15 for all refiners, importers, distributors, resell-ers and carriers.

The act includes an important exception to these rVP limitations, providing that fuel containing “gasoline and 10 percent dena-tured anhydrous ethanol” can exceed the ap-plicable rVP limitation by 1.0 psi. Congress passed this “one-Pound Waiver” in 1990 to accommodate the gasohol industry’s practice of “splash blending” 10 percent ethanol with conventional gasoline. When 10 percent etha-nol is added to conventional 9.0-psi gasoline, the rVP of the mixture will rise to about 10 psi. Absent the one-Pound Waiver, gasohol would have required a base gasoline with a lower rVP—about 8.0 psi—to stay below the 9.0-psi statutory maximum. Producing a spe-cial low-rVP blendstock, the industry success-fully argued, presented prohibitive expenses and logistical problems.

EPA’s regulation implementing the one Pound Waiver is more specific than the stat-ute, providing that the waiver applies only to blends containing “at least 9 percent and no more than 10 percent” ethanol—language that clearly excludes E15. Many have con-tended that it is illogical to treat E10 and E15 differently in this way because the primary policy reason for adopting the one Pound Waiver for E10—facilitating splash-blending with conventional gasoline—applies equally to E15. Moreover, as the accompanying graph demonstrates, E15’s rVP is essentially iden-tical to that of E10 and should present no greater ozone concerns.

nonetheless, the one Pound Waiver, as currently written, does not apply to E15, which presents a problem: the ethanol industry will be unable to blend E15 with conventional 9.0 psi gasoline in the summertime months, as it has done for decades with E10, because the resulting fuel’s rVP will be too high. Many hurdles remain for E15—health effects test-ing, fuel registration, updating standards, vehicle warranty issues, among others—but as far as “one big swipe that could control a lot of volume,” says ron lamberty, senior

vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, the rVP issue is “probably the largest."

no easy Answers

There are various potential solutions to this problem, none of them easy. The seeming-ly obvious answer is to use a lower-rVP blend-

stock for E15. But many areas of the country do not have low-rVP blendstock readily avail-able, and obtaining one presents challenges, including the logistics of separately shipping and storing a special blendstock for E15 and in-creased cost. According to EPA staff estimates in 2002, creating a blendstock for E15 with a 1.0-psi lower rVP would require removing ap-proximately 1.5 percent of the gasoline, most likely in the form of butane, which would add about 0.4 cents per gallon.1 However, the main challenge, according to Shaw, is that refiners are unwilling to supply a lower rVP blendstock. “They've already told us here in Iowa they have no intention of doing that. They don't want to sell E15.” Refiners are not required by law to provide a lower-rVP blendstock for E15, and the oil industry has made no secret of its opposition to E15, repeatedly suing EPA in an attempt to over-turn the E15 waiv-ers. Plus, refiners appear to have a financial disin-centive to facili-tate E15, which, after all, contains 5 percent less pe-troleum than E10. And because the refining industry is highly consoli-

dated, with only a handful of companies sup-plying any given terminal area, market forces alone are unlikely to compel refiners to supply a separate blendstock, explains Shaw: “[local fuel purchasers] can only pull what is available at the terminal. The refiners are the customers of the terminal and the pipeline company, and the customers make the decision. It’s really up to the refiners what they do.”

Considering these difficulties associated with obtaining a low-rVP blendstock for E15, another approach is to convince EPA to amend its rules to extend the one-Pound Waiver to E15 (and remove the rVP condition from the E15 Waivers). This would eliminate the need for a separate low-rVP blendstock for E15. There is a reasonable argument that the statutory one Pound Waiver—which applies to blends containing “gasoline and 10 percent denatured anhydrous ethanol”—can be in-terpreted to mean at least 10 percent ethanol. Accordingly, EPA could, consistent with the statute, amend its one Pound Waiver regula-tion to apply to E15. Unfortunately, EPA has soundly rejected this argument. In the preamble to its July 25 final rule on E15 misfueling miti-gation, EPA explained in detail why it believes the Clean Air Act does not authorize extending the one Pound Waiver to E15. To challenge this decision would require formal legal action,

Pressure ProblemsThere appear to be no simple solutions for the ePA’s reid vapor pressure requirement for e15, says attorney Jeremy Greenhouse.

