Assessment of Conversion Technologies for Bioalcohol Fuel ...

Northern California Rice field
Assessment of Conversion Technologies for
Bioalcohol Fuel Production
Dennis Schuetzle, Greg Tamblyn and Fredrick Tornatore
TSS Consultants (www.tssconsultants.com)
2724 Kilgore Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
And
Tom MacDonald
California Energy Commission
1416 9 th Street, Sacramento California 95814
Western Governor’s Association
National Biomass State and Regional Partnership Report
www.westgov.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................3
SECTION 1. ALCOHOL FUELS AS BIOENERGY OPTIONS ..............................6
SECTION 2. PAST CALIFORNIA BIOMASS-TO-ALCOHOL PROJECTS..........11
SECTION 3. THERMOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALCOHOL FUEL
PRODUCTION.....................................................................................................24
SECTION 4. BIOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALCOHOL FUEL
PRODUCTION.....................................................................................................29
SECTION 5. INTEGRATED THERMOCHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL
CONVERSION AND OTHER EMERGING PROCESSES ...................................34
SECTION 6. 5E APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF BIOMASS
CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES........................................................................36
SECTION 7. 5E ASSESSMENT OF THERMOCHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL
CONVERSION PROCESSES..............................................................................39
SECTION 8. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR ALCOHOL FUEL
PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS ........................................................................45
SECTION 9. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND INITIATIVES ..................................53
SECTION 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................55
SECTION 11. REFERENCES.............................................................................59

APPENDIX 1. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPER PROFILES ..................................62
Nova Fuels, Fresno, CA……………………………………………………………….63
Pearson Bioenergy Technologies, Aberdeen, MS………………………………….64
Power Energy Fuels, Inc., Lakewood, CO…………………………………………..65
Range Fuels, Inc., Denver, CO……………………………………………………….67
Thermo Conversions,Denver, CO……………………………………………………68
Bioversion Industries, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada……………………………...69
Enerkem Technologies, Inc, Montreal, Quebec, Canada………………………….70
Standard Alcohol Company of America, Inc., Durango, CO……………………….71
SVG GmbH, Spreetal, Germany…………………………………………………… .72
Syntec Biofuels, Inc., Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada………………………...73
Thermogenics, Inc., Albuquerque, NM……………………………………………….74
ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc., Baltimore, MD……………………….75
Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., Irvine, CA…………………………………………………….77
Bioenergy International, LLC, Norwel, MA…………………………………………..79
Brelsford Engineering, Inc., Bozeman, MT………………………………………….80
Celunol Corp., Dedham, MA………………………………………………………….81
Dedini Industrias de Base, Piracicaiba, SP, Brazil………………………………….82
HFTA/ University of California Forest Products Lab, Livermore, CA....................84
Losunoco, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL………………………………………………….85
Masada Resource Group, LLC, Birmingham, AL………………………………… .87
Paszner Technologies, Surey, British Columbia, Canada………………………..89

Petrobras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil……………………………………………………..90
Pure Energy Corp., Paramus, NJ.........................................................................92
Xethanol Corp., New York, NY.............................................................................93
Abengoa S.A., Sevila, Spain………………………………………………………….95
Archer Daniels Midland Corp, Decatur, IL………………………………………… .96
SEKAB Group, Ormskoldsvik, Sweden………………………………………………98
Iogen Corp., Otawa, Ontario, Canada……………………………………………….99
PureVision Technology, Inc., Fort Lupton, CO…………………………………….101
RITE/Honda R&D Co., Kyoto, Japan……………………………………………….102
Colusa Biomass Energy Corp., Colusa, CA.......................................................104
DuPont and Co./POET, Wilmington, DE/Sioux Fals, SD………………………...105
BioGasol ApS, Lyngby, Denmark……………………………………………………107
Swan Biomass Company, Glen Elen, IL………………………………………… .108
Mascoma Corp., Cambridge, MA…………………………………………………...109
Genotypes, Inc., Pacifica, CA.............................................................................111
Waste-To-Energy, Paso Robles, CA..................................................................113
Bioengineering Resources, Inc., Fayetteville, AR...............................................115
APPENDIX 2. CALIFORNIA ETHANOL PRODUCTION PROJECTS...............117

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1–Categories of Biomass Conversion Technologies and Their
Direct and Secondary Products
Table 2–Categories of Technologies for the Conversion of Biogas
(Biosyngas and Biomethane) to Liquid Fuels
Table 3–Syngas Quality and Conditioning Requirements for Catalytic
Conversion to Methanol
9
10
26
Table 4–Syngas Quality Requirements for Engines 28
Table 5–Comparison of Thermochemical and Biochemical Systems 40
Table 6–Estimates of Annually Available Biomass in California 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1–Potential Biofuel and Bioenergy Pathways 6
Figure 2–Thermochemical Conversion Processes Compared to
Conventional Combustion Processes
24
Figure 3–System Components of Biochemical Conversion Processes 30
Figure 4–Biomass Resource Potential from Forest and Agricultural
Resources
46
Figure A1–Nova Fuels Process Flow Illustration 64
Figure A2–Pearson Technologies Process Flow Diagram 65
Figure A3–PEFI Fuel Process Diagram 66
Figure A4–Enerkem Process Diagram 71
Figure A5–Syntec Biofuels Inc. Technology 74
Figure A6–Thermogenics Inc. Technology 75
Figure A7–TRI PulseEnhanced Technology 76
Figure A8–BlueFire/Arkenol Technology 79

Figure A9–BEI Process 81
Figure A10–Dedini Hidrolise Rapida (DHR) Process 83
Figure A11–Losonoco Wood-to-Ethanol by Dilute Acid Hydrolysis 87
Figure A12–MRG CES OxyNol Process 89
Figure A13–Petrobras Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology 91
Figure A14–PEC Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology 93
Figure A15–Abengoa Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology 96
Figure A16–Iogen Biomass-to-Ethanol Process 101
Figure A17–PureVision Process 102
Figure A18–RITE/Honda Process 104
Figure A19–DuPont Process 107
Figure A20–Biogasol Technology 108
Figure A21–Genotypes Technology 112
Figure A22–Waste-To-Energy Technology Diagram
Figure A23–BRI Technology Diagram
114
116

INTRODUCTION
The State of California has maintained for decades an active interest in the production
and application of alcohol fuels for transportation energy. This has included efforts
toward development of technologies for producing ethanol and other alcohol fuels from
biomass. Past studies and projects conducted by the California Energy Commission
(CEC), academic institutions and other California organizations have sought to
advance the timetable for commercial projects in the state to produce alcohol fuels,
along with electricity and other products, from cellulosic biomass resources.
The Western Governor’s Association (WGA), through its Western RegionalBiomass
Energy Program, is also promoting the increased use of bioenergy and biobased
products through the conversion of biomass residuals from forest health projects and
commercial agriculture. In 2006, WGA engaged the CEC to study and report on the
status and outlook for technologies under active development for conversion of
cellulosic biomass feedstocks to ethanol or other alcohol fuels. This report contains
the results of that study, which was conducted by TSS Consultants and CEC staff.
The purpose of this study is to further the understanding of the progress to date and
development status of biomass-to-alcohol (bioalcohol) production technologies, and to
help guide continued development activities in California, the Western region and
elsewhere. Specific objectives outlined for the study are to:
(1) Review and evaluate candidate technologies for producing ethanol and other
alcohols from cellulosic biomass feedstocks, describing development progress
to date and future prospects for these technologies.
(2) Review and summarize relevant past bioalcohol production technology projects
studied or proposed in California.
(3) Identify opportunities for new projects involving applications of candidate
bioalcohol production technologies using California’s celulosic biomass
resources.
(4) Identify remaining regulatory, economic and institutional obstacles to bioalcohol
project development and describe state and federal government roles in
addressing these challenges.
This study report presents the results of a wide-ranging investigation of bioalcohol
production technologies under development worldwide. A survey conducted as part of
the study is summarized in the form of individual profiles of 38 active technology
developers in the U.S., Canada and several other countries. A number of these
developers have operated pilot-scale and demonstration facilities, however, none have
produced ethanol on a commercial scale.
The study’s key analysis involves application of a unique methodology, caled “5E”
assessment, to evaluate key features of the various categories of bioalcohol
1

technologies under development. This approach was used to generally evaluate some
of the principal technologies under development, using information compiled from
developers and from publicly available reports and publications. The profiles of active
developers of cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol technologies are presented in Appendix I.
2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides a perspective on the potential viability of various technological
approaches for the production of alcohol fuels (bioalcohols) from renewable biomass
(cellulosic) resources in California and the Western United States. Included is a
historical review of several biomass-to-alcohol fuel projects that have been pursued in
California. One reason such projects have yet to achieve commercial reality -- in
California and elsewhere -- is that the principal conversion technologies underlying
these ventures have not been adequately assessed for their scientific and engineering
basis, energy efficiency, environmental impacts, economic viability, and socio-political
effectiveness. Progress toward commercialization and deployment of such
technologies requires more complete assessment of all these technology aspects,
applying appropriate evaluation methodology to sufficient technical data.
To address the above need,a “5E” assessment approach (Schuetzle, 2007) was
developed and applied to evaluate the potential viability of technologies under active
development for the production of bioalcohol fuels from cellulosic biomass. The
components of this 5E assessment methodology are: E1–validation of technical
performance and stage of development; E2–estimation of energy efficiency; E3–
environmental impact assessment; E4–economic analysis; and E5–appraisal of
socio-political effectiveness.
Hundreds of organizations worldwide have engaged in the development of
technologies for the conversion of biomass materials to bioenergy, including electricity
and process heat as well as various biofuels. The report separates these bioenergy
technologies into fifteen different categories based on the technology characteristics
and type(s) of bioenergy produced. Those technologies designed to produce ethanol
or other alcohols, either as primary or secondary products, were selected as the focus
for further study. Organizations that have concentrated their efforts on the production
of bioalcohols were specifically identified and information on these organizations and
their technologies was gathered directly from them and/or from other various sources
of published information.
Results of the 5E assessment are provided generically for the technology categories
where available data was found to be adequate to perform such an assessment. In
many cases, technology developers have either not yet acquired some of this required
data or keep this data confidential; thus the study does not comprise a complete or
equally applied assessment of all candidate technologies. The report’s
recommendations include further study needs in those cases where sufficient data for
complete 5E assessment are not available.
On the basis of this assessment approach, technologies are identified that appear to
have the most promising potential applicability for the conversion of biomass
resources to bioalcohols in California and the Western region. Of these, it is
concluded that the thermochemical conversion technology with the highest probability
for near-term success is an integrated pyrolysis/steam reforming process incorporating
3

syngas to bioalcohol and electricity co-production systems. It is expected that the
bioalcohols directly produced from these thermochemical processes will be comprised
of an 80-85 % ethanol/10-15% methanol mix, with smaller percentages of other higher
alcohols possibly present as well. Distillation can be employed to separate ethanol
from such a mixed alcohol product if necessary. However, this adds to the costs,
energy intensity and environmental impacts of the production facilities, and therefore is
best avoided. Thus, steps to gain acceptance of mixed alcohol fuels by the
automotive industry and regulatory agencies must also be pursued to fully realize the
opportunity these technologies represent for bioalcohol fuel production.
The 5E assessment indicates that the above thermochemical process will be capable
of producing bioalcohols in facilities using as little as 250 dry tons (DT) per day of
biomass at a production cost of less than $1.50/gallon. Furthermore, this process
should be able to produce ethanol at an average of $1.12/gallon for a 500 DTPD plant.
Improvements in this thermochemical technology have the potential of reducing
ethanol production costs to below $1.00/gallon by 2012, where biomass feedstock can
be supplied at $35/ DT.
Other thermochemical conversion processes that incorporate air or oxygen typically
produce syngas that has a low BTU value (

distributed production of bioalcohols and electricity. In addition, the thermochemical
approach can be used for the conversion of nearly any biomass feedstocks.
Several novel technologies have also been under development for the conversion of
biomass to bioalcohols. These include processes that employ specially-developed
organisms (e.g., bacteria or yeasts) to produce alcohols, some using shallow pond
systems capturing solar energy, some using syngas from a gasification process.
These are examples of potential future technologies that require further research and
scientific validation before their ultimate potential can be determined.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced (February 2007) an
investment of up to $385 million for the demonstration and deployment of six
biorefinery projects incorporating both biochemical and thermochemical conversion
technologies in California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa and Kansas. The total
investment in these six technologies is projected to total more than $1.2 billion over
the next four years. The DOE grant program will provide a significant boost to the
advancement of such conversion technologies. The technology developers
represented by these six DOE grants (Abengoa, BRI, BlueFire, DuPont, Iogen, and
Range Fuels) are among the 38 active technology developers profiled in Appendix I of
this report.
Additional opportunities are summarized for the commercialization of technologies in
California and the Western United States for alcohol fuel production from biomass
feedstocks. The impact of high energy prices, geopolitical uncertainty, the growing
focus on clean energy technologies and concern about global climate change are
driving substantial increases in funding from the public and private sectors. There has
never before been such a wide-ranging opportunity for technological advancements in
the area of renewable and clean fuels and electricity.
Although U.S. government and private sector support has been increasing rapidly,
much greater financial support for research, development, demonstration and
deployment of renewable biomass to alcohol fuel and electricity production
technologies will almost certainly be necessary to assure their commercial success.
And, while the majority of active development projects identified by this study are in
North America, growing interest in Asia, Europe and South America is also apparent.
This suggests the likelihood of increasing worldwide competition for the lead in
bioenergy technology development.
5

