[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BIOMASS FOR THERMAL ENERGY AND
ELECTRICITY: A RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO FOR THE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 21, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-860 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CHRIS KING Democratic Staff Director
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
JANE WISE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
October 21, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Don J. Stevens, Senior Program Manager, Biomass Energy &
Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Biography.................................................... 20
Mr. Joseph J. James, President, Agri-Tech Producers, LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 26
Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director, Strategic Center for Coal, National
Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 31
Mr. Eric L. Spomer, President, Catalyst Renewables
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 37
Dr. Robert T. Burns, Professor, Department of Agricultural &
Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Biography.................................................... 48
Discussion
Methane as a Greenhouse Gas.................................... 49
How DOE can Diversify Its Biomass Programs..................... 50
Activities at Agri-Tech Producers, LLC......................... 52
Landfill Biogas Production..................................... 53
The Energy Needs of Biopower Fuel Production................... 54
Forest Health.................................................. 54
Protecting Topsoils and Soil Quality........................... 55
Manure Methane Production...................................... 57
Siting Biomass Research Within DOE............................. 57
Biopower in Urban Areas........................................ 59
The Sustainability of Biopower Sources......................... 60
Forest Products From Federal Lands as Biomass.................. 62
More on Siting Biomass Research at DOE......................... 63
Closing........................................................ 64
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Don J. Stevens, Senior Program Manager, Biomass Energy &
Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy...................................... 66
Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director, Strategic Center for Coal, National
Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy........ 68
Dr. Robert T. Burns, Professor, Department of Agricultural &
Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University.................. 70
BIOMASS FOR THERMAL ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY: A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PORTFOLIO FOR THE FUTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Biomass for Thermal Energy and
Electricity: A Research and
Development Portfolio for the Future
wednesday, october 21, 2009
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, October 21 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
will hold a hearing entitled ``Biomass for Thermal Energy and
Electricity: A Research and Development Portfolio for the Future.'' The
purpose of the hearing is to explore the role of the Federal Government
and industry in developing technologies related to the conversion of
biomass for thermal energy and electricity.
Biomass includes any organic matter that is available on a
renewable basis, including agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and
residues, wood and wood wastes and residues, animal wastes, municipal
wastes, and aquatic organisms. Biomass has received considerable
attention for its ability to be converted into liquid transportation
fuels, but it can also produce biopower or thermal energy (heat), power
(electricity) and bio-based products. Biomass feedstocks are vital as
the country moves toward a more diverse portfolio of energy sources,
especially in the Southeast and Northwest of the country where there is
a significant quantity of these renewable resources.
Witnesses
Mr. Scott M. Klara, PE--Director, Strategic Center
for Coal, National Energy Technology Laboratory
Dr. Don J. Stevens--Senior Program Manager, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory
Mr. Eric Spomer--President, Catalyst Renewables
Corporation
Dr. Robert T. Burns--Professor, Agricultural &
Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University
Mr. Joseph J. James--President Agri-Tech Producers,
LLC (ATP)
Background
Biomass is mankind's oldest source of energy. Since the time of the
first nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, wood has been burned for
cooking and heating. As few as five generations ago, 90 percent of our
energy was supplied by the combustion of wood. Today, biomass provides
about 10 percent of the world's primary energy supplies. Over the last
century, the convenience and low cost of fossil fuels has allowed an
emerging industrial society to meet its vast energy needs. However,
decreasing availability of fossil fuel resources and simultaneous
increases in demand, along with concerns over climate change, have
given rise to renewed interest in biomass as an energy resource.
In the United States renewable energy--water, wind, solar,
geothermal, and biomass--currently accounts for approximately 10
percent of total energy production.\1\ Of the renewable energy consumed
in the country the largest portion, 53 percent, comes from biomass
(this includes liquid transportation fuels). The U.S. Departments of
Agriculture and Energy estimate that, by 2030, 1.3 billion tons of
biomass could be available for energy production (including electricity
from biomass, and fuels from corn and cellulose). Through improvements
of existing technologies and development of new technologies biomass
could meet its potential as a major resource of renewable energy
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EIA, Monthly Energy Review, September 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last decade, most legislative efforts concerning biomass
have focused on promoting its use for the production of liquid
transportation fuels. Comparatively little has been done to advance
biomass for electricity generation and thermal energy, or ``biopower.''
Continued RD&D for Cost-Effective and Increased Energy Efficiency in
Biopower Generation
A variety of conversion technologies are used for biopower, many of
which are capable of being integrated into the existing energy
generation infrastructure. Technologies such as direct-fired systems
(stoker boilers, fluidized bed boilers and co-firing), gasification
systems (fixed bed gasifiers and fluidized bed gasifiers) and anaerobic
digestion are in various stages of development, and some have already
seen limited deployment in the energy sector. However, while efforts to
deploy these technologies have been met with some success, there are
still a number of technical barriers before these technologies reach
their full potential.
Efforts to promote biopower have largely focused on wood, wood
residues, and milling waste. The pulp and paper industry has become a
major producer of renewable energy in the United States. The industry
uses ``black liquor,'' a byproduct of the pulping process, as well as
``hog fuel'' or other wood wastes as its feedstock to produce energy.
Generally most of this energy is used on-site to power various
industrial processes. In 2008, the pulp and paper industry generated 38
billion Kilowatt-hours, or more than two-thirds of all electricity
generated from biomass.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Energy Information Administration/ Renewable Energy Consumption
and Electricity Preliminary Statistics, 2008 http://www.eia.doe.gov/
fuelrenewable.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a September 2009 report the Washington State Department of
Ecology assessed the current energy profile of the state's pulp and
paper industry and explored the potential for increasing the industry's
biopower production. The Department found that while the state's pulp
and paper mills already produce a substantial amount of biopower, they
typically do so with outdated and inefficient boilers and ancillary
equipment. With older equipment, the mills produce considerably less
power than they could with new boilers, evaporators, and turbines.
Factoring for capital costs and increased biomass demands, the report
found the benefits of implementing existing state-of-the-art
technologies to be compelling. It was found that the total electrical
power from Washington mills could be increased from 220 MW to 520 MW
with new boilers. Although this study identified key technologies that
could be implemented immediately, it called for more research on
gasification technologies which may be a viable replacement for
existing boilers. Additionally, pulp and paper mills may be great
demonstration facilities for integrated biorefineries which produce
fuels, power and products. This currently is being researched through
the DOE.
Most of today's biopower plants are direct-fired systems, typically
producing less than 50 MW of electrical output. The biomass fuel is
burned in a boiler to produce high pressure steam that is used to power
a steam turbine-driven power generator. In many applications, steam is
extracted from the turbine at medium pressures and temperatures and is
used for process heat or space heating. While these systems are
generally very efficient and have superior emissions profiles over many
conventional technologies, increased research is needed to drive down
capital costs, especially in back-end air pollution control devices.
Another technology of interest is co-firing, a near-term low-cost
option for efficiently and cleanly converting biomass to electricity by
adding it as a partial substitute fuel in existing coal-fired boilers.
Biomass co-firing in modern, large-scale coal power plants is
efficient, cost-effective and requires moderate additional investment.
By blending suitable biomass into coal boilers for simultaneous
combustion, co-firing reduces the amount of coal used by as much as 20
percent. Little or no loss in overall boiler efficiency can be achieved
if appropriate designs and operational changes occur.\3\ According to
the International Energy Association, in the short-term co-firing is
expected to be the most efficient use of biomass for power generation
worldwide. As electricity from coal represents 40 percent of worldwide
electricity, each percentage point replaced by biomass represents some
8 GW of installed capacity, and approximately 60 Mt of CO2
per year avoided.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Federal Energy Management Program (DOE): Biomass Co-firing in
Coal-fired Boilers http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/
fta-biomass-cofiring.pdf.
\4\ IEA: Biomass for Power Generation and CHP. January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, significant global market potential has been
identified for small modular biomass systems in distributed, on-site
electric power generation. These systems typically use locally
available biomass fuels such as wood, crop waste, animal manure and
landfill gas to supply electricity from five kilowatts to five
megawatts per system to rural homes and businesses. Systems include
combined heat and power systems for industrial applications,
gasification and advanced combustion for utility scale power
generation.\5\ Several prototype systems were developed in the early
part of this decade, but continued research is required to optimize
integration of these systems with existing infrastructure and to
overcome a variety of other design issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Small Modular Biomass
Systems www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33257.pdf
Closing the Technology Gap for Biopower Technologies
In addition to the numerous conversion technologies used to
generate electricity from biomass, there are several technologies that
could convert biomass into a gaseous energy product to replace natural
gas and other energy resources (often described as ``renewable natural
gas.'') Such products can be used in existing natural gas pipe lines,
industrial processes, home heating, or any number of other situations
where natural gas is normally used. Gasification, pyrolysis, and
anaerobic digestion are all conversion technologies that exist in some
form in today's market, but are generally not used to make renewable
natural gas. Both gasification and pyrolysis are thermochemical
conversion processes, whereas anaerobic digestion involves the natural
decomposition of organic matter to produce methane.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ``Learning About
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Biopower.'' July 25, 2008,
http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re-biopower.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thermochemical process of gasification begins with the
decomposition of feedstocks such as wood and forest products, followed
by the partial oxidation or reforming of the fuel with a gasifying
agent--usually air, oxygen, or steam--to yield raw synthesis gas, or
syngas. These gases are more easily utilized for power generation and
often result in improved efficiency and environmental performance
compared with the direct combustion of biomass. The gasification
process is further optimized when operating at very high pressures, and
process improvement and development is needed to make high-pressure
feed systems commercially available.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ``An Overview of Biomass
Gasification.'' July 25, 2008. http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/
overview-biomass-gasification.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nexterra Systems, based in Vancouver, Canada, has been at the
industry forefront in developing biomass gasification systems. They
have some operations in the United States, including a co-generation
plant designed to power the University of South Carolina that consists
of three gasifiers that convert wood biomass to syngas. In August they
received $7.7M in funding from the BC Bioenergy Network (BCBN),
Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), the National Research
Council Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP), and
Ethanol BC. This funding will be used to support Nexterra's recently
announced program to commercialize a new high efficiency biomass power
system in collaboration with GE Jenbacher and GE Energy.
Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process similar to gasification.
Typical pyrolysis processes occur in environments with virtually no
oxygen. Fast pyrolysis is being commercially developed by organizations
such as Ensyn Technologies and DynaMotive, a corporation also based in
Vancouver, Canada and with sites in the United States.\8\ DynaMotive
has developed fast pyrolysis technologies that utilize non-food biomass
to produce a renewable liquid fuel, BioOil, as well as several other
products. These technologies operate in oxygen-free environments at
moderate temperatures, thus improving overall efficiency.\9\ Despite
limited deployment of this technology, development of new methods to
control the pyrolytic pathways of bio-oil intermediates is needed in
order to increase product yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. Biomass Program. ``Pyrolysis and Other Thermal Processing.''
October 13, 2005. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
printable-versions/pyrolysis.html
\9\ Dynamotive Energy Systems. ``Fast Pyrolysis.'' Copyright
2009(c) http://www.dynamotive.com/technology/fast-pyrolysis/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anaerobic digestion involves the breakdown of organic matter
through natural biological processes and is most commonly used on
manure and municipal wastes. This breakdown produces a ``biogas'' that
consists of methane, carbon dioxide, and trace levels of other
gases.\10\ There are approximately 135 anaerobic digesters in the
United States, 125 of which are used for generating electric or thermal
energy. Electric generation projects account for almost 307,000 MWh
generated annually, while boiler projects, pipeline injection, and
other energy projects account for an additional 52,500 MWh equivalent
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. ``Energy Savers: Methane (Biogas) from Anaerobic Digesters.''
December 30, 2008. -workplace/farms-ranches/index.cfm/
mytopic=30003>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in California is
partnering with dairies, industry, and municipal waste processing
facilities in projects to transport biomethane to consumers through
their natural gas pipeline. Additionally, in 2008 PG&E began to
cultivate the next generation of biogas technologies through its
biomethanation research project. This recently launched project
explores emerging biomethanation technologies and processes that may
increase conversion efficiency, expand the range of usable feedstocks
and improve the quality of biomethane products. Although anaerobic
digestion is considered carbon-neutral, the process does result in the
formation of nitrogen oxides. Flue gas from electricity generation
using biogas must be treated before being released into the atmosphere.
There are two key technologies employed for this purpose: Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR).
Both technologies have the capability to reduce nitrogen oxide
emissions, but require considerable more development to optimize cost
and ease of installment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Air Pollution Control
Fact Sheet.'' EPA-452/F-03-031. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/
fsncr.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermochemical conversion processes also require the cleaning of
syngas before it can be used for energy generation. Syngas clean-up and
conditioning has the greatest impact on the cost of syngas and is a
barrier to the commercialization of thermochemical conversion
technologies.\12\ Gas Technology Institute (GTI) has taken action in
developing cleaning technologies to be used in biomass gasification.
Their projects focus on cost-effective contaminant removal to ensure
that syngas after gasification meets standards for downstream
applications, such as turbine generation. Many of their other gas-
cleaning projects are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and
focus on coal gasification and IGCC power plants. In order for
thermochemical conversion processes to be commercialized to the extent
where they can be utilized by small agricultural and forestry
communities, the same focus needs to be placed on biomass gasification
and pyrolysis clean-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy. ``Biomass Program: Syngas Clean-up and Conditioning.'' http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/syngas-cleanup.pdf
Cross-Cutting Issues
Advancing biopower technologies requires research and development
in a number of areas, including enhanced basic and applied research,
technologies for collection and conversion of biomass, identification
of biomass resources, cost analyses for the available biomass, and
commercialization of emerging methods and technologies. Significant
research breakthroughs are needed in a number of key areas including
advances in plant science to improve the cost-effectiveness of
converting biomass to fuel, power, and products. Some of biggest
challenges remain in the areas of feedstock handling, densification and
residue collection, where current inefficiencies make this resource
costly to harvest. Furthermore, RD&D using Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) will help the U.S. more accurately identify biomass
availability, especially forest biomass.
Pellet fuel biomass systems utilize biomass by-products or small
diameter, low-value trees, and process them into pencil-sized pellets
that are uniform in size, shape, moisture content, density and energy
content. The moisture content of biomass pellets is substantially lower
(four to eight percent water) than raw biomass (30 to 60 percent
water). Less moisture means higher BTU value and easier handling,
especially in freezing situations, than with green raw biomass
materials. The density of pellet fuel is substantially higher than raw
biomass: 40-45 lbs. per cubic foot vs. 15-30 lbs. per cubic foot in raw
material form. This means that more fuel can be transported in a given
truck space and more energy can be stored on site. Biomass pellets are
more easily and predictably handled as well. Their uniform shape and
size allows for a smaller and simpler feed system that reduces costs.
This high density and uniform shape can be stored in standard silos,
transported in rail cars and delivered in truck containers. Pellet fuel
is made up of refined and densified biomass that allows for remarkable
consistency and burn efficiency at a fraction of the particulate
emissions of raw biomass. While, this is clearly a great improvement
over raw biomass, the production of biomass pellets costs more.
Research on mobile pelletizers has been discussed as a way to reduce
the cost of transporting biomass, but little has been done to explore
the actual technology and the difficulty of drying the feedstock on
site.
Additional RD&D Support for Biopower
The National Science Foundation (NSF) initiated efforts in
bioenergy and subsequently transferred those efforts to DOE in the late
1970s. Biofuels and biomass energy systems were the focus of most early
projects. In 1991, the DOE created the Biopower Program with the stated
goal of contributing 600 gigawatts of new electricity generating
capacity globally within 10 years. According to the IEA in 2007 the
global biomass electric generating capacity was approximately 47 GW. In
2002, the Biomass Program was formed to consolidate the biofuels,
bioproducts, and biopower research efforts across DOE into one
comprehensive RD&D effort. From the 1970s to the present, approximately
$3.5 billion (including $800 million in ARRA funds) has been invested
in a variety of RD&D programs covering biofuels (particularly ethanol),
biopower, feedstocks, municipal wastes, and a variety of bio-based
products, including forest products and agricultural processing
industries. A reinvigorated Biopower Program at DOE could help close
the more than 500 gigawatt gap between the stated goal of the original
Biopower Program and the actual global biomass electricity generation.
Chairman Baird. Our hearing will come to order. I want to
welcome everyone to our hearing on Biomass for Thermal Energy
and Electricity: A Research and Development Portfolio for the
Future.
Before we begin to discuss the topic of today's hearing, I
want to particularly recognize some special guests in our
subcommittee today. Members of both the Liberian and Haitian
Parliaments are here as guests of Representative David Price
from North Carolina as part of a week-long seminar on committee
operations. I understand there are fellow committee chairs here
among our guests, and we are very honored that you are here. It
is particularly appropriate we have international governments
community with us today as biopower, of course, is very much
linked to the global issues of climate change and energy
security. Members of Parliament include the Speaker of the
House of the Haitian Chamber of Deputies; the President of the
Haitian Senate; the Chair of the Haitian Committee on Justice;
and the Chair of the Haitian Committee on the Budget. The Chair
of the Liberian Committee on Natural Resources, Energy and the
Environment is also here with us along with other Members of
Parliament and dignitaries.
Excellencies, thank you all for joining us. We welcome you
here. We also know that our committee hearings can go somewhat
timely. If you have other engagements, we will not take it
personally if you have to go to another meeting, but we are
very grateful to have your presence here, and we are honored.
Did you wish to offer any comments before we start, Bob?
Mr. Inglis. Just to also add our welcome on this side. We
are very grateful that you are here and hope that it is a good
visit and a productive visit.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much. With that, we will
proceed with our discussion of today's hearing. We will today
examine a number of different technologies utilized to convert
biomass feedstocks into biopower, and discuss the federal role
in the development of these technologies.
While more widely known as a feedstock for liquid
transportation fuels, biomass can also be used to generate heat
and electricity, a field otherwise known as biopower.
Biomass includes, of course, any organic matter that is
available on a renewable basis, including agricultural crops,
wastes and residues, wood and wood wastes and residues, animal
wastes, municipal wastes, and aquatic organisms. But of course,
if these things are used for energy, they are not waste after
all, are they? They are raw materials from which we can
generate power.
Biomass feedstocks are vital as the country moves toward a
more diverse portfolio of energy sources, especially in the
southeast and northwest of the country where there are
significant quantities of these renewable resources.
For example, a 2005 report published by the Washington
State Department of Ecology and Washington State University
found that our state, my own, has the potential for annual
production of over 1,769 megawatts of electrical power from
biomass. This is roughly 50 percent of Washington State's
annual residential electrical consumption.
Furthermore, in my home district we have abundant amounts
of forest biomass. When this resource is harvested in
conjunction with a sustainable forest management plan,
important restoration goals can be achieved, such as wildfire
mitigation, watershed protection, wildlife habitat restoration
and reduced insect infestation, and we can generate valuable
power as a result as well and reduce our CO2 output.
To realize these benefits, new research needs to be funded.
Enhanced basic and applied research and commercialization of a
diversity of conversion technologies needs to be advanced.
In 2002 the Bush Administration consolidated liquid
transportation fuels, bioproducts and biopower research efforts
across DOE into the Biomass Program, and since then the large
majority of the research has focused on liquid transportation
fuels, primarily ethanol.
However, given the decreasing availability of fossil fuel
resources and simultaneous increases in demand, along with
concerns over lethal overheating of the Earth and ocean
acidification, a responsible 21st century energy policy will
include a renewed commitment to biopower technologies.
While the development of liquid transportation fuels from
biomass is a critical research area, I am interested in hearing
from our witnesses about increasing biopower research efforts
in the federal research portfolio and the steps we need to
overcome barriers to new biopower technologies.
My apologies to the translator with our guests. I speak
awfully fast. Good luck.
With that I would like to thank this excellent panel of
witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee this afternoon.
I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis,
for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
In today's hearing we will examine a number of different
technologies utilized to convert biomass feedstocks into biopower, and
discuss the federal role in the development of these technologies.
While more widely known as a feedstock for liquid transportation
fuels, biomass can also be used to generate heat and electricity--a
field otherwise known as ``Biopower.''
Biomass includes any organic matter that is available on a
renewable basis, including agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and
residues, wood and wood wastes and residues, animal wastes, municipal
wastes, and aquatic organisms.
Biomass feedstocks are vital as the country moves toward a more
diverse portfolio of energy sources, especially in the Southeast and
Northwest of the country where there are significant quantities of
these renewable resources.
For example, a 2005 report published by the Washington State
Department of Ecology and Washington State University found that my
state has the potential for annual production of over 1,769 MW of
electrical power from biomass. This equates to roughly 50 percent of
Washington State's annual residential electrical consumption.
Furthermore, in my district we have abundant amounts of forest
biomass. When this resource is harvested in conjunction with a
sustainable forest management plan important restoration goals can be
achieved, such as wildfire mitigation, watershed protection, wildlife
habitat restoration and reduced insect infestation.
To realize these benefits new research needs to be funded. Enhanced
basic and applied research and commercialization of a diversity of
conversion technologies needs to be advanced.
In 2002 the Bush Administration consolidated liquid transportation
fuels, bioproducts, and biopower research efforts across DOE into the
Biomass Program, and since then the large majority of the research has
focused on liquid transportation fuels, mostly ethanol.
However, given the decreasing availability of fossil fuel resources
and simultaneous increases in demand, along with concerns over lethal
overheating of the Earth and ocean acidification, a responsible 21st
century energy portfolio will include a renewed commitment to biopower
technologies.
While the development of liquid transportation fuels from biomass
is a critical research area, I am interested in hearing from our
witnesses about increasing biopower research efforts in the federal
research portfolio, and the steps we need to take to overcome barriers
to new biopower technologies.
With that I'd like to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for
appearing before the Subcommittee this afternoon, and I yield to our
distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing today. For the last 10 years or so we have
primarily been looking toward biomass as a replacement for
petroleum-based transportation fuels. The result has been a
substantial interest in converting food crops to fuel with
small emphasis being placed on developing cellulosic ethanol.
Environmental and cost concerns are cultivating interest in
other types of biomasses of fuel for base load electricity and
thermal power.
Some biomass can be and is already being used in
conventional generation technology. Paper mills generate power
from milling waste, and woody biomass can be mixed with coal in
co-fired in modern and large-scale power plants.
More research and technological innovation can expand the
reach of renewable biomass fuels in our energy sector.
The subject of today's hearing represents a step in that
direction. Developments in renewable natural gas,
biorefineries, biomass transportation, and other technologies
will help increase the efficiency of biomass energy, and a
diversity of organic materials can be used for energy
generation.
I am looking forward to hearing about the state of the
industry today and where we should direct federal research and
development resources to overcome remaining technological
hurdles.
I also want to admit to a parochial interest in biopower.
Two South Carolina universities, including Furman in the
upstate and USC, have launched already bioenergy pilot
projects. Our robust forest industry stands to gain jobs and a
larger market. As we will hear from Mr. James, biomass energy
is already creating jobs back home.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
For about the past 10 years, we've primarily been looking toward
biomass as a replacement for petroleum-based transportation fuels. The
result has been a substantial interest in converting food crops to
fuel, with a smaller emphasis placed on developing cellulosic ethanol.
Environmental and cost concerns are cultivating interest in other
types of biomass as a fuel for base load electricity and thermal power.
Some biomass can be and is already being used in conventional
generation technology; paper mills generate power from milling waste,
and woody biomass can be mixed with coal and co-fired in modern, large-
scale power plants. More research and technological innovation can
expand the reach of renewable biomass fuels in our energy sector.