Pressure Relationships The graph shows the relationship between reid vapor pressure and different ethanol blends. based on data in issues Associated with the Use of Higher Ethanol Blends (E17-E24), prepared by national renewable energy Laboratory, october 2002.

blends

which, given the deferential standard of re-view a court would apply to EPA’s interpreta-tion, would be an uphill battle.

Another potential solution is to bypass EPA and convince Congress to amend the Clean Air Act and make the one Pound Waiver expressly applicable to E15. As ex-plained above, there are compelling argu-ments that the one Pound Waiver should apply to E15 as well as E10. But, obtaining a statutory amendment is difficult at the best of times, and even more so here, given the highly polarized political climate and the fact that the amendment would likely be contro-versial, opposed by the same groups that op-posed the E15 waivers.

A less controversial approach is to ask Congress to eliminate the one Pound Waiver altogether such that both E10 and E15 could be blended with a single low-rVP blendstock. With the rFS2 in place, eliminating the one Pound Waiver is unlikely to significantly im-pact sales of E10, and an amendment repeal-ing, rather than extending, the one Pound Waiver would be an “easier sell” from an en-vironmental perspective since it would result in fewer emissions of VoCs. The specter of increased gas prices associated with produc-ing a lower-rVP blendstock for E10 and E15, however, would still likely be enough to scare off legislators, particularly in the midst of a recession. The industry could seek to elimi-nate the one Pound Waiver on a state-by-state basis—the act allows individual states to opt out of the one Pound Waiver, as Maine, new York, Pennsylvania and Texas have done through EPA-approved state implementation plans—but this piecemeal approach would be time-consuming, with myriad political hurdles.

Finding a Way ForwardIf the industry has to live with the rVP

limitation on E15, this alone will not prohibit the sale of E15. retailers can still sell E15 blended with conventional gasoline for gen-eral use between october and May, and year-round for flex-fuel vehicles. In the summer months, it may be possible (albeit with added cost) to ship a lower-rVP blendstock from parts of the country where it is available via

a “virtual pipeline.” In areas of the country using reformulated gasoline (rFG)—which accounts for 30 percent of gasoline sold in the U.S.—separate blendstocks should not be necessary since the rFG performance stan-dards do not grant ethanol an rVP waiver. And in time, market forces may persuade re-finers to make a lower-RVP blendstock more readily available.

Unfortunately, for E15 to be effective, for it to make any significant impact on the blend wall (which by many accounts has already been reached), it needs to be widely available as soon as possible. “The quick ability to get retailers to offer consumers E15 is vital to the near-term viability of the ethanol industry,” Shaw says. The more limitations, expenses or logistics, the longer retailers will take to jump on board. In spite of the challenges, however, Shaw remains “very optimistic about the fu-ture of E15. The only question is whether we can ramp it up quickly.” Finding a quick, creative solution to the problem presented by the E15 rVP limitation would go a long way toward making this happen.

author: Jeremy P. Greenhouse Attorney, Greenhouse & Gram LLC


1 148 Cong. rec. 9, S485 (2002), citing a draft ePA staff report, Supply Analysis of S. 950—The Reformulated Fuels Act of 2001.

The One Pound Waiver, as

currently written, does not

apply to E15, which pres-

ents a problem: the ethanol

industry will be unable to

blend E15 with conventional

9.0 psi gasoline in the sum-

mertime months, as it has

done for decades with E10,

because the resulting fuel’s

RVP will be too high.

SM

*Hayes, Dermot J., Du, Xiaodong (April 2011) The Impact of Ethanol Production on US and Regional Gasoline Markets: An Update to May 2009. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD).

www.EthanolRFA.org

Over 200 plants nationwide. 13 billion gallons of clean, renewable American energy, a year.

Fueling the economy with over 400,000 jobs. Turning everyday abundant, renewable ingredients into clean sustainable energy.