SECTION 1 - ALCOHOL FUELS AS BIOENERGY OPTIONS
Figure 1 is a simplified illustration of the technology options available for energy
production from biomass (bioenergy pathways). Biofuels represent some of the most
attractive of these pathways, since they represent effective means of supplying liquid
transportation fuels from renewable resources. Some of the same biomass feedstocks
applicable to biofuel conversion processes can also be used for electricity (biopower)
generation, as well as for production of food products, animal feed and various other
beneficial products or byproducts. Of the biofuel options, alcohol fuels offer the most
proven and practicable alternative for the gasoline market, which accounts for threefourths
of on-road fuel usage, and over one-half of all transportation energy use in the
U.S.
Figure 1 - Potential Biofuel and Bioenergy Pathways
Biomass
Resource
Transportation,
Preparation and
Handling
Technology
Platform
Fuels/
Products
Forest &
Agricultural
Residues
Thermochemical
Bio-Diesel
Bio-Alcohols
Municipal
Solid Waste
Energy Crops
Biochemical
Direct
Combustion
Chemicals
Drugs
Materials
Electricity &
Heat
This study examines the pathways for the two principal technological approaches (or
“technology platforms”) under development for producing ethanol and other
bioalcohols, including mixed alcohols, from cellulosic biomass feedstocks. Cellulose is
the primary material that makes up the cell walls of plants, and is the raw material for
many manufactured goods, such as paper, cellophane, and fabrics like rayon. Using
either biochemical or thermochemical processes, cellulosic materials–derived either
from various types of agricultural, forestry or municipal wastes and residues, or from
many different types of cultivated energy crops–can undergo conversion to ethanol
and other bioalcohols. However, unlike conventional processes producing ethanol
6

from corn, sugarcane and other sugar and starch crops and residues, none of the
processes for producing alcohol fuels from cellulosic feedstocks are yet commercially
applied. This study was undertaken to identify, review and evaluate the technologies
currently under development for production of bioalcohols from cellulosic feedstocks.
Categorization of Biomass Conversion Technologies
An estimated 450 organizations worldwide have developed technologies for the
conversion of biomass to biopower and/or biofuels. These technologies, summarized
in Tables 1 and 2, utilize either thermochemical or biochemical processes, or
integrations of both. Table 1 includes six categories of thermochemical processes (I-
VI), four categories of biochemical processes (VII-X), and two categories of integrated
processes (XI-XII). Table 2 includes three additional processes (XIII-XV) that apply
biogas, such as landfill gas, wastewater treatment plant digester gas, or animal
manure-derived gas, for bioenergy production.
Table 1 lists six categories of thermochemical processes for the conversion of
renewable biomass to biofuels and/or biopower. Of these, Categories I-III includes the
technologies most relevant for this study–namely, those designed for bioalcohol
production. These processes produce a synthetic gas (syngas) via gasification or
pyrolysis, which can then be used to produce alcohols in a catalytic process.
Category IV technologies produce a crude, unrefined biofuel. The refining of this
crude biofuel to produce an alcohol would require costly refining processes, thus
eliminating this approach for the production of bioalcohols. The Category V and VI
technologies produce biopower and/or heat and not fuels, and therefore are not
examined further in this report, other than included for purposes of comparison with
bioalcohol production technologies in a later section of the report.
The thermochemical conversion processes that incorporate air or oxygen (Category II-
VI technologies) typically produce syngas that has a low BTU value ( $1 billion plants) of electricity, fuels and chemicals from
fossil-based feedstocks, these technologies appear less viable for alcohol fuel
production, and for smaller-scale production plants (200-1,000 BTD/day). Thus,
Category I technologies, employing pyrolysis/steam reforming processes (no oxygen
or air); appear to be the most promising thermochemical approach for producing
alcohol fuels from biomass.
Table 1 lists four categories of biochemical processes for producing fuels from
biomass. These processes employ anaerobic digestion to produce methane
(Category VII), chemical and physical methods to produce sugars from cellulosic
materials (Category VIII), enzymes to produce sugars from cellulosic materials
(Category IX), or a variety of microbiological processes to produce methane, alcohols
7

and hydrogen from biomass (Category X). Of these, the main technologies relevant for
this study are acid hydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis (Categories VIII and IX), which
produce alcohols by breaking down cellulose into component sugars that are then
fermented.
The principal thermochemical and biochemical processes for bioalcohol production are
described in more detail in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. An estimated fifty or more
organizations worldwide have concentrated their efforts on the production of
bioalcohols employing such processes. Information about these organizations and
their technology development activities and progress, as well as the characteristics
and available data on their technologies was collected as a major part of this project.
This effort included a standardized survey/data request sent to all identified developers
of biomass-to-alcohol production technologies. Only publicly-releasable information
about individual developers and their technologies was collected, excluding any
confidential or proprietary data. Responses to this direct information request were
supplemented with information obtained from other public sources, including published
papers, websites and media reports. The resulting information is summarized in
Appendix I (Technology Developer Profiles).
8

Table 1–Categories of Biomass Conversion Technologies and
Their Direct and Secondary Products
Category
Conversion Technologies
THERMOCHEMICAL
PROCESSES
Primary
Products
Secondary
Products
(Energy)
Secondary
Products
(Fuels)
I
II
Pyrolysis/Steam Reforming
(no oxygen or air)
Gasification
(with oxygen or air)
III High Temperature (>3500 o F)
Gasification (with oxygen or air)
IV
V
VI
Thermal Pyrolysis
(no oxygen or air)
Thermal Oxidation (combustion
at/or near stochiometry)
Integrated Thermochemical
Conversion/Oxidation
BIOCHEMICAL
PROCESSES
Biosyngas
Biosyngas
Biosyngas
Electricity
& Heat
Electricity
& Heat
Electricity
& Heat
Unrefined None
Biofuels
Heat Electricity None
Heat Electricity None
Bioethanol, Mixed
Bioalcohols, Biodiesel
(See Table 2)
Bioethanol, Mixed
Bioalcohols, Biodiesel
(See Table 2)
Bioethanol, Mixed
Bioalcohols, Biodiesel
(See Table 2)
Refined Biodiesel
VII Anaerobic Digestion Biomethane None Bioethanol, Mixed
Bioalcohols, Biodiesel
(See Table 2)
VIII Biochemical (acid hydrolysis/ Sugars None Bioethanol
fermentation)
IX Biochemical (enzyme hydrolysis/
fermentation)
Sugars None Bioethanol
X Other Biological Processes Biomethane,
Biohydrogen,
Bioalcohols
INTEGRATED
PROCESSES
None
None
XI
XII
Integrated Bio-Refinery (VII-X)
with generation of electricity and
heat from waste materials
Fermentation of Syngas from
Thermochemical Processes
Bioalcohols Electricity
and
Heat
Bioethanol
Bioethanol None None
9

Table 2–Categories of Technologies for the Conversion of Biogas
(Biosyngas and Biomethane) to Liquid Fuels
Category
Conversion Technologies
Biogas
Reactant
Products
(Fuels)
Products
(Energy)
XIII
Thermochemical Processes
(Catalysis)
Biosyngas
Bioalcohols &
Biodiesel
Electricity
& Heat
XIV
Thermochemical Processes
(Reforming and Catalysis)
Biomethane
Bioalcohols &
Diesel
Electricity
& Heat
XV
Biochemical Processes
Biosyngas,
Biomethane
Bioalcohols
10

SECTION 2 - PAST CALIFORNIA BIOMASS-TO-ALCOHOL
PROJECTS
Sacramento Ethanol and Power Cogeneration Project
In May 1994, the CEC, after a 20-month public regulatory process, granted
certification for construction of the Sacramento Ethanol and Power Cogeneration
Project (SEPCO). This project was proposed to be a joint venture between the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and a company formed for the project
known as Sacramento Ethanol Partners (SEP). The project involved a 150 MW
natural gas fired electricity cogeneration facility, to be operated by SMUD, and a 12
million gallons/year rice-straw-to-ethanol plant to be operated by SEP. The site of the
proposed project was a 90-acre tract in Rio Linda, California, a northern suburb of
Sacramento. The SMUD/SEP partnership dissolved before the project was built, and
the CEC certification ultimately expired. The ethanol plant proponents, having
retained rights to the project site, petitioned the CEC in 1999 for an extension of the
five-year period allowed to begin construction of a licensed project, but ultimately
withdrew this request. The CEC formally closed its site evaluation case involving the
SEPCO project in April 2000.
The ethanol plant component of SEPCO was designed to convert 408 tons per day of
rice straw and other cellulosic agricultural residue into approximately 35,000 gallons
per day of fuel grade ethanol. The conversion technology to be used for ethanol
production was the Arkenol concentrated acid hydrolysis technology (now Blue Fire
Ethanol); the parent company of Arkenol, ARK Energy, was the principal member of
SEP. At the time, this project was seen not only as the first commercial cellulosic
biomass-to-ethanol plant, but also as a key part of the solution to the rice straw
disposal problem facing California’s rice growing industry in the face of regulations
banning most field burning of such agricultural residues.
SEPCO was essentially two separate yet linked projects with different owners united
by a contractual arrangement, sharing a site and various operational synergies,
including process heat and power supplied to the ethanol plant by the cogeneration
plant, shared water supply and waste disposal provisions, etc. Normally, the CEC
would only have licensing jurisdiction over the power plant and a new natural gas
pipeline associated with the project (which was also approved), while Sacramento
County would be the permitting agency for the ethanol facility. However, the CEC and
Sacramento County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which provided
that the CEC would be the lead agency on the county's behalf for environmental
review of the ethanol plant, thus essentially treating SEPCO as a single project for
environmental and site review purposes. The CEC environmental studies and
documents for the overall project served as the functional equivalent of an
Environmental Impact Report for Sacramento County’s approval of the ethanol plant.
11

The SEPCO Project, while not constructed, serves as a landmark case study of a fully
reviewed and permitted cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol and electric generation project in
California. Although 12 years have passed, there are still numerous similarities to
some of today’s biorefinery project concepts. The voluminous project documentation
developed by the project proponents, consultants and vendors, the CEC and others
includes information and analysis on a variety of subjects potentially still relevant and
useful to the pursuit of bioalcohol and other types of bioenergy projects in California
and elsewhere.
Among the aspects of the SEPCO Project that offer valuable experience and
applicable lessons going forward are:
Environmental Analysis and Mitigation Measures–Detailed environmental
analysis was conducted on a full range of issues, including air quality, water
supply and water quality, hydrology, and biological resources. Issuance of an
air quality permit for the entire project was based on emission offsets to be
obtained via the discontinuation of rice straw burning resulting from use of rice
straw as the ethanol plant feedstock. Flood plain concerns resulted in
modifications to the facility site plan. Original plans to use groundwater wells
were changed to use of surface water; water supply arrangements included
mitigation measures at the Sacramento River water intake to protect salmon.
Various other mitigation measures were adopted involving several different
endangered species found on the site.
Public Acceptance and Health and Safety Issues–The suburban site location
engendered considerable public interest and some local opposition to the
project. A review of a number of alternative sites was conducted. Land use,
traffic, noise, fire protection, visual impacts, and hazardous material transport
and storage issues were all addressed. An initial incompatible use
determination was resolved with a county zoning amendment. Several changes
in on-site use of chemical materials were instituted. An intervener petition for a
thirty-year epidemiological study of project impacts on workers and nearby
residents was rejected.
Project Integration Issues–The unique features of the project, combining rice
straw to ethanol production and electricity cogeneration, posed a number of
considerations not previously encountered in CEC or other California regulatory
proceedings. Reliability of the unproven cellulosic ethanol production process
stood to affect both the cogeneration performance and emission offset viability
of the power plant. Various issues associated with the feedstock supply plan
based on the yet-to-be-demonstrated use of rice straw were addressed.
In the end, the range of site and environmental issues raised during the SEPCO
Project regulatory proceeding were successfully resolved and the project was
approved for construction, despite its unconventional technology features and location
in a developing suburban community. Whether the project did not go forward because
of complexities of the joint venture approach and multiple parties involved, or because
12