The subject of today's hearing represents a step in that direction.
Developments in renewable natural gas, bio-refineries, biomass
transportation, and other technologies will help increase the
efficiency of biomass energy and the diversity of organic materials
that can be used for energy generation. I'm looking forward to hearing
about the state of the industry today and where we should direct
federal R&D resources to overcome remaining technological hurdles.
I also want to admit a parochial interest in biopower. Two South
Carolina universities, including Furman in the Upstate, have launched
already bio-energy pilot projects, our robust forestry industry stands
to gain jobs and a larger market, and as we'll hear from Mr. James,
biomass energy is already creating jobs back home.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Baird. If there are other Members who wish to
submit additional opening statements, your statements will be
added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing to receive testimony on the research and development (R&D) of
new technology to improve the use of biomass for thermal energy and
electricity.
Biomass is unique among renewable energy sources because of its
abundant supply and long history as a source of energy. Nearly every
state in the U.S. has a source of biomass fuel through agricultural
waste, wood and wood waste products, or animal and municipal waste.
Further, individuals and industries have used biomass as an energy
source for centuries. These characteristics make biomass an effective
and efficient source of renewable energy available in the U.S. today.
However, additional R&D is necessary to modernize existing techniques
for using traditional forms of biomass, such as wood, and to develop
ways to use new forms, like municipal waste.
In particular, I am interested to learn how biomass can be used in
conjunction with abundant and inexpensive domestic energy sources such
as coal. Co-firing coal and biomass fuel has proven to be an efficient
means of producing abundant energy while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Illinois has an abundant coal and agricultural products, and
co-firing could provide a cost-effective way to produce clean energy
while extending the supply of coal. I would like to hear from our
witnesses, especially Mr. Klara of the Strategic Center for Coal, how
the existing technology for co-firing coal and biomass can be improved
and utilized to demonstrate its wide-spread use.
Finally, I would like to hear from our witness how Congress and the
public and private sector can work together to support biomass R&D.
I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their
testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. At this point, it is my pleasure to
introduce our witnesses at this time. Dr. Don J. Stevens is a
Senior Program Manager at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, PNNL. Mr. Scott M. Klara is the Director of the
Strategic Center for Coal at DOE's National Energy Technology
Laboratory. Mr. Eric Spomer is the President of Catalyst
Renewables Corporation. Dr. Robert Burns is a Professor of
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State
University, and I will again yield to my friend and Ranking
Member, Mr. Inglis, to introduce our last witness.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
introduce Mr. Joseph James who is a terrific example of
alternative energy industry that is creating new jobs in South
Carolina. Mr. James has over 35 years of experience in economic
development devoted to achieving equity for disadvantaged
people in communities. Since 2004 his career has taken on a new
focus aiming to create jobs and revitalize rural African-
American communities in South Carolina through opportunities in
the emerging biomass and bioenergy fields. In recognition of
his pioneering work, he was awarded the 2008 Purpose Prize. He
also is a bioenergy entrepreneur. He is the founding member and
Vice President of the Board of South Carolina Biomass Council
and a member of the Southeast Agricultural Forest Energy
Resources Alliance. He is the President of Agri-Tech Producers
which is developing and commercializing biomass technology in
South Carolina through partnerships with North Carolina State
University and Kusters Zima Corporation in Spartanburg.
Looking forward to hearing from him about this innovative
torrefaction technology that Agri-Tech Producers is bringing to
the market, and we thank him for being here.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. It is obvious we not
only have professional interests as Members, Chair and Ranking
Member of this Committee, we have personal interest as we
represent districts with great potential. Our colleague, Dr.
Bartlett, as you may discover when he offers his questions, is
one of the real leaders in walking the talk of renewable
energy. He has probably the lowest carbon footprint of any
Member of Congress in his residence, and I admire that greatly.
So he brings great expertise.
With that, we will begin. As the witnesses know, we have
five minutes for a testimony followed by questions from the
panel, and we invite you to begin. We will begin now with Dr.
Stevens. Thanks again to all of you for your presence.
STATEMENT OF DR. DON J. STEVENS, SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER,
BIOMASS ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST
NATIONAL LABORATORY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the
Members of the Committee. I very much appreciate this
opportunity to be here today at a time when our nation is
moving forward with a sense of purpose and urgency toward a
more sustainable energy future, and biomass is certainly part
of that future.
As a nation, we have approximately 1.3 billion tons
potentially available on an annual basis for a variety of
energy purposes. As you indicated, those resources come from
woody biomass, from agricultural residues, from dedicated
energy crops, and others, all of which vary significantly on a
regional basis. We can use that for a variety of purposes,
biofuels, or for the topic of today, biopower.
Several technology options exist to convert biomass to
biopower including direct combustion, gasification, and
pyrolysis, which I am talking about today.
So what is pyrolysis and why is it important? Well, biomass
pyrolysis is simply the process of heating biomass in the
absence of air to produce a combination of liquids, solids and
gaseous products, and we can control the relative amounts of
those by selecting the process conditions accordingly.
Today I will focus on so-called ``fast pyrolysis'' which
produces a liquid product referred to as ``bio-oil.'' That bio-
oil has several important characteristics that are beneficial
for power generation. Most importantly, the bio-oil can be used
in high-efficiency electric generation systems, systems that
can't directly use solid biomass. With stabilization and
upgrading, the bio-oil can be used in industrial turbines,
combined cycle systems, or potentially solid oxide fuel cells.
These have electric generation efficiencies of 30 to 40 or more
percent compared to a simple wood-fired boiler system with
efficiencies of 15 to 25 percent. And since we have a finite
amount of biomass in our nation, it is important to use that
efficiently to meet our national energy needs.
Both nationally and internationally at present, there is
significant interest in using pyrolysis. Technologies to
produce bio-oil are in the near-commercial stage of
development, and there are several large-scale development
units with capacities ranging from about five to about 200 tons
per day in operation to produce bio-oil on a demonstration
basis. However, at present, no fully integrated commercial bio-
oil to energy facilities exist.
The primary technical barrier at this time is the need for
stabilization and upgrading. Stabilization is necessary so the
bio-oil can be stored and used for periods of several months,
and additional upgrading is needed to meet equipment
specifications for high-technology conversion systems. The
upgrading, among other things, chemically neutralizes the bio-
oil and removes mineral salts.
There are quite a few national and international research
programs currently focused on removing these technical barriers
for the utilization of biomass. Pacific Northwest National Lab,
for example, is working with many partners, including industry,
Department of Energy, USDA, and other national labs and
universities to improve bio-oil stabilization and upgrading.
And we are also looking at the use of catalysts to improve the
initial quality of the bio-oil as it is formed to reduce the
need for downstream stabilization and upgrading.
In addition, we are working in collaboration with a range
of international groups to understand just how much
stabilization and upgrading is needed for various applications
for bio-oil. PNNL leads the International Energy Agency's
Pyrolysis Task, and we are also working with groups in Canada,
Finland and Asia on other pyrolysis issues.
As a result of this work, we are making significant
progress in overcoming the technical barriers for using bio-
oil.
In summary, I would like to conclude by noting that
pyrolysis offers flexible options to meet our national and
regional energy needs. The bio-oil gives us the opportunity to
more efficiently produce the electricity, and national and
international programs are assisting industry by resolving the
existing technical barriers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don J. Stevens
Introduction
Chairman Baird and distinguished Members of this subcommittee,
thank you for providing me an opportunity to testify today regarding
biomass pyrolysis and its potential for contributing to our nation's
energy needs.
My name is Don Stevens, and I am a Senior Program Manager in the
Energy & Environment Directorate at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (PNNL). In this role I am responsible for developing PNNL's
technical approach to sustainable production of biopower and biofuels.
I have over 30 years of research and development experience in the area
of biomass power and fuels, and much of that work has focused on the
use of pyrolysis and gasification. During this time, I have worked with
the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of the Biomass Program as well
as a variety of other U.S. and international clients, including the
International Energy Agency's Implementing Agreement on Bioenergy.
Today I will provide information on biomass pyrolysis and its
potential for contributing to our national needs for sustainable
energy. I will:
explain why biomass pyrolysis offers potential
advantages for producing both biopower and ``drop-in'' biofuels
from biomass
address the current state of development for the
technology
describe technical barriers that, if overcome, could
speed technology deployment
describe national and international research efforts
that are addressing these technical barriers.
The Importance of Biomass Pyrolysis
Over the past three or four years, biomass pyrolysis has attracted
increasing attention as a technology with the potential to more
effectively utilize biomass resources. Pyrolysis provides a flexible
pathway to convert solid biomass to a liquid intermediate. Following
stabilization and upgrading, the resulting product can be used to fuel
higher-efficiency electric power generation technologies such as gas
turbines or integrated combined cycle systems. With additional
upgrading, the bio-oil can potentially be used in highly efficient fuel
cells or can be refined to liquid transportation fuels. Biomass
pyrolysis thus provides a continuum of options for efficiently
producing electricity or fuels to meet a variety of our national needs.
The production of bio-oil as an intermediate has several potential
benefits. Liquid intermediates have higher bulk energy densities than
the solid biomass and can be transported at lower cost. Liquid
intermediates are more readily fed into advanced biomass conversion
technologies than solids, and they are more readily fed, with other
fuels, into to co-firing facilities. The liquid intermediates are
particularly important because they are compatible with advanced
conversion technologies such as industrial turbines, which more
efficiently utilize our biomass resources. These high-efficiency
systems are a priority because they can achieve the highest impact from
our limited biomass resources. Biomass is also the only source of
renewable liquid fuels to displace petroleum, and the bio-oil liquid
intermediate is a promising opportunity for producing renewable ``drop-
in'' gasoline and diesel transportation fuels.
The impact of using pyrolysis to increase utilization efficiency is
shown in Figure 1. The raw bio-oil, as produced, can be combusted in
conventional steam boilers with current biomass-to-electricity
generation efficiencies typically ranging from about 15 percent to 25
percent depending on scale and other factors. Following moderate
stabilization and upgrading, the bio-oil can potentially be combusted
in industrial turbines which have electrical efficiencies of about 30
percent, or in combined cycle gas/steam turbines that have efficiencies
of 35 percent or more. Additional stabilization and upgrading would
potentially permit the pyrolysis product to be used in advanced solid
oxide fuel cells with electric generation efficiencies of 40 percent or
more. These ranges are approximate. The same type of upgrading needed
for fuel cell use would also be relevant to producing liquid
transportation fuels. This range of opportunities provides flexibility
in meeting national and regional energy needs.
Overview of Pyrolysis and Bio-oil
Biomass consists of a complex arrangement of natural, oxygen-
containing polymers, including cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin,
which have fairly low energy density. A challenge exists in converting
these constituents into a state that can be shipped inexpensively to
large-scale central processing facilities and used efficiently in high
technology conversion systems. Pyrolysis, which is defined as the
heating of biomass in the absence of air, is one option for converting
biomass to a liquid intermediate. Pyrolysis processes generate a liquid
bio-oil along with gas and solid (biochar) by-products, and the
relative portions of each can be controlled by the processing
conditions. While pyrolysis has been used historically to produce
charcoal, most current efforts are focused on advanced processes that
maximize the yield of bio-oil.
Fast Pyrolysis
At present, fast pyrolysis is the most developed pyrolysis
technology for producing liquid bio-oil. In fast pyrolysis, the biomass
is reacted at moderately high temperatures (450-550 +C), for
very short times (less than one second). This produces bio-oil with
physical properties superficially similar to #4 fuel oil, but different
chemically. The bio-oil is less stable and more acidic than petroleum
oil, and also may contain small percentages of inorganic mineral salts
from the biomass. These characteristics make the raw product unsuitable
for longer-term storage, for use in higher-efficiency electric
generation systems, or for use as a liquid transportation fuel.
However, the oil can be stabilized and upgraded using processes such as
hydrotreating to produce stable fuels for advanced technologies such as
industrial gas turbines for power generation. Depending on the extent
of upgrading, the refined bio-oil can also potentially be used in
advanced fuel cells or even gasoline- and diesel-range hydrocarbons for
transportation fuels. The overall process is depicted in Figure 2.
Distributed Pyrolysis and Refining
Pyrolysis technology provides a means by which biomass can be
collected and initially converted near its source. Fast pyrolysis units
can be located near biomass resources where the biomass would be
converted to the higher energy density bio-oil. The resulting bio-oil
can be collected from multiple facilities and transported to larger-
scale central facilities for stabilization or end-use (Figure 3),
taking into account economies of scale to help reduce costs. This
provides an effective way to decouple the biomass resource from the
eventual conversion and potentially can reduce the costs of collecting
and transporting biomass.
Related Pyrolysis Technologies
In addition to fast pyrolysis, other pyrolysis technologies of
value exist. Hydrothermal liquefaction has also been examined to
convert feedstocks such as wet biomass to bio-oil. This technique
liquefies wet biomass streams at temperatures of about 350
+C and high pressures (200 atm) to produce a bio-oil with
less oxygen than fast pyrolysis. This approach could be useful in cases
where the biomass resource has high moisture content, such as the
residual biomass from algae production.
Pyrolysis is also used to produce solids. The oil yield from
biomass decreases while the solid (biochar) content increases to about
a 30 percent yield. The biochar is being examined as a method to remove
atmospheric carbon (via plant growth) for storage in soil. As a soil
amendment, biochar not only acts as a carbon pool, but it has been
shown to reduce fertilizer requirements while enhancing crop yields and
reducing phosphorous and nitrogen chemical runoff in some soils in
certain geographical regions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ J. Lehmann and S. Joseph. 2009. ``Biochar for environmental
management: An introduction.'' Chpt. 1 in J. Lehmann and S. Joseph
(eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology.
Earthscan Publishers, London, UK.
Summary of the Current Biomass Pyrolysis Industry
Presently, the use of fast pyrolysis to produce liquid bio-oil
intermediates for energy uses is at the near-commercial stage. Smaller-
scale fast pyrolysis technologies are used by companies in the United
States, Europe, and elsewhere to produce ``liquid smoke,'' which is
processed into a food flavoring and additive. Larger-scale fast
pyrolysis demonstration facilities are being built or operated in the
United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia with companies such as Ensyn,
Dynamotive, BTG, Renewable Oil International, and others. These
demonstration units have capacities ranging from about five to 200
tons/day of biomass feed, and they will produce bio-oil that could
potentially be used in energy applications. At present, there are no
integrated, fully commercial facilities where the bio-oil is converted
to either electricity or transportation fuels.
Conventional, slow-pyrolysis continues to be used to produce
commercial charcoal for cooking and industrial purposes throughout the
world. The efficiency of these processes varies widely depending on the
type of process used. The charcoal is frequently sold as ``lump''
charcoal or briquetted to provide consistency in the product.
Commercial charcoal may also contain carbon from other sources such as
coal or residual petroleum.
Biochar is produced using the same slow pyrolysis technologies as
those for charcoal, but additives common to commercial charcoal are
omitted. Several smaller companies have recently been established to
produce biochar using slow pyrolysis technologies, but at present there
is an uncertain market for the product. The value of biochar, to the
producer or the user, has yet to be quantified.
Technology Barriers
Although the capability to produce pyrolysis bio-oils exists, there
are currently no integrated, pyrolysis-based facilities commercially
producing either electricity or transportation fuel, as noted
previously. Technical barriers impede the deployment of these
technologies.
Stabilization and Upgrading:
The primary technical barrier for biomass pyrolysis is related to
the characteristics of the bio-oil. At a molecular level, the raw bio-
oil contains 30-35 percent oxygen by weight, with that oxygen coming
from the biomass feedstock. The crude product is less stable than
petroleum and will begin to change at room temperature over a period of
several weeks or months, or more rapidly upon heating to even moderate
temperatures. The product slowly becomes more viscous, and may separate
into multiple phases. The oxygen content makes the raw bio-oil mildly
acidic, and that can potentially lead to corrosion of tanks used for
transportation and storage. The bio-oil also may contain small
quantities of inorganic mineral salts that were part of the original
biomass. When the bio-oil is subsequently burned, the salts can
volatilize and then condense on cooler locations downstream,
potentially creating deposits that reduce system performance or can
cause significant damage in systems such as gas turbines with high
rotation speeds.
Effective, low-cost stabilization and upgrading of the bio-oil is
needed to help biomass pyrolysis more rapidly enter the market.
Stabilization and upgrading processes improve the quality of the oil by
removing oxygen, reducing the acidity, and removing mineral salts from
the intermediate.
The extent of upgrading required will depend on the end-use for the
bio-oil. In electric generation systems, raw bio-oil can potentially be
used in simple boiler/steam systems, but stabilization is needed to
ensure the bio-oil can be stored for reasonable periods of time at a
variety of different temperatures. Additional upgrading is needed for
more advanced conversion technologies, such as advanced boiler systems,
industrial gas turbines, or combined cycle systems. The upgrading would
reduce the acidity of the bio-oil and remove mineral content to be
fully compatible with these advanced systems. The advanced systems
provide higher electric generation efficiencies that better utilize the
biomass resource. As is found with refining petroleum, additional
upgrading would be required to provide a fuel for advanced fuel cells
or for transportation fuels. The upgrading would remove small amounts
of sulfur from the product and further reduce its oxygen content.
Similarly, the more extensive upgrading is also needed to produce
``drop-in'' gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels for transportation fuels.
The need for stabilization and upgrading can be viewed as a continuum
where stabilization is desirable for even the simplest conversion
technology, and additional upgrading is required to produce a fuel that
can be used in advanced technologies, either for electric generation or
for transportation fuels.
Improving the Bio-oil Quality:
The need for stabilization and upgrading of the bio-oil could
potentially be reduced if a higher quality bio-oil could be produced.
Current fast pyrolysis systems have been optimized to produce high
liquid yields, and there is limited ability to change the properties of
the bio-oil. Modified systems, such as those using catalysts during the
pyrolysis process, could produce bio-oil that would also require less
upgrading. The catalysts would enhance the rate of chemical reactions
that remove oxygen from the biomass, thus providing an intermediate
with lower oxygen content. Other processing techniques can also
potentially be applied to bio-oil improvement. Improvement of the
original bio-oil quality is needed for either electricity generation or
for producing transportation fuels.
Expanding Bio-oil Standards:
For bio-oil to enter the marketplace, standards are needed to
define its characteristics and qualities. Working within the
International Energy Agency's Bioenergy Agreement, PNNL recently helped
establish the first standard for use of bio-oil as a burner fuel, ASTM
Standard D-7544-09. This standard provides definition of the qualities
the intermediate must have for use in boilers. Additional standards are
needed to quantify the qualities necessary for higher efficiency uses
of the bio-oil.
Improving Utilization of Byproducts:
Pyrolysis creates a combination of liquid, gaseous, and solid
(char) products. The liquid will primarily be used for energy purposes,
but it also contains precursors to higher-value chemicals. Better
extraction and utilization of these precursors for chemical products
can potentially increase the economic rate of return for the pyrolysis-
based conversion facility (biorefinery). The bio-oil is a complex
mixture of many individual components, and there is a need to better
characterize the intermediate and better understand the processing
involved in generating chemical byproducts.
In addition to liquids, pyrolysis also produces solid char. The
term biochar has been applied to the use of that material as a soil
amendment. The impact of biochar is only partially understood at this
time. While biochar can produce significant yield improvements in some
soils, it has very little effect on others. This arises both from the
variability of soils as well as the variability of biochar produced by
different pyrolysis approaches. Improved understanding of the
characteristics of the biochar and how those influence plant growth are
needed. That information will provide a better quantification of the
value of biochar to the farmer. In addition, work is needed to
understand the sustainability impacts of biochar. For example, it is
not presently clear whether there would be greater carbon savings to
pyrolyze biomass and put biochar in the ground, or to alternatively
convert that same biomass to liquid transportation fuels, thus
displacing petroleum fuel emissions. Additional information on the
total ``value'' of biochar is needed before effective markets can be
established.
Industry Acceptance of Bio-oil:
Bio-oil is a relatively new product, and the industries which might
use it effectively are not familiar with bio-oil. Changing fuel
presents both a market risk and a market opportunity. Programs to
reduce the technical and financial risk of using bio-oil may be helpful
to assist with deployment.
The implementation of biomass pyrolysis also will depend on the
complex match between regional feedstock resources, their availability,
and the corresponding regional needs for fuels, power, and products,
including chemicals and biochar. Analyses such as life cycle studies,
technoeconomic projections, and related work will assist industry in
making educated decisions on the most effective use of biomass on both
a regional and a national basis.
Current Research
Overview of National and International Research:
Biomass research is being conducted by many groups, both in the
United States and in other countries.
In the United States, research has been focused primarily on the
production of liquid transportation fuels that will be ``drop-in''
hydrocarbon replacements for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels. As such,
these are compatible with the existing fuel supply, distribution, and
utilization infrastructure. Research on pyrolysis-derived biofuels has
focused on the major barriers of stabilization and upgrading the bio-
oil intermediate. The research in this area has included a range of
thermal and catalytic techniques to convert biomass to refinery
feedstock that can be finished to transportation fuels. This research
has been funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy with
additional efforts funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
stabilization and upgrading research is directly relevant for producing
bio-oil intermediates used in high-efficiency electric generation
systems. While the amount of upgrading needed for electric power
generation will be less than that needed for hydrocarbon fuels, the
same types of processing techniques are likely to be used in both.
In other countries including Canada, Finland, Germany, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, and others, researchers are
examining the use of pyrolysis bio-oil both for transportation fuel and
electricity generation. There is international recognition of the
flexibility of pyrolysis to meet a variety of fuel and electricity
needs. The interest in producing electricity is particularly strong in
countries such as Finland where renewable portfolio mandates provide
very significant cost incentives to produce biopower. By comparison,
incentives of that magnitude do not exist in the United States. In some
countries, biopower is seen as the earliest use of bio-oil, with
transportation fuels being viewed as an attractive alternative as the
upgrading technology advances.
International cooperation in the area of biomass pyrolysis is
fostered by the International Energy Agency's Bioenergy Agreement
through their Task 34, Biomass Pyrolysis. This Agreement promotes
information exchange, exchange of researchers, and production of
original scientific reports. The interests of this group are based on
the priorities of the participating countries and include pyrolysis for
both biofuels and biopower. The International Energy Agency's Bioenergy
Pyrolysis Task has been renewed for a three-year period starting
January 2010 through the end of 2012. Douglas C. Elliott, an
international expert on biomass pyrolysis at PNNL, leads this Task.
PNNL's Research in Pyrolysis:
PNNL is conducting research in each of the technical barrier areas
described above. A primary area of research at PNNL focuses on
stabilizing and upgrading bio-oil. Through the Laboratory's Department
of Energy-funded program, PNNL teams with key partners, including other
national laboratories and industry partners such as Ensyn, a pyrolysis
oil company, UOP, a major petroleum refinery technology provider, and
others to examine upgrading to produce transportation fuels. PNNL also
has privately funded efforts exploring technology development for use
with biomass feedstocks unique to Asia.
PNNL is also working in two international collaborations, one with
Canada and one with Finland, to examine the extent of stabilization and
upgrading needed for utilization of bio-oil for either electric
generation or biofuel applications. This work is examining the
characteristics of bio-oils produced from a range of biomass
feedstocks, including beetle-killed pine, with the intent of matching
those with end-use requirements. The work leverages DOE's funding with
equivalent amounts from Canada and Finland to organizations such as
Finland's VTT Laboratory, Natural Resources Canada (Canmet) laboratory,
and the University of British Columbia.