Ethanol reduced the average American household’s gasoline bill by more than $800.If ethanol disappeared, gas prices could rise by as much as 92%.*


contRiBution

corn

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

Syngenta’s enzyme-producing corn varietyrequires redesigned farm-to-plant system By TIM TIERNEy

this past February, the uSda deregulated Syngenta’s trade-marked enogen corn for use in ethanol production. While the de-regulation of this new technology was a key milestone, it reflects just the tip of the iceberg in terms of bringing it to market. Designing a system to manage Enogen corn in ethanol plants and on the farms of the growers sup-plying it was almost as extensive a process as the development of the technology itself.

Enogen corn began as a unique organ-ism discovered in natural marine hydrother-mal systems. Years of development turned this organism into an amylase enzyme that could be expressed directly in corn grain—bypassing the need to add this key enzyme separately during conventional dry grind ethanol production.

What rapidly became apparent, howev-er, were two things. First, the technology was

so efficient that an ethanol plant needed just 10 to 20 percent of its total corn use to in-clude Enogen corn while still realizing maxi-mum benefits. The second thing that became obvious was that this technology was so well suited for ethanol production that the most value would be created by ensuring all the production was directed to ethanol plants.

Specialty, high-value crops in need of identity preservation are nothing new in agriculture. The industry has been success-fully handling such things for years. Toward that end, Syngenta worked with novecta, a joint effort between the Iowa and Illinois corn growers’ associations that specializes in grower training on best practices and ISo purity standards. Meanwhile, Syngenta tapped its own expertise in seed production and stewardship of regulated corn traits to design the Enogen corn system.

The result is a closed-loop produc-

tion system that delivers a grain premium to growers for this specialty crop while al-lowing ethanol plants to improve ethanol throughput by 10 percent and reducing en-ergy costs by approximately 8 percent. Best of all, ethanol plants need make only a few, if any, modifications to their existing grain storage and blending systems.

Practically ‘Drop-in’Many in the ethanol industry have the

misconception that an ethanol plant needs to convert to 100 percent Enogen corn to real-ize all benefits of the technology. Beginning in a corn field instead of in a stainless steel vat, Enogen corn can “dose” the ethanol plant with alpha amylase far more efficiently than adding microbial-derived enzymes. Be-cause Enogen corn delivers a dose of amy-lase that is multiple times more potent than any liquid enzyme that can be added, the plant requires only a portion of its corn to be Enogen corn.

For ethanol plants, the only modifica-tion may be finding a separate storage bin

PH

oTo

: SY

nG

en

TA

when Product Development is Just the Tip of the Iceberg


corn

TankJet AA290 Motorized Tank Cleaners are easily mounted, feature a wide operating range and use high impact nozzles to clean tanks.

Experts in Spray Technology

Spray Nozzles

Spray Control

Spray Analysis

Spray Fabrication

1-800-95-SPRAY | tankjet.com

Specify and order standard nozzles spray.com/ispray

Clean Tanks More Thoroughly in Less TimeTankJet® 360 Tank Cleaners

Outperforms other fluid driven tank cleaners with more consistent impact over the entire pressure range

Reliable operation – designed to minimize clogging User-serviceable for easy maintenance For use with tanks up to 100’ (30 m) in dia.

TankJet AA290 Motorized Tank Cleaners High-impact cleaning results in shorter cycle times – tanks are returned to service quickly

Choice of air or explosion-proof electric motors Long-service life – motor is positioned outside of the tank away from harmful caustics

For use with tanks up to 80' (24.4 m) in dia.