the technological approach was too advanced for the time, or due to other reasons
remains debatable. But as an early test case of the California regulatory process for
permitting a biorefinery-type facility combining new bioalcohol production technology
and electricity generation, the project serves as an instructive example and at least a
partial success story.
Reference documents on the SEPCO Project (housed in the CEC Library) are listed
below:
SEPCO Project Application for Certification, August 1992
SEPCO Project Application for Certification (Appendices), August 1992
SEPCO Project Data Adequacy Responses, October 1992
SMUD Cogeneration Pipeline Project Application for Certification, May 1993
Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision on the SEPCO Project, March 1994
Revised Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision on the SEPCO Project, April
1994
Commission Decision on the SEPCO Project, May 1994
Commission Decision on the SMUD Cogeneration Pipeline Project, May 1994
Commission Decision on Modifications to the License for the SEPCO Project,
December 1996
Gridley Ethanol Project
The Gridley Ethanol Project (GEP) was initiated as a potential solution to the rice straw
disposal problem in the Sacramento Valley region of California. Gridley is located in
Butte County in the heart of California’s rice growing area, and its economy is uniquely
dependent on rice production and markets.
The rice straw disposal problem became acute with legislative mandates to
significantly reduce the amount of rice straw burning after the fall rice harvest. The
Rice Straw Burning Reduction Act of 1991 (AB 1378) mandated a reduction in rice
straw burning by the year 2000 to no more than 25% of the planted acreage. The
California rice straw burning phase down has proceeded as required by the statute,
with growers burning less than the statutory limitations. Other open-field burning laws
and regulations further limit the actual rice straw acreage burned annually. The total
rice acreage burned annually has declined from 303,000 acres in 1992, the first year
of the phase down, to slightly less than 72,000 acres in 2002.
Despite the ongoing reduction of rice straw burning, no alternative market or disposal
option sufficient to handle the quantities of rice straw being produced has yet
13

emerged, and large volumes of this material continue to accumulate. Without a viable
market alternative to dispose of the rice straw, the phaseout of rice straw burning
could render useless thousands of acres of rice lands, since in these hard clay-pan
soils, no other crops have been successful. Production of ethanol from rice straw
continues to be seen as a potential solution.
The GEP conceptually began in 1994 and was formalized in February 1996, when a
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) contract was awarded for this project.
The GEP team originally consisted of the following partners:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Stone and Webster Engineering–subcontractor to NREL
SWAN Biomass Company–providing conversion technology, process design
TSS Consultants–providing feedstock supply analysis, site evaluation,
environmental assessment and permitting
California Institute of Food & Agricultural Research–consultation on enzymes,
membranes, and thermal conversion of rice straw
Northern California Power Agency–power market assessment
Sacramento Municipal Utility District–consultation of power generating
technology
Hass-Cal Industries–consultation on separation of silica and lignin
City of Gridley– project “sponsor”
The GEP objectives were to validate the economic production of ethanol from rice
straw, acquire additional cost–share funding for the development and ultimate
construction of a rice straw-to-ethanol facility, and acquire financial commitments from
the private sector to design, construct, and operate a commercial ethanol production
facility in the Gridley area. Gridley operates a municipal utility, with responsibility for
delivering electrical power to the community; thus integration with electric power
generation has been of interest to the GEP.
The original concept of the GEP facility involved application of an enzymatic hydrolysis
process, under development by Swan Biomass, to produce ethanol. Lignin remaining
from the hydrolysis process was to be utilized as combustion fuel for firing the facility’s
boiler for the production of steam and electricity to be used on site, with excess steam
potentially used by adjacent facilities. Excess electricity would be supplied to the
municipal utility and/or sold to the grid.
During 1996 and early 1997, work on Phase I of the GEP was conducted. The
purpose of Phase I was to perform an initial screening of the technical and economic
feasibility of a commercial rice straw-to-ethanol facility in the Gridley area. Phase II
was to acquire financial and site commitments, perform pilot plant studies of the Swan
14

conversion technology at NREL, prepare a preliminary engineering package, evaluate
the economics and risks, and finally to prepare an implementation plan to
commercialize the process. Phase II was to lead to a “go/no go” decision regarding
the construction of the GEP.
In early 1997, the original conversion technology developer (Swan) withdrew from the
project and moved on to other projects. However, since Phase I tasks had been
completed and a rice straw-to-ethanol facility appeared feasible, NREL authorized the
GEP to identify a potential owner/operator of the GEP facility. In mid-1997, the City of
Gridley selected BC International (BCI) of Dedham, Massachusetts to provide the
conversion technology and be the owner/operator of the GEP facility. The BCI
technology was principally acid hydrolysis and fermentation, with lignin as a coproduct.
BCI was also developing a test facility in Jennings, LA where testing of
Gridley rice straw for conversion to ethanol would be conducted. In 1998, rice straw
was shipped from California to the BCI Jennings facility for testing.
During the progress of Phases I and II, it was determined that project economics with
the then-current state of conversion technology would be enhanced by making the
GEP a cogeneration facility. The GEP was tentatively to be sited next to an existing
biomass power plant in Oroville (still within the Gridley region), which uses orchard
prunings and forest wastes as feedstock. It was believed that this co-location would
reduce the costs and improve the efficiency of both the power plant and the proposed
ethanol facility. Orchard prunings and forest wastes could also potentially be supplied
as a backup and supplemental feedstock to the ethanol plant, thereby reducing the
risks in supplying a seasonal feedstock (rice straw) for year-round operations. The
biomass power plant's use of lignin from the ethanol facility as a supplemental fuel
could also potentially reduce the air emissions of the power plant. In 1999 and 2000,
project work continued for GEP, particularly on the environmental impact assessment,
permitting, and rice straw collection and processing (as feedstock for ethanol
production facility). Construction of the GEP was projected to commence in early
2002 with operations to begin in late 2003.
The collection and processing of rice straw became a paramount consideration,
particularly for the economics and operations of the proposed GEP. Infrastructure to
harvest rice straw for use in the GEP was virtually nonexistent. Processing of the rice
straw for use as feedstock (i.e., grinding) presented technical challenges due to the
high silica content of rice straw. Rice straw supply studies indicated that the rice straw
would cost over $30.00/bone dry ton (BDT) to be delivered to the facility. This did not
include the grinding and processing of the rice straw at the facility. To produce the 23
million gallons of ethanol would require 300,000 dry tons of rice straw (some of which
could be provided by orchard and forest wood wastes).
During the same time, environmental permitting and impact assessment indicated
some potentially higher costs for the GEP than originally anticipated. Wastewater from
the GEP would have to be discharged to the local municipal wastewater treatment
plant. Connecting to the plant and discharging wastewater would cost several million
15

dollars. Plus, in order to discharge to the wastewater plant, the GEP would also have
to conduct wastewater pretreatment. This added another several million dollars.
Additional air emission control equipment would be needed for the project that was not
previously anticipated. This, combined with the technical uncertainties connected with
the BCI two stage dilute sulfuric acid conversion technology, led the GEP to reach a
critical milestone in November 2001: the BCI acid hydrolysis technology was not
judged to be financially viable for use by the GEP. Thus, a decision was made to
investigate the use of a gasification technology to create syngas that could be
converted to ethanol or other fuels. This evaluation, done in June 2002, indicated that
switching from the dilute sulfuric acid process to a gasification process could have the
following advantages:
Increased yields of ethanol, with associated reductions in feedstock and other
operating costs per gallon of ethanol produced
Lower capital investment cost
Fewer air emissions and wastewater effluents
Reduced feedstock requirements, which better fit the initial needs of Butte
County for disposing of a critical mass of rice straw
Another decision was made at this time regarding the GEP site location. The
proposed GEP facility would be sited in the City of Gridley as a result of a new Gridley
industrial site becoming available, shorter transportation hauling distances from the
rice fields, significantly reduced wastewater disposal costs and available infrastructure
to better support the proposed facility.
The gasification technology tentatively selected at the time was the Pearson
Technology. Continued funding support from NREL was used, and augmented, to
fund pilot testing at the Pearson facility in Aberdeen, MS. The testing was reported by
TSS Consultants in a report prepared for NREL (TSS, 2005). Although the projections
made in June 2002 appear to be overstated somewhat, continuing analysis by the
GEP project team favored the use of a gasification system. The GEP was able to get
funding augmentation directly from the U.S. Department of Energy to continue to
pursue the gasification pathway to ethanol production. The GEP project team
investigated several gasification technology companies and developers and, in
December 2006, issued a Request for Proposals to construct and operate a
thermochemical conversion system using rice straw to produce electricity in Gridley.
Selection of a submitted technology is to occur in summer 2007. This RFP is to
initially apply a gasification system using rice straw to produce electricity (and waste
heat). The GEP team intends to implement the syngas-to-ethanol production as a
subsequent step.
In light of the need to have a proven system to convert syngas to ethanol, the GEP
team submitted a proposal to the CEC Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)
Program in Early 2007. This project, which was awarded a CEC grant in April 2007,
16

will use matching funds from the U.S. Department of Energy to demonstrate an
integrated biofuels and energy production system for potential application to the GEP.
This project will support the construction, demonstration and validation of a costeffective
and energy efficient biomass conversion system as follows:
Demonstrate that a 200 ton/day commercial scale thermochemical conversion
system will be able to produce clean syngas suitable for catalytic conversion to
ethanol.
Validate commercial viability of a three-way catalyst (patents pending) for
conversion of syngas to ethanol.
Build and validate a demonstration scale syngas to ethanol production system.
Integrate the demonstration scale syngas to ethanol production system with the
commercial thermochemical conversion system to create an Integrated Biofuels
and Energy Production System.
Carry out validation studies on the integrated system.
Develop a commercialization plan based upon the validated system.
Some key aspects of the GEP to date that offer valuable experience and applicable
lessons going forward are:
Technology developer claims need verification
Third-party review of technology claims are critical, as technology claims
and testing indevelopers’ own labs are subject to scrutiny. Technology
developers may not have adequate equipment and expertise to scientifically
verify their technology. Such verification is crucial in attracting project
financing, as well as permitting and other project approvals.
Public agency funding mechanisms do not always synchronize well with
technology development
Although public funding resources have been available, technology
development projects involving emerging technologies being examined for
potential deployment may still suffer from lack of adequate funding. Timing
of available funding resources may also not be consistent with the evolving
nature of emerging technologies. Public funding agencies need to be
flexible in the use of their project funding to be able to address necessary
changes in technologies as they develop.
Emerging technology projects utilizing biomass resources are extremely
complex
17

Not only are the production technologies themselves typically complex,
there are numerous other critical components to utilizing biomass resources
–resource economics (which includes harvesting, collection, transporting,
and processing), optimal siting to decrease transportation costs (and thus
improving project economics and community acceptance), difficulties in
permitting due to lack of knowledge of potential air, water, and waste
emissions from emerging technologies, and market uncertainty for both
principal products (i.e., fuels) and potential byproducts. All of these aspects
need serious review and are resource intensive.
Reference documents on the GEP (housed in the CEC Library) are listed below:
Report: Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing Biomass Gasification
Technology: Pilot Plant Gasifier and Syngas Conversion Testing, February
2005, NREL/SR-510-37581.
Report: Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing Gasification
Technology Feedstock Supply Plan: July 2004, NREL/SR 510-36403
Presentation: City of Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Technical
Assessment–Conversion of Rice Straw to Ethanol; presented to U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington D.C. May 17, 2005 by TSS Consultants,
unpublished
Presentation: Preliminary Environmental Assessment & CEQA/NEPA Review
Process; presented to U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. May 17,
2005 by TSS Consultants
Status Report: Proposed Gridley Ethanol Project Status Report, June 2002;
prepared by TSS Consultants
Status Report: Proposed Gridley Ethanol Project Status Report, June 2001;
prepared by TSS Consultants
Status Report: Subcontract No. ZCO-0-30019-01 Gridley Ethanol Project
Development, prepared by BC International, March 2001
Status Report: Chronology of Events for the Gridley Project, February 1996 to
October 2000; prepared by TSS (undated)
Status Report: Phase II of the Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-to-Ethanol
Gridley, California, Progress Report by Task, Prepared by TSS Consultants,
July 1999
18

Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California Phase
II, Task 5.1.1 - Early Discernment of Environmental Impact Issues; prepared by
TSS Consultants under Stone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, Under
NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-
AC36-83CH10093, January 1999
Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California Phase
II, Task 2.0 –Feedstock Supply Plan; prepared by TSS Consultants under
Stone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, Under NREL Subcontract No.
ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093,
January 1999
Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California
Phase I, Task 4 –Project Interest Report; prepared by Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation, NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE
Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1997
Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California
Phase I, Task 6 –Preliminary Engineering and Economic Report; prepared by
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-
15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1997
Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California Phase
I Task 7 Risk Assessment/Project Definition; prepared by Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation, NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE
Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, March 1997
Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California
Phase II Work Plan; prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation,
NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-
AC36-83CH10093, March 1997
Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California Phase
I, Task 2 –Power Market Assessment; prepared by Northern California Power
Agency under Stone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, Under NREL
Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-
83CH10093, October 1996
Report: Feasibility Study For Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California
Phase I, Task 3 –Preliminary Site Identification Report; prepared by TSS
Consultants under Stone & Webster Subcontract No. PS-026443, Under NREL
Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-
83CH10093, October 1996
Memorandum: Gridley –Summary of Initial Results for Sub Task 1.1, Ethanol
Market Assessment; prepared by SWAN Biomass Company, October 1996
19