PNNL also conducts research on ways to improve the quality of bio-
oil to reduce the need for stabilization and upgrading. Catalytic
processing during the initial pyrolysis step is being used to remove
more oxygen from the bio-oil. This work, funded by the DOE Office of
the Biomass Program is relevant to production of bio-oil for either
biopower or biofuel use.
Research to assist in the establishment of bio-oil standards is
being conducted at PNNL in association with the efforts of the
International Energy Agency's Pyrolysis Task. As noted previously, PNNL
leads this Task and helped establish the first ASTM standard for bio-
oil quality for boiler use in 2009. Additional work to establish
standards for bio-oil use in more efficient applications is ongoing.
The International Energy Agency Task also is coordinating research on
higher-value chemical products that can potentially be produced from
biomass pyrolysis in so-called biorefineries.
Researchers at PNNL also are examining the use of biochar as a soil
amendment as part of their work with DOE's Office of the Biomass
Program. In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture at
the Prosser Experimental Station, we are focusing on the
characterization of biochar from various biomass sources and
correlating those differences with changes in soil productivity.
We are also completing a research Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) with Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)
and ConocoPhillips on hydrothermal liquefaction for producing bio-oil
from wet biomass feedstocks. Finally, PNNL is involved in engineering
studies aimed at developing technoeconomic models for pyrolysis
technologies and evaluating life cycle impacts of pyrolysis versus
other fuel production options.
It is important to note that biomass pyrolysis must be accomplished
in a sustainable manner that minimizes impacts to our water resources
and the environment. PNNL, with part of its DOE funding, is examining
the sustainability of biomass thermal conversion processes, including
pyrolysis. We are also developing water availability and land-use
change models that will help ensure a wide range of technologies, such
as biomass pyrolysis that can be done on a sustainable basis.
Summary
In summary, biomass pyrolysis offers a flexible and effective way
to create a liquid intermediate that can be used for either
transportation fuels or electricity generation. Converting the solid
biomass to a liquid both increases the energy density and makes the
intermediate easier to feed to conversion systems than solid biomass.
These characteristics allow expanded use of biomass.
Stabilization and upgrading of the bio-oil intermediate is
important. While some systems can potentially operate with raw bio-oil,
stabilization and upgrading greatly expands the opportunities for bio-
oil utilization. The upgraded bio-oil can be used in higher efficiency
electric generation technologies to achieve higher productivity from
our finite biomass resources. In addition, upgrading technologies can
be utilized to produce ``drop-in'' transportation fuels compatible with
present infrastructure.
Current research programs internationally are addressing the key
barriers to biomass pyrolysis utilization. The Federal Government can
further advance these research efforts by funding strong core research
programs. While emphasis on implementation is vital, it also is
important to invest in our nation's science base, which provides the
necessary foundation for developing next-generation technology aimed at
addressing key research challenges within the scope of DOE's
implementation projects and beyond.
Finally, the Nation needs to conduct analyses such as life cycle
assessments, technoeconomic projections, and others to help prioritize
what the most important uses of our biomass resources are, both
nationally and regionally. With finite amounts of biomass available
annually, we need solid technical information on a regional and
national basis to decide whether it is better to convert these to
electricity, to fuels that reduce imported oil, or to some combination
of both. This information will be essential to assist industry in
determining how to best use biomass resources as they deploy these
technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share this information.
Biography for Don J. Stevens
Dr. Stevens is presently a Senior Program Manager in the Energy
Directorate of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. He has over 30
years of RD&D experience in the area of biomass energy systems.
In his current position, he is responsible for developing programs
with DOE and industry to convert biomass resources to chemicals, fuels
and electricity. PNNL's work in this area focuses on the use of thermal
catalysis and biotechnology to create fuels and higher value products
from biomass residues. The biofuels help the nation meet its goals of
reducing imports of petroleum, and the bio-based products are important
in providing economic return in the integrated biorefineries of the
future. Dr. Stevens is also involved in programs on biofuels sponsored
the International Energy Agency and serves as a Director for the
Biomass Energy Research Association.
Over a 30-year period, he has conducted research and performed
analysis on a variety of bioenergy systems. Dr. Stevens is the author
or co-author of numerous publications and has been an editor of three
books on biomass energy. He received his Ph.D. Degree in physical
chemistry from University of Utah in 1976 and conducted postdoctoral
work on biological membranes at the University of Illinois Champaign-
Urbana.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. Mr. James.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH J. JAMES, PRESIDENT, AGRI-TECH
PRODUCERS, LLC
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
before you today and discuss some things that Agri-Tech
Producers, LLC, is doing. I want to give a special thanks to
Congressman Inglis for his interest in our work. It turns out
that our manufacturing partner is located in his district, even
though our company is not within his district, but we greatly
appreciate his interest and his support.
I would like to state a problem. Cellulosic material, wood
and agricultural material, is not an easy substance to work
with. It is generally about 50 percent moisture, particularly
in the case of wood, it is bulky, it is of relatively low
energy value, and the economics of getting it from the place of
harvest to the place where it is actually going to be used as a
fuel or energy sometimes means that we leave a lot of that
material, of that one billion that was referred to earlier,
remains in place where it might have been growing.
So a solution is required to that problem: A solution that
removes as much of the water as possible, that densifies the
energy content of the material, that also may change its
physical characteristics in such a way that utilities can coal
fire it and grind it very easily and mix it with coal as well
as other users, and other logistical approaches such as
densification or crushing the material into briquettes or
pellets will help facilitate its usability.
And of course, there is a challenge in developing the
appropriate supply chains to get material from the point of
where it has been grown and harvested to the point where it
could be used. And I do want to emphasize there is a real need
for a focus on solid fuels in addition to liquid fuels, so I
appreciate your comments earlier, Mr. Chairman.
About three years ago we got focused on something called
torrefaction. Torrefaction is essentially a process. Again, it
is a mild form of pyrolysis actually which dries off the water,
and in the case of the innovations at North Carolina State
University has developed, we are able to capture some of the
off-gases and use those as process heat. So the process that we
operate uses about 80 percent green fuel, if you will, and very
little fossil fuel and outside energy. I won't go into anymore
details in that. My written testimony has quite a bit about the
process.
But the key thing is that it creates fuels from either wood
or from agriculture material that can be used cost effectively.
When I say cost effectively, we are talking about producing
material that may range in the $80 to $100 a ton range, and
they have BTU counts or energy content in the 11,000 BTU range
which is very comparable to coal, and the pricing of that is
also comparable to coal.
Our company has been very fortunate to have received a
variety of federal and state support in our efforts to
commercialize this very exciting technology. One of our
affiliates years back was fortunate to get a grant from the
U.S. Forest Service's Woody Biomass Utilization Program, and
our assignment was to work in the national forest in South
Carolina and try to create new markets for the biomass that
results when the forest does its thinnings to reduce the hazard
of fire and also to improve forest health. We have quickly
learned what I have just described, that if you are close to
the customer, it is easy to take that material and ship it to
the customer for their use. If you are more than 30, 40, 50
miles away, it is almost impossible to make the economics work.
That is when we went looking for a solution to that problem and
discovered the torrefaction process at NC State.
We have also been fortunate to have received funding from
the U.S. Forest Service's Wood Education Resource Center, and
we are using those resources to help us investigate the
differences between torrefying hard woods and torrefying soft
woods. As you might guess, different materials have different
characteristics, so there is a need for research to fine tune
or possibly make different kinds of equipment to handle
different kinds of material.
Mr. Chairman, we are very fortunate as well recently to
have gotten a grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) under
their SBIR/STTR program which is allowing us to look at the
feasibility of developing mobile torrefaction units, which
would allow us to go from farm to farm or forest--logging deck
to logging deck, be able to collect more material from
disbursed places and put that into the channel of material that
can be used.
I do have some suggestions about some additional federal
support that would be helpful to us. One is increasing
availability of financing for small companies. We are very
fortunate at the moment that we don't need financing to advance
our manufacturing of torrefaction equipment. However, as we get
into, and spend a little bit of our time on, the processing
side, the credit crunch that our country is suffering,
particularly for small companies, is creating some challenges
that we are going to need some help with.
In addition, we have some very exciting intellectual
property (IP). Our intellectual property is much in demand
around the world, and we are getting inquiries from China,
India, Russia and other places, places which may or may not
properly respect IP. We would like to be part of the global
solution for renewable energy, but as a small company we are
very nervous about sharing our IP in certain places abroad. Any
help that the Federal Government, either legislatively or in
negotiations, bilateral or otherwise, would be extremely
helpful to us as well.
And then lastly, we believe that in addition to industrial-
scale activity where hundreds and thousands of tons of material
are processed by large, fixed units in large facilities, we
think there is tremendous opportunity for forest-reliant
communities and rural communities to use our technology on a
community scale if you will, to work in their forests, to work
with their farmers, improve forest health, but also generate
new revenues and new jobs in those communities. DOE and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have funded large-scale
research, or research into large-scale biomass supply and
biomass value train operations. We would suggest that in
addition to that, in order for us and others to have impact on
rural communities, that we should also be looking at the
community scale or microscale as well, and we would be glad to
participate in that. In your own state, Mr. Chairman, we have
had a number of forest communities contact us looking for ways
to add value to the materials that they have available to them.
We would love to be able to provide demonstration units to them
so that they might accomplish that particular mission.
In summary, we are very excited to be with you today. We
think there are some great opportunities to move forward, and
we look forward to working with the Committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph J. James
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I am Joseph J.
James, President of Agri-Tech Producers, LLC (ATP), a company, which is
commercializing innovative torrefaction technology, developed by NC
State University, which cost effectively converts cellulosic biomass,
like wood and agricultural materials, into a dry, more energy dense and
more usable renewable fuel, which can be co-fired with coal and used
for a variety of other renewable energy purposes. Most of our efforts
are focused on making world-class torrefaction equipment, but we also
plan to be involved in a limited number of biomass processing plants,
using our torrefaction technology.
Overview of Testimony:
I would like to discuss why it is important to treat cellulosic
biomass, in order to make it a cost-effective source of renewable
energy, and why that is important to developing effective biomass
supply chains necessary for our nation's clean energy future. I will
obviously talk about torrefaction and the important role that
technology can play, in addition to the need for densification
processes to enhance the logistics of shipping and handling cellulosic
biomass. Lastly, I will describe the role our Federal Government has
played in helping our company compete in the global market place and
what additional measures are necessary for our company's and our
nation's success.
The Problem:
There are substantial economic and logistical challenges in
shipping woody biomass out of the forested areas or agricultural
biomass from farming areas, in a cost-effective manner, to distant end-
users. Untreated cellulosic biomass, woody or otherwise, is moist and
bulky, which limits its ability to be cost-effectively transported to
ultimate users and renders a lot of otherwise available biomass
useless.
In addition, many forests go without mechanical treatments to
remove overgrown underbrush, which is necessary for fire hazard
reduction and forest health, because the resultant biomass is not close
enough to markets to generate sufficient offsetting revenues.
Solutions:
Solutions to these economic and logistical problems will require
new processes, which can cost-effectively remove much of the moisture
found in cellulosic biomass, increasing the energy density of the
material, converting it into a substance more easily used by the end-
user and making it a more valuable substance, before shipping. Also, it
is common practice to use physical densification methods, to pelletize
or briquette cellulosic biomass, in order to make it more physically
dense, so that more energy per ton can be shipped. For example,
toffefied biomass has been shown to make stronger, more energy rich and
water resistant pellets and the torrefaction process may eliminate the
need for a separate drying system, used by most pellet makers, who
incur substantial capital and operating costs for such systems.
The U.S. Department of Energy has funded projects to enhance the
effectiveness of biomass supply chains and more planning and research
in that area is needed, including, in my opinion, research and
demonstrations on how to develop small-scale biomass operations, which
can generate jobs in many, poor rural communities.
Torrefaction Technology:
Torrefaction is a relatively mild heat treatment of biomass,
carried out under atmospheric pressure in the absence of oxygen, at a
temperature between 200-300 +C. North Carolina State
University (NCSU) has a variation in the temperature by which its
torrefaction process is run. During torrefaction, all moisture and
volatile organic compounds in the biomass are removed and the
properties of biomass are changed to obtain a much better fuel (more
energy dense), lowering transportation costs and improving combustion
(higher heating value).
Water and the volatile organic compounds (e.g., pinenes and
turpenes) are vaporized in the torrefaction process, as is some of the
hemicelluloses. In NCSU's process, the gaseous products of torrefaction
are captured and combusted to allow the process to run on minimal
external energy inputs. When green wood (approximately 50 percent water
by weight) is torrefied, ideally about 80 percent of the original
energy is available in the final torrefied product, which is roughly 30
percent of the initial green weight. The energy density of the
torrefied biomass is approximately 11,000 BTUs, which is comparable to
that of coal, at 12,000 BTUs, but with no net carbon dioxide emissions
and other pollutants, that make coal a concern.
The innovations to the basic torrefaction process, which NCSU has
developed, is most easily understood as a mix of counter-flow heat
exchanger, indirect heating gasification and wood chip conveyor (see
Figure 1, below). The woody biomass (chips) enters a torrefaction
chamber (mild steel pipe) that is sealed from the heating fluid
surrounding it (combustion gases). The biomass is mechanically conveyed
from the cool end to the hot end of the torrefaction chamber and is
heated by simple conduction from hot gases moving from the hot end to
the cool end, outside the torrefaction chamber. The biomass is also
heated by pyrolitic reactions within the torrefaction chamber.
As the biomass is heated, water vapor, volatile organic compounds,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane are released and
move from the torrefied material, under natural draft to a flame
source, where all but the water vapor are combusted with atmospheric
oxygen. The combusted gasses and water vapor move around the
torrefaction chamber and release their heat to the incoming biomass,
before being released to the atmosphere.
The biomass in pipes, within the interior of the torrefaction
chamber is not exposed to either a direct flame or the combustion
gasses. Volatile organic compounds and water vapor are inhibited from
moving out of the torrefaction chamber by the wood chips in the hopper
above the wood-metering device, at the inlet of the torrefaction
chamber. The torrefied wood is cooled in a sealed chamber while being
conveyed to a briquetting or pelletizing machine, a waiting truck or a
storage container.
Torrefaction changes cellulosic biomass from a moist, fibrous,
perishable, material into a dry, grind-able, stable fuel that can be
used as a coal substitute and a feedstock for many other energy-making
uses. Torrefaction eliminates the costs associated with transporting
the moisture in the biomass, elevates the heating value of the biomass
fuel, and reduces the volume of the biomass. The energy density of the
torrefied product can be two to three times, more dense than untreated
biomass, on a weight basis, and two to four times, on a volume basis.
Torrefied biomass offers higher co-firing rates for coal-fueled power
generation plants than can be achieved with the combustion of untreated
biomass. In addition, torrefaction renders cellulosic a more brittle
substance, which can easily be crushed along with coal, without any
substantial equipment upgrades by the utility.
Federal Government Support Provided to ATP:
ATP has been helped by several federal programs, including funding
received by ATP's affiliate, under the U.S. Forest Service's Woody
Biomass Utilization Grant Program, as well as a grant received by ATP
from the Forest Service's Wood Education and Resource Center (WERC) and
by ATP under the U.S. Department of Energy's Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR/STTR) Program.
Under the Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program, our affiliate is
working with the Francis Marion & Sumter National Forest, in South
Carolina, to find new markets for the woody biomass which results when
the Forest does its mechanical thinning, to remove underbrush and small
trees, in order to reduce the hazard of severe forest fires and to
promote forest health.
It was while operating that program that we learned of the
challenges of shipping cellulosic biomass to distant customers. The
Forest Service has amended that grant agreement to allow our affiliate
to collaborate with ATP, this spring, to demonstrate how torrefaction
might overcome the logistical challenges of shipping National Forest
biomass to distant customers. Hopefully, the new revenues received
might allow more acreage in the National Forest to receive much needed
thinning.
Our observations have shown that different types of cellulosic
material torrefy differently. ATP's WERC grant allows ATP and NCSU to
determine the differences between the way hardwoods torrefy, as
compared to softwoods, and to develop processes which will allow
hardwoods to be torrefied successfully.
This week, Clemson University will be submitting a grant proposal,
allowing us to collaboratively determine how best to torrefy and
densify switchgrass, as well.
Lastly, ATP has recently been awarded a Phase l Doe STTR grant,
which will allow us to determine the feasibility of developing mobile
torrefaction units. Such units may make it easier to convert smaller,
dispersed sources of agricultural and forestry biomass, from individual
farmers or from individual foresters. Such units might also be able to
intercept urban wood waste, prevent it from clogging landfills and
convert it into a renewable fuel. Such systems may also be able to
convert downed trees, in a disaster area, into renewable fuels and much
needed revenues.
Suggestions for Additional Federal Support:
1. ATP is ever so grateful for the support we have already
received from state and federal sources, but there are
additional things which need to be done to help companies, like
ours, effectively compete in the global marketplace.
Three of these additional things are:
Increasing the Availability of Financing for Small
Clean Energy Businesses--Although ATP does not now need
financing for its core equipment manufacturing operations, it
will need financing to become involved in developing biomass
processing plants, using its torrefaction technology.
Unfortunately, credit for small businesses, especially those
using new technologies, is nearly non-existent. Most federal
renewable energy financing programs are geared towards very
large projects or rural enterprises.
Protecting Small Business IP in Third-World Markets--
ATP has been regularly contacted by businesses from Third-World
countries, like China, India and Russia, where it is difficult
to protect intellectual property (IP). Although ATP would like
to offer its equipment in such countries, it is afraid to do
so, for fear of having its machines copied and losing U.S.
technology and jobs.
We recommend that our government negotiate special
protections for small, clean energy business IP, as it has bi-
lateral discussions with such Third-World countries, who are
demanding access to climate change technology. We also hope
that patent applications for renewable energy technologies,
which are pending in the U.S. Patent Office, be given expedited
treatment. We understand that such a measure may be under
consideration by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
Funding to Create and Demonstrate Community-Scale
Biomass Production Systems--ATP believes that its torrefaction
process and other technologies might be able to reduce rural
poverty, if funding for developing small-scale biomass
conversion facilities was available. The development of
community-based biomass systems is complex and will take a
sustained and coordinated effort, especially encouraging and
assisting smaller farmers to grow dedicated bio-crops, as well
as developing the supply chain elements needed to make such
systems work. Funding, similar to DOE's large-scale Biomass
Supply Systems program, would be very helpful, along with
adding new flexibility to some of the Rural Development
Programs offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. By the
way, USDA's Biomass Capital Assistance Program (BCAP) looks
like a very helpful program.
Closing Remarks:
In summary, it is important to treat cellulosic biomass, in order
to make it a more cost-effective source of renewable energy. New
technologies, including innovations to processes, like torrefaction,
can play important roles, in addition to densification processes, to
enhance the logistics of shipping and handling cellulosic biomass.
Lastly, our Federal Government has played an important role in helping
our company compete in the global market place, but there are
additional federal measures necessary for our company's and our
nation's success in the clean energy economy.
On behalf of Agri-Tech Producers, LLC and our partners and
supporters, I thank you for your time and attention. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you may have.
Biography for Joseph J. James
Joseph J. James is President of Agri-Tech Producers, LLC (ATP), a
for-profit company, which is commercializing biomass technology and
promoting the utilization of highly productive bio-crops.
ATP is commercializing innovative torrefaction technology,
developed by North Carolina State University, which converts cellulosic
biomass into a cost-effective fuel for electric utilities to co-fire
with coal; makes superior energy pellets; and is a superior feedstock
for certain cellulosic ethanol-making processes.
Mr. James is Vice President of the Board of the South Carolina
Biomass Council and a member of the Southeast Agriculture and Forestry
Energy Resources Alliance (SAFER). Mr. James is a 2008 Purpose Prize
winner, for his Greening of Black America Initiative, which seeks to
assure the inclusion of rural African-American communities and
individuals in the Nation's growing green economy in the Carolinas.
Mr. James has been an economic development professional, for over
35 years, has received a BS, in Science, from Union College and has
studied law and business administration at New York University.
Chairman Baird. Excellent testimony. Thank you. Mr. Klara.
STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT M. KLARA, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC CENTER FOR
COAL, NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Mr. Klara. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to provide
testimony on behalf of the United States Department of Energy's
Clean Coal Research Program, particularly those activities
related to co-feeding biomass materials with coal that reduce
the life cycle carbon intensity of electric power generation in
large industrial processes.
The Clean Coal Research Program, which is administered by
the Department's Office of Fossil Energy and implemented by the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), is designed to
remove environmental concerns over the future use of coal by
developing a portfolio of innovative clean coal technologies.
In partnership with the private sector, efforts are focused on
maximizing efficiency and environmental performance while
minimizing the cost of these new technologies. In recent years,
the Clean Coal Research Program has been structured to focus on
advanced coal technologies with integrated carbon capture and
storage. Co-feeding biomass with coal to current and future
power plants is a logical part of this strategy. The coal and
biomass co-feeding option, when integrated in an advanced
energy system with carbon capture and storage, can provide
electric power on a life cycle basis with near-zero greenhouse
gas emissions. Biomass can be co-fed to nearly all coal-based
processes, including pulverized coal combustion, advanced
oxygen-based combustion plants, and advanced gasification-based
plants. When combined with pre- or post-combustion carbon
capture technologies, co-feeding biomass offers a very sound
strategy to reduce the carbon intensity of these energy
systems. Coal biomass systems could become part of an early
compliance strategy, particularly in existing power plants.
Coal biomass systems can benefit from the economies of scale
offered by large coal-based energy systems. Large biomass-only
plants are often constrained by low biomass energy density,
feedstock water content, feedstock collection and preparation
and local/regional feedstock availability. Biomass can be used
more effectively as a co-feed in large central coal plants to
realize the benefits of the economies of scale. Coal can also
serve to offset the seasonal and variable nature of the supply
and availability of biomass feedstocks.
Considerable experience exists with a number of biomass-to-
power generation facilities that have been constructed and
operating, particularly in Europe. The International Energy
Agency's Bioenergy Task 32 has compiled a very extensive
database to provide a nice overview of this experience. It
reports that over the past five to ten years there has been
remarkable rapid progress in the developing of co-firing.
Several plants have been retrofitted for demonstration
purposes, while another number of new plants are already being
designed for involving biomass co-utilization with fossil
fuels. The majority of these plants are equipped with
pulverized coal boilers, which is the standard, state-of-the-
art technology. Tests have been performed with virtually every
commercially significant fuel type, for example, lignite coal,
sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal and opportunity fuels such
as petroleum coke and with every major category of biomass,
herbaceous and woody fuel pipes generated as residue and energy
crops. Over 40 plants in the United States have co-fired coal
and biomass over a period of several years. Operations have
ranged from several hours of operation to several years with
five plants operating continuously for testing purposes, either
on wood or switchgrass, and one plant operating commercially
over the past two years on a mixture of coal and wood.
Research efforts are currently focused on biomass
preparation and pretreatment requirements, feeding coal-biomass
mixtures into high-pressure gasifiers at commercial conditions,
and characterizing the composition of the resultant stream to
determine impacts on downstream components.
Biological capture of CO2 through algae
cultivation is another CO2 reduction strategy that
is gaining attention as a possible means for greenhouse gas
reductions from these fossil fuel plants. Algae, the fastest-
growing plants on Earth, can double their size as frequently as
every two hours while consuming CO2. Algae can be
grown in regions such as desert conditions as not to compete
with farmlands and forests, and they do not require fresh water
to grow.