Plus, unmatched service – dedicated, local sales engineers ready to help, and free on-site evaluations

Learn more at tankjet.com/cleanethanoltanks

TankJet 360 Fluid-Driven Tank Cleaner

for Enogen grain so it can be blended with regular dent corn at an approximate rate that is determined during the technology demon-stration and testing process. Mind you, this is an approximate rate. Thanks to the forgiving nature of this technology, there is no need to rely on complex mixing technology that measures out product volume loads in micro level increments. A simple grain mixing sys-tem is all that is required, and it means add-ing Enogen corn to a plant is practically a drop-in.

once in the plant, Enogen corn makes the process hum. The technology enables un-precedented solids loading—a change which has to be seen to be believed. In working with plants to incorporate the technology, we have seen cleaner pipes, less pressure on pumps and cleaner filters. Also, because the Enogen alpha amylase enzyme is thoroughly disbursed throughout the mash, formation of dough balls in the slurry mixer is avoided.

on-farm Stewardship of course, before plants

can begin experiencing the ben-efits of Enogen corn, it must be produced in the field. Syngenta knew there were concerns about keeping Enogen grain separate from grain destined for other uses, including food products. That is why we worked with novecta and others to create a comprehensive stewardship program that addresses how this grain is handled every step of the way. This system is thorough and well thought-out, and it is not difficult to implement.

not every grower will have the op-portunity to produce Enogen corn. only ethanol plants that license Enogen technol-ogy from Syngenta will contract with local producers for their Enogen corn, and only

SourCe: SYnGenTA

growers with an executed Enogen contract can access the seed. To qualify for the con-tract, growers must have on-farm storage. Syngenta estimates few growers will put more than half of their acres in Enogen corn because of this requirement. While that may limit what they can contract, it also


corn

Expansion or maintenance needs???With over 40 years of experience sellinginto your market, we know and havewhat you need...when you need it.

No order is too small.

www.rjsales.com

IN-STOCKSTAINLESS PVFFrom 1/8" to 36"

Indianapolis, IN 800-777-0510Minneapolis, MN 800-777-1355Raleigh, NC 800-565-5525

Buffalo, NY 800-666-0088Cleveland, OH 800-777-0820Chicago, IL 800-777-2008Cranbury, NJ 800-777-1858

LWC627-RJS-0445 Ethanol Ad #1 1/1/11 7:43 AM Page 1

helps with managing the technology on their farm operation.

The contract also specifies produc-tion by the acre rather than the bushel to help protect growers against adverse con-ditions that might re-duce per-acre yields. As it is, Syngenta’s Enogen hybrids have been shown to yield

around 195 bushels per acre on average on irrigated acres. Enogen hybrids also include insect protection and herbicide tolerance traits and elite genetics. Growers do not have to sacrifice yield or performance to get this 30- to 50-cent-per-bushel premium.

other contract terms include steward-ship provisions and a buyer’s call with flexi-

ble delivery options. Because corn pollen can and does move, Syngenta requires growers to plant border rows of non-Enogen corn. Due to the flexibility of Enogen corn in ethanol production systems, however, these border rows can be harvested, stored and delivered together with the Enogen grain. Here, the process differs from other identity-preserved grain products that require border rows to be harvested and handled separately. A mini-mum of 12 border rows is required, but due to planter configurations, growers can use up to 16 border rows if that works better for them. Growers are required to clean out their planters and combines to make sure their Enogen corn remains contained.

not surprisingly, this new technology requires some training for maximum ben-efit. Plants entering into Enogen technology licensing agreements first go through a tech-nology demonstration trial, which typically takes about three months. This enables the

plant to gain valuable processing experience with Enogen corn and allows the Enogen technical support team to help tailor pro-cesses for maximum benefit to the plant.

once an ethanol plant signs a licensing agreement, an Enogen account manager will continue to work with the plant on recruiting contract growers, training and stewardship, and will also liaise with the local Syngenta sales team including professional agrono-mists. Each plant also is assigned an Enogen technical support specialist with experience in fermentation and enzymes. These techni-cal specialists work with the plant managers on the demonstration trial, and also provide ongoing process optimization and technical support once the technology has been ad-opted.

author: Tim Tierney

enogen marketing manager, Syngenta Group Co.(612) 801-9775

[email protected]

top Performaner ethanol producers have to see enogen in action to believe its performance, says Tim Tierney, enogen marketing manager for Syngenta.