Report: Proposed Gridley Ethanol Facility Phase I Feasibility Study Draft, Task
6.6 Environmental Evaluation, prepared by TSS Consultants, Letter
Subcontract No. PS-026443 to NREL Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under
DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093, August 1996
Report: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-To-Ethanol in Gridley, California Phase
I Summary; prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, NREL
Subcontract No. ZCG 6-15143-01, Under DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC36-
83CH10093, March 1996
Presentation: Feasibility Study for Rice Straw-to-Ethanol Production in Gridley
California; prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, March 1996
Technical Proposal: Feasibility Study for City of Gridley Agrifuels and
Chemicals, Gridley, California; prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation for NREL, July 1995
Collins Pine Cogeneration Project
The Collins Pine Cogeneration Project was an offshoot of the Northeastern California
Ethanol Manufacturing Feasibility Study (1997) prepared for the Quincy Library Group
(QLG). The QLG was formed in the early 1990’s as an atempt to bring together
competing forces in regards to forest management in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe
National Forests of California. The proposed forest resource management activities
by the QLG were federally legislated by the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery
and Economic Stability Act of 1997. This federal legislation was intended to reduce
the risk of catastrophic wildfire in the northern Sierra Nevada forests.
In response to growing concerns regarding how biomass resources are managed and
how catastrophic fire could be reduce or avoided, the QLG put forth a plan to reduce
fire danger by removing biomass from the forest to fuel an ethanol cogeneration
facility. The QLG, together with U.S. Department of Energy, NREL, and other project
partners, initiated a study to determine the economic, environmental, and regulatory
feasibility of a facility designed to process forestry wastes into ethanol. Four proposed
sites were evaluated for such a project, located in or near the Sierra Nevada California
communities of Westwood, Chester, Greenvile, and Loyalton. The Quincy Project’s
seven major tasks are listed below:
Feedstock supply and delivery systems
Site selection
Design and cost estimates
Financial evaluation and sensitivity analysis
20

Environmental issues
Market issues
Socioeconomic impacts
The conclusion of the work done by the stakeholders indicated that there was
adequate feedstock to support a biomass to ethanol project. The selection of Chester,
California and the existing Collins PineCompanies’ saw mill site spurred the funding of
further feasibility assessments from 1998 to 2001. These efforts were funded by the
CEC and the U.S. Department of Energy.
During 1998 to 2001, the CEC co-funded the economic and technical feasibility study
of integrating a biomass to ethanol facility with the existing Collins Pine plant in
Chester. This sawmill includes an existing boiler system using fuel from sawmill
operations to produce process heat and electricity. The proposed CEC-funded project
was to prepare a feasibility study similar to the GEP to determine the economic and
technical feasibility of producing 20 million gallons per year of ethanol using forest
remediation (thinning the forest to reduce wildfire danger) and wood wastes as
feedstock.
Specific technical and economic goals of the Collins Pines ethanol project set forth by
the CEC were:
Determine whether the ethanol facility can produce up to 20 million gallons per
year of ethanol from softwood feedstock using the BCI acid hydrolysis
technology.
Determine whether lignin from the ethanol facility can partially displace the
existing fuel of Collins Pine biomass power plant by 30 percent to 60 percent.
Reduce the cost of electricity production at the Collins Pine biomass power
plant by at least 1.5 cents/kWh.
Identify at least one co-product, other than lignin or ethanol, which can be
produced by the ethanol facility and has a value of at least $2/pound.
A Phase I work plan, similar to the GEP was conducted to ascertain the preliminary
feasibility of producing ethanol and power at the Collins Pines, Chester facility. BC
International of Dedham, Massachusetts, the same technology supplier as the GEP
(described above) was to conduct testing of wood waste at its Jennings, LA test
facility. However, the project was terminated before this was completed. The CEC
issued a stop work order in September 2001 upon determination by CEC project
management that progress and performance by some of the key participants was not
fulfilling project objectives.
21

Among the aspects of the Collins Pine project that offer valuable experience and
applicable lessons going forward are:
Forest residue supplies in California could supply a cellulosic ethanol project (or
projects), if sufficient forest thinning operations were conducted on both private
and federal forestlands. However, such facilities require long term supply
contracts, 10 years or more, to effectively attract financing. This is a particularly
difficult thing to do for federal forestlands. There are initiatives afoot in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior to allow the
federal government to enter into such long-term contracts, but these initiatives
are not yet fully realized.
Technology developer claims need verification (as described above for the
Gridley Ethanol Project)
Economic stability and/or fortitude of technology developers need to be
confirmed. Many of the emerging technology companies in recent years have
been relatively small business concerns, with limited funding resources.
Emerging technologies, often fraught with potential changes and subsequent
unforeseen costs, can severely stress business finances causing project delays
and failures. Although this may be changing as funding of emerging
technologies for cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol fuels is experiencing a big
upswing, it is nonetheless prudent for project developers, particularly in publicfunded
projects, to scrutinize their technologyprovider’seconomic stability.
Reference documents on the Collins Pine Project (housed in the CEC Library) are
listed below:
CEC Project Description
CEC Project Fact Sheet
Report: CEC/Collins Pine Subcontract, Interim Report, Executive Summary;
prepared by BC International, July 2001
Report: Collins Pine Electricity Market Assessment, prepared by TSS
Consultants, April 2001
Presentation: Collins Pine Ethanol Project Lignin Residue Characterization,
prepared by National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 29, 2000
Report: Power/Ethanol Cogeneration Basis of Design Report; Contract #500-
98-043 of the CEC Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program, prepared
by BC International, April 2000
Presentation: Collins Pines Cogeneration Project; prepared by TSS
Consultants, February 9, 2000,
22

Presentation: Collins Pine Cogeneration Project; prepared by California
Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, presented at CEC Project Review
Meeting November 29, 1999
Memorandum: Collins Pines Project; prepared by BC International, September
9, 1999
Report: Collins Pine Ethanol Project, Early Discernment of Environmental
Impact Issues, Phase I, Task 2.5.1.1; Contract #500-98-043 of the California
Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program,
prepared by TSS Consultants, August 2000
Report: Northeastern California Ethanol Manufacturing Feasibility Study;
prepared by The Quincy Library Group, California Energy Commission,
California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, Plumas Corporation, TSS
Consultants, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, November 1997
Report: Quincy Library Group Northeastern California Ethanol Manufacturing
Feasibility Study, Feedstock Supply and Delivery Systems, Final Report;
prepared by TSS Consultants, June 1997
23

SECTION 3 - THERMOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR
ALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION
Figure 2 illustrates the major system components used for the thermochemical
production of fuels, electricity and heat from biomass. Conventional combustion
(oxidation) processes for the production of electricity from biomass are also illustrated
for comparative purposes. The processes of syngas production, syngas cleanup and
conditioning, alcohol purification and heat and power production are described in the
following sections.
Figure 2–Thermochemical Conversion Processes Compared to
Conventional Combustion Processes
Biomass
Processing
Grinding
Mixing
Screening
Syngas
Biomass
Conversion
Combustion
Thermo-
Chemical
Bioalcohols
Fuel
Production
Transport
Steam
Syngas
Energy
Conversion
Steam
Turbine
Engine/
Generator
Fuel Use
Refining,
Blending &
Distribution
5E
Assessment
Energy
Production
Heating,
Cooling
Electricity
Heating,
Cooling
Electricity
Energy
Use
Buildings,
Processes
To Grid
Buildings,
Processes
To Grid
1. Evaluation (Technical)
2. Energy
3. Environment
4. Economics
5. Socio-Political
Effectiveness
24

Syngas Production
The thermochemical conversion of biomass to synthesis gas (syngas) encompasses
processes that are carried out in closed systems under reducing (oxygen depleted) or
oxidizing (partial oxygen) conditions at high temperatures (typically 1500-2000 o F). The
primary chemical processes that occur include pyrolysis, oxidation, steam reforming
and gasification.
Carbon-containing compounds in the biomass feedstock are converted to synthesis
gas (syngas), which is composed primarily of hydrogen (H 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO),
methane (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Syngas may be utilized as a substitute for
natural gas in cogeneration engines, gas turbines or boilers to produce power and/or
heat. In addition, syngas can be an excellent feedstock for fuel production via catalytic
synthesis.
In air-blown systems, significant amounts of nitrogen (N 2 ) will also be present due to
the air supplied for partial oxidation. Syngas can also contain minor constituents
including higher hydrocarbons and tar compounds, and other trace constituents. As
discussed in the following section, syngas cleanup and conditioning is important for
making a useful fuel product.
The types of syngas production systems include air-blown gasification, oxygen
gasification, thermal pyrolysis (no oxygen) and steam reforming. Systems that are
supplied with air or oxygen are autothermal with heat from the partial oxidation of the
biomass. Thermal pyrolysis and steam reforming of biomass are endothermic and
typically require a secondary fuel to supply heat to the reaction chamber. This is often
supplied with clean syngas recycled back to externally heat the reactor.
When syngas production takes place in a carefully controlled, closed system, there
should be no direct emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants. Externally heated
systems may have some emissions from the secondary burners, but these can be
minimized with low-emission nozzles and controls typical for boiler systems. In
addition, oxygen gasification systems typically require an oxygen generation plant that
consumes energy, with associated emissions. These systems produce a raw syngas
that may require cleanup and conditioning to insure the proper function of downstream
processing of the syngas.
Chevron Texaco, Conoco Phillips (Global Energy) and Shell (Lurgi) have developed
economically viable biomass-to-syngas production systems for the production of
electricity in the 100-1,000 MW output range (NREL, 2002). However, these
technologies have not proven to be economical for small scale power generation
applications (1-25 MW).
During the past several years approximately 110 organizations have focused their
efforts on the development of small (1-25 MW), economical systems for generation of
electricity from waste materials. However, very few of these companies have
25

successfully demonstrated their technologies by building and systematically testing full
scale operating systems.
Syngas Cleanup and Conditioning
Without sufficient cleanup and conditioning, syngas produced from biomass may not
be useful for alcohol synthesis. Synthesis catalysts work optimally with a certain ratio
of H 2 to CO, and the effectiveness is reduced when a large concentration of inert
compounds (like N 2 ) are introduced to the catalyst system. Catalysts used for
synthesis can also be extremely sensitive to gaseous contaminants like sulfur,
chlorine, metal poisons and particulate contaminants such as tars. These compounds
occupy active sites of the catalyst, reducing catalyst activity and catalyst life. Syngas
cleanup and conditioning strategies must address the major and minor constituents in
the syngas to meet the requirements of the catalyst being utilized.
The requirements for syngas purity have not been well established for ethanol and
mixed alcohol catalysts. However, years of industrial experience with methanol
production catalysts has established some basic guidelines for syngas quality to
maintain a catalyst life of several years (Table 3) (Spath and Daton, 2003). Note the
very low levels required for constituents that reduce catalyst life that will typically
require specialized syngas cleanup. Particulate matter and tars also have to be
controlled to very low levels.
Table 3–Syngas Quality and Conditioning Requirements for
Catalytic Conversion to Methanol
Stoichiometric Ratio
(H2–CO2) / (CO + CO2)
~2
CO 2 4-8%
Sulfur
Halides
Fe and Ni
< 0.1 ppmv
< 0.005 ppmv
< 0.001 ppmv
Syngas cleanup can include various scrubbers, precipitators and adsorbents to
remove undesired compounds. Many of these approaches have been used
commercially in natural gas systems, coal gasification systems and other industrial gas
applications. While gas cleanup and conditioning present complexities and cost
challenges for system developers, many existing technologies can be applied to
biomass-derived syngas.
26

Alcohol Synthesis
The direct synthesis of methanol is an established commercial technology, and the
catalysts for this process can be purchased from many suppliers. Copper/Zinc based
catalysts are typically used for this synthesis and achieve high productivity. The perpass
CO conversion is low (7-20%) because of equilibrium limitations and the need to
maintain mild conditions to prevent copper sintering, but selectivity is high (99.5%).
Because of the low cost ($20-30 l -1 ) and long useful life (3 to 5 years) of these
catalysts, the production of methanol from synthesis gas is a very cost-effective
process and is the starting point for many other useful chemicals like formaldehyde,
acetic acid, MTBE, plastic compounds, etc. Spath and Daton (2003) present a
thorough overview of methanol catalysts and systems related to methanol production.
The methanol catalysts have been used as a starting point for the manufacture of
ethanol and higher alcohols. Several processes for higher alcohol synthesis have
focused on modifying the hydrogenation catalysts to produce larger amounts of higher
alcohols including ethanol.
Most of the recent efforts on the conversion of syngas to ethanol have focused on
modifications of catalysts originally developed by Dow Chemical Company (U.S. Pat.
No. 4,675,344; 4,749,724; 4,752,622; 4,752,623; and 4,762,858). They developed a
supported catalyst based on molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) to produce mixed alcohols,
primarily C1-C4 (methanol—butanol), in a packed column or fluidized bed. The best
per-pass CO conversion is approximately 20%, with up to 85% selectivity to mixed
alcohols. The alcohol mix is typically comprised of 40% ethanol, 55% methanol and
about 5% C3-C5 alcohols.
Alcohol Purification
The resulting raw alcohol produced via catalytic synthesis requires purification to meet
market standards for alcohol products. Both methanol and ethanol have quality
standards for fuel grade and chemical grade products. Raw methanol can contain
water, higher alcohols, hydrocarbons and other byproducts. Raw mixed alcohols
contain a mixture of multiple linear alcohols and water (and possibly other trace
products). In order to separate these constituents into fuel grade components, a
combination of absorption and multi-step distillation can be used. The technology to
purify alcohols is technically feasibly with various components that have been
employed by methanol and ethanol production facilities around the world.
Some have proposed that alcohol mixtures be accepted as fuel additives without
further purification, but there are currently no accepted standards for these mixtures.
Italy successfully used a mixed alcohol product (MAS-Metanolo piu Alcoli Superiori) in
gasoline during the 1980’s produced by the Snamprogeti plant (Spath and Daton,
2003). Ultimately, this type of approach would save some of the cost of purification
steps in alcohol synthesis plants, but would require acceptance by vehicle
manufacturers and air quality regulatory agencies.
27