While it is recognized that the greenhouse gases stored by
algae will ultimately be reduced to the atmosphere, there is a
net-carbon offset by effectively using more of the carbon
contained in the fuel to produce energy.
In conclusion, to establish a new and widely deployed
industry based on growing, harvesting and processing large
quantities of biomass fuel on a regular basis, there are some
key issues that are needed to be addressed, many of which are
here and with the other speakers. The single most important
issue we believe is how much biomass can sustainably be made
available to economically and reliably support a power
industrial facility. This factor alone, biomass availability,
will in turn dictate the scale of plant or plants in a
particular region. Also, experience dictates that the energy
crop must not be competitive with the food chain, so land use
and crop choices need to be carefully designed and managed.
There are a number of technical challenges as well to using
biomass in future and current plants relative to things like
biomass feeding, slagging, fouling and corrosion of downstream
processes and components.
This completes my statement, and I look forward to the
discussion period. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Klara follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott M. Klara
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on the United States
Department of Energy's (DOE) Clean Coal Research Program, particularly
those activities related to co-feeding biomass materials with coal that
reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of electric power generation and
large industrial processes.
Biomass can be introduced to our nation's energy mix as a feedstock
input to thermal energy power plants. In addition, the emissions output
of fossil energy power plants can be used to cultivate algae for
subsequent energy use. Both applications are effective strategies for
reducing the carbon intensity of our nation's power generation fleet
and industrial processes.
Introduction to Clean Coal Research Program
Fossil fuel resources represent a tremendous national asset.
Throughout our history, an abundance of fossil fuels in North America
has contributed to our nation's economic prosperity. In Secretary of
Energy Steven Chu's October 12, 2009, letter, delivered to Energy
Ministers and other attendees of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership
Forum in London, he said that: ``Coal accounts for 25 percent of the
world's energy supply and 40 percent of carbon emissions, and is likely
to be a major and growing source of electricity generation for the
foreseeable future.'' Secretary Chu further stated, ``. . . I believe
we must make it our goal to advance carbon capture and storage
technology to the point where widespread, affordable deployment can
begin in eight to ten years . . .. But finding safe, affordable,
broadly deployable methods to capture and store carbon dioxide is
clearly among the most important issues scientists have ever been asked
to solve.''
The Clean Coal Research Program--administered by DOE's Office of
Fossil Energy and implemented by the National Energy Technology
Laboratory--is designed to remove environmental concerns over the
future use of coal by developing a portfolio of innovative clean coal
technologies. In partnership with the private sector, efforts are
focused on maximizing efficiency and environmental performance,
including carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage, while
minimizing the costs of these new technologies. In recent years the
Clean Coal Research Program has been structured to focus on advanced
coal technologies with integrated Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The
Program is focused on two major strategies:
Mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from
fossil energy systems; and
Substantially improving the efficiency of fossil
energy systems.
Displacing coal fuel with biomass provides an opportunity to reduce
GHG emissions from our nation's power production and industrial
facilities.
Background and Potential Importance of Coal-Biomass Systems
A key challenge to enabling the continued widespread use of coal
will be our ability to reduce climate warming GHG emissions. Utilizing
a coal-biomass feedstock combination complements a carbon capture and
storage strategy to reduce GHG. Co-feeding biomass also offers the
potential for the Nation to meet its energy and environmental goals,
while using domestic energy resources and furthering domestic energy
security.
The coal and biomass co-feeding option, when integrated in an
advanced energy system like advanced gasification-based technology with
CCS, can provide electric power, on a life cycle basis, with near-zero
GHG emissions.
Biomass can be co-fed to existing pulverized coal combustion
plants, advanced oxygen-based combustion plants, and advanced
gasification-based plants. When combined with pre- or post-combustion
carbon capture technologies, co-feeding biomass offers a sound strategy
to reduce the carbon intensity of existing and future coal-based energy
systems.
Coal-biomass systems could become part of an early compliance
strategy, particularly in existing power plants. Further, coal-biomass
systems can benefit from the economies of scale offered by large coal-
based energy systems. Large biomass-alone power plants are constrained
by low biomass energy density, feedstock water content, feedstock
collection and preparation, and local/regional feedstock availability.
Biomass can be used in economically available quantities as co-feed in
large central coal plants, to realize the benefits of economies of
scale. Coal can also serve to offset the seasonal and variable nature
of the supply of biomass feeds.
CO2 Perspective of Coal-Biomass Systems
CO2 reductions associated with using biomass in existing
pulverized coal-fired power generation facilities is fairly
straightforward. CO2 reductions from existing plants will be
nearly equivalent to the amount of carbon in the biomass feedstock,
less the amount of fossil fuel produced CO2 needed to
harvest, prepare, and transport the biomass to be combusted in the
boiler. Technology modifications needed to co-feed coal and modest
amounts of biomass into existing plants available today and being
adopted by industry. For example, First Energy is in the process of
converting units 4 and 5 of their Burger Plant in Shadyside, Ohio, to
produce up to 312 MWe firing up to 100 percent biomass.
Gasification-based units, such as Tampa Electric, offer the
opportunity to combine biomass offsets of carbon emissions from coal
with CCS, resulting in near-zero overall plant carbon emissions. Recent
NETL engineering analyses indicate that net-zero life cycle carbon
emissions can be achieved by co-feeding biomass into Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants with 90 percent carbon
capture and sequestration. The quantity of biomass co-feed needed to
reach net-zero emissions varies depending on the type and rank of coal
utilized. Limiting issues for both combustion and gasification-based
systems include biomass availability and cost, both of which must be
overcome by the development of improved technology if we are to
dramatically increase the amount of biomass deployed, and the
associated carbon benefits in future power production systems.
While biomass feedstocks are generally viewed as having a low-
carbon footprint, a careful life cycle analysis must be performed to
fairly characterize their true profile; this is especially true when
considering cultivating new biomass crops that are to be dedicated to
energy production. For example, some carbon capture processes can make
large quantities of affordable fertilizer that could have beneficial
effects when reclaiming mined or poor quality land, thus serving as a
potential pathway for easing land-use considerations associated with
biomass energy crops. The potential also exists for the beneficial
reuse of CO2 recovered from coal-biomass power plants to
produce and process algae for subsequent energy use. Such energy
systems could be located near the markets they would serve. These two
strategies could be useful to enhance overall plant economics by the
value added from beneficial reuse approaches, thus helping to support
the costs of deployment of the needed CO2 infrastructure--
building CO2 pipelines and paying for transport and storage.
Global Perspectives and Experience with Coal-Biomass Operations
Considerable experience already exists with a number of biomass to
power production facilities that have been constructed and are
operating, particularly in Europe. The International Energy Agency's
Bioenergy Task 32\1\ compiled a database to provide an overview of this
experience. It reports ``Over the past five to ten years there has been
remarkably rapid progress over in the development of co-firing. Several
plants have been retrofitted for demonstration purposes, while another
number of new plants are already being designed for involving biomass
co-utilization with fossil fuels. . . . Typical power stations where
co-firing is applied are in the range from approximately 50 MWe (a few
units are between five and 50 MWe) to 700 MWe. The majority are
equipped with pulverized coal boilers . . .. Tests have been performed
with every commercially significant (lignite, sub-bituminous coal,
bituminous coal, and opportunity fuels such as petroleum coke) fuel
type, and with every major category of biomass (herbaceous and woody
fuel types generated as residues and energy crops).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/cofiring.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For IGCC power generation systems, tests have been performed
successfully at the Nuon plant in the Netherlands that fed a mixture of
30 percent demolition wood and 70 percent coal by weight to a Shell
high-pressure, entrained gasifier. However, only limited data and
information are available from these tests. In the United States,
Foster Wheeler has been active assessing various aspects of coal-
biomass mixtures, with a focus on fuel selection, emissions control,
and corrosion issues. Europe is most active in the area of coal-biomass
co-firing, and their experience stresses the importance of biomass
processing, to avoid slagging and fouling as potential issues to
maintaining optimum combustion performance. In addition, there is
presently much discussion of indirect CO2 emissions of
biomass from a life cycle basis that arise from fertilization,
harvesting, and transport of the biomass.
United States' Perspectives and Experience with Coal-Biomass
Between 1990 and 2000, research targeted at co-firing coal and
biomass within combustion plants was strongly supported by DOE,
industry, and academia, all of whom considered co-feeding coal and
biomass in combustion power plants to be a technically viable option.
Over 40 plants in the United States have co-fired coal and biomass over
a period of several years. Operations have ranged from several hours to
several years, with five plants operating continuously for testing
purposes on either wood or switchgrass, and one plant operating
commercially over the past two years on a mixture of coal and wood.
While it is relatively easy to feed small percentages of biomass in
co-firing configurations at power plants, care must be taken to specify
the type and amount of biomass, and biomass-feed processing
requirements that provide optimum carbon reductions with minimal
reductions in plant efficiency.
The information base for co-feeding coal and biomass in
gasification technology settings in the United States is significantly
less than that for combustion. Biomass has been successfully fed in low
concentrations at Tampa Electric's IGCC power demonstration in Florida,
and biomass co-feeding and preparation tests are currently being
conducted at Southern Company's National Carbon Capture Center test
center in Wilsonville, Alabama.
Current Office of Fossil Energy Coal-Biomass Activities
Research is being conducted on biomass preparation and pretreatment
requirements, feeding coal-biomass mixtures into high-pressure
gasifiers at commercial conditions and characterizing the composition
of the resultant gas stream to determine impacts on downstream
components.
Algae Production as a GHG Reduction Strategy
Biological capture of CO2 through algae cultivation is
another CO2 reduction strategy that is gaining attention as
a possible means to achieve reductions in GHG emissions from fossil-
fuel processes. Algae, the fastest growing plants on Earth, can double
their size as frequently as every two hours, while consuming
CO2. Algae can be grown in regions, such as desert
conditions, so as not to compete with farmland and forests; and they do
not require fresh water to grow. Algae will grow in brackish water,
plant-recycle water, or even in sewage streams, and, when cultivated
within closed systems, these waters can be recycled, thereby minimizing
further water use.
While it is recognized that the greenhouse gases stored by the
algae will ultimately be released to the atmosphere, there is a net
carbon offset by more effectively using the carbon contained in the
coal. The coal is used to produce power and then again for algae
production, hence, a net-carbon offset is realized by an increase in
the energy extracted from the coal, compared to that same coal being
used for power generation only.
A cost-effective, large-scale production system for growing algae
using CO2 from a power plant has not yet been demonstrated.
Using Recovery Act funds, DOE is sponsoring a project with Arizona
Public Service to develop and ultimately demonstrate a large-scale
algae system coupled with a power plant. The utilization of algae for
carbon management is an integral part of the project. The project has
already proven the process at a small scale using a one-third acre
algae bioreactor, which has been operating for weeks using power plant
stack emissions to produce sustained algae growth. Additionally, a
prototype algae cultivation system is being evaluated for continuous
operation. The project will ultimately assemble a fully integrated
energy system for beneficial CO2 use, including an algae
farm of sufficient size to adequately evaluate effectiveness and costs
for commercial applications. To complement the engineered system in
Arizona, DOE has solicited Small Business Innovation Research proposals
to explore novel and efficient concepts for several processing aspects
of CO2 capture for algae growth. The results from these
efforts should prove useful to future algae farming applications.
Conclusion
Prior to the current global emphasis on carbon reductions, coal-
biomass research, development, and demonstration focused on waste
utilization, e.g., demolition wood in the Netherlands and waste wood
from the lumber industry in the United States. The major objective of
those efforts was to reduce the amount of wastes going to landfills.
More recent interests have also facilitated the use of coal-biomass
mixtures, e.g., the co-firing of straw with coal at Denmark's
utilities. Now, with carbon reductions at the forefront, there is
renewed interest and the possibility of realizing a double benefit to
co-firing, particularly for those organizations that have been
motivated solely by the benefits of reducing wastes (most of which are
biomass-based). Additionally, algae production using CO2
emissions from fossil fuel power plants is gaining attention as another
biologically based option to reduce GHG emissions.
To establish a new and widely deployed industry, based on providing
(growing, harvesting, processing) biomass fuel on a regular basis,
there are key issues to address--the single most important of which is
how much biomass can sustainably be made available to economically and
reliably support a power or industrial facility, and enable that
facility to reliably and economically achieve its goal for carbon
reduction? This factor alone (i.e., biomass availability) will, in
turn, dictate the scale of the plant or plants in a particular region.
Also, experience dictates that the energy crop must not be competitive
with the food chain, so land use and crop choices need to be carefully
designed and managed. There are technical challenges to adding large
quantities of biomass to our nation's energy systems that must be
overcome as well. Preparing the biomass before it is used in the plant,
as well as potential slagging, fouling, and corrosion of downstream
components and processes, must be addressed for both combustion and
gasification systems.
Biography for Scott M. Klara
Mr. Klara is currently the Director for the Strategic Center for
Coal at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Mr. Klara is
responsible for overseeing the Department of Energy's $500 million per
year Coal R&D Program that consists of several hundred projects related
to technology areas such as coal gasification, carbon sequestration,
fuel cells, advanced turbines, and coal to liquid/gaseous fuels. Mr.
Klara has over twenty years of diversified engineering and management
experience. His experience encompasses a broad spectrum of technology
areas including: electric power generation; advanced separation
processes; process control; coal conversion processes; and simulation/
systems analysis. Mr. Klara holds advanced degrees in chemical
engineering and petroleum engineering. He is a certified professional
engineer in the states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Mr. Klara has
more than sixty peer-reviewed publications and presentations.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Klara. Mr. Spomer.
STATEMENT OF MR. ERIC L. SPOMER, PRESIDENT, CATALYST RENEWABLES
Mr. Spomer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Subcommittee Members. I appreciate this opportunity to share
Catalyst Renewables' operational lessons learned and insights
on this important topic. I ask that my detailed written
testimony be included in the record as I intend to share only a
few key points.
Catalyst was a successful green, renewable and sustainable
energy company before being green was so popular. Our biomass
experience originates with the Lyonsdale plant in Lyons Falls,
New York. We purchased this 19 megawatt combined heat and power
facility in 2003. At that time, the plant was in distress, but
after significant capital investment and reestablishment of
trust and confidence with the local forest community, we have
been able to help Lyonsdale return to viability.
Catalyst developed and deployed an approved sustainable
forestry management plan in conjunction with its renewable
energy credit from the New York State Renewable Portfolio
Standard. Today, the Lyonsdale ``wood basket'' is considered
the healthiest forest in New York State. Wood from the forest
and purpose-grown woody biomass energy crops offers a
significant renewable environmentally acceptable alternative to
fossil-based energy supplies.
The United States biopower effort is being led by renewable
energy generation innovators like Catalyst, and our strategies
can be applied to all our United States forests.
Woody biomass holds significant revitalization potential
for the rural economies of our forest and farm communities.
Woody biomass is CO2-neutral. Woody biomass is
sustainable and enhances forest health.
So why does woody biomass, around for eons, merit your
attention and inclusion in a research and development portfolio
for the future? First, wood wins in every environmental,
economic and effectiveness category. Using woody biomass offers
a clear national security advantage for using clean, renewable,
home-grown fuel for baseload thermal energy and electricity.
Woody biomass has a proven, reliable national logistics
handling system, but biomass is not just wood. Today we have
new integrated biomass handling system for the efficient and
effective inclusion of crop residues and livestock nutrients.
So our first research and development suggestion is the design,
development and operational tests and evaluation of regional
logistic systems, including integration of rail transport and
integrated staging areas for woody biomass, crop residues and
nutrient feedstocks. Integrated handling systems must be
designed and tested to be commercially and operationally
effective and suitable with a minimum of handling ``touches''
as industry develops new facilities. A concerted effort to
advance comingled biomass supplies would enhance resource use,
reduce costs, and expand biomass availability for renewable
thermal energy and electricity. We suggest multiple regional
demonstrations suited to regional feedstocks are reasonable and
prudent.
Second, Catalyst is constantly seeking cleaner, more
reliable production of renewable baseload heat and power. Our
foremost concerns are efficiency, environmental suitability,
and elimination of greenhouse gas emissions. Presently, our
already permitted 37 megawatt Onondaga Renewables plant under
development in Geddes, New York, will be the cleanest woody
biomass generating facility in North America. These bragging
rights do not come cheap. We are commissioning a bubbling
fluidized bed (BFB) boiler. BFB technology is widely recognized
as the most efficient combustion conversion device for biomass
residues. However, the BFB boilers come with a significant
associated energy penalty, pressurized air flow. Large
quantities of air required to counterbalance the mass of the
boiler bed and propel the mass into a fluidized state, and this
results in a six percent penalty on efficiency. In the case of
Onondaga, that is 21,000 megawatts-hours a year.
Next, CO2-neutral woody biomass is also
virtually sulphur-free, and our systems can already effectively
eliminate particulate matter, leaving emissions of oxides of
nitrogen, NOX, the most important remaining consideration.
Today we use catalytic reduction systems, including selective
catalytic reduction and regenerative selective catalytic
reduction.
Fresh catalytic units are capable of continuously reducing
NOX by more than 98 percent. At Onondaga, the catalyst will
operate at high conversion efficiency for about 10,000 hours,
but then it must be replaced and disposed of. Presently, NOX
reduction catalysts cannot be regenerated.
Finally, maintaining optimal chemical reaction temperatures
in catalytic reduction units operated for the elimination of
NOX and the elimination of use of fossil fuels as reheat or
energy source is essential. Presently, oil or natural gas is
burned to maintain flue gas temperatures to effect rapid and
high NOX conversion. For a modern biomass conversion plant, the
heat approaches 10 percent of the total biomass value. That is
3.7 megawatts of capacity at Onondaga.
To summarize, we must strongly suggest specific
congressional direction to the U.S. DOE and funded research and
development authorizations for appropriations: to design, test,
and deploy integrated biomass logistic systems, to research,
develop and test equipments to eliminate parasitic power loss
and bubbling fluidized bed biomass boilers, to research,
develop, test and deploy catalytic units that have extended
operational lives and that can be regenerated in place, and to
research, develop, test and deploy energy improvements able to
eliminate the need for auxiliary fossil fuel usage in RSCR
(regenerative selective catalytic reduction) and SCR-NOX
control devices.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, thank
you or the opportunity to provide this testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spomer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric L. Spomer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, for
the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment for the ``Biomass
for Thermal Energy and Electricity Through a Research and Development
Portfolio for the Future'' hearing. I appreciate this opportunity to
share Catalyst Renewables' operational lessons learned and insights on
this important topic, which is a core area of commercial and
environmental concern to Catalyst Renewables. Mr. Chairman, Catalyst
was a successful ``green,'' renewable and sustainable energy company
before being ``green'' was so popular.
Catalyst Renewables develops and owns energy projects deploying
leading-edge technologies using clean, renewable resources--woody
biomass and geothermal--to produce power and thermal energy. Our goals
include creating environmentally sound, renewable energy alternatives
that can be sustained in current and future energy markets, and to
actively engage the communities that we serve. Catalyst builds fiscally
and environmentally responsible solutions that free us from the limited
supply and unstable pricing of fossil fuels as we, in fact, build a new
pathway to energy's future.
Our operational biomass experience originates with Lyonsdale
Biomass at Lyons Falls, New York. We purchased this 19 MWe Combined
Heat and Power (CHP) facility in 2003. At that time, the plant was in
distress, but after significant private capital transfusions and re-
establishment of trust and confidence with the men and women of the
local forest community logistics pipeline, we have been able to help
Lyonsdale Biomass return to viability. We were successful in
competitive renewable energy credits auctions for the New York State
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) . . . the only woody biomass
facility ever to do so. In an important sidelight, to qualify for the
RPS, Catalyst had to develop, prepare and deploy a New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-approved sustainable
forestry management plan, which became the first plan deployed in New
York State. Today, we are anecdotally told by NYSDEC that the Lyonsdale
``wood basket'' is considered the healthiest forest in New York State.
Wood from the forest and farmed purpose grown woody biomass energy
crops offers a significant renewable alternative and environmentally
more acceptable replacement options to diminishing fossil-based energy
supplies. In our western forests, this energy harvested in a thoughtful
management plan and released via controlled combustion or gasification
instead of devastating forest fires, can produce significant
distributive CHP that will spur economic vitality. Across the Northern
Forest of New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine, our neighbors are
equally embracing the challenge of energy from mixed northern hardwood
trees produced in close proximity to urgent demand for renewable
energy. This effort is being led by renewable energy generation
innovators like Catalyst Renewables and their strategies can be applied
to all our United States forests using the extensive renewable energy
stored and continually produced by wood.
Woody biomass from the forest and from farmed and purpose-grown
woody biomass energy crops holds significant revitalization potential
for the rural economies of our forest and farm communities by creating
an alternative source of income for landowners and circulating wealth-
creating energy dollars through the local economy. In New York, which
is characterized by a fossil fuel-intensive power generation sector
( 51 percent of power generated), substituting woody biomass for coal-
powered electrical generation significantly reduces imported energy
costs. Naturally possessing a short supply chain, woody biomass is
produced in close proximity to demand and the end-user. This provides
an important link and business relationship between the power plant and
local community. As these fuels are available locally, the financial
resources are spent locally, thereby encouraging the local economy and
providing income for local businesses. Wood energy adds financial value
to the forest and supports critical restorations and improvements from
timber-stand management thinnings. The sustainability of local
woodsheds can be enhanced by the inclusion of purpose grown woody
biomass on under-utilized or abandoned farmland including fast-growing
Root Process Method (RPM) native hardwoods and short rotation woody
crops such as shrub willows developed by SUNY-ESF and being
commercialized by Catalyst Renewables.
The energy life cycle analyses of the purpose grown woody biomass
energy crop systems and subsequent conversion of biomass to electricity
via combustion and gasification is positive in many ways. The net
energy ratio for the production and conversion of purpose grown woody
biomass is 1:11 for co-firing and 1:16 for a gasification system. This
means that for every unit of nonrenewable fossil fuel energy used for
growth and harvest, 11-16 units of usable energy are produced. In
essence, forests and purpose grown woody biomass energy crops are large
solar collectors that capture the sun's energy and store it as woody
biomass. The net energy ratio for woody biomass is far superior to the
net energy ratio for electricity from a combined cycle natural gas
system (1:0.4). Research directly correlates this data to wide scale
energy applications of mixed northern hardwood feedstocks from our
northeast states and feedstocks of western hardwood feedstocks.
Woody biomass from the forest and from farmed and purpose-grown
woody biomass energy crops are CO2 neutral, which means that
energy and other products can be produced with no net addition of
CO2 to the atmosphere. Biomass for bio-energy including
liquid transportation fuels can be drawn from a variety of feedstock
sources including forests, agricultural crops, organic residue streams
and dedicated woody or herbaceous crops. Research suggests development
and deployment of woody biomass resources have distinct energy,
economic and environmental advantages over traditional agricultural
crop sources:
Woody biomass is available year round and from
multiple sources. End-users are not dependent on single source
material.
The net energy ratios for bio-energy and bio-products
including liquid transportation fuels derived from woody
biomass are large and positive, meaning that considerably more
energy output is produced from these systems than is used in
the form of fossil fuels to produce the woody biomass and
generate end products.
Woody biomass can be sustainably managed and
produced, while simultaneously providing an array of
environmental and socioeconomic benefits.