Put BetaTec® natural hop extracts to work in your fermentation process to replace antibiotics and enhance yeast propagation. IsoStab® is the natural way to effectively control gram-positive bacteria while eliminating antibiotics and harsh chemicals. Plus, antibiotic-free DDGS adds value to your co-products. VitaHop® Silver yeast nutrient enhances yeast performance and vitality, inducing faster fermentations and larger yields. Combined with BetaTec® fermentation expertise and training, these technologies will significantly increase your plant’s efficiency.

BetaTec®…the natural hop to higher profits. For more information specific to fuel ethanol producers, visit www.bthp.info.

www.betatechopproducts.com


heat exchanger Services 303-947-7864 www.hexservices.com

Seneca companies 800-369-5500 www.senecaco.com

Hydro-blastinghydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

MPS group515-953-5656 www.mpsgrp.com

ePm mArKeTPLACe

Associations/organizationsgrowth energy 202-545-4000 www.growthenergy.org

Clean CitiesRed River Valley clean cities 651-227-8014 www.CleanAirChoice.org

twin cities clean cities coalition 651-223-9568 www.CleanAirChoice.org

ChemicalsAnti-microbialFerm Solutions 859-402-8707 www.ferm-solutions.com

DenaturantMethanol of orlando407-234-1788 [email protected]

Desiccantinterra global 847-292-8600 www.interraglobal.com

enzymescte global, inc.847-564-5770 www.cte-global.com

Water Treatmentu.S. water Services763-553-0379 www.uswaterservices.com

YeastFerm Solutions 859-402-8707 www.ferm-solutions.com

Fermentis-division of Si lesaffre800-558-7279 www.fermentis.com

Xylogenics, inc.317-697-7514 www.xylogenics.com

CleaningDryer Systemshth companies 636-584-4586 [email protected]

hydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

Premium Plant Services, inc. 888-549-1869 www.premiumplantservices.com


emergency Spill responsehydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com


evaporators hydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com


FansPremium Plant Services, inc. 888-549-1869 www.premiumplantservices.com

Heat exchanger


railcar Spill response hydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

Tank Cleaning equipment cloud/Sellers cleaning Systems800-234-5650 www.sellersclean.com

gamajet cleaning Systems inc 877-GAmAJeT www.gamajet.com

Scanjet, inc.281-480-4041 www.scanjetinc.com

Spraying Systems co.800-95-SPrAY www.tankjet.com

Tank Cleaning Serviceshydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com



Tank Cleaning Systems Spraying Systems co.800-95-SPrAY www.tankjet.com

Conferences/Trade Shows & meetingsalgae Biomass Summit763-458-0068 www.algaebiomasssummit.org

algal Biomass organization763-458-0068 www.algalbiomass.org

ConstructionConcrete Siloshoffmann, inc. 563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Fabricationagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

andy j.egan company 616-791-9952 www.andyegan.com

Grain Storagehoffmann, inc. 563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

ePm mArKeTPLACe

mechanicall&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Plant Construction agra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

Roeslein & associates, inc.314-729-0056 www.roeslein.com

Stackhoffmann, inc. 563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Tanksagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

j.c. Ramsdell enviro Services, inc. 877-658-5571 www.jcramsdell.com

Consultingenvironmentalcantley inc. 865-360-4080

icM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

RtP environmental associates 516-333-4526 www.rtpenv.com

Seneca companies800-369-5500 www.senecaco.com

Feasibility Studiesharris group inc. 206-494-9422 www.harrisgroup.com

Plant optimizationicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

SafetyRail Safe training, inc. 712-212-4145 www.railsafetraining.com

educationBismarck State college701-224-5735 www.bismarckState.edu/energy

employmentrecruitingSearchPath of chicago 815-261-4403, x100 www.searchpathofchicago.com

Strategic Resources425-688-1151 www.strategicresources.com

engineeringDesign/buildagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

Burns & Mcdonnell 816-333-9400 www.burnsmcd.com

wolf Material handling Systems 763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Process DesignadF engineering inc. 937-847-2700 www.adfengineering.com


PreProcess, inc.949-201-6041 www.preprocessinc.com

Vogelbusch uSa, inc. 713-461-7374 www.vogelbusch.com

Equipment & ServicesAir Pollution/odor Controlanguil environmental Systems, inc.414-365-6400 www.anguil.com

biogas Scrubberseco-tec, inc. 905-427-0077 www.eco-tec.com

Blowers & FansFlaktwoods 716-845-0900 www.flaktwoods.com

Reach your customers

Your Solution. Advertise Today.