Heat and Power Production
Clean synthesis gas can be used directly for heat and power production in a boiler,
turbine, or engine, or recycled to supply heat to the syngas generator. In addition,
purge gas from the catalytic synthesis process can be used for energy or heat
production in the system. An advantage of the thermochemical approach to production
of alcohols is the ease with which any excess gas produced can be used for other
energy applications.
The gas cleanup requirements for heat and power production equipment are usually
less stringent than with catalytic synthesis. The level of gas cleanup required is
generally in the following order: boilers

SECTION 4 - BIOCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR
ALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION
The efficiency of biochemical conversion processes is highly dependent upon the
chemical composition and physical structure of the biomass feedstock. Biomass is
typically comprised of:
Lignin–a complex polymer that is resistant to microbial attack
Hemicellulose–a sugar polymer that is easy to hydrolyze
Cellulose–a sugar polymer that is fairly resistant to chemical/microbial attack
Starch–a sugar polymer that is readily degraded by chemical or microbial
attack
Inorganics–primarily comprised of oxides and salts of Na, K, Fe and Si
Figure 3 illustrates the major systems used for the biochemical production of fuels
from cellulosic biomass. These processes include
Feedstock pretreatment (acid or steam explosion)
Separation (lignin and celluloses from sugars)
Cellulose hydrolysis (production of sugars using acid or enzymes)
Separation (lignin and other unreacted solids from sugars)
Separation (sugars from acids or enzymes)
Fermentation (ethanol production from sugars) and neutralization (acid
hydrolysis)
Alcohol purification (distillation and drying)
The effectiveness of processes for the biochemical conversion of biomass to ethanol is
dependent upon:
Type of feedstock
Type of pretreatment
Types of separation processes
Simultaneous fermentation and saccharification (SSF) vs. sequential processes
Continuous vs. batch processes
29

Figure 3–System Components of Biochemical Conversion Processes
Cellulosic Material
1. Feedstock
Pretreatment
acid or steam
explosion
2. Separation
lignin & cellulose from
sugars
Sugars
3. Cellulose
Hydrolysis
production of sugars
using acid or enzymes
Lignin
4. Separation
lignin and other
unreacted solids from
sugars
Acid Recovery
5. Separation
sugars from acid or
enzymes
Enzyme
Recovery
Acid
Hydrolysis
Enzymatic
Hydrolysis
Neutralization
gypsum
6. Fermentation
ethanol production
from sugars
7. Alcohol
Purification
distillation &
drying
30

Feedstock Pretreatment
There are a number of possible pretreatment processes that can be applied to
cellulosic biomass (such as rice straw) to prepare the fiber for enzymatic
saccharification prior to fermentation and ethanol recovery:
Mechanical (grinding, milling, shearing, extruding)
Acid treatment (dilute or concentrated H 2 SO 4 )
Alkali treatment (sodium hydroxide, ammonia, alkaline peroxide)
Autohydrolysis (steam pressure, steam explosion, liquid hot water)
Acid Pre-Treatment–The acid hydrolysis of cellulose for the production of ethanol
was first incorporated in a commercial plant in South Carolina in 1910. The ethanol
yield was approximately 20 gallons/ton (Fieser and Fieser, 1950). Since that time the
acid hydrolysis process has been greatly improved.
Steam Explosion–This process uses high pressure steam (typically 200-450 psig)
for 1-10 minutes to break down biomass fibers. The resulting product is then
explosively discharged at atmospheric pressure to another vessel. Although this
process is nearly 75 years old, it has had a number of limitations until recently. A
relatively new development involves a continuous steam explosion process that
supports a higher processing temperature and reduces the residence time. This
process greatly reduces the need for chemicals (e.g. acids) typically associated with
this process.
Separation of Lignin and Cellulose from Sugars
Filtering–Different types of filtering media have been used to separate lignin and
cellulose from the free sugars. The free sugars are added to the fermentation tank
(Figure 3–Process 6).
Cellulose Hydrolysis
Cellulose must first be converted to sugars by acid hydrolysis or enzymatic hydrolysis
before these sugars can be converted to ethanol by fermentation processes.
Acid Hydrolysis–Two common methods under development for converting cellulose
to sugar are dilute acid hydrolysis and concentrated acid hydrolysis, both of which
typically use sulfuric acid (although other acids have also been tried). Dilute acid
hydrolysis usually occurs in two stages to take advantage of the differences between
hemicellulose and cellulose. The first stage is performed at low temperature to
maximize the yield from the hemicellulose, and the second, higher temperature stage
is optimized for hydrolysis of the cellulose portion of the feedstock. Concentrated acid
31

hydrolysis typically uses a dilute acid pretreatment to separate the hemicellulose and
cellulose. Water is added to dilute the acid and then heated to release the sugars,
producing a gel that can be separated from residual solids.
Both the dilute and concentrated acid processes have several drawbacks. Dilute acid
hydrolysis of cellulose tends to yield a large amount of byproducts. Concentrated acid
hydrolysis forms fewer byproducts, but for economic reasons the acid must be
recycled. The separation and recovery of the sulfuric acid adds more complexity to
the process. In addition, sulfuric acid is highly corrosive and difficult to handle. The
concentrated and dilute sulfuric acid processes are performed at high temperatures
(100 o and 220 o C) which can degrade the sugars, reducing the carbon source and
ultimately lowering the ethanol yield. Thus, the concentrated acid process is estimated
to have somewhat less potential for cost reductions from process improvements. The
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that the cumulative impact
of improvements in acid recovery and sugar yield for the concentrated acid process
could provide savings of 14 cents per gallon, whereas process improvements for the
dilute acid technology could save around 19 cents per gallon.
A more recent approach uses countercurrent hydrolysis. Countercurrent hydrolysis is
a two stage process. In the first stage, cellulosic feedstock is introduced to a
horizontal co-current reactor with a conveyor. Steam is added to raise the
temperature to 180 o C (no acid is added at this point). After a residence time of about
8 minutes, during which some 60 percent of the hemicellulose is hydrolyzed, the feed
exits the reactor. It then enters the second stage through a vertical reactor operated at
225 o C. Very dilute sulfuric acid is added to the feed at this stage, where virtually all of
the remaining hemicellulose and, depending on the residence time, anywhere from 60
percent to all of the cellulose is hydrolyzed. The countercurrent hydrolysis process
appears to offer more potential for cost reduction than the dilute sulfuric acid process.
NREL estimates this process may allow an increase in glucose yields to 84 percent,
an increase in fermentation temperature to 55 o C, and an increase in fermentation
yield of ethanol to 95 percent, with potential cumulative production cost savings of
about 33 cents per gallon.
Enzymatic Hydrolysis–The enzyme cellulase simply replaces the sulfuric acid in the
hydrolysis step to break the chains of the remaining sugars (cellulose) to release
glucose. Cellulase enzymes must either be grown on-site or purchased from
commercial enzyme companies for cellulose hydrolysis.
The cellulase enzyme can be used at lower temperatures, 30 to 50 o C, which reduces
the degradation of the sugars. In addition, process improvements now allow
simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF). In the SSF process, cellulase
and fermenting yeast are combined, so that as sugars are produced, the fermentative
organisms convert them to ethanol in the same step. In the long term, enzyme
technology is expected to have the most potential for cost reduction. NREL estimates
that future cost reductions could be four times greater for the enzyme process than for
the concentrated acid process and three times greater than for the dilute acid process.
32

Achieving such cost reductions would require substantial reductions in the current cost
of producing cellulase enzymes and increased yield in the conversion of non-glucose
sugars to ethanol.
A number of companies worldwide are developing improved enzyme systems for the
production of cellulosic ethanol. Besides applications to cellulosic ethanol production,
some of this development progress benefits conventional sugar- and starch-based
ethanol production as well. A major focus is on the conversion of corn stover and
other biomass feedstocks to not only alcohol fuels but in broader industrial
applications, possibly even the use of corn stover as an alternative feedstock for
products currently derived from petrochemicals.
Fermentation of Sugars
Ethanol is produced from the fermentation of the five major free sugars by enzymes
produced from specific varieties of yeast. These sugars are the five-carbon xylose
and arabinose and the six-carbon glucose, galactose, and mannose (M. McCoy,
“Biomass Ethanol Inches Forward,” Chemical and Engineering News, December 7,
1998). Traditional fermentation processes rely on yeasts that convert six-carbon
sugars to ethanol. However, other enzymes need to be added to convert the fivecarbon
sugars to ethanol.
It is estimated that as much as 40 percent of the sugars contained in typical forms of
celulosic biomass are of a type that normal yeast won’t metabolize. Therefore, the
biochemical cellulosic ethanol processes starts out at a 40 percent efficiency
disadvantage to corn- or sugarcane-based ethanol processes, which produce sugars
that are 100 percent convertible with normal yeast.
Once the hydrolysis of the cellulose is achieved, the resulting sugars must be
fermented to produce ethanol. In addition to glucose, hydrolysis produces other sixcarbon
sugars from cellulose and five-carbon sugars from hemicellulose that are not
readily fermented to ethanol by naturally occurring organisms. They can be converted
to ethanol by genetically engineered yeasts that are currently available, but the ethanol
yields are not sufficient to make the process economically attractive. It also remains to
be seen whether the yeasts can be made hardy enough for production of ethanol on a
commercial scale.
The resultant sugars are combined with the sugars from the first step and neutralized.
The sugars are fermented then purified to produce alcohol. A byproduct of the
neutralization is gypsum.
33

SECTION 5 - INTEGRATED THERMOCHEMICAL AND
BIOCHEMICAL CONVERSION AND OTHER EMERGING
PROCESSES
This section describes technologies that integrate thermochemical and biochemical
conversion processes, and other potential technological approaches to bioalcohol
production in early stages of development.
Large-scale biochemical conversion plants appear to be most viable when significant
quantities (>2,000 BDT/day) of biomass are available at feedstock costs below
$35/BDT. A particularly promising application is to co-locate these plants with large,
traditional corn-to-ethanol or sugarcane-to-ethanol production plants. Thermochemical
processes can also be integrated with biochemical processes to supply electricity, heat
(steam), cooling and the production of additional ethanol from waste materials
(Category XI technologies). These integrated approaches are expected to increase
plant energy efficiency, reduce emissions and increase economic benefits.
Since many new projects continue to be developed to produce ethanol from corn and
sugarcane, some of the earliest and best prospects for cellulosic ethanol production
will undoubtedly occur via incorporation into these conventional facilities. Indeed,
some of the approaches currently being pursued by cellulosic process developers
involve initial project plans at existing or new corn-to-ethanol plants. The proliferation
of conventional technology ethanol projects beyond the traditional corn-growing region
of the U.S. and sugarcane-growing region of Brazil points to expanding opportunities
for producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass feedstocks jointly with sugar/starchbased
production. In California there are numerous ethanol production projects in
various stage of completion and planning -- see partial list in Appendix 2. Some of
these California projects apply conventional corn-to-ethanol process technology, while
others intend to use sugarcane as the primary feedstock. Several proposed California
projects also intend to apply some type of cellulosic ethanol production technology.
One unique technological approach under development begins with a thermochemical
process for producing syngas; the syngas is then introduced into an aqueous solution
containing nutrients and specially-tailored microorganisms. One such process is said
to be capable of producing ethanol and acetate from the CO and/or H 2 and CO 2 in the
syngas in 2 minutes or less, with a reported yield of 70-85 gallons of ethanol per dry
ton of carbohydrates. In order for this approach to prove feasible and advantageous,
some additional technical issues need to be addressed and further scientific validation
carried out. Specifically, the carbon-containing constituents of the syngas (CO and
CH 4 ) have limited solubility in aqueous media and therefore any biological conversion
of these components will be rate-limited by their equilibrium diffusion kinetics from the
gas phase to the liquid phase. More complete experimental evidence is required to
confirm and quantify the actual production of ethanol from the carbon-containing
components of the syngas via microorganisms in aqueous media.
34

Another novel approach to bioalcohol production involves the direct formation of
ethanol or other alcohols by photosynthetic organisms using solar energy in shallow
ponds. Similar approaches are being studied for potential production of a variety of
different biofuel and biochemical products, such as production of biodiesel fuel from
various strains of algae. One proposed bioalcohol production concept would employ a
special bioengineered photosynthetic bacterium strain to produce ethanol in onemeter-deep
ponds, requiring only solar energy, water, atmospheric carbon dioxide and
trace minerals. The potential advantages of such processes, if they prove to be viable
-- besides the obvious benefit of requiring no external source of energy other than the
sun -- could include scalability, potential low cost, and higher productivity per acre of
land required than current bioenergy processes. However, these types of processes
remain in the laboratory development stage, with insufficient data available to evaluate
their effectiveness.
35