The physical-chemical characteristics of woody
biomass from hardwoods are fairly consistent even when supplied
from multiple sources.
The forest products industry and wood-based renewable
energy generation firms have developed superior technical and
engineering competencies to manage woody biomass.
USDOE/USDA estimates sustainably harvested forest woody biomass can
nationally provide at least 368 million dry tons of wood per year.
Nationally, the net annual incremental forest woody biomass growth on
almost 500 million acres of U.S. timberland exceeds forest woody
biomass removals by almost 50 percent. In the north-central states
growth exceeds removals by 95 percent. This ratio is even greater in
the northern forest of the northeast states, where growth exceeds
removals by 125 percent. In New York State, there are over 18.5 million
acres of timberland with over 750 million tons of standing biomass. The
net annual increment growth vs. removals on New York timberland is more
than 300 percent.
At a Catalyst Renewables facility, Lyonsdale Biomass, in Lyons
Falls, woody biomass is being used to generate 19MWe of electricity for
the grid and post-generation thermal power at 15,000 pph for the
Burrows Paper Company. Catalyst Renewables is presently harvesting and
installing planting stock at Catalyst's commercial shrub willow energy
crop plantations in and around Central New York. This 600-acre
plantation is the first commercial shrub willow energy crop plantation
in North America. For every MWe of renewable power produced, Catalyst
off-sets 2,500 tons of coal and $90,000 of exported energy cost. This
is very important because New York State imports over $2,500 worth of
mostly fossil-based energy for every man, woman and child in the State.
Consumers increasingly need base-load energy that is renewable,
clean, and affordable from renewable sources like geothermal and
biomass. One of the simplest and oldest of renewables is direct
combustion of wood. Wood supplied more energy than fossil fuels in the
United States until the 1880s, when coal superseded wood. Today, due to
re-growth of forests and improved technologies, sophisticated thermal
combustion is being used across Europe, supplying heat, cooling, and
power and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A high-efficiency wood-
burning plant was recently opened in Simmering-Vienna with total
thermal capacity of 65 MW, delivering electricity to the grid and heat
to the city's district energy system. More than 1,000 woody biomass
facilities have been constructed in Austria, nearly all local
community-based; more than 100 combine heat and electric power. The
facilities emit remarkably low quantities of air pollutants, including
greenhouse gases, and have thermal efficiencies across the system
approaching 90 percent. Europe's thousands of new community-scale woody
biomass facilities clearly demonstrate that, woody biomass can be
rapidly implemented, can reduce oil imports and greenhouse gas
emissions, and can increase energy security with wood drawn from local
woodsheds including purpose grown woody biomass from under-utilized or
abandoned farmland.
Regionally, areas with sustainable wood supplies need to deploy
woody biomass CHP as new construction and renovated fossil CHP sites.
Such initiative is well targeted to the Northeast United States, given
the region's abundant forest land and dependence on heating oil. Woody
biomass CHP has great potential in the Southeast and West as well.
Relatively rapid transitions to woody biomass CHP heating and cooling
are technically and economically achievable in schools, municipal
offices, hospitals, prisons, and industrial facilities. This includes
better use of wood collected by municipalities from diseased and storm-
damaged trees and from construction sites. The volume of safely
combustible urban wood in the United States is nearly 30 million tons
per year. Often, local communities dispose of this wood at some expense
and incurring negative environmental results while missing energy
benefits that could come from its clean combustion.
The potential thermal value of community-based CHP alone is
significant. If New York were to commission one hundred community-scale
0.75 MW CHP projects per year over a five-year construction period at
an incremental investment would be about $100 million for each of the
five construction years. However, fuel savings would increase to at
least $100 to $180 million per year, and emissions of fossil CO2
could decrease by 0.75 to 1.0 million tons per year. The woody biomass
required by such an initiative totals less than 20 percent of a recent
estimate of New York's energy-wood supply. By increasing the purpose
grown biomass component of the supply with fast-growing Root Process
Method (RPM) native hardwoods and short rotation woody crops such as
shrub willows developed by SUNY-ESF and being commercialized by
Catalyst Renewables on New York's abandoned and under-utilized farm
land the pressure on the open-loop biomass supply could be reduced by
20 percent.
Total U.S. energy consumption is presently about 100 quads [British
thermal units (BTUs)] per year. U.S. wood delivers about quads per year
and the national sustainable energy-wood supply potentially contains
about five quads per year. Although these rates may seem small, they
are enormous quantities of energy, comparable to power production from
hydroelectric sources ( 3 quads per year) or the content of energy in
the Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve ( 4 quads). Considering
controversial plans to expand the Nation's nuclear capacity, presently
at 10 quads per year, applying purpose grown woody biomass for future
potential wood energy is reasonable and prudent as it enhances
development from forests and woodlands with resources from low-
productivity, abandoned and under-utilized agricultural lands and from
urban brownfield sites.
So, why does woody biomass . . . around for eons . . . merit your
attention and inclusion in a Research and Development Portfolio for the
Future? Wood wins in all the environmental, economic and effectiveness
categories. Likewise, using woody biomass offers a clear national
strategic advantage of a clean, renewable home-grown base-load thermal
energy and electricity resource and woody biomass comes with a
significant practical advantage: a proven, reliable national logistics
handing system. We appreciate the value of crop residues as a potential
biopower feedstock, but we are daunted by our national absence of an
efficient and effective crop residue collection and delivery system. On
the other hand, the Nation's forest products industry's logistics
system is mature and readily adaptable to the demands of CHP systems.
This asset is our first research and development focus suggestion: That
is, design, development and operational test and evaluation of
appropriate regional logistics systems including integration of rail
transport and strategic staging areas of woody biomass and crop residue
feedstocks. Such systems are not ``chicken or egg'' situations.
Integrated handling systems must be designed and tested to be
commercially and operationally effective and suitable with a minimum of
handling ``touches.'' In addition, integrating woody biomass with other
available feedstocks, such as livestock nutrients, biosolids, and
similar products is problematic with currently available handling and
processing equipment. A concerted effort to advance co-mingled biomass
supplies would enhance resource utilization and reduce cost. We suggest
multiple regional demonstrations suited to regional feedstocks are
reasonable and prudent. Delivery system inefficiencies as dollars per
ton of biomass, manifests throughout the CHP conversion process. Costs
saved during biomass harvest, preparation and delivery multiple as
costs savings to end-users of both electrical energy and thermal power.
Catalyst Renewables is constantly seeking cleaner, more reliable
production of renewable base-load heat and power. Presently, we have a
37MWe facility ``Onondaga Renewables'' under development in Geddes, New
York. Already permitted, Catalyst Renewables asserts based on existing
state-of-the art technology that ``Onondaga Renewables'' will be the
cleanest woody biomass generating facility in North America. Employing
a Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB) boiler, the technology is widely
recognized as the most efficient conversion device for combusting woody
biomass residue. The BFB's tolerance for fuels having low heating
density, having significant moisture content, are irregularly sized and
potentially contaminated with miscellaneous inert materials such as
soil and rocks make the BFB the premier system for efficiently and
reliably converting loggings residues into useful energy.
Owing to the relatively low operating temperatures of BFBs, they
intrinsically thermally fix lower amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
relative to conventional boiler systems. Owing to intimate commingling
in the fluidized bed between fuel, hot bed medium and oxidizing gases,
combustible material is combusted to completion. Additionally, alkali
absorbent material within the fluidized bed can capture and control
potential pollutants such as sulfur and acid gases.
However, fluidization comes with a significant, associated energy
penalty-pressurized airflow. Large quantities of air are required to
counter-balance the mass of the boiler bed and propel the mass into a
fluidized state. The associated fan and blower power demands result in
a six percent system efficiency penalty as compared to less
environmentally beneficial traditional, fixed grate boiler systems. As
applied to Onondaga Renewables project, the annual power required for
air handling is the equivalent of 21,000 megawatts-hours. Therefore, we
suggest a second important research and development focus area is the
mitigation of fluidized-bed parasitic power loss. Specifically, biomass
CHP would significantly benefit from research and development of more
efficient fans, blowers and electric motor drive units for all
fluidized bed boiler systems. Likewise, research designed to achieve
pressure drop reductions through air conveyance ductwork would reduce
associated power requirements and significantly improve overall system
efficiency.
Based on Catalyst Renewables' commitment to environmentally benign
heat and power production is the elimination of Greenhouse Gas
emission. Already CO2 neutral, woody biomass is also
virtually sulphur-free, which leaves emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) as the next major consideration. Modern combustion installations
often reduce NOX emissions, by causing a chemical reaction between NOX
and a reagent, typically ammonia or urea. The speed and completeness of
the reaction is facilitated with catalyst. Popular catalytic NOX
reduction systems include selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and
regenerative selective catalytic reduction (RSCR). In both systems, the
catalyst is a ceramic matrix, often honeycomb like, contained within a
housing comprised of several tons of catalyst.
Fresh catalytic units are capable of continuously reducing NOX by
more than 98 percent. In typical industrial/power generation
application such as Onondaga Renewables, catalyst is expected to
operate at high conversion efficiency for approximately 10,000 hours
after which, the catalyst must be replaced and disposed of as a solid
waste--presently, NOX reduction catalysts cannot be regenerated. As a
third research and development focus, Catalyst Renewables suggests
operational effectiveness and suitability at biomass conversion
facilities can significantly benefit from research and development
designed to extend the useful operating life of NOX reduction
catalysts. Whether the deactivation mechanism be physical, thermal or
chemical, the biomass conversion operator is focused on permit emission
limits and whether the catalyst can produce the desired level of
control. Catalyst recharge/replacement is a significant inefficiency;
it requires the cessation of operations resulting in opportunity
losses, capital expenditure for fresh catalysts, loss of un-reacted
reagent while using aged catalyst with lower conversion efficiency,
labor expense and disposal costs. For our Onondaga Renewables biomass
facility, associated catalyst costs for typical life cycle amount to
more than $1.00 per megawatt hour of generation.
The final and most difficult research and development focus
involves maintaining optimum chemical reaction temperatures in
regenerative selective catalytic reduction (RSCR) units operated for
the elimination of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), while eliminating the use
of high quality fossil fuels as an energy source. Presently, distillate
oil or more typically natural gas is burned to maintain flue gas
temperatures to effect rapid and high NOX conversion. For a modern
biomass conversion power plant, the heat input to a RSCR unit
approaches 10 percent of the total biomass energy value. Although RSCR
systems are designed to recapture and recycle heat between its multiple
sub-units, the reliance on a continuous supplement of fossil fuel
remains a substantial huddle to widespread use. Not only does RSCR
auxiliary fuel use directly reduce the overall plant conversion
efficiency, its emissions contribute to climate change emissions.
Furthermore, fossil fuel use even at this relatively low level can
ensnare most biomass electrical generating units in regulations for the
control and reporting of greenhouse gases. For these reason we advocate
for research and development energy improvements that would eliminate
the need auxiliary fuel usage in regenerative-SCR NOX, control devices.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, thank you or
the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee on Science and
Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment for the Biomass for
Thermal Energy and Electricity: A Research and Development Portfolio
for the Future hearing. I appreciated this opportunity to share
Catalyst Renewables' operational lessons learned and insights on this
important topic.
Biography for Eric L. Spomer
Eric Spomer formed Catalyst Renewables (formerly known as NGP Power
Corp.) with Natural Gas Partners VI, L.P. in 2001. Catalyst is now an
independent renewable energy development company, and Eric manages a
staff with expertise in project development, generation technologies,
operations and financing. The company is focused on developing,
acquiring and operating power generation facilities utilizing proven
technologies and reliably available renewable fuels--primarily biomass
and geothermal today.
Eric earned BA and MBA degrees from Southern United Methodist
University in 1982 and 1992, respectively. From 1982 to 1986, he worked
as an independent landman in the Rocky Mountain region. In 1986 he
joined NCNB in Charlotte, NC, as a credit policy officer in the real
estate lending group, later moving to Tampa and Dallas in the same
capacity. After performing due diligence and transition tasks related
NCNB's acquisition of First Republic Bank, Eric joined the Energy
Banking Group, where he handled large corporate credits through 1993.
From 1993 to 1997, Eric was co-founder, COO and CFO for a natural gas
marketing, gathering and processing company. Immediately prior to
forming Catalyst Renewables, Eric was a principal in an energy merchant
banking group, structuring transactions and assisting in bankruptcies
and restructurings within the energy industry.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Spomer. Dr. Burns.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT T. BURNS, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURAL & BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Burns. I would like to thank the Committee for the
opportunity to provide information today. It is a privilege to
be invited. I was specifically asked to speak about research
and development needs regarding the anaerobic digestion of
animal manures to produce energy via biogas.
Anaerobic digestion is the conversion of manure into
biogas, which contains primarily methane, through a process
that is without oxygen. It is a process that has been around
for years, we have used for a long time and have a relatively
good handle on.
The biogas that is derived from animal manures can be used
as a renewable energy source in various ways. It can be
directly utilized on the farm for heat or other uses. It can be
directly combusted in boilers to produce hot water. It can be
cleaned and conditioned, what we call upgraded, and can be
injected into the natural gas pipeline. It can be used to fuel
engine generators or micro turbines for electricity generation
or used as a fuel source for Stirling engine cycles, fuel cells
and some other options.
In addition to producing renewable energy, the anaerobic
digestion of animal manures also provides some environmental
options. It reduces odors, which in a farm setting is a very
important situation. It reduces organic material, potentially
reduces pathogens and generates marketable carbon credits for
sale through the reduction of the base greenhouse gas emissions
from those systems. The manure from dairy, swine, beef, feedlot
and layer systems has been successfully digested in the United
States and abroad, and some types of manure systems are more
easily to install on digester systems than others.
But if we took a look at the manure from all four of these
species that I just mentioned: layers, beef feedlot, dairies
and swine systems, and were to anaerobically digest all of that
manure in the United States to produce electricity, we could
generate over 20 billion kilowatt hours, which would represent
about one half of a percent of the total United States
electricity generation in 2008, or about 17 percent of the nine
non-hydroelectric renewable provision in this country.
But we have to recognize that we can't necessarily digest
all of that manure, we can't get 100 percent market
penetration. The U.S. EPA AgSTAR Program has done some very
good reports that have looked at which systems are feasible.
Specifically in the diary and swine industry, they believe that
some of the larger systems are more feasible, and if we take
that market share that they believe would be good candidates
for digestion, this still represents about 6.3 billion kilowatt
hours per year generated.
The implementation of digestion within the United States
has been very limited, however. Currently we have 135
operational manure digesters in this country. If we contrast
that to the two leading countries in the world, China and
Germany, China currently has 16,000 manure anaerobic digesters
that are medium and large-scale, similar to our concentrated
animal feeding operation systems, or concentrated animal
feeding operations I should say. Germany has approximately
5,000 systems that are manure-based or manure- and silage-
based. The AD (anaerobic digestion) technology is proven, but
what we have seen is that the AD energy production costs in
this country are too high to compete in the competitive market.
From a standpoint of going back on the grid, typically you
are going to see wholesale rates in the United States average
around three cents per kilowatt hour. It varies by location in
the country. Germany is currently receiving 33 U.S. cents per
kilowatt hour for that similar energy, and in China, nine to
ten cents per kilowatt hour.
The research and development needs then that I see are
those that could reduce the cost of energy derived from manure
anaerobic digestion systems so we can compete in the current
energy market. Specifically, of some examples of these R&D gaps
that I would like to share with the group, first is a low-cost
biogas upgrading options. We have tried and true biogas
upgrading systems, but currently the reported cost to upgrade
biogas is equal to or greater than the current cost to purchase
natural gas. So it makes it not economically feasible to pursue
that option.
The development of lower-cost systems, especially those
that could be applied on farm and smaller systems, would be
very useful. The development of additional direct use options
would also be handy, as I mentioned. Because the cost for
biogas upgrading is so high, if we could skip the upgrade costs
and directly use unconditioned biogas, especially on the farm,
it would give us a much more economical opportunity to do a
cost avoidance situation. This is very basic research, but it
is very practical in nature. It is something that would provide
a lot of forward traction if we could come up with those
systems.
Next, the development of anaerobic digestion systems that
are compatible with swine, deep-pit finish operations. Most of
the pigs in this country, the majority, are finished in the
Midwestern United States, and a majority of those finishing
systems utilize what is called a deep-pit system. Manure is
stored directly under the animals. Those systems are not
directly compatible with anaerobic digestion systems, and the
development of a system that it would allow the adaptation
without large cost would bring that market sector into the
game.
The adaptation and development of high solid digestion
systems to manure systems--there have been high solids or dry
digestion systems in the municipal world for some time. To move
those systems into manure would also provide benefits.
Finally, the development of advanced, lower-cost NOX
controls for biogas combustion and generation systems. In some
parts of the United States, specifically in California, NOX
limits lower than we can currently achieve are being written
into permits with a lot of the technology that is out there,
from a cost-effective standpoint, and that has limited some
implementation.
I would like to conclude by saying the number of manure
digesters in the United States is increasing. I think this is
primarily due to the fact that we see increasing grant support
at the federal and State level to build digesters, so we are
going to continue to see these systems come on line. We are not
cost competitive in the energy market right now. This topic
touches energy, environment, and agriculture, and I think it
presents an excellent opportunity for DOE, EPA and USDA to work
synergistically to help answer some of these gaps.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert T. Burns
Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manures for Biogas Production
Document prepared by
Dr. Robert T. Burns, P.E. and Lara B. Moody, P.E.
Department of Agriculture & Biosystems Engineering
Iowa State University
October 19, 2009
Overview of Manure AD
While the anaerobic digestion of manure and other organic
substrates is not a new technology, there has been a recent increase in
interest regarding the production of renewable energy from the
anaerobic digestion of manures. The primary drivers behind the renewed
interest in biogas production from the anaerobic digestion of manures
include an increased interest in producing renewable energy, the
development and implementation of a viable carbon credit market in the
U.S., and an increase in the availability of grant funding to support
the development of renewable energy production systems, such as manure
anaerobic digestion systems.
Anaerobic digestion is a process for converting organic material
into biogas, which is composed primarily of carbon dioxide
(CO2) and methane (CH4). Because methane is an
energy-rich compound, biogas can be used as a fuel. For this reason,
anaerobic digestion is considered a means of extracting energy from
animal manures and other organic residues. As is suggested by the word
anaerobic, the digestion process is carried out by microorganisms that
function in an environment without oxygen. Anaerobic digestion is used
for processing and treating organic wastes from industry, sewage
treatment plants, and animal feeding operations. This document will
focus solely on its use at animal feeding operations for manure and
process wastewater.
The main gaseous emissions from anaerobic digestion of manure are
CO2 and CH4; however, trace amounts of gaseous
hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen can
be present in biogas depending on the characteristics of the material
being digested. The typical composition of biogas resulting from
anaerobically digested manure is 60-70 percent CH4 and 30-40
percent CO2. Biogas should be at least 50 percent CH4
by volume to be effectively combusted as a fuel (USDA-NRCS, 2007). The
volume of biogas produced for a given animal species is related to the
organic content of the waste, the portion of organic material that
could be converted by the digestion process, the fraction of the total
manure that can be collected for digestion, and the conversion
efficiency of the digester.
Biogas can be used as a renewable energy source in various ways. It
can be directly utilized on-farm for heat, light or other purposes,
directly combusted in boilers to produce hot water, cleaned and
conditioned and sold into a natural gas pipeline, used to fuel engine-
generator or micro-turbines for electricity generation, or used as a
fuel source for Stirling cycle engines or fuel cells. In each of these
cases, the manure-derived biogas can offset fossil-fuel use, thereby
providing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and generating
marketable carbon credits. The use of biogas reduces methane emissions
from stored manure, and this reduction from the base-line manure
management scenarios determines the greenhouse gas emission credits
that can be potentially marketed. It should be noted however that the
amount of methane emitted by stored manure varies greatly with manure
and storage conditions.
In addition to producing renewable energy that can be used to
replace traditional fossil fuels, controlled anaerobic digestion of
animal manures reduces odors in manure management systems, reduces the
organic strength of manures, and can potentially reduce the pathogen
content of manures. Odor from stored animal manure is primarily the
result of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and reduced sulfur compounds
that are produced due to the ongoing microbial processes in any manure
or organic-waste storage system. In a digester with a biogas recovery
system, both odorous (e.g., hydrogen sulfide & VOCs) and non-odorous
(methane, hydrogen) compounds are collected and destroyed during
combustion. The organic matter content in manures is reduced during
anaerobic digestion; it is microbially degraded and converted to
biogas. However, not all organic matter is converted to biogas, and the
achievable anaerobic conversion efficiency is dependent upon digester
operation and feedstock loading parameters. Anaerobic digestion is a
nutrient-neutral process; in other words, you can produce energy but
retain the fertilizer value of the manure. While the anaerobic
digestion of manure does not remove macro-nutrients such as nitrogen
and phosphorus, the digestion process does convert a portion of these
nutrients into forms that are more readily available to plants. The
anaerobic digestion process also reduces the total solids content of
manures and thus makes them easier to land apply as fertilizer in
regards to pumping and handling.
Estimated Energy Production Potential from Manure Anaerobic Digestion
Total Animal Manure U.S.
Based on manure storage and handling methods at U.S. animal feeding
operations, energy production via anaerobic digestion of animal manure
is technically feasible at dairy, swine, beef feedlot, and caged layer
facilities. At dairy, swine, beef feedlot, and caged layer facilities
manure can easily be collected and handled as a feedstock for an
anaerobic digestion system. Meat bird production manure (turkeys and
broiler chickens) mixed with bedding is generally only removed from a
production house at the end of one or more production cycles, therefore
it was excluded from the calculated energy production potentials shown
below.
The energy production potential from manure anaerobic digestion can
be estimated based on expected methane yield from various digested
manure types based on their Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) content.
Methane production is equated to the destruction of organic matter
(measured as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ), where every gram of COD
converted, produces 395 mL of CH4 (at 35+C and 1
atm) using anaerobic digestion (Speece, 1996). The energy production
estimates presented in Table 1 are based on the on-hand inventory of
animals by type in the U.S., the mass of organic matter (estimated via
COD) excreted per day per animal, and the expected anaerobic digestion
conversion efficiency for a given manure type. To provide a basis for
comparison, the potential energy production from the anaerobic
digestion of manure has been estimated and expressed in billions of kWh
per year as shown in Table 1. These estimates assume that one cubic
meter of methane contains 33,500 BTU and that engine generators with a
conversion efficiency of 30 percent are used. (Table 1).
Based on the number of dairy cows, swine, cattle on feed, and
layers in the U.S. (USDA-NASS, 2009) and on manure excretion values
(ASABE, 2006), the energy production potential from anaerobic digestion
of manure in the U.S. is estimated to 20.4 billion kWh per year. By
comparison, in 2008 the total U.S. electricity generation was 4.1
trillion kWh (EIA, 2009). Approximately nine percent of the total U.S.
electricity generation in the U.S. was from the renewable energy sector
in 2008. Table 2 shows the renewable energy sources and their current
electricity net generation. If all of the available manure from the
U.S. dairy, swine, beef and egg-layer poultry industries were
anaerobically digested it is estimated that 20.4 billion kWh could be
produced per year, which would be equivalent to approximately 0.5
percent of the total 2008 U.S. electrical generation. The biomass
renewable energy source category (consisting of waste, landfill gas,
municipal solid waste, other biomass, and wood and derived fuels) is
currently the greatest non-hydroelectric renewable energy source, with
wind energy a close second, at 45 percent and 42 percent, respectively.