EPM MARKETPLACE


Conveyors–Screwwolf Material handling Systems763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Cooling Towersdelta cooling towers, inc. 800-buY-DeLTA www.deltacooling.com

Corn oil recoveryicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

DDGS Dieseltotal-yield diesel from distillers 402-640-8925 www.total-yield.com

Dryers-Fluid bedBuhler aeroglide 919-851-2000 www.aeroglide.com

Dryers-rotary DrumicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Dryers-rotary Steam TubeicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

elevator bucketswolf Material handling Systems763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Emissions Testing & ReductionaRi environmental, inc.847-487-1580 www.arienv.com

Fermentation monitoringetS laboratories707-963-4806 www.etslabs.com

FermentorsBioengineering, inc.781-672-2620 www.bioengineering-inc.com

Fractionation-CornBuhler inc. 763-847-9900 www.buhlergroup.com/us

cereal Process technologies 217-779-2595 www.cerealprocess.com

Catwalksl&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Cellulosic Pretreatment

Centrifugesaaron equipment 630-350-2200 www.aaronequipment.com

Control SystemsicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

kahler automation corp.507-235-6648 www.kahlerautomation.com

Conveyors-belt wolf Material handling Systems763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Conveyors–Dragwolf Material handling Systems763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Conveyors–enclosedwolf Material handling Systems763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Conveyors–mechanicalwolf Material handling Systems763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

ePm mArKeTPLACe

crown iron works company 651-639-8900 www.crowniron.com


Grain Handling & Storageagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

hoffmann, inc.563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Sukup Manufacturing co.641-892-4222 www.sukup.com

Heat exchangersPick heaters, inc.800-233-9030 www.pickheater.com

HoppersAiroflex Equipment563-264-8066 www.airoflexequipment.com

wolf Material handling Systems763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Jet Cookers

Reach your customers

Your Solution. Advertise Today.

EPM MARKETPLACE


Laboratory-Testing Services Foundation analytical laboratory 712-225-6989 www.foundationanalytical.com

Loading equipmentBear Boring llc 309-695-5150 www.bearboring.com

Loading equipment-Liquiddeterman Fluid Solutions763-571-8110 www.determan.com

PFt-alexander, inc.1-800-696-1331 www.pft-alexander.com

maintenance Servicesdeterman Fluid Solutions763-571-8110 www.determan.com

l&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

maintenance SoftwareicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Sealsaesseal, inc. 865-531-0192 www.aesseal.com

Steam injection Heaters

Storage-DDGShoffmann, inc.563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Structural Fabricationagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

l&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Tanksagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

mills-Hammer

millwrightagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

molecular SievesicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Parts & Servicesdeterman Fluid Solutions763-571-8110 www.determan.com


Pipel&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Robert-james Sales, inc. 800-666-0088 www.rjsales.com

Pipe-Fittingshammertek corp. 717-898-7665 www.hammertek.com

Robert-james Sales, inc. 800-666-0088 www.rjsales.com

Pipe-FlangesRobert-james Sales, inc. 800-666-0088 www.rjsales.com

Productivity enhancementsicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

PumpsPeopleFlo Manufacturing 847-929-4774 www.peopleflo.com

ePm mArKeTPLACe

EPM MARKETPLACE

With all contact information

placed in one convenient loca-

tion, ethanol Producer maga-

zine not only contains top edi-

torial content but also a useful

directory in each publication.

Whether a first-time advertiser

wanting to raise awareness of

your business or a frequent

display advertiser looking for

added exposure, ePm market-

place is the perfect solution.