SECTION 6 - 5E APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
BIOMASS CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES
The “5E” assessment approach used to assess the principal candidate technologies
includes the following components: technology evaluation (E1); energy efficiency (E2);
environmental impacts (E3); economic viability (E4); and socio-political and human
resource effectiveness (E5). Each of these components is described further below.
This 5E assessment is designed to assist in:
Determining the commercial viability of promising technologies for the
conversion of various biomass feedstocks to renewable fuels, other forms of
bioenergy, and renewable chemical products
Comparing the range of available and prospective technology options for
obtaining transportation fuels, electricity and other forms of bioenergy and
bioproducts from biomass resources
Estimating the likelihood, extent and timetable for new bioenergy technologies
to enter the marketplace, gain acceptance by stakeholders and the general
public, and contribute to energy supplies
Processes, products and co-products included in this assessment include the
conversion of cellulosic feedstocks to bioalcohols, biopower and bioheat. The
growing, collecting, and transportation of feedstock, and its associated impacts, are
beyond the scope of this study.
Technology Evaluation (E1)
E1 evaluates the progress of the Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Deployment (R3D) stages for each technology type. The validation of each stage is
necessary to ensure the long-term success of the commercially deployed production
facility. The R3D validation stages are:
Research–Laboratory studies have been successfully carried out using
bench-scale experiments to validate key chemical and physical concepts,
principles and processes. Computer models have been used to analyze and
validate the technology. The research has been documented in patents and/or
publications in peer-reviewed journals.
Development–All unit and chemical/physical processes have been validated
on a 0.5-10 ton/day pilot plant. Processes for the preparation and introduction
of the biomass have been perfected. Accurate mass and energy balance
measurements for each unit process have been made. The unit processes
36

have been run for a sufficient time period to ensure that mass and energy
conversion efficiencies have not degraded with time.
Demonstration–The objective of the demonstration plant is to fully establish
and develop specifications as necessary for the construction of a commercial
full-scale plant. This demonstration plant should be able to process more than
20-25 tons/day of biomass on an annual basis. Its design includes the
incorporation of on-line chemical and physical sensors and control systems to
run the plant continuously for several days as a totally integrated system. The
hardware for recycle loops is included so that recycling process can be fully
evaluated. The demonstration plant is used to help determine the potential
robustness of each unit process and component for the full-scale production
plant.
Deployment–This final stage includes the engineering and design of a
commercial scale plant within the expected capital costs. The operating and
maintenance costs are within due diligence estimates, as determined after the
plant has been running for 329 days/year, 24 hrs/day for at least 1 calendar
year (preferably two calendar years). The energy and/or fuel production yields
are within anticipated design specifications.
Energy Efficiency (E2)
E2 compares the energy efficiencies for the production of bioalcohol fuels, and any
merchantable co-products such as electricity. Energy efficiency of the fuel production
process is also one of the key determinants of the relative greenhouse gas
contribution of the full fuel cycle. The criteria for the production of alcohol fuels are as
follows:
Excellent:
Good:
Fair:
Poor:
Not Acceptable:
>45% thermal energy efficiency
40-45% thermal energy efficiency
30-35% thermal energy efficiency
25-30% thermal energy efficiency

total life cycle assessment (LCA) or systems analysis compared to current production
technologies. A summary of environmental assessment ratings is as follows:
Excellent
Minimal or no environmental impact is anticipated.
Good
There will be a modest increase in emissions, which will be within the limits of
the current EPA and other required environmental permits.
Fair
There will be a moderate increase in emissions. However, this increase will
be acceptable to applicable regulatory agencies (such as EPA or state/local air
quality districts) after approval of the required environmental permits.
Not Acceptable
There will be a significant increase in emissions at levels that are not
acceptable to the EPA and local community. Securing required environmental
permits will be difficult to impossible.
Economic Viability (E4)
E4 determines the cost of fuel production ($/gallon or $/MMBTU), electricity production
($/kWh or $/MMBTU) and amortized costs ($/Yr) for the candidate technologies. This
fuel and energy production cost can be compared to the current, average wholesale
rate of fuel and electricity production from conventional processes. Subsidies are not
considered in these economic assessments. These cost estimates can also be used
to predict the Return on Investment (ROI) for a production plant. Such ROI estimates
can be compared with past, current and projected market data for ethanol produced
from current production processes. The criteria for ROI ratings are summarized as
follows:
Excellent: >30%
Good: 18% to 30%
Fair: 10% to 18%
Not Acceptable:

concerns. This evaluation determines if the deployment of the technology will be
acceptable to al interested parties such as government regulatory groups, NGO’s,
environmental groups, local and regional communities and other relevant
organizations.
SECTION 7 - 5E ASSESSMENT OF THERMOCHEMICAL AND
BIOCHEMICAL CONVERSION PROCESSES
This section summarizes some general results and conclusions from the 5E
assessments of thermochemical and biochemical processes for the conversion of
renewable biomass to alcohol fuels, with electricity as a secondary product.
Although this “5E”assessment process is described in qualitative and quantitative
terms, it is beyond the scope of this paper to apply this process for comparatively
ranking individual biomass conversion technology developers. Instead, this
approach was used to generally evaluate and compare some of the principal
bioalcohol production technologies under development using information compiled
from developers and from publicly available reports and publications.
The completeness of available data varies among the technology categories,
depending on the extent of actual development progress and the willingness of
developers to disclose information. Thus, a fairly complete assessment is possible
for some technologies, whereas more definitive data would be necessary to
adequately assess other technologies. For example, enough information was
gathered from several developers of a promising thermochemical technology (e.g.
pyrolysis/steam reforming) that it was possible to design a prototype plant and
develop “5E” data for a future 500 ton/day plant sited in Northern California.In
contrast, detailed data for biochemical technology involving acid hydrolysis was
found to be less accessible, despite the long history of development of this
approach.
With further refinement and application, and as more complete technology data
becomes available, the 5E approach can be routinely used as a tool by
government, private and academic organizations to evaluate the potential viability
of all under-development and emerging thermochemical and biochemical
conversion processes. This type of assessment methodology also has the value of
identifying potential problems with candidate technologies, and it will help point the
way to solving those problems.
Table 5 is a summary comparison of three different bioenergy technology
applications, applying some of the key parameters of the 5E assessment. The
three technologies compared are: (A) a thermochemical (pyrolysis/steam
reforming) facility producing mixed alcohol fuel and electricity; (B) a biochemical
(enzymatic hydrolysis) facility producing ethanol fuel and electricity and (C) for
39

comparative purposes, a thermochemical facility producing electricity only. The 5E
factors applied in this quantitative comparison include: product yields (an E1
factor); net energy efficiency (an E2 factor); emissions of criteria pollutants and
carbon dioxide (E3 factors); and capital, operating and production costs (E4
factors). Socio-political (E5) factors are less amenable to quantification and thus
are not included in this table.
Table 5–Comparison of Thermochemical and Biochemical Systems
Plant Size
DT/day
Products (E1)
A) Thermochemical
Conversion
Mixed Alcohols &
Electricity
B) Biochemical
Conversion
Ethanol & Electricity
500 2,205
C) Thermochemical
Conversion
Electricity Only
500
Ethanol Fuel (gallons/DT) 80 59 N/A
Electricity
(kWh/DT)
Total Net Energy
Efficiency (E2)
Plant Emissions (E3)
(lb/MMBTU output)
550 205 1400
50% 33% 28%
NO X 8.58E-03 2.71E-01 1.80E-02
SO X 6.17E-04 5.95E-01 1.56E-03
PM 1.20E-02 7.30E-02 3.17E-02
CO 1.11E-01 2.71E-01 3.13E-01
VOC 2.96E-03 2.30E-02 7.47E-03
CO 2 303 481 694
Economics (E4)
Capital Cost, $M 66 205 60
Operating Cost, $M/yr 14.9 107.0 16.4
Electricity Production Cost
($/kWh)
Alcohol Production Cost
($/gallon)
$0.071 N/A $0.071
$1.12 $2.24 N/A
N/A: Not applicable; E1, E2 and E4 values are given with +15% uncertainty and E3 values are given
with +20% uncertainty
40

The data in Table 5 are based upon thermochemical technologies that process 500
BDT/day and biochemical technologies that process 2,205 BDT/day of biomass. It
would be preferable to compare similar size plants (e.g., 500 BDT/day), but sufficient
data are not available at this time for biochemical conversion plants smaller than 2,205
BDT/day. The application of 5E assessment methodology to the technologies
compared in Table 5 is discussed further in the following sections.
Technology Evaluation (E1)
Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)
Several companies have developed varying approaches and improvements in
feedstock introduction, pyrolysis/steam reforming processes, syngas purification and
system design. The data presented for System A in Table 5 is for the thermochemical
conversion of 500 BDT/day of biomass using a generic integration of the
pyrolysis/steam reforming process with catalytic processes recently developed for the
co-production of alcohols, electricity and heat as an example.
Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)
The “5E” assessment was caried out for the Category IX technology (enzymatic
hydrolysis/fermentation). The data presented for System B in Table 5 is for the
biochemical conversion of 2,205 BDT/day of biomass using an enzymatic
hydrolysis/fermentation process. The values presented are an average of data
obtained from several developers of this technology (Schuetzle, 2007).
Thermochemical System (Electricity)
The data presented for System C in Table 5 is for the thermochemical conversion of
500 BDT/day of biomass to electricity (only) using the pyrolysis/steam reforming
technology. This analysis was based upon similar data inputs and assumptions used
for System A.
A major requirement for the deployment of any of these advanced technologies is that
they be able to produce bioalcohols and energy continuously and reliably, for example
for 329 days/year, 24 hours/day. The requirement that these technologies maintain
90% up-time is directly related to the economic efficiency of the facility. These
stringent operational requirements will necessitate that every component in the
production plant be designed with a high level of durability, that the conversion
system(s) have modular designs, and are configured for easy repair.
41

Energy Efficiency (E2)
Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)
This Category I technology, when integrated with the Category XIII technology, should
be able to produce 80 gallons/DT of bioalcohol fuel (80-85% ethanol/10-15%
methanol), enough electricity and heat to operate the entire plant, and an extra 550
kWh of electricity for sale to the power grid or for operation of other collocated
operations. The total energy conversion efficiency of this plant averages 50%. If the
extra heat from the reciprocation engines/generators is recovered, then an extra 12%
efficiency can be realized.
Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)
This Category IX technology, when integrated with a thermal oxidation system
(Category V) for the production of electricity and heat from the waste materials should
be able to produce an average of 59 gallons of ethanol/BDT and an extra 205 kWh of
electricity. The total energy conversion efficiency of this plant averages 33%.
Thermochemical System (Electricity)
This Category I technology will produce a syngas with an average energy content in
the range of 400-600 BTU/ft 3 at an average thermal energy conversion efficiency of
75%. This technology, when integrated with a reciprocating engine/electrical
generator, operating at an average 40% syngas to electricity conversion efficiency, is
expected to produce an average of 1,400 kWh of electricity per 1.0 dry ton of wood.
Environmental Impacts (E3)
All thermochemical and biochemical processes for the conversion of biomass to
bioalcohols will produce air, water and solid waste effluents. However, the levels of
these effluents can be minimized by implementing the current BACT (Best
Available Control Technology) and developing even more advanced control
technologies. The collection, transport, and processing of biomass can also result
in certain air pollution and other environmental impacts beyond those described
here for production facilities.
Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)
The emissions of criteria pollutants for this plant are similar to the electricity-only plant,
as described below.
Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)
The criteria pollutant emissions from this plant are similar to that of a biomass
combustion plant. This is, in part, due to the use of a biomass combustion plant for
the generation of electricity and heat from the waste products.
42

Thermochemical System (Electricity)
There are only two sources of emissions from this plant–1) the burners used for
heating of the pyrolysis and heat forming chambers and 2) the emissions from the
reciprocating engine/generators. It was assumed that the engine/generators produced
by reciprocating engine manufacturers such as Deutsch and Jenbacher will be able to
meet the BACT demonstrated by companies like Bluepoint (Reno, NV). The total
estimated emissions of the criteria pollutants (NOx, SOx, PM, CO and VOC) are
summarized in Table 5.
Economics (E4)
This analysis was based upon using dry biomass with an energy content of 8,500
BTU/lb at a cost of $45.00/BDT that is delivered to a plant site in a Northern
Sacramento Valley farming community (Schuetzle, 2007).
Thermochemical System (Mixed Alcohols and Electricity)
This $66 million plant is projected to have the capability to co-produce 80 gallons of
alcohol fuel (85-90% ethanol/10-15% methanol) and 550 kWh of electricity (net) per
ton of dry biomass. The economic analysis results for a 500 DTPD plant operated for
329 days/year are as follows:
Capital Cost: $65.8 million
O&M Cost: $14.9 million/yr (incl. feedstock at $45.00/BDT)
Alcohol Production: 13.2 million gallons/yr (85-90% ethanol/10-15% methanol)
Electricity Production: 11.46 MW (net)
Alcohol Production Cost: $1.12/gallon (assumed that the electricity is sold at
$0.071/kWh)
Electricity Production Cost: -$0.025/kWh (assumes alcohol is sold at
$1.80/gallon)
Biochemical System (Ethanol and Electricity)
This 2,205 BDT/day facility is projected to have the capability to produce 59 gallons of
ethanol and 205 kWh of electricity (net) per ton of dry biomass. The economic
analysis results for this plant are as follows:
Capital Cost: $205 million
O&M Cost: $107.0 million/yr (incl. feedstock at $45.00/DT)
Ethanol Production: 42.8 million gallons/yr
Ethanol Production Cost: $2.24/gallon
43