Utilizing energy from anaerobic digestion of manure could potentially
provide a significant renewable energy source, supplying as much as
16.5 percent of the current non-hydroelectric renewable energy
capacity.
However, it must be recognized that anaerobic digestion is not a
feasible option for every U.S. animal feeding operation. A study
documented by U.S. EPA AgStar (2006) indicated that unit costs for
construction and operation decrease significantly as digester system
size increases. Specifically, the U.S. EPA AgStar report indicates that
anaerobic digestion systems on facilities with milking herds larger
than 500 cows are more likely to have positive financial returns than
facilities with less than 500 cows. Similarly, confinement swine
operations utilizing flush, pit recharge, or pull-plug pit systems with
more than 2,000 animals (or deep-pit systems with more than 5,000
animals) are more likely to be economically feasible than operations
with fewer animals. Using the constraints above, the U.S. EPA AgStar
(2006) document provided an estimated electrical generation capacity of
6.3 billion kWh per year. It is important to note that this estimate
does not include potential renewable energy production from U.S. beef
or poultry production systems.
The current manure based anaerobic digester electrical production
capacity for the systems considered to be most economically feasible,
can be derived from the U.S. EPA AgStar Anaerobic Digester Database
(U.S. EPA AgStar, 2009). As of September 2009, manure based digesters
in the U.S. with electricity and co-generation systems produced a
combined total of 422 million kWh per year. Current manure based
digesters in the U.S. utilize dairy, swine, beef, layer, and duck
manure as well as other industry by-products as co-substrates. In the
U.S., dairy and swine operations have the greatest energy production
potential. Current manure-biogas-based electrical energy production is
seven percent of the U.S. EPA AgStar potential estimated for dairy and
swine production, and it is two percent of the potential when basing
the estimate on all usable manure sources.
Dairy
Utilizing the U.S. dairy cow numbers available from USDA-NASS
(2009), the estimated energy production potential from all dairy cows
is 9.6 billion kWh per year. However, recognizing that it may not be
feasible to develop biogas recovery systems at all farm locations, U.S.
EPA AgStar (2006) reports that there were 2,623 dairy farms with herd
sizes greater than 500 animals with a potential energy production yield
of 3.0 billion kWh per year. On the basis of animal numbers, California
has the greatest energy production potential, with 963 farms
maintaining herds greater than 500 animals (Table 3). However, on the
basis of current electricity production, Wisconsin leads the country in
dairy manure based anaerobic digestion energy by producing 30 percent
of the current total anaerobic digestion based electrical production
from U.S. dairies. The current U.S. dairy digester projects only
produce 10.7 percent of the ``feasible'' energy production potential
reported by the U.S. EPA AgStar report.
Swine
Utilizing the U.S. pork production numbers available from USDA-NASS
(2009), the estimated energy production potential from all hogs is 5.3
billion kWh per year. However, recognizing that it may not be feasible
to develop biogas recovery systems at all farm locations, U.S. EPA
AgStar (2006) determined there were 4,281 swine operations utilizing
flush, pit recharge, or pull-plug pit systems with more than 2,000
animals (or deep-pit systems with more than 5,000 animals). Deep pit
systems, common in the Midwestern U.S., would need to be modified to
provide a means of frequent digester loading as well as a storage
system for digested effluent before anaerobic digestion systems could
be installed on these facilities. The U.S. EPA AgStar study (2006)
estimated that it would be feasible for deep pit operations with
greater than 5,000 head to undergo the expense necessary to modify a
deep pit system for biogas production and recovery. On the basis of
animal numbers, North Carolina has the greatest energy production
potential (when Mid-western deep-pit systems are excluded), with 1,179
farms maintaining a feasible number of animals (Table 4). The current
swine digester projects produce less than one percent of the
``feasible'' energy production potential.
Cattle on Feed
Utilizing the U.S. beef production numbers available from USDA-NASS
(2009), the estimated energy production potential from all cattle on
feed is 3.2 billion kWh per year. Currently, there are two beef manure
digester projects in the U.S. (located in Iowa and Pennsylvania) with a
combined electrical generation capacity of 21.8 million kWh per year,
which is less than one percent of the production potential. The top
five states raising cattle on feed include Texas, Nebraska, Kansas,
Iowa, and Colorado (USDA-NASS, 2009). Manure collected from cattle
feed-lots for digestion needs to be relatively free from soil or other
inert material. As such, concrete feed-lots or cattle house over
slatted floors are better candidates for anaerobic digestion systems
than earthen feed-lots.
Layers
Utilizing the U.S. layer industry production numbers available from
USDA-NASS (2009), the estimated energy production potential from all
layers and pullets is 2.3 billion kWh per year. Currently, there are
three layer manure digester projects in the U.S. (located in
Pennsylvania and North Carolina) with a combined electrical generation
capacity of 2.4 million kWh per year, which is 0.1 percent of the
production potential. The top five states in number of hens for egg
production are Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and California. Layer
manure contains more COD (and thus more biogas production potential) on
an as-is basis than many other manures. The lack of high-solids manure
digesters, as well as concerns over ammonia toxicity and grit removal
have limited the implementation of anaerobic digesters on layer farms
in the U.S.
State of the Industry
Manure Digester Numbers & Trends
There are currently 135 operational manure based digesters in the
United States according the U.S. EPA AgStar--Guide to Operational
Systems released in February, 2009. It is estimated that approximately
250 manure based anaerobic digesters have been built on U.S. farms over
the past 20 years. Other countries, such as Germany and China, have
rapidly adopted manure-based anaerobic digesters over the past decade,
but the U.S. has been much slower to implement this technology. China
currently has approximately 16,000 manure based digesters operating on
medium and large-scale concentrated animal production facilities. The
number of large-scale manure-based digesters has increased six-fold in
China over the past five years. Similarly, Germany has over 5,000
digesters in operation that co-digest manure and other substrates such
as corn silage. Like China, the majority of German manure-based
digesters have been put into operation in the last five years. Based on
estimates made by Eurostat, The United States has approximately four
times the number of dairy cows, beef cattle, and pigs as Germany, yet
Germany has 37 times the number of manure based biogas plants.
Likewise, China has approximately three times the number of dairy cows,
beef cattle, and pigs as the United States, yet China has 118 times the
number of manure based biogas plants as the United States. This data
indicates that both Europe and China are ahead of the U.S. in
implementing manure based anaerobic digestion systems for the
production of renewable energy from animal manures.
Both China and Germany have government sponsored programs in place
that provide a subsidized electrical purchase rate for electricity
produced from manure-based anaerobic digesters. Currently, Germany pays
$0.33 per kWh for electricity produced from manure and silage based
anaerobic digestion, and China pays $0.09 per kWh. The rate paid for
electricity produced from manure-based anaerobic digestion in the
United States varies by state. Some states have implemented green rates
for electricity generated from renewable sources such as manure
anaerobic digestion, but in most areas of the United States, the rate
paid for electrical power produced from manure anaerobic digestion that
is sold back to the utilities is the prevailing wholesale rate, which
averages around $0.03 per kWh. A review of 38 U.S. manure-based
digester case-studies suggests that the average cost to produce
electricity using a manure-based anaerobic digestion system in the U.S.
was approximately $0.10 per kWh in 2006 (USDA-NRCS, 2007). This data
highlights the need to develop anaerobic digestion systems and
associated technologies that can reduce the energy production cost
using manure-based digester systems.
Data collected by the US EPA AgStar program indicates that 78
percent of operational U.S. manure digesters are located on dairies.
Additionally, 90 percent of all U.S. manure-based digesters are
generating electricity.
Manure based anaerobic digester numbers are increasing in the
United States. The 2007 U.S. EPA AgStar--Guide to Operational Systems
reported that there were 42 operational manure-based digesters in the
U.S. in 2007, while the 2009 U.S. EPA AgStar--Guide to Operational
Systems reports that there are currently 135 operational systems.
Additionally, the 2009 AgStar report indicates that there are currently
22 manure-based digesters under construction and an additional 65 more
planned in the United States. This recent increase in interest in
manure-based digesters is correlated to an increase in grant funding
support for manure-based digester construction through State and
federal programs.
Manure Anaerobic Digester Technology
The anaerobic digestion process is well understood, and there are
examples of manure digesters that have operated successfully for more
than 20 years both in the Unites States and abroad. The overall success
(defined here as systems remaining in operation) rate of manure
anaerobic digestion has been about 50 percent over the past two decades
in the United States. An analysis of the most recent U.S. data compiled
in the U.S. EPA AgStar--Guide to Operational Systems indicates that
approximately 250 manure anaerobic digestion systems have been
constructed in the United States over the past 20 years. Currently, 54
percent of the total number manure digestion systems that have been
constructed in the U.S. are still in operation. It is important to note
that a lack of return-on-investment has been the driver that has lead
to many decisions to stop the operation of existing manure-based
anaerobic digestion systems rather than physical or technological
problems with the digesters themselves. Like many alternative energy
technologies, the development and utilization of manure anaerobic
digestions systems on full-scale farming operations has historically
been high-cost and high-risk compared to traditional manure management.
Technology Development Gaps
The primary challenge to the wider adoption of manure anaerobic
digestion on U.S. farms has been the lack of a return-on-investment
from renewable energy sales from these systems. As such, research and
development into technologies that will reduce the renewable energy
production costs for manure-based anaerobic digestion systems is
needed. Specific examples of research and development needs are listed
and further explained below.
Low-cost on-farm biogas cleaning systems
As indicated previously, biogas contains more than methane. Biogas
consists of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2),
and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and other
components, such as small amounts of ammonia (NH4) and
hydrogen (H2). Biogas produced from manures typically
contains between 60-70 percent methane by volume. Carbon dioxide
concentrations vary between 30-40 percent by volume. Biogas is also
typically saturated with water vapor. Methane concentrations must be at
least 50 percent for biogas to burn effectively as fuel. Varying levels
of hydrogen sulfide and moisture removal are required before biogas and
be utilized as a fuel in most applications. Carbon dioxide removal is
not required for the direct combustion of biogas for on-farm heat or
electricity production, but if a high BTU fuel is needed (examples
would include direct sales of biogas to the natural gas pipeline and
compression and storage of biogas as a vehicle fuel), CO2
removal would be required. Although the amount of hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) in manure-based biogas is small (typically measured in
hundreds to thousands of parts per million), it must be removed prior
to use for most biogas applications. If biogas will be sold to the
pipeline as natural gas, it must be completely conditioned (moisture
and CO2 removal) and cleaned (H2S) to very strict
standards.
There are proven and reliable methods for cleaning and conditioning
(sometimes referred to as ``upgrading'') biogas. The cost of biogas
upgrading is currently reported to range from $6 to $10 per MMBtu
($0.60 to $1 per therm) depending on the cleaning technology selected
and the size of the installation. Typically, biogas cleaning and
conditioning costs increase on a $ per MMBtu basis as installation size
decreases. The current reported costs to clean and condition biogas
currently exceed the commercial price of natural gas. As such, the
development of lower-cost biogas cleaning and upgrading technologies
are needed for the use or sale of upgraded biogas from manure-based
anaerobic digestion systems to be feasible. For smaller on-farm
applications, this need is even greater since the cost per MMBtu is
typically greater than for larger systems.
Development of biogas Direct-Use options
Biogas can be combusted and used to produce electricity in an
engine generator or micro-turbine, cleaned and conditioned and sold to
the natural gas pipeline, or used directly on the farm to produce heat.
Engine generators and turbines used to produce electricity have been
estimated to represent approximately 36 percent of the initial capital
cost of farm-based anaerobic digestion systems (USDA-NRCS, 2007).
Internal combustion electrical generation systems also represent a
large fraction of the operation and maintenance cost of manure-based
anaerobic digestion systems. The direct-use of biogas on the farm as an
energy source provides a method for farms to produce and utilize
renewable energy with a lower capital investment. Direct on-farm use
options include use as a heat source for animal housing systems (either
through direct combustion or using boiler based systems), as a heat
source for grain drying or as a fuel for vehicles and equipment used on
the farm. If biogas is well conditioned and cleaned, then the resulting
methane can be used as a direct replacement for natural gas or propane
on the farm. As noted previously in this document however, the current
cost to upgrade biogas to natural gas quality currently equals or
exceeds the cost to purchase natural gas. One option to avoid these
currently economically unfeasible biogas upgrading costs is to develop
on-farm direct use options that can operate on either raw or partially
upgraded biogas. Examples would include the development of new, or
modification of direct-combustion systems for heating animal housing or
for drying grain that could reliably operate on raw (unconditioned and
un-cleaned) biogas This is a very basic research and development need,
but a very practical one.
AD systems for Mid-west Swine Finish systems (deep-pit systems)
The swine finishing industry represents the second largest
renewable energy production potential from anaerobic manure digestion
in the U.S. Manure from U.S. swine finisher operations is estimated to
have the potential to provide 3.53 billion kWh per year of renewable
energy. The greatest concentration of swine finishing operations are
located in the Mid-Western United States. Iowa produces more market
hogs than any other state in the U.S., but currently no renewable
energy is being generated from swine manure anaerobic digestion in the
state. All swine systems types together (breeding/gestation/farrowing,
nursery and finishing operations) in the U.S. produce less than one
percent of the ``feasible'' energy production potential identified by
the U.S. EPA AgStar program. While swine finishing operations represent
the largest energy production potential within the swine sector, many
finish operations utilize manure management systems that are not easily
compatible with current anaerobic digestion technologies. Deep-pit
manure management systems are the most commonly used manure management
systems on Mid-western swine finish operations. In a deep-pit system
the pigs are housed on a slatted floor and their manure is stored in an
eight foot deep pit located directly under the animals. Since the
manure management system is completely under roof, no rainfall is
collected or comes in contact with the manure. Manure is typically
stored for a one-year period in a deep-pit system and is then utilized
as a crop fertilizer. With a deep-pit system there is no external
manure storage, the manure is continually collected in the deep pit as
it is excreted by the pigs since it is allowed to fall through the
slatted floor. While this approach provides a system that is immune
from weather related discharges, the lack of an external manure storage
makes the application of current anaerobic digestion systems much more
expensive. This is because the raw (undigested) manure and the digested
effluent need to be stored separately and not co-mingled with current
digester technologies. Research is needed to develop anaerobic
digestion systems that can be utilized with current deep-pit manure
management systems without the cost of constructing new external
storage for digested effluent.
AD systems for Solid and Semi-Solid Manure Digestion
Traditionally, manure anaerobic digestion has been confined to
farming operations that generate liquid manures or liquid manure
slurries. This is because traditional manure digester designs require
manures that can be pumped and handled hydraulically. A large fraction
( 30 percent?) of manure in the U.S. that is handled as a solid or
semi-solid. One example is layer manure: the estimated energy
production potential from the U.S. layer industry through the anaerobic
digestion of manure is 2.3 billion kWh per year. Currently, only 0.1
percent of this energy production potential from layer manure has been
reached in the U.S. There are currently only three layer manure
digester projects in the U.S. with a combined electrical generation
capacity of 2.4 million kWh per year. The majority of layer manure in
the U.S. is managed as a solid material in either high-rise or manure-
belt housing systems. Since manure is collected on a regular schedule
from the manure-belt housing systems, they would be very good
candidates for anaerobic digestion systems. Additionally, solid-manure
handling systems for beef and dairy are also potential candidates for
high-solids digestion systems. Solid and semi-solid anaerobic digestion
systems have been successfully utilized for nearly two decades on a
variety of municipal organic wastes. The development of anaerobic
digestion systems that are feasible to utilize with solid and semi-
solid animal manure management systems would allow for the production
of renewable energy from these animal production systems within the
United States.
Advanced NOX controls for biogas engines and micro-turbines (CA issue)
Dairy farms represent the largest potential for renewable energy
production from manure-based anaerobic digestion in the United States
of any given animal type. California is the state that has the greatest
number of dairy farms with over 500 head. The U.S. EPA AgStar program
has identified dairies with more than 500 head as having the greatest
potential for the economical application of manure digesters. Yet at
present, only 3.3 percent of the potential renewable energy production
from California dairies larger than 500 head is being generated.
Biogas-to-energy systems in the central valley of California (where the
majority of the larger dairies in California are located) must meet
strict NOX emissions limits required by the California Air Resources
Board and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District. A NOX limit
of nine parts per million has been established as the Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) requirement for systems that combust biogas
in this area. The engine generator systems commonly used to combust
biogas and produce electricity will not meet the California nine-part
per million BACT limit. NOX control systems such as selective catalytic
reduction can be utilized on internal combustion biogas engines to meet
the California BACT NOX limits, but the cost of adapting and utilizing
currently available technology increases the cost of renewable energy
production from these systems. Research into new innovative, lower-cost
NOX control technologies as well as the development of lower-cost
selective catalytic reduction systems targeted at farm-scale internal
combustion generators for NOX removal options from exhaust gases
generated from the on-farm combustion of biogas needs to be conducted.
The identification and development of these systems would enable
additional renewable energy generation from the dairy sector.
References
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. 2006.
D384.2 Manure Production Characteristics. ASABE Standard, St.
Joseph, MI.
Birkmose, T., H.L. Foged, J. Hinge. 2007. State of Biogas Plants in
European Agriculture. Prepared by the Danish Agricultural
Advisory Service for the European Parliament.
Burns, R.T. 2009. Current Status of Manure Anaerobic Digestion in the
U.S. and Beyond. Presentation at the conference ``Energy
Production from Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure,'' Sept.
28-29, 2009, Madison, WI.
Energy Information Administration. 2009. Renewable Energy Consumption
and Electricity Preliminary Statistics. U.S. Department of
Energy. Viewed on-line on 10/14/09 at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/
cneaf/alternate/page/renew-energy-
consump/rea-prereport.html
Eurostat. 2009. European Union Agricultural Statistics. Viewed on-line
on 10/6/09 at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/
portal/agriculture/data/main-tables
Speece, R. 1996. Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewaters.
Archae Press. Nashville, TN.
United States Department of Agriculture--National Agricultural
Statistics Service. 2009. United States Agricultural Commodity
Statistics. Viewed on-line on 10/6/09 at: http://
www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/
indexbysubject.jsp?Pass- group=Livestock+%26+Animals
United States Environmental Protection Agency--AgStar. 2009. Anaerobic
Digester Database. Viewed on-line on 10/16/09 at: http://
www.epa.gov/agstar/operational.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency--AgStar. 2006. Market
Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems: A guide to
Identifying Candidates for On-Farm and Centralized Systems.
EPA-43008-06-004. Viewed on-line on 10/14/09 at: http://
www.epa.gov/agstar/resources.html
United States Department of Agriculture--Foreign Agricultural Service.
2009. Global Commodity and Products Markets. Viewed on-line on
10/6/09 at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/commodities.asp
United States Department of Agriculture--Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2007. Technical Note No. 1, An Analysis of Energy
Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems on U.S.
Livestock Production Facilities.
Biography for Robert T. Burns
Robert T. Burns is a tenured Professor of Agricultural and
Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University with a joint extension/
research appointment in the area of environmental management of
agricultural systems. He holds a B.S. in Agricultural Engineering, a
M.S. in Environmental Engineering and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from
the University of Tennessee. He is a licensed Professional Engineer
(P.E.). His research focuses on animal waste management and includes
work air emissions monitoring and mitigation from animal production
facilities, anaerobic digestion, solids separation and phosphorus
recovery. His area of extension specialization is the design of animal
waste management systems and nutrient management planning for livestock
and poultry operations. Robert currently leads a national Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Planning (CNMP) certification program for USDA
Technical Service Providers (TSPs). Robert has developed and lead 33
national and international training courses dealing with animal waste
management topics. Dr. Burns manages the ISU Animal Waste Management
Laboratory and leads a 25-person Animal Waste Management team composed
of full-time staff, graduate students and undergraduate students. Dr.
Burns' Animal Waste Management team is completely funded by external
competitive grants, and has average annual competitive external support
of over $1.5 million per year.
Dr. Burns has sixteen years of experience working on environmental
and agricultural engineering projects. During his professional career
Robert has published over 200 technical publications dealing with
animal waste and air quality management, served as PI or Co-PI on 53
funded grants totaling over 6.8 million dollars and served as a major
or co-major professor to 24 Master's and doctoral students. Prior to
joining the faculty at Iowa State University, Robert was on the faculty
at The University of Tennessee for nine years where he served as the
Water Quality and Waste Management specialist for the Tennessee
Agricultural Extension Service. From May 15-November 15, 2006 Dr. Burns
served a six-month assignment as a National Conservation Engineer
within the Conservation Engineering Division of the Washington, DC
National Headquarters office of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service. In this position he worked on alternative manure treatment
systems and USDA Technical Service Provider Issues.
Dr. Burns has worked on environmental and agricultural engineering
projects and other consulting services with the USEPA, U.S. AID, USDA-
NRCS, USDA-FAS, The Commonwealth Development Corporation of Great
Britain, America's Clean Water Foundation, Conestoga Rovers and
Associates, Thoreau Environmental Capital and numerous State
departments of agriculture and environmental protection. Robert has
worked on projects in Armenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Romania, The
Democratic Republic of Zambia, The Republic of Korea, and the United
Kingdom. Robert has designed over 350 animal manure management,
irrigation and water supply systems. In 2003 Robert received the Nolan
Mitchell Extension Worker Award from the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers for distinguished educational programming in the
areas of water quality and animal waste management. In 2008 Dr. Burns
was appointed to the USDA National Agricultural Air Quality Task Force
for a two-year term. This task force is charged with advising the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the role of USDA to provide
oversight and coordination related to agricultural air quality. Robert
also serves as the Chair of the National Pork Producers Council, Pork
Air Science Policy Advisory Committee (PASPAC) where he assists the
U.S. swine industry to review and best utilize current scientific
information in regards to air emissions from pork production systems.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Burns. An outstanding series
of information from all of you. Thank you very much, and I will
recognize myself for five minutes to ask questions and will be
followed by my colleagues here.
Thanks again to our honored guests. We appreciate your
presence and wish you a good day and an enjoyable visit. Thank
you very much.
Methane as a Greenhouse Gas
Dr. Burns, I have a question--I have got a lot of questions
for all of you, but let me just start with this one since you
just spoke. It is my understanding that methane is a more
potent greenhouse gas by quite a significant factor relative to
CO2. I don't know the answer to this, and maybe you
don't, either, but I am going to ask it. In the energy bill
that has been kicked around in the House and what is working in
the Senate, does reduction of methane through the kind of
process you have described, do you get a greater credit for
that than you would if you were reducing CO2 by
volume? I don't know that that is the case, but it seems like
it might ought to be.
Dr. Burns. Let me see if I can rephrase your question to
make sure I understand. Methane is recognized, depending on
which protocol you are looking at and which time scale
between----
Chairman Baird. You need to hit your mic again or move it.
Is it lit up? There you go.
Dr. Burns. Yes, sir. Methane is recognized to be 21 to 23
times more potent than CO2, depending upon which
protocol and time scale. Now, if I can rephrase the question,
are you asking is the combustion of methane--obviously when we
combust methane we also generate some CO2 in that
process, and if I understand you correctly, you are asking if
we receive a net gain from the combustion of methane as
compared to the CO2 that is emitted from the
process?
Chairman Baird. That is part of the question, and then the
other question would be this. If we are not in some way using
the methane to generate energy, presumably some of that is just
being released into the atmosphere. So should you get, under
any of the energy bills that are moving, do you think you
should get credit for reducing the methane that is going into
the atmosphere through your kind of processes?