61 Load Toad

66 nalco Company

3 novozymes

40 Phibro ethanol Performance Group

17 Pioneer Hi-bred international, inc.

64 Premium Plant Services, inc.

27 Putsch and Co., inc.

71 renewable Fuels Association

74 robert-James Sales, inc

73 Spraying Systems Co.

15 Syngenta Seeds, inc.

70 victory energy operations, LLC.

38 vogelbusch uSA, inc.

46 Wabash Power equipment Co.

Adindex

ePm mArKeTPLACe

Thermal oxidizers Truck receiving/DumpersAiroflex Equipment563-264-8066 www.airoflexequipment.com

used equipmentuPM Machine713-440-8200 www.upmmachine.com

valvescashco, inc.785-472-4461 www.cashco.com

Wastewater Treatment ServicesicM, inc.877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Water Treatmenth2o innoVation 763-566-8961 www.H2oinnovATion.com

Yield enhancement edeniQ, inc.559-302-1780 www.edeniq.com

FinanceinsuranceeRi Solutions, inc. 316-927-4294 erisolutions.com

Mergers & AcquisitionsMoglia advisors 847-884-8282 www.mogliaadvisors.com

marketingFuel ethanolchS Renewable Fuels 651-355-6271 www.chsinc.com

miscellaneousMaas companies 507-424-2640 www.maascompanies.com

Research & Developmentengine TestingRoush industries 734-779-7736 www.roush.com

Transportationrailcar Gate openersthe arnold company 800-245-7505 www.arnoldcompany.com

• 60 Years of Experience

• 500+ RTO Installed Base

• 100% Uptime Guarantee

• 24/7/365 Emergency Response Service Guarantee

Clean Air & Energy Technology

www.eisenmann.us.comEmail: [email protected]

Marketplace_EthanolProducer.indd 1 5/18/2011 3:34:27 PM

83 2012 International Biomass Conference & Expo

76 2012 international Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo

26 2012 national ethanol Conference

75 2012 Pacific West Biomass Conference & Trade Show

60 Agra industries

32 Aqua Power

77 betaTec Hop Products

49 brownWinick Law Firm

55 buckman

13 Burns & McDonnell

34 Cashco, inc.

36 CiT

33 CPm roskamp Champion

67 Distillers Grains Production & Markets

37 Fagen inc.

53 FC Stone, LLC

19 Fermentis - Division of S.i. Lesaffre

35 Flottweg Separation Technology

58 Freez-it-Cleen

47 Gamajet Cleaning Systems, inc.

41 & 84 GenenCor® - A Danisco Division

2 Growth energy

65 Hammertek

5 iCm, inc.

8 & 9 inbicon

48 indeck Power equipment Co.

59 intersystems

39 Johnson System, inc.

21 Life Technologies

61 Load Toad

66 nalco Company

3 novozymes

40 Phibro ethanol Performance Group

17 Pioneer Hi-bred international, inc.

64 Premium Plant Services, inc.

27 Putsch and Co., inc.

71 renewable Fuels Association

74 robert-James Sales, inc

73 Spraying Systems Co.

15 Syngenta Seeds, inc.

70 victory energy operations, LLC.

38 vogelbusch uSA, inc.

46 Wabash Power equipment Co.

The Largest Biomass Industry Networking Event in the World!Sponsorships and Exhibit Space

Now Available

April 16-19, 2012Colorado Convention CenterDenver, Colorado

The International Biomass Conference & Expo is anticipated be even larger than last year’s successful event. With an anticipated 1,500 attendees, 230 exhibitors, 120 speakers and 60 sponsors, you’ll experience firsthand why the majority of our past exhibitors and sponsors have walked away with valuable contacts and sales leads.

Register Today and Grow Your Future.

CONTACT US:[email protected] Follow Us: twitter.com/biomassmagazine

Sponsors as of October 11, 2011

A New Era in Energy: The Future is Growing

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

GEN-00811_BW_PrintAd_Haybales_FINAL.pdf 1 7/25/11 9:21 AM

november 2011 ethanol producer magazine

Documents

cellulosic ethanol production

drop of ethanol

benefits of ethanol

cellulosic facets

cover cropscropping

grand forks

customers business

issue 11contents56