In addition, this size plant will require large quantities of waste biomass resources.
The cost of transporting waste agricultural and forest biomass resources from beyond
a 30-40 mile radius from the plant would likely increase the feedstock cost beyond the
assumed $45.00/dry ton. However, if this facility was co-located with a large
traditional corn-to-ethanol or sugarcane-to-ethanol plant, then a sufficient supply of
low-cost feedstock might already exist on-site.
Thermochemical System (Electricity Only)
This $60 million plant is projected to have the capability to produce electricity at
$0.071/kWh, which is within the average current wholesale cost of electricity in
California ($0.070-$0.080/kWh). This electricity cost is much less than that for current
generation biomass combustion plants that typically produces electricity for an
average of $0.091/kWh.
These calculations assume that the 550 kWh/DT of electricity produced is sold to the
grid at a wholesale price of $0.071/kWh. Improvements in these thermochemical
technologies have the potential of reducing ethanol production costs to below
$1.00/gallon by 2012.
Socio-Political Effectiveness (E5)
Various socio-political issues will need to be addressed for all types of bioenergy
facilities, including general siting issues that often engender local community
opposition to new energy projects. Even conventional technology bioenergy
facilities face concerns such as water usage, waste disposal, emissions and odors.
Some of these same concerns will affect the siting of cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol
plants. Transportation and storage of biomass feedstocks pose an additional set of
concerns that need to be faced in the siting and permitting of bioenergy projects.
Cultivation of energy crops engenders further issues involving land and water use,
competition with food production, etc.
One important factor in overcoming opposition to individual projects is for nextgeneration
conversion technologies to develop and implement the best available
environmental control technologies for air emissions and wastewater and solid
waste effluents. Currently, some environmental groups are resistant to conversion
processes that operate at high temperatures (e.g. above 400 o F). These groups
believe that high temperature processes can produce dioxins and other hazardous
compounds. However, since thermochemical systems such as that depicted as
system A in Table 5 emit minimal particulate air emissions, it is not believed that
this will be an issue. Biochemical systems employing acids or other hazardous
materials will need to be especially attentive to storage and handling practices for
such materials that allay community and environmental agency concerns.
44

SECTION 8 - OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR
ALCOHOL FUEL PRODUCTION FROM BIOMASS
Biomass Resource Potential
Candidate sources of cellulosic biomass for alcohol fuel production exist in many
different forms with a variety of origins. The specific sources, characteristics and
quantities of these biomass resources vary widely by geographic region. They are
generally grouped into three overall source categories: agricultural products and
residues, forestry materials and municipal solid wastes. Examples of biomass
materials in each of these categories are currently being pursued as potential
feedstocks for cellulosic alcohol production processes, as well as for a range of other
bioenergy and non-energy uses.
The disposal of waste biomass has become a major problem for the agriculture,
forestry and municipal sectors. These sectors have a keen interest in supporting the
development and implementation of technologies that will be able to convert these
waste materials to energy and fuels. As a result, a number of studies have been
completed on the quantification of these biomass resources. Most biomass resource
studies make a distinction between total estimable quantities of existing biomass
(waste and residual) materials and the quantities judged likely to be obtainable for
beneficial uses given various technical, economic and institutional constraints.
Typically, biomass wastes and residues are viewed currently as the best feedstocks
for bioenergy production, even though they may pose greater technical challenges that
the production of specific energy crops. Cultivated biomass crops, including numerous
agriculture, silviculture and aquaculture crop species, continue to be studied for their
longer-term and potentially greater resource potential.
U.S. Biomass Resources
The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) have conducted or sponsored the most comprehensive studies of biomass
resource potential in the U.S. The latest, and perhaps most significant of these
studies, conducted under USDOE and USDA auspices by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, is commonly refered to as the “Bilion Ton Study” (Perlack, 2005). As
implied by the title, this project set out to investigate whether the U.S. could produce
an annual supply of one billion tons of biomass, a quantity that has been equated with
potential bioenergy production equivalent to about 30 percent of current U.S.
petroleum consumption. This 30 percent petroleum reduction target was set forth by
the federal Biomass R&D Technical Advisory Committee, a panel of government and
private sector representatives established in 2000 by Congress to guide federal
biomass R&D activities. The Billion Ton Study assessed the overall potential for
bioenergy (and other bioproduct) production from biomass in the broad sense–
45

including expansion of conventional grain-based biofuel production (from corn and
soybeans) as well as production from cellulosic wastes and residues and new energy
crops like perennial grasses and trees.
The Bilion Ton Study’s findings, summarized in Figure 4, exceeded its own
expectations, estimating over 1.3 bilion tons of biomass resource potential by “mid-
21 st century” from agricultural and forestry sources. The study did not attempt an
overall assessment of municipal solid wastes, but it did include (among forestry
materials) an estimate of urban wood residues. The study deems urban wood waste
to be the MSW fraction most amenable to bioenergy applications, even though such
material represents only about 13 million of the estimated 230 million tons per year of
MSW generated.
The largest source of waste biomass (nearly one billion tons) is from the agriculture
sector. This agriculture waste is comprised of crop residues (43%); perennial crops
(38%); grains (9%); and animal manures, food processing residues, and other
miscellaneous feedstocks (11%).
Forest materials comprise the remaining 27% of the study’s estimated national
biomass resource potential. About 48% of the 368 million tons of forest biomass
would come directly from so-caled forest “treatment” –thinning and removal of excess
material from forests, reducing the risk of catastrophic forest fires. About 39% would
be secondarily derived from the forest products industry. And the remaining 13%
would be comprised of urban wood wastes.
Figure 4 - Annual Biomass Resource Potential from Forest and
Agricultural Resources (Perlack et al. 2006)
46

For all of the biomass resource categories covered, the Billion Ton Study incorporates
growth factor assumptions on top of present-day resource inventories, along with other
assumptions intended to result in a single realistic estimate of producible biomass.
The authors suggest that this estimated national biomass resource potential “can be
produced with relatively modest changes in land use, and agricultural and forestry
practices. This potential, however, should not be thought of as an upper limit. It is just
a scenario based on a set ofreasonable assumptions.”
California’s Biomass Resources
California’s biomass resource potential has been the subject of a series of studies
conducted by the CEC and other organizations since the early 1990s (Tiangco, et al.,
1994). The 1999 CEC inventory was intended to quantify the gross amounts of
biomass produced in the state annually, not what could realistically be expected to be
collected and delivered for bioenergy production or other beneficial uses (Blackburn,
1999). Thus the 50 plus million tons per year overall estimate was conditioned with
the statement that “the actual amount of residues available wil be significantly lower
once economic, technological and institutional factors are considered.” The CEC
inventory did not attempt to project potential future growth in the estimated biomass
resources, but suggested that some categories of biomass wastes and residues would
be expected to increase while others might decrease.
More recently, in 2004, the California Biomass Collaborative (CBC), under
sponsorship of the CEC, conducted An Assessment of Biomass Resources in
California (Jenkins et al., 2005). CBC also provided an update of this work to support
the Commission’s 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (Jenkins, 2005). TheCBC’s
assessments represent the most detailed inventory of the state’s biomass wastes and
residues to date, with the most specific sub-categorization of these biomass resources
and including a county level resource distribution. The CBC 2005 biomass resource
estimate is summarized in Table 6. The gross resource estimate is said to have an
uncertainty factor of about 10 percent.
47

Table 6 - Estimates of Annually Available Biomass in
California (Millions of Dry Tons per Year)
Agricultural Wastes/Residues
Gross Technical
Animal Manure 11.8 4.5
Field and Seed 4.9 2.4
Orchard and Vine 2.6 1.8
Vegetable 1.2 0.1
Food Processing 1.0 0.8
Total Agricultural 21.6 9.6
Forestry Wastes/Residues
Logging Slash 8.0 4.3
Forest Remediation Waste 7.7 4.1
Mill Residue 6.2 3.3
Chaparral 4.9 2.6
Total Forestry 26.8 14.3
Municipal Wastes/Residues
MSW Land filled 18.5 *
MSW Diverted from Landfills 18.4 9.2
Biosolids Land filled 0.1 *
Biosolids Diverted 0.6 0.5
Total Municipal 37.6 9.7
Total Biomass 86.0 33.6
* California Biomass Collaborative, Jenkins et al (2005)
** Land filled MSW and biosolids assumed to be available as landfill gas
The CBC inventory includes estimates of both gross annual biomass production and of
so-caled “technical resource potential” –the amounts in each biomass category
estimated to be potentially supplied for beneficial applications. The total estimated
technical potential of 33.6 million tons per year amounts to about 40 percent of the
estimated gross resource of 86 million tons. CBC’s report describes the estimate of
technical potentialas “a preliminary estimate based on technical and ecosystem
limitations in resource acquisition and does not strictly define the fraction of biomass
that is economicaly feasible to use.”
The CBC’s 2005 inventory provides a considerably higher estimate of state biomass
resources than the previous CEC estimates. In fact, the CBC estimate of technical
biomass potential approaches the original 1994 estimate of gross biomass potential
developed by the CEC, and the CBC’s latest estimate of gross biomass is about 70
percent higher than the CEC 1999 estimate. Also, the 2005 CBC report projects
growth of the gross and technical biomass resource potentials by 2017 to about 100
million tons and 40 million tons, respectively.
48

The above CEC and CBC inventories of waste and residual biomass sources indicate
a technical potential for biofuel production from these sources equivalent to about 10%
of California’scurrent transportation fuel supply. About 5 million tons per year, or
roughly one-seventh of the estimated technical biomass resource estimate, is currently
being utilized, mostly for biopower generation.
The ultimate long-term potential for bioenergy production beyond biomass wastes and
residues is represented by energy crops produced specifically for this purpose.
Compared to the above estimates of waste and residual biomass resources, the
potential for cultivation of energy crops as feedstocks for bioenergy production has
been less definitively quantified. Many different types of dedicated energy crops have
been identified, and some have been subjects of research for potential bioenergy
applications in California. These include perennial grasses and trees for cellulosic
biofuel production as well as many starch, sugar and oil crops for conventional biofuel
processes. California’s climate and standing as the nations’ number oneagricultural
state definitely present some major opportunities for energy crop production, with the
ultimate potential of agriculturally-based energy in the state still to be determined.
Prospects for Expanded Research, Development,
Demonstration and Deployment (R3D) Activities
While the development of biomass to bioalcohol fuel technologies has been pursued
for several decades, none of the bioalcohol production technologies described in this
report have been commercially deployed. However, concerns about the increasing
price and long-term supplies of energy, climate change, geopolitical and energy
security, and the rapid growth of energy demand in developing countries is driving
every sector of the energy industry to pursue renewable fuels, other alternative fuels,
efficiency and demand management.
In recent years, interest in carbon emission reduction has grown dramatically. The
New Oxford American Dictionary even chose "carbon neutral" as its "Word of the
Year" for 2006–clear evidence, if more was needed, that this is the wave of the
present -- and that understanding the role of energy technology in attaining "carbon
neutrality" is increasingly important. Bioenergy, including bioalcohols and other
biofuels, clearly offer some of the most promising options for achieving carbon
reduction goals.
The above concerns are expected to result in rapidly increasing levels of funding for
research, development, demonstration and deployment (R3D) projects for biofuels and
bioenergy. There has never been such a wide-ranging opportunity for technological
advancements in the area of renewable and clean fuels and electricity. Venture
capitalists (VCs) are the new players in renewable energy. Many of the VC funding
sources that brought immense innovation in information technology and life sciences
49

are now focusing on the energy industry. In North America, such venture capital
investment reached an estimated $2.1 billon in 2006, four times what it was in 2004
(Clean Venture Network, 2006).
Federal, state and local governments have also increased significantly their support of
biofuels and bioenergy R3D projects. This investment surge comes not only with
hope, but in many cases with hype. The bioenergy technology development field, and
bioalcohol production technology in particular, has seen its share of exaggerated
claimsand unrealistic expectations over the years. And, while today’s development
picture shows great promise, there is still no guarantee which, if any, of the biomassto-ethanol
processes under development will achieve commercial success, or on what
timetable. As has been the case with other emerging areas of technology, many of
the technology development activities described in this report will end up becoming
“dry wels.” This is the character of R&D and venture investing. Further R3D progress
must address a variety of remaining technical, environmental and regulatory, marketrelated,
and socio-political challenges in order for cellulosic bioalcohol production to
achieve commercial reality. These challenges are summarized in the following
subsections:
Technical Challenges
Remaining technical issues still need to be resolved for both the thermochemical and
biochemical conversion of cellulosic biomass to alcohol fuels. For thermochemical
technologies, for example, specificity of syngas to ethanol catalyst performance needs
further development work. Biochemical technologies require further development of
lower-cost and more effective enzymes. Technical issues also remain with respect to
feedstock characteristics; collection, processing and storage of feedstock; process
scale-up and integration of commercial scale facilities. The lack of complete and welldocumented
demonstration-scale project results continues to impede the availability of
financing for commercial applications of any of the cellulosic bioalcohol production
technologies.
Environmental and Regulatory Challenges
The lack of substantial data from demonstration scale facilities to quantify the potential
environmental impacts -- involving air emissions; water use and treatment; ecological
impacts; solid waste disposal; environmental permitting; and the impacts related to the
delivery of biomass (i.e. traffic, emissions, odor and noise) pose continuing issues for
the development of cellulosic bioalcohol facilities. Siting and permitting new facilities is
often complex and arduous for biofuel project developers in California and in some
other U.S. regions. Various environmental and regulatory issues also continue to
affect the collection and transportation of biomass feedstocks, especially with respect
to the regulation of municipal waste sector in California and the harvesting of excess
forest materials.
50