Dr. Burns. Yes, and I think the answer is yes, you should
get credit, but it has to be recognized that the credit
increment is tied to what was the existing system, i.e., if
there had not been a digester at this location, how much
methane would be generated?
Chairman Baird. Right.
Dr. Burns. Because once the anaerobic digestion process is
put in, we are going to greatly increase the methane
production. So it is that differential between the two that
should be credited.
How DOE can Diversify Its Biomass Programs
Chairman Baird. Got you. Very, very good point. One of the
things that strikes me as I listen to the testimony of all of
you really is that we have got this remarkable resource that
can be used in a number of ways, and I really appreciate that.
I think our staff has done an outstanding job of giving us
diverse perspectives on ways things can be used. But as I look
at the biomass program in DOE--and maybe I am wrong and maybe
someone can correct me, or if not, help us figure out what we
ought to do--but as I look at the biomass program, biopower,
really like we are talking about today, it has really been
neglected. It has mostly been fuels, and mostly frankly
ethanol. I mean, we just put so much effort into that and it
seems to me at the expense of much of what you are doing.
And so what I would like to ask your comments--you have all
actually given excellent suggestions for things DOE could
conceivably do better. It doesn't seem like it is being done
now. It is almost solely focused on ethanol. Do you have some
comments--if this committee or this Congress were to direct DOE
and say, you know, ``we want you to give more attention to
biopower,'' in any of the forms you all have talked about, how
would that best be accomplished in your interaction with DOE?
Some of you work for some of the labs that get funding for DOE.
I don't want to put you in a difficult spot there, but from
your professional expertise, how would that--how could we best
make sure that we are broadening the portfolio of possible uses
of biomass? And I will just open that up to whomever wants to
take a stab. Mr. Spomer, you look ready to go, so fire away.
Mr. Spomer. I think the first thing that generally exists
today is there is a real bias against things that burn, in
whatever form, whether it is gasification or direct combustion.
Ultimately there is combustion of wood. If we can get past that
bias and start to focus on the fact that, according to USDA,
from the forest, there is 386 million bone-dry tons a year from
the forest alone. When you add in all these other factors, you
start to get into 1.2 billion tons per year of biomass. We are
talking about eliminating, whether it is biofuels or biopower,
that would be a huge portion of our national need for power and
for fuel. So first we have got to get the recognition that this
is good for the forest. The methane question is an excellent
one. If this stuff lies and rots on the forest floor or whether
it is agricultural waste that is lying in the ditch, it is
going to convert to 50 percent methane, 50 percent
CO2. By combusting it, we may be carbon-neutral, but
we are significantly greenhouse gas positive. The key thing is
to use technology and advances in technology and support
advances in technology to improve the efficiency of the
conversion so we can compete economically.
Chairman Baird. And as a businessman, and I don't want to
put words in your mouth, but from what I am hearing, it sounds
like--would it be fair to say that the bulk of the research
that has been coming out of DOE in terms of how to deal with
biomass as an energy source--has not been particularly
beneficial to the kind of utilization that you do in your
industry?
Mr. Spomer. Almost none.
Chairman Baird. Okay. And here is an industry that is using
wood products constructively and has revitalized a rural
economy. Mr. James, if you wish to comment on that, please?
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It might be instructive
for the Subcommittee to ask DOE to confirm or correct my
understanding--and this is from hearing other scientists--that
the combustion of biomass is a more efficient conversion of
that material into energy than using it to make liquid fuels. I
am not one to suggest we should not make liquid fuels with that
material, but we should also be striving for, where we can,
maximum utilization of maximum benefit.
The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that some
investigation might be worthy. We are very fortunate to have a
technology that is in demand internationally, and I can tell
you that the Europeans, and particularly the British here
lately, because they have developed some new incentives to use
dedicated biomass if you will, are scouring around the United
States locking up our biomass in long-term contracts. Now, I
don't want to hurt our business opportunities, but as a citizen
I am concerned that there could be a point in the future where
we have developed our technologies and we have committed
ourselves with the appropriate climate legislation and we find
out that our feedstocks are being exported in other places. I
would urge that the Subcommittee might ask for some research in
that particular area.
Chairman Baird. Outstanding points. And you know, you said
it more delicately than I might, but one of the sad things
about I think the ethanol emphasis has been, and my
understanding of the research on that, our net energy output is
negative on that after a whole lot of work and investment. I
mean, with corn-based ethanol at any rate, not to mention all
the food impacts and the fertilizer and the water.
I am particularly intrigued also, Mr. James, by this issue
of on-site processing of materials. I have got timber
communities now that have 20 to 25 percent or more
unemployment. They have just been devastated, and the idea that
when you go out there with your skidders and everything else,
all the logging equipment that you could take out along as part
of the contract, as part of the bid, take out equipment to
process wood fuels in some fashion--it makes an awful lot of
sense to me, especially with the economic implications and the
energy implications. So I applaud you for that.
Anyone else want to talk about this issue of DOE and ways
they could maybe diversify the portfolio in a different way?
Mr. Spomer. Just one thing. I would like to give DOE some
credit for. They supported our effort at developing plantation
fuel purpose-grown biomass in New York. We have done some
interesting work with the State University in New York,
Environmental Science and Forestry College, on purpose-grown
dedicated woody biomass. I think that that, in addition to the
existing portfolio that was described, could really make a
difference. It takes fallow farmlands, otherwise not useful.
This is not a competitor with food. It is an opportunity for
people to get a revenue stream, and that is particularly good
because it acts as a carbon sink in addition to being carbon-
neutral on the generating side.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Inglis for five
minutes. I apologize to my colleagues. I went over a little
bit.
Activities at Agri-Tech Producers, LLC
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So show and tell, Mr.
James. Do you have any of the product with you? I was hoping
so, because I saw it in Spartanburg, and I thought that--will
you get it, Katrina?
Chairman Baird. Is this product placement?
Mr. Inglis. Yeah, it is. Have you seen what it looks like?
Chairman Baird. Has anybody got a match?
Mr. Inglis. A pipe might be appropriate. If you could light
it in a pipe--maybe not.
Chairman Baird. We don't deal with that in this committee.
Mr. Inglis. So anyway, it is really interesting.
Chairman Baird. Sometimes people on this committee, I think
they have been smoking something. So we are going to leave
that.
Mr. Inglis. I just thought my colleagues would be
interested in seeing it because I got to see it in Spartanburg.
It is a very interesting product. You can see how it could be
fed immediately into the--mixed with the coal, right? That is
what we are looking at here?
Mr. James. Yes, Congressman. I have given you two samples,
one is torrefied wood chips, and the other is semi-torrefied or
a mixture of torrefied----
Chairman Baird. You have not mixed up Dr. Burns' substance
with this? Before I pass this down, I want to----
Mr. James. Although we are exploring whether the process
can be helpful there.
Dr. Burns. Yeah, sure.
Mr. James. But you also have some torrefied switchgrass
condensed into a pellet--excuse me, a briquette. So you have
got two forms of samples there.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. So this is efficient to burn as
an energy source?
Mr. James. It is extremely efficient, much more efficient
than untreated wood or cellulosic material.
Chairman Baird. And would you burn this--I am sorry. I am
jumping into your time.
Mr. Inglis. No, it is all right. You can smell--it smells
sort of like charcoal or something like that.
Chairman Baird. Pass this down to Roscoe. He will be
wanting some of this on his farm.
Mr. Inglis. So yeah, by looking at it, you can see how
easily it could be co-fed with coal, I guess, because it has
sort of the look and feel of coal, pulverized coal. It has less
energy density I guess because it is less dense stuff.
And also, I have got one of these brochures, I will show it
to the Chairman, of what it looks like out in the field, the
machine out in the field so that you can basically at the
location get rid of some of the water and thereby reduce the
transportation costs if you move it on to where it is going to
be burned, right?
Mr. James. Yes, the picture you are referring to is the
prototype on campus at North Carolina State University. And we
are developing, with the help of Kusters Zima, your constituent
company in your district, larger units that are fixed units
that will be placed close to forest areas or agriculture areas.
But thanks to DOE support, we are also looking at developing
mobile units which will be on wheels, we hope, and be able to
actually go from logging deck to logging deck, maybe from
community to community, in order to process material as close
to the point of harvest as possible.
Mr. Inglis. It is very interesting.
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, you and your Committee Members or
Subcommittee Members are certainly welcome to come and take a
look at the prototype as some point in time if you choose to do
so. We would be glad to make arrangements for you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you.
Mr. Inglis. Do you have any wipes for everybody up here
now? They have got it all over their hands. The Chairman was
just wiping his hands all over my papers, I want the record to
show. Anyhow, I guess I asked for it. So it is very helpful.
Landfill Biogas Production
Dr. Burns, the BMW in Spartanburg, South Carolina, gets
more than 50 percent of its power from a trash dump, takes some
methane, runs it through a 10-mile pipeline and powers north of
50 percent of the power needs of the plant. And the interesting
thing about that, there are a number of wonderful things about
it, but one of them is that they have speculated in the future
perhaps rather than the ``not in my backyard'' (NIMBY)
principle, they might actually be saying, here, put your trash
right here in my industrial development. I want a big trash
dump right here. So instead of a 10-mile pipeline, we have a
half-a-mile pipeline to a bunch of industrial facilities that
are using. Similar problem I guess for siting hog farms and
things like that. If they become an energy producer, then it is
less hard to site those, I suppose, right?
Dr. Burns. There is certainly an economy of scale that is
associated with energy production through anaerobic digestion.
Landfill biogas production systems are typically much larger in
terms of the generating capacity than manure systems would be.
My understanding is landfill systems are currently--the
electricity generated from those systems is probably done so at
a cost that is a third or so of the cost of what we are
currently seeing as generation costs from manure digestion
systems. Again, they are larger systems, typically three to
four megawatt generating capacity, and they are very
predictable systems. With the landfill operation, the materials
there, it is in tune, and there is a very predictable life
expectancy. You are going to be able to draw a curve that says
what the gas yield is going to be. It is going to exponentially
come up, it is going to level off, it is going to decay. So you
know that yield. And there are other factors that make manure
digestion a little tougher. I mean, animals are not coming in
and out of the landfill. There is not potential changes in your
biomass generation capacity in that landfill because the gas
yield in the landfills occur generally after they are closed,
and then you yield that gas toward energy.
So they have been very successful. It is a model that can
be looked at but there are some differences; primarily scale, I
think, would be the one that would be different from what we
see in ag systems with manure.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. Dr. Bartlett.
The Energy Needs of Biopower Fuel Production
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. You mentioned that you get more
energy from burning this than if you burned wood. But unless we
are going to suspend the law of thermodynamics, you won't get
more energy from it than you would have gotten if you burned
that wood because you have some energy invested in creating
this product. So really, you are trading convenience for energy
because you are going to get less energy out of your wood
eventually if you go through this process and then burn it than
you would have gotten if you had burned it initially. So you
are trading energy for convenience here, are you not?
Mr. James. Congressman, of course, you are correct.
However, the systems, boilers and otherwise, that burn
material, burn more efficiently with higher BTU and less moist
material. There is a lot of energy lost if you were to burn
greenwood. You have got to use a lot of energy to evaporate the
water off of that, and you are sacrificing some of the
efficiency of your boiler----
Mr. Bartlett. So that helps offset your loss here?
Mr. James. Exactly.
Forest Health
Mr. Bartlett. Let me ask you a question about forest
health. Absent fires, how does removing biomass from forests
make them healthier? If we look at a tropical rainforest, if
you remove the biomass, you have removed essentially all of the
nutrients because they are all in the cycle of life. That has
to be somewhat true in our temperate forests, although nowhere
near to the extent of the tropical rainforest. I am having
trouble understanding how removing biomass, absent fires, how
removing biomass makes the forest healthier.
Mr. Spomer. I can use the example of upstate New York and
really the whole northeastern, mixed northern hardwood forests.
Absent an active--typically what happens in New York, for
example, absent a low-grade biomass market, loggers--there is
active logging going on up there. They are taking maple, the
cherry, the best wood, and with no market for anything else,
they take that out, turn it into furniture, tabletops, and they
leave the stuff that you really don't want, diseased trees,
unmerchantable timber, sometimes non-indigenous species, and
then they also leave the junk on the floor. And what happens in
the area around, say, our Lyonsdale plant, is that there is
active forest thinning because there is a market for the low-
grade material. When pulp and paper was active, there was a
market for that low-grade material. The pulp industry has
basically dried up in the north, and absent a market for that,
you have got a changing nature of the native forest in New York
and in Maine and in other places, more so in New York. And
those forests tend to be less healthy----
Mr. Bartlett. Less healthy? You mean that they don't have
the kind of trees growing there that you would like to have
growing? So when you take the trash trees out as biomass, that
permits the maples and cherries and so forth to be more
competitive?
Mr. Spomer. Right, and also thinning the forest allows new
growth. In a mono-aged forest where you have got a big canopy
and you are not getting new growth, you are not as efficient at
consuming CO2. A forest fires is nature's way of
fixing that problem. It is not a big problem in the Northeast
where it is particularly damp. It is worse in my home State of
Colorado where the whole forest can go up in a hurry. Being
able to thin the forest and allow new growth, diverse growth,
is good. The Audubon Society tells us it is good for habitat,
and the Department of Environmental Conservation says it is
critical for forest health in New York.
Mr. Bartlett. That helps me understand what you mean by
forest health. It doesn't mean you are growing more forest, it
means you are growing the kind of forest you would like to
grow.
Protecting Topsoils and Soil Quality
I have questions for the second round, and let me just
introduce it now, in that I have a huge concern for
sustainability. Even with no-till farming, for every bushel of
corn we grown in Iowa, three bushels of topsoil go down the
Mississippi River, and topsoil is topsoil because it has
organic material in it. We can rape our soils for a few years,
and then we will not have the quality of soils--we are fighting
very hard today to maintain the fertility of our soils. I am
having trouble understanding how we can take very much biomass
off our soils and still maintain that fertility to the soils.
Let us come back for a second round to a discussion of this
because I think that experiments in sustainability are the most
needed experiments in this field.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. I am going to go
ahead and let you follow up on that if you like because I went
over a little bit as did Mr. Inglis, and I think it is an
important line of questioning. So if you are interested, let us
follow up on that.
Mr. James. Congressman, if I could respond to your earlier
question about forest health, the natural course is for a
forest to have fires every several years which thin out the
underbrush. That is the naturally occurring thing.
Mr. Bartlett. You are from what state?
Mr. James. I am from South Carolina.
Mr. Bartlett. Okay. That is different than up here. I
cannot remember a forest fire up here. It just doesn't happen
in our temperate forests, at least none that I am familiar
with. Once in a while you have a little dry litter burn, but a
real forest fire, we just don't have them. I never heard of a
forest fire here. It is really different than your pine forests
down there and in the west. We don't have them here.
Mr. James. My point is, to go onto forest health issues, to
the extent there is a lot of underbrush and small diameter
trees that are crowded against each other, the rapidity with
which disease and infestation spreads in the forest is
accelerated. So being able to mechanically thin those, since in
most forests we live and we run highways through and we do
other things that don't allow prescribed burns to take place,
mechanical thinning is what is happening to the extent there is
budget for it.
For example, the Forest Service has a limited budget, and
one of the reasons that they have developed the Woody Biomass
Utilization Program was to try to generate a cash stream off of
that biomass that would allow them to treat additional acreage
in the forest.
The other thing I would say is that the process that we
have, the living parts of the tree, which are the bark and the
leaves, tend to turn into a fine powder whereas the corpus of
the tree turns--you know, when you feed chips in, you get chips
out. That fine powder tends to have more minerals in it, and we
are looking to see whether that can be a biochar or soil
application material that could go back into the forest or back
on the farm to enhance soil health.
Chairman Baird. Do other panelists want to address the
broader issues of soil quality and the loss thereof in regard
to biomass? Dr. Burns.
Dr. Burns. Yes, sir. I think it is an excellent comment,
and I would just like to comment on when we look at manure
anaerobic digestion to point out that those manurers will still
be land applied as fertilizers. Digestion, it is important to
understand, is a nutrient neutral process. The amount of
nutrients removed through the anaerobic digestion process for
the obligate requirement of the microbes is very, very small.
So those macro nutrients are going to be utilized by crops. The
nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and the potassium (K) are still
going to be there, and farmers that utilize anaerobic digesters
are still going to have to have the same land base for their
nutrient management plan, and that manure is still going to go
to the field. It is true, however, that it will go to the field
with less carbon content than it contains prior to digestion.
For beef and dairy systems, we can expect to see 30 to 40
percent of that organic carbon being converted over to methane
and CO2 in the process and for swine and layers, we
are more in the 60 to 70 percent range. But those nutrients
from a fertility standpoint will still be there, and the
benefits of the fiber, and a lot of that carbon is still going
to be there from building the soil till.
Manure Methane Production
So in that system, we are still going to see manure go into
the ground as a fertilizer and be utilized that way.
Mr. Bartlett. If manure is spread on the field and you go
through sheet composting, there is little or no methane
produced by that?
Dr. Burns. In a composting process----
Mr. Bartlett. If it is sheet composting, you spread the
manure on the field so that there is no anaerobic activity
going on. It is very thin, then you shouldn't get methane,
should you?
Dr. Burns. No, sir, if we keep the system aerobic in
nature, we will not generate methane. It will go through
aerobic respiration. It will generate CO2. There
will still be carbon loss there and also unfortunately with
that aerobic process, we are probably going to lose nitrogen
out of the system as gaseous ammonia.
Mr. Bartlett. You have to incorporate it into the soil to
avoid that?
Dr. Burns. Incorporation of solid manures is recommended to
avoid that gaseous ammonia loss, yes, sir.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett, important line of
questioning, and I think especially regarding what we have seen
with ethanol which you have talked about with great eloquence
in the past in this committee.
Siting Biomass Research Within DOE
Continuing on the theme I began earlier, it seems apparent
in a number of areas of additional research and government
activity--whether it is intellectual property or targeted
research on catalysts and a host of areas where we could be
doing things--if DOE were to spend, give more attention to
biopower broadly, from your gentlemens' perspective, what
office of DOE would be technically equipped to do that? Where
would we best go within DOE to make this happen? Mr. James and
then Dr. Stevens?
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I will try to take a stab at that.
The answer to your question is I am not exactly sure. However,
the Office of Biomass certainly comes to mind. If I could also
go back to an earlier point that you made, we participated with
others in our region in one of the last solicitations for a
biomass supply chain, and as I recall, the language in the
solicitation did not exclude making solid fuels, but there may
have been a bias toward liquid fuels. I think your staff might
wish to analyze the awards that came out of that solicitation.
It may make sense for whatever part of DOE that is going to
take on this assignment to have a very specific solicitation
for solid fuels or some other types of activity that supports
some of the testimony that you have heard today. So there is
not an ambiguity and then I guess some opportunity for--I don't
want to use the word bias but some opportunity for not fully
exploring that opportunity.
Chairman Baird. And to follow up, Mr. James, obviously you
are in the industry that would deal more with the solid rather
than the liquid. Would there be a counter-argument that would
say, well, the reason they are biased, if there was a bias, the
reason they favored--let us not deal with predilection, but
maybe they just made an empirical scientific judgment that
there is more bang for the buck, so to speak, or better return
on investment in liquid fuels. Is that the case or do you think
it was more--I am not trying to put you on the spot, but the
question for me is, we should be looking at all our options,
but we have to look critically at those options.
Mr. James. I think we should look at all options, and we
support all options. However, the understanding that I have
from the scientists that I am talking to, suggest that direct
combustion, whether treated or untreated, of biomass gets
more--you end up with more energy on a net basis than you would
by converting it into a liquid fuel.
Chairman Baird. Partly because of Dr. Bartlett's repeated
observation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Mr. James. I am sure he is right again on that, sir.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. So your point would be,
whichever branch of DOE is focused on this, we want it to be a
focus that it is not just in name only and we are going to go
right back to the liquid results?
Mr. James. The other thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, that
the electric utilities and other coal users are great
collaborators, and we have had, you know, good luck in working
with a variety of utilities. So there is an opportunity to
leverage some of the users, including coal suppliers, if you
will, into this process because we all need to figure out, how
do we work together? How do we use existing distribution and
supply chains that are already in place in order to make a
system work?
So I think if a solicitation could be a little more
specific in our case on solid fuels and encourage collaboration
between users and suppliers and other members of that value and
supply chain, then we could come up with a very robust
solution.
Chairman Baird. It will be my intention following this
hearing to actually inquire precisely of these kind of issues
of DOE in writing. We will drop them a note.
Dr. Stevens, I want to applaud PNNL for its work on forest
products, obviously given our region, and PNNL has really been
a pioneer.
What insights can you offer on this question?
Dr. Stevens. Well, I am not in the position to recommend
where you put your money, but I would simply comment that
Office of Biomass Program has had active biopower programs
several years ago. And several of the people who worked on
those then are still there. The expertise is resident, and the
capability exists there today for applications-oriented work,
and of course Office of Sciences are capable of doing very
basic work as well. As a recommendation it would be very useful
to bring together the two to solve both the very fundamental
problems and the applications problems in a meaningful way.
Chairman Baird. That is very, very useful. Maybe we should
move the first presidential caucus to a timber state, and we
would have a different focus on the products.
Anyone else wish to comment on this? Mr. Inglis?
Biopower in Urban Areas
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Dr. Burns, I
am very interested in what you are talking about and how it may
apply to human waste as well as animal waste. I was in Mumbai a
while ago, and we were traveling through the city at 2:00 or
3:00 in the morning, and I really thought if we struck a match
we might have exploded. And we were told, and I don't know if
it is correct, but we were told it is because they discharge
the effluent into the bay at that time of day. So it was 2:00
or 3:00 in the morning, and it was just an amazing amount of
methane aroma, having grown up on the coast and knowing what
marsh gas is like. So it really struck me that a country like
that that has so many people and has to come up with some way
of coping with that waste problem, if you can turn waste into
something good, it sure is a win-win proposition. Actually,
while there we visited a place where they are doing that. They
are taking food waste from a dormitory and turning it into
methane that then powers the kitchens. And I asked them about
actually not the scalability, it is the opposite of
scalability, keeping it small enough that you could actually do
a neighborhood that way, and they said that is the challenge.
You don't want to, in the case of such a system, you don't want
to build it so large because you lose some of the benefits. If
you can do it much more locally, you have this great benefit of
being able to have a relatively small system that takes a great
deal of waste and then turns it into something useful.
Is that something that, as we develop things on the farm,
is that a possibility of moving into the city with those kind
of lessons learned on the farm?
Dr. Burns. I think there are great examples around the
world of where that has already been done, and I think whether
you are going to see that implemented or not is going to depend
on where you are in the world, i.e., what is the relative cost
of energy. For example, the largest number of manure digesters
by far are in the class of what we call ``domestic digesters''
where human excrement, not soil, is mixed with household waste
and some animal manure. Specifically right now there are over
37 million of these household digesters in China, and they have
been growing significantly because the central government of
the People's Republic of China has put a great amount of
funding into supporting their construction. I have done work
with these systems outside of Tianjin and some watershed
projects where they are using them to try to reduce pathogens
and so forth. But what you see is it is a very quickly-adopted
system, and the biogas that is generated is used for heat, for
light in these systems. India has four million of these
systems. Nepal has 140,000. You see them in locations, again,
where the relative cost of energy, if you were to look at the
cost of, say, purchasing propane or natural gas in those
communities, versus the cost of going out and picking up wood
to build a fire in the corner of your home, those costs are
such that it makes a lot of sense to generate biogas. If we
look at the relative cost of energy in this country, you don't
see those systems adopted because energy from a relative cost,
from our income, is so low that we are going to purchase it
rather than pick up wood to cook.
There are, though, examples of a lot of biogas being
generated from municipal wastewater treatment plants in this
country. It is very common, it has been done for years, it is
very successful. Those facilities, however, are typically
aerobic treatment plants because, recall that we mentioned
anaerobic digestion is nutrient neutral, so we will go through
the tertiary treatment process and use an aerobic step where we
will biologically remove nutrients, and it may also be with
some combinations of some chemical steps as well. But then the
solids that are generated off that other primary clarifiers are
typically digested anaerobically, and that biogas yield will
then be converted through either IC (internal combustion)
engines or microturbines into electricity production. So we do
see it come from that standpoint.
Mr. Inglis. Interesting. Anyone else want to add anything
to that? If not, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Bartlett.
The Sustainability of Biopower Sources
Mr. Bartlett. Methane is the coal miner's black banth, is
that true? Explosive gas in coal mines is methane, is it not,
which is odorless, isn't it? So the odor you get from the swamp
is not the methane. It is something that goes along with the
methane. Our irrational exuberance over bioenergy has resulted
in two bubbles which have burst. The first was the hydrogen
bubble, and nobody talks about hydrogen anymore because I think
they finally figured out that hydrogen is not an energy source.
You will always get less energy out of the hydrogen than it
took to make the hydrogen. The second bubble that broke was the
corn ethanol bubble, and I and one of my staff people did some
early, back-of-the-envelope calculations and reached
essentially the same conclusions that the National Academy of
Sciences reached. They said if we turned all of our corn into
ethanol, every bit of it, and discounted for fossil fuel input,
it would displace 2.4 percent of our gasoline. They said you
could save more gas than that by tuning up your car and putting
air in the tires. They further said that if we took all of our
soybeans and converted them into soy diesel, a more efficient
process by the way than corn ethanol, that this would displace
2.9 percent of our diesel. Now, most of our arable land, our
farmland, is planted to corn and soybeans. So just as an old
dirt farmer being very practical, when I note that if we took
all of our corn and converted it to ethanol, discounting for
fossil fuel input, you would displace 2.4 percent of our
gasoline, and if you did the same thing for all of our soybeans
for soy diesel, you would displace 2.9 percent of our diesel,
and noting that corn and soybeans are grown on almost all of
our land that is good enough to grow crops on, I am wondering
sustainably how much we should really expect to get from our
lands that are not good enough to grow either of these crops
on. I just think that the third bubble that is going to break
is the cellulosic ethanol bubble. I think we will get something
there. I think we will get nothing like the potential that many
people feel. Am I wrong?
Mr. Spomer. This is a topic that I know something about,
and you have asked a number of questions in there. First, on
the purpose-grown portion of it, let us use the State of New
York, for example. We are looking at getting five bone-dry tons
per acre on about, up to an available two million acres of
fallow farmland that is perfect for fast-growing woody biomass
willow. And that is a copus crop. We don't till the soil. You
will go through 21 years of life before you have to replace it,
harvesting every three years. That five tons per acre--let us
assume we just get a million of it planted--is 600 million,
potentially, based on a process that we are working on, roughly
600 million gallons of year of petroleum products, not ethanol.
The conversation, as I used to say, if it was easy to turn wood
into alcohol, some guy in Tennessee would have figured out how
to do it a long time ago.
The fact is, though, it is not a stretch to turn it into
hydrocarbons, and it is being done, it can be done.
Mr. Bartlett. Now, what about sustainability, though?
Mr. Spomer. Well, the sustainability side of it is your
harvest plan. Are you taking biomass, which by definition in a
forest sense is the waste, not the--you never go down and cut a
tree down just for biomass in the Northeast. They are going to
go in and do their normal logging thinning process----
Mr. Bartlett. But if you leave that on, those trimmings, in
the forest, it then contributes to the humus in the forest and
therefore the nutrients which helps additional trees grow. At
least to some extent, our forests have to be a bit like
tropical rain forests. When you remove the tropical rain
forest, you have laterite soils that bake as hard as a brick
and you have essentially no good agricultural land.
Mr. Spomer. Okay, and the worst thing you can do to the
forest is put a farm on it. The best thing you can do for a
forest is keep it thin because for example, in New York, it
takes up to 60 years to grow a harvestable tree. You have got
60 years of leaf shed from that tree that is putting nutrients
back into the soil. When you take down a typical northern
hardwood, up to 50 percent of that tree is not going to be
turned into furniture. That remaining top and limb is going to
rot in the form that you would see it in the forest, and it is
not going to necessarily turn into nutrients. It is going to be
turning into methane and CO2. That is the stuff that
we clean up. Those leaves that shed every year are going back
to put nutrients back into the soil.
So from a sustainability perspective, it is at least
demonstrated in New York specifically that thinning the forest
properly increases the total rate of growth of that forest and
therefore the CO2 intake of that forest. You are
giving it more room to move, you are allowing younger trees to
grow. So from a sustainability perspective, at least--and we
are not the experts. We rely on experts who have told us this,
that it is truly sustainable and truly good for the health of
the forest long-term. So if you just assume that on a national
basis, assume that is true on a national basis, and we are
talking about half of the hydrocarbon fuel use in this country
could come from sustainable forest biomass.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I am still skeptical and I look
at what we could get from all of our arable land, and we expect
to get many times that from this land that is not good enough
to grow either corn or soybeans on. I still remain skeptical of
what the real sustainability is going to be. Even though those
limbs and top rot and the CO2 and methane goes off,
you have still got humus there. That is what holds water, that
is what holds nutrients in the forest. So you still have
something very valuable that is left after that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Forest Products From Federal Lands as Biomass
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. And I can speak
just briefly about the--I will get to you in just a second, Dr.
Burns. In the Northwest, one of the challenges we have is we
have got literally millions of acres of disease, and this is
really true in the Rockies, of diseased trees which are tinder
dry and are ready to go up in smoke. Now, admittedly, not the
entire tree burns unless it is a really bad fire, and what is
happening in the northwest is we are actually thinning some of
those out for forest health in two ways. The forests are
overgrown, and that increases the fire risk, but also if you
have got insect-infested trees you need to get those out.
Here is the sad part from a global overheating perspective,
we are actually taking that wood out, stacking it up, and
burning it. Now, if you care about CO2, which I know
you do, the paradox for me is we are actually spending good
money for the sake of forest health to get this stuff out, but
we actually are not using it for energy. And sadly the initial
draft of the energy bill that passed the house, prohibited,
expressly prohibited the use of forest products from federal
lands to count as biomass. Not only did it prohibit that, it so
severely restricted private lands that that became impractical.
And then the down waste stream. So then let us say you process
the byproducts to pulp and paper, then you get black liquor out
as a byproduct. The only way you can count black liquor,
according to the initial bill, a renewable fuel source, was if
every shred of fiber upstream came from a renewable source as
defined by this. It was a ludicrous approach, and actually I
got that fixed in the energy bill. It was myself and a
coalition of others. But it was maddening to see a bill that
was supposedly designed to diversify our energy portfolio and
reduce greenhouse gases basically giving no credit for using
greenhouse gases for fuel and leaving it instead on the ground
to rot or burn up.
So your point is absolutely well-taken. I think it
absolutely does apply if we were to just say we were going to
grow huge forests and we are going to cut them down and never
replenish that soil. I think you would have some adverse
impacts. But when we are taking byproducts out from the normal
harvest process or from dead and diseased trees, I think we can
use it actually pretty productively, not that it is a panacea
as some looked at I think ethanol.
Dr. Burns, you had a comment?
More on Siting Biomass Research at DOE
Dr. Burns. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wondered if it were
possible to circle back to your question on what office in DOE
would be best equipped to provide broader assistance in the R&D
area.
Chairman Baird. Not just possible, desirable.
Dr. Burns. Okay. Thank you, sir. Perhaps the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Office might be the
correct office to look at some of this. They have been involved
in fuel cell work and advanced conversion of electricity work
and I believe they might be the appropriate people to take a
look at some of the R&D needs that were identified earlier in
the hearing.
Chairman Baird. Share with me your insights on why that
would be superior. I don't have a dog in the fight. You say the
biomass activity?
Dr. Burns. I don't have experience with the Biomass Office,
and I am just simply familiar that the Renewables Office has
been doing some work that fits closer to this category, or
closely with this category. I don't know compared to the
Biomass Office.
Chairman Baird. Okay. We have gone a long time today. Did
you have another follow-up question, Dr. Bartlett? Mr. Inglis?
I am not going to ask you to do this on the record,
actually on the record if you want to, but I am not going to
ask today, but if any of you want to comment at some point
about how DOE can be more responsive. It is not just about what
entity is there, but you all have given us very good
suggestions for everything ranging from intellectual property
rights as mentioned earlier, catalysts, et cetera, to
technologies to logistical flow of materials. I don't know, I
am not experienced enough or knowledgeable enough, to know--you
talked about DOE drops down requests for proposals or grant
opportunities, et cetera. To what extent is there a bottom-up
process? In other words, where you call could talk--actually, I
am going to ask you to answer that, where you folks are, people
in the industry, not just you here, but others who may be in
the audience or doing other things who can say to DOE, hey,
here is what we really need, not you telling us what you think
we need but this is what we need. Can you conduct some research
or create proposals? What mechanisms exist or have you been
able to, both pro and con, if there are both and then we will
finish up if my colleagues will indulge that question, please?
Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any specific
mechanism at the moment. We do have relationships with USDA,
and they have created conferences and other kinds of get-
togethers that allow us to have some dialogue with them. I
remember doing a webinar with USDA staff where several dozen of
them were on the line with us talking about torrefaction. Thank
you for having the hearing. It turns out that some DOE folks
that I have been trying to talk with for the last month are
here, and we are going to get together and do some chatting
after this meeting.
Chairman Baird. We will bring donuts to the next one and
really get something done.
Mr. James. But you know, I think there needs to be more
mechanisms that allow us to get together and have some
dialogue, and I am sure the agency will do that.
I want to compliment Secretary Chu and the energy that he
has brought to the agency. I see a lot of difference in the
agency now, and we are looking forward to finding ways to
collaborate with him.
Closing
Chairman Baird. Great. Anyone else wish to comment on that?
If not, I want to bring the hearing to a close. I want to thank
our witnesses for testifying before this subcommittee. I want
to thank particularly my colleagues for their insightful and
informative questions and comments. The record will remain open
for two weeks for additional statements for the Members and for
answers to any follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask of
the witnesses.
Witnesses are excused with our gratitude, and the hearing
now stands adjourned. Thank you all very much and thanks to the
guests in the audience as well.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Don J. Stevens, Senior Program Manager, Biomass Energy &
Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Representative Paul D. Tonko
International Activities
Q1. You mentioned international research activities around biomass
pyrolysis in your oral statement. Please provide us more information on
this research and the interests of the countries funding it.
Of the countries you are working with, which one is
leading in the area of biomass pyrolysis for power production?
A1. There is International recognition of the potential for pyrolysis
to meet a variety of fuel and electricity needs. Interest in pyrolysis
is strong in European countries including Finland, the Netherlands,
Germany, Austria, and the United Kingdom. Canada also has significant,
long-standing programs in pyrolysis, and more recently, Australia,
Malaysia, China, and other countries have also expressed interest.
The interest in producing electricity is particularly strong in
European countries, where renewable energy policies have created
markets for high priced biopower. By comparison, policy incentives of
similar magnitude do not exist in United States. Some countries see
biopower as the earliest use of bio-oil, with transportation fuels
being viewed as an attractive alternative as the upgrading technology
advances.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is involved in several
collaborative research programs with international groups. Douglas C.
Elliott, an international expert on biomass pyrolysis at PNNL, leads
the International Energy Agency's Bioenergy Agreement's Task 34,
Biomass Pyrolysis. This Agreement promotes information exchange,
exchange of researchers, and production of joint scientific reports.
The activities of this group leverage the resources of all
participating countries. DOE's Office of the Biomass Program represents
the United States at the IEA Bioenergy Agreement's Executive Committee.
PNNL is also working in two international collaborations, one with
Canada and one with Finland, to examine the extent of stabilization and
upgrading needed for utilization of bio-oil for either electric
generation or biofuel applications. This work is examining the
characteristics of bio-oils produced from a range of biomass
feedstocks, including beetle-killed pine, with the intent of matching
those with end-use requirements. The work leverages DOE-OBP's funding
with equivalent amounts from Canada and Finland to organizations such
as Finland's VTT Laboratory, Natural Resources Canada (Canmet)
Laboratory, and the University of British Columbia.
Based on their long-standing interests and also their current RD&D
activities, both Finland and Canada can reasonably be considered
leading international countries in the area of using pyrolysis for
biopower.
Is Additional Biopower RD&D Needed?
Q2. In 2002, the Biomass Program was formed to consolidate the
biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower research efforts across DOE into
one comprehensive RD&D effort. It is my understanding that the Office
of Biomass does little, if any biopower research anymore. Given the
pending Renewable Electricity Standard legislation in both the House
and the Senate, what would a Biopower Initiative look like at DOE?
What kind of goals and RD&D would you recommend?
How much would it cost to implement a strategic
biopower program to meet pending Renewable Electricity
Standards?
Under a new biopower initiative what is the best way
to organize the RD&D activities?
If yes, what office at DOE is technically
equipped to conduct this RD&D?
What activities is the Office Fossil
technically suited to conduct?
What activities are EERE technically suited
to conduct?
A2. With finite amounts of biomass available annually, our nation must
make informed decisions about our priorities for using this resource.
To help make these decisions, we need a solid scientific basis to show
where the greatest impact can be obtained between the options for
power, fuels and chemicals. The scientific basis requires some analysis
be conducted.
If this information concludes that biopower is a priority for
biomass utilization, then RD&D needs to be focused on technologies that
offer high-efficiency electricity generation. Advanced technologies
such as gas turbines or fuel cell systems offer potential electric
generation efficiencies in the range of 30-40 percent. This compares
with typical wood-fired combustion/steam-cycle systems which have
electric generation efficiencies of approximately 15-25 percent. By
focusing RD&D on the high-efficiency generation technologies, we can
achieve the highest impact from the finite biomass resource.
The cost of such a program will depend on many things including the
relative levels of research and demonstration activities, as well as
other factors. PNNL, as a government Laboratory, is not in a position
to recommend a specific funding level.
The organization of such a program will depend on the types of
research being conducted, and particularly if co-firing with coal or
other fossil resources is included. PNNL conducts research for both
DOE-EERE and DOE-FE, and believes that both organizations have relevant
capabilities. The DOE Biomass Program had an ongoing biopower program
several years ago, and the technical capabilities to conduct such a
program still exist there. OBP has a solid understanding of biomass
reaction behavior and biomass sustainability, both of which are crucial
to a successful program. Likewise, DOE-FE has important capabilities
around co-firing biomass with fossil resources. In addition, the
efforts of DOE's Office of Science may also be necessary to solve
fundamental scientific questions that arise. A successful RD&D effort
would likely include all of these organizations.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director, Strategic Center for Coal,
National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of
Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. Is Additional Biopower R&D Needed?
A1. In 2002, the Biomass Program was formed to consolidate the
biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower research efforts across DOE into
one comprehensive RD&D effort.
Q1a. It is my understanding that the Office of Biomass does little, if
any biopower research anymore.
A1a. The Department's Office of Biomass Program (OBP) has funded
biopower related programs since 2000.
In previous years:
2000-2001: Awarded several co-firing and gasification-for-
power projects (eleven awards made)
2002: Directed by the Administration and Congress to reduce
emphasis on biopower and/or co-firing
2002-Present: Shifted emphasis to develop gasification and
pyrolysis-based technologies for transportation biofuels
production
Current activties:
Suny Cobleskill, Biowaste to Bioenergy, FYO8-FY1O, up to
$1,279,200--a program to determine the efficacy of a bench-
scale prototypic rotary kiln gasification system for the
conversion of biomass into a clean energy. Sponsored by
Congressman Paul D. Tonko (D-NY 21st District).
Raceland Raw Sugar Corporation, Bio-Renewable Ethanol and
Co-Generation Plant, FY05-FY10, up to $3,557,000--a program to
identify, determine, and understand fundamental burn
characteristics and properties of alternative fuel sources to
replace coal for energy generation, with emphasis on impacts in
cement processing. Sponsored by Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA)
and Senator David B. Titter (R-LA).
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, UOP, and Ensyn Technologies have
a project ``Biomass Pyrolysis''. In the project's second phase,
pyrolysis oil produced in the study will be upgraded to varying
degrees and tested for power generation, to establish the level
of upgrading required and any cost advantages.
The Program is involved in several feedstock activities that
have relevance to biopower production (although not conducted
specifically for this purpose), for example:
i. The Program is currently updating its 2005 report
``Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts
Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton
Annual Supply.'' This report assesses the forest-
derived and agriculture-derived biomass resources of
the U.S.
ii. The Program is working with the Sun Grant
Initiative to address barriers associated with the
development of a sustainable and predictable supply of
U.S. biomass feedstocks, including woody feedstock.
In addition, EERE's Office of Industrial Technologies Program (ITP)
is funding two biomass-related projects:
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, RD&D of Biomass
Boiler Applications for the Food Processing Industry, up to $
1,999,963--Demonstrates use of a biomass (wood waste and tire-
derived fuel) boiler system to offset natural gas consumption
at the facility.
Fiscalini Farms L.P., Renewable Energy Power Generation
Project, up to $779,300--Measures and analyzes a biogas energy
system for power generation. The system will use digester gas
from an anaerobic digester located at the Fiscalini Farms dairy
for power generation with a reciprocating engine.
Q1b. Given the pending Renewable Electricity Standard legislation in
both the House and the Senate, what would a Biopower Initiative look
like at DOE?
A1b. During December 2009, OBP is conducting a Biopower Technical
Strategy Workshop to identify the technical and economic hurdles of
biopower deployment. This knowledge will aid OBP's strategic planning
for biopower together with three regional workshops on biomass
feedstocks. A draft report of the biopower workshop will be made
available.
Q1c. What kind of goals and RD&D would you recommend?
A1c. During December 2009, OBP is conducting a Biopower Technical
Strategy Workshop to identify the technical and economic hurdles of
biopower deployment which could be used to identify appropriate goals
and any RD&D needed to achieve them.
Q1d. How much would it cost to implement a strategic biopower program
to meet pending Renewable Electricity Standards?
A1d. The cost of a strategic biopower program is dependent upon the
final renewable electricity standards and policy.
Q1e. Under a new biopower initiative what is the best way to organize
the RD&D activities?
A1e. During December 2009, OBP is conducting a Biopower Technical
Strategy Workshop to identify the technical and economic hurdles of
biopower deployment which could be used to identify appropriate goals
and any RD&D needed to achieve them.
Q1f. If yes, what office at DOE is technically equipped to conduct
this RD&D?
A1f. The OBP within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE) is technically equipped to conduct this RD&D in
coordination with the Office of Fossil Energy's Clean Coal and Natural
Gas Power Systems Program.
Q1g?. What activities is the Office Fossil technically suited to
conduct?
A1g. The Office of Fossil Energy's Clean Coal and Natural Gas Power
Systems Program is technically suited to conduct coal combustion and
gasification at scale, and power generation from the gasified stream.
Additional RD&D into gasification/co-firing could bring cost reductions
and greater acceptability of the technology in the electrical utility
industry.
Q1h. What activities are EERE technically suited to conduct?
A1h. Within EERE, the OBP believes that it currently has the
capabilities to manage an RD&D program that would cover the breadth of
activities which may be suggested by the Biopawer Technical Strategy
Workshop.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Robert T. Burns, Professor, Department of Agricultural &
Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University
Questions submitted by Representative Paul D. Tonko
Q1. In your testimony, you mentioned that a 2006 U.S. EPA AgStar
report indicates that anaerobic digestion systems on facilities with
milking herds larger than 500 cows are more likely to have positive
financial returns than facilities with less than 500 cows. There are
many of these small and medium sized dairy farms in my district in
Upstate New York. In light of this fact, what federal policies do we
have in place, or do you think we should have in place, to incentivize
and entice smaller farms to use anaerobic digesters?
A1. The current dis-incentive for both small and large farms to invest
in manure anaerobic digestion is the lack of financial return from the
sales of either methane or electricity from these systems. Due to
economies of scale and increased efficiency with larger internal
combustion generator systems, the larger farms may be able to produce
power at a lower cost than smaller farms, but the cost is typically
greater than the rate they can sell the power for. Currently there are
Federal grant programs that dairy producers can apply to for funds to
support some portion of digester construction costs. Specifically the
USDA Rural Energy for America (REAP) program can be applied to for a 25
percent construction cost grant with a $500,000 cap, and the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Section 1603 program can be
applied to for a 30 percent construction cost grant with no cap. While
these funds do provide an incentive to dairies that successfully apply
for and receive the grant funds, they do not address the fact without
grant support, the cost to produce renewable energy through manure
anaerobic digestion typically exceeds the current market value of that
energy. Countries that have effectively incentivized the construction
of manure anaerobic digestion systems on farms of all sizes include
Germany and China. In both cases they have provided a government
subsidized rate for electrical power produced using manure digesters.
In the case of China, both grant funding for the construction of
anaerobic digesters and a subsidized renewable energy rate have been
provided.
Q2. You also mention that the current U.S. dairy digester projects
only produce 10.7 percent of the feasible energy production potential
reported by the U.S. EPA AgStar report. We all recognize that dairy
farmers are faced unprecedented and challenging economic times.
However, when the industry stabilizes for a bit, what barriers
currently exist to enabling a greater number of dairy digester projects
to come online? How can we fix these barriers? What can we learn from
Wisconsin, where 73.9 percent of the potential for this technology is
implemented, versus just 23.5 percent for the United States?
A2. I believe that primary barriers to bringing more dairy manure
anaerobic digestion systems online in the U.S. are 1) lack of return
from renewable energy sales and 2) lack of a well-developed manure
digester support industry in the United States. I also believe that
when producers become able to earn a sufficient rate of return from
renewable energy production with manure digesters that a sustainable
manure digester support industry will develop in the United States.
Historically, dairy farmers in Wisconsin were more successful in
receiving USDA-9006 funding support for digesters than other locations
in other states. I believe this is why Wisconsin has been more
successful that other states in terms of achieving a larger percentage
in terms of dairy manure digester implementation compared to potential.
Q3. Your testimony suggests that other countries, such as China, which
has approximately three times the number of dairy cows, beef cattle and
pigs as the U.S. but 118 times the number of manure biogas plants as
the U.S., have more favorable policies towards electricity rates for
this type of technology. Do you believe a federal policy is necessary
to advance this technology in the U.S., as opposed to a piecemeal
state-by-state policy?
A3. Countries that have provide a nationally subsided price for
renewable energy that is significantly higher than the current market
price of energy have many more operational manure anaerobic digesters
that the United States. The most notable examples are China and
Germany, with over 16,000 and 5,000 operational manure based anaerobic
digesters respectively. I believe that if a similar policy were adopted
at the Federal level, that it would stimulate the implementation of
farm based anaerobic digesters in the United States.