Economic and Institutional Challenges
The promise of cellulosic ethanol production is often equated with lower production
cost than today’ssugar- and starch-based ethanol production. However, realizing
technically viable, commercially deployable production technology does not
necessarily assure economically competitive or lower-cost bioalcohol production. Nor
does technological success necessarily assure that the necessary investments to
create a major commercial industry employing such technologies will immediately
follow.
Some of the more significant economic and institutional constraints are:
Access to bank loans, which could be alleviated by legislative authorization of
10-to 15-year loan guarantees for construction and operation of biomass to
ethanol facilities
Need for reliable, long term contracts for supplies of low cost waste biomass
feedstocks
Need for qualified and trained personnel
Market-Related Challenges
In order for investments in new fuel production technologies to be effective, adequate
markets must be assured for the resulting fuel products, preferably markets in
reasonable proximity to the production locations. Ethanol’s curent 6% share of
California’s 16 bilion galons-per-year gasoline market seemingly represents a huge
market opportunity for future production sources of this fuel, with less than 100 million
of the current 950 million gallons of ethanol used in the state currently supplied by instate
producers. Prospects for increasing the ethanol blending percentage to 10% or
more, along with other potential ethanol fuel applications such as E85 in flexible fuel
vehicles, equate with an even larger longer-term market share for ethanol. However,
there are some remaining uncertainties that preclude any confident estimate of future
market demand for ethanol in California. These include:
Continuing air quality regulatory issues affecting the allowable and economically
effective ethanol blending percentage in gasoline
Individual and collective decisions by gasoline marketers on ethanol/gasoline
blending strategies to comply with federal Renewable Fuel Standard guidelines
still being formulated
Outcome of new initiatives to increase the national permissible ethanol
percentage in gasoline beyond the current 10% level
Prevailing constraints to E85 market growth involving both a limited FFV
population and slow introduction of fueling infrastructure
51

Undetermined viability of other potential ethanol fuel markets such as diesel
engines, aviation fuels, and fuel cell vehicles
These market uncertainties for ethanol are amplified with respect to other alcohol fuels
and mixed alcohol products. The prospective advantages of mixed alcohol fuels from a
production standpoint would require equivalent market-side advancement in order to
make this a viable technology approach.
52

SECTION 9 - GOVERNMENT ROLES AND INITIATIVES
A number of federal government programs have been initiated to accelerate the
development of domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuels.
USDOE’s Advanced Energy Initiative was set up to make celulosic ethanol costcompetitive
so that this renewable fuel could potentially displace up to 30% of the
current transportation fuel used in the US. DOE recently announced (DOE, Feb. 28,
2007) an investment of up to $385 million for the demonstration and deployment of six
thermochemical and biochemical conversion technologies in California, Florida,
Georgia, Idaho, Iowa and Kansas. Profiles for the six grant recipients (Abengoa,
ALICO, Blue Fire Ethanol, Broin, Iogen and Range Fuels) are included in Appendix I.
The investment in these six technologies is projected to total more than $1.2 billion
over the next four years. These DOE programs will provide a significant boost to the
advancement of such conversion technologies. The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) has also appropriated $2.0 Billion for clean and renewable
energy R&D in 2007 and proposed $14.0 Billion for 2008.
On October 13, 2006, the USDA and USDOE announced $17.5 million in grants for 17
research, development and demonstration projects that will help make biobased fuels
cost competitive with fossil fuels in the commercial market.
The State of California is also stepping up its support for bioenergy development. This
includes new CEC research and development programs to help advance the
demonstration and deployment of biomass-to-alcohol and other biofuel production
technologies in the state. Three grants totaling $3 million were awarded in April 2007
by the Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program for R&D
projects involving thermochemical and biochemical technologies.
In 2006, CA Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-06-06 to help
California meet future needs for clean, renewable energy, and calling for actions by
the state to meet targets for in-state production of biofuels and biopower. In response
to this Executive Order, the CEC, in conjunction with the California Biomass
Collaborative at U.C. Davis, has prepared a roadmap for biomass research and
development.
In March of 2006, the Governor asked the Bioenergy Interagency Working Group
(Working Group) to make recommendations for near-term state government actions to
increase the use of biomass resources. The Working Group consists of the CEC and
includes the Air Resources Board (CARB), California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal/EPA), California Public Utilities Commission, California Resources
Agency, Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, Department of General Services, Integrated Waste Management Board,
and the State Water Resources Control Board.
The Bioenergy Action Plan (CEC 2006) has the following policy objectives:
53

1. Maximize the contributions of bioenergy toward achieving the state’s petroleum
reduction, climate change, renewable energy, and environmental goals.
2. Establish California as a market leader in technology innovation, sustainable
biomass development, and market development for biobased products.
3. Coordinate research, development, demonstration, and commercialization
efforts across federal and state agencies.
4. Align existing regulatory requirements to encourage production and use of
California’s biomass resources.
5. Facilitate market entry for new applications of bioenergy including electricity,
biogas, and biofuels.
On September 27, 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the Global
Warming Solutions Act. The Act calls for the reduction of California’s greenhouse gas
emissions by 11% by 2010, by 25% by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The enforcement of AB 32 will be phased in starting in 2012.
Under the Act, the state board is authorized to adopt market-based compliance
mechanisms, including cap-and-trade, and allow for one-year extension of the targets
under extraordinary circumstances. CARB is directed to develop appropriate
regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor
greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, the Act requires CARB to distribute costs and benefits equitably, ensure
that there are no direct, indirect or cumulative increases in air pollution, protect those
who have voluntarily reduced their emissions prior to the passage of this act, and allow
for coordination with other agencies to reduce emissions.
54

SECTION 10 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Production of ethanol and other alcohol fuels from cellulosic biomass offers a
promising means of supplying a significant part of future transportation energy needs
using renewable resources. However, significant remaining research, development,
demonstration and deployment (R3D) steps need to be successfully pursued before
technologies for producing alcohol fuels from cellulosic biomass can be considered
commercially available.
The impact of high energy prices, geopolitical uncertainty, the growing focus on clean
energy technologies and concern about global climate change are driving substantial
increases in funding from the public and private sectors. These factors have resulted
recently in a substantial increase in biomass-to-alcohol research and development in
the U.S. and several other countries. A number of new and expanded demonstration
projects are under development and plans for several commercial-scale projects are
being formulated. This increasing emphasis on development activities is encouraging,
but still does not assure advancement of any of the various biomass-to-alcohol
production technology options to the commercial stage.
For those technologies that appear to be promising, demonstration and commercial
scale plants need to be built, tested, validated and improved. These plants need to
be fully assessed applying a methodology such as the 5E approach described in
this report–covering technical validation, energy efficiency, environmental
impacts, economic viability, and socio-political effectiveness. A consistent method
should be adopted as a tool by government, private and academic organizations to
help evaluate the potential viability of emerging thermochemical and biochemical
conversion processes. This type of process also has the value of identifying
potential problems with candidate technologies, and it can help identify RD&D
programs that should be carried out to help resolve those problems.
Although numerous biofuel and bioenergy reports and presentations have been
published by public and private sector organizations during the past two decades,
most of the information contained within these resources has not been published in
peer-reviewed scientific and engineering journals, books, patents and other readily
accessible resources. As has been the case with the rapid development and
advancement of other technologies (e.g. information systems, software and
automotive technologies), much more effort is needed to encourage the publication of
such information in these peer-reviewed resources.
Government organizations should implement regulations, provide increased R3D
support, and grant incentives that will help promote technological advancements and
the implementation of production plants by the public sector. However, government
should not mandate the type(s) of technologies that they believe will be the future
winners, but support all promising technology approaches to the point where the most
effective technologies prove commercially successful. The coordination of agencies
55

with regards to siting and permitting could streamline the demonstration and
deployment of these technologies. Governments can also assist on the market side
through policies and regulations that assure adequate markets for bioalcohols and coproducts
and adequate returns on investments in production facilities.
The recently funded DOE projects are intended to produce several demonstration
projects by at least 2012. Other technology companies are planning to build
commercial scale plants by this time. These expectations appear to be realistic
assuming that the level of interest and funding continues to increase substantially.
Among the 38 active technology developers profiled in this study are a number of
promising candidates for potential commercial deployment. Included are both
thermochemical and biochemical process approaches representing fundamentally
different technology paths. Both approaches require and warrant further development
emphasis and funding support, although most emphasis to date has been on the
biochemical path. Thermochemical technology is the more emerging path, but
appears to have certain advantages that suggest it deserves at least equal
development attention.
Thermochemical processes have the ability to convert virtually any biomass feedstock
to bioalcohols or other biofuels, a particularly important feature for California and other
regions with a wide variety of biomass feedstock sources of different compositions and
qualities. The energy efficiencies and environmental characteristics of facilities
employing thermochemical technologies appear attractive as well. Also, the
thermochemical processes require much less biomass for economic viability, making
them better suited for the distributed production of bioalcohols and electricity.
The thermochemical technology with the highest probability for success is an
integrated pyrolysis/steam reforming process. Current analysis suggests that a
commercial plant utilizing this technology should be able to produce mixed alcohols at
a cost of about $1.15/gallon for a 500 BDT/day plant, which would make this process
competitive with traditional corn-based ethanol production. If market constraints to the
use of mixed alcohols as transportation fuels prevail, then the further refinement of
mixed alcohols to ethanol would add nominally to this production cost.
The biochemical conversion processes encompass two primary approaches–acid
hydrolysis/fermentation and enzymatic hydrolysis/fermentation. Biochemical
conversion processes that utilize enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulose, followed by
fermentation of the simple sugars are currently estimated to have an ethanol
production cost of approximately $2.24/gallon for a 2,205 BDT/day plant. Projected
improvements in biochemical conversion processes have the potential of reducing
ethanol production costs below $1.50/gallon for 2,205 BDT/day or larger plants by
2012.
Larger biochemical conversion plants can become viable when significant quantities
(>2,000 tons/day) of biomass are available at feedstock costs below $35/BDT. An
56

initial attractive application may be to co-locate these plants with large, traditional cornto-ethanol
production plants. Thermochemical processes can also be integrated with
biochemical processes to supply electricity, heat (steam), cooling and the production
of additional ethanol from waste materials. These integrated approaches are expected
to increase plant energy efficiency, reduce emissions and increase economic benefits.
The following R3D needs are identified for both thermochemical and biochemical
technologies under development for producing alcohol fuels from cellulosic
biomass:
Thermochemical Processes
The production of syngas from thermochemical conversion systems will need to meet
certain compositional and purity standards to ensure acceptable catalyst efficiencies,
selectivities and lifetimes for the efficient and economical production of bioalcohols.
Thermochemical conversion systems are needed that meet the following
specifications:
~100% energy conversion efficiency of biomass to syngas, with external energy
input of ~25% of natural gas and electricity (or)
~75% energy conversion efficiency of biomass to syngas, using the syngas as a
heating source for the thermochemical conversion system)
Syngas that has >350 Btu/SCF energy content at ambient conditions (STP)
Syngas that meets or exceeds the following composition specifications:
H2+CO:
CH4:
CO2:
N2+O2+Ar:
C6–C16
Tars/Waxes (>C16):
Sulfur and Chlorine:
Particulate Matter (excluding Tar) :
>60 mole%
15-25 mole%

Thermochemical processes also require further catalyst development, including the
following recommended efforts.
Develop catalysts for the conversion of syngas to bioalcohols that have the following
capabilities:
A one-pass catalyst conversion efficiency of greater than 30% (the current
average conversion efficiency is ~18%)
An ethanol/methanol catalyst selectivity of greater than 5/1
A conversion efficiency for >2,000 hrs while maintaining greater than 80% of the
initial catalyst specifications
Develop integrated systems for the co-production of bioalcohols, electricity and heat
that:
Reduce the number of unit processes needed to co-produce bioalcohol,
electricity and heat, resulting in the reduction of capital and O&M costs
Continuous syngas composition monitoring systems, integrated with real-time
process control, for the optimization of bioalcohol, electricity and heat
production
Biochemical Processes
Some R3D recommendations needed to develop efficient and low-cost methods for
the production of ethanol via biochemical production technologies include:
Separation of lignin and cellulose from sugars
The development of lower-cost enzymes needed for the hydrolysis of cellulose
Recovery and re-use of enzymes after the enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose
Recovery and re-use of acids after feedstock pretreatment and the acid
hydrolysis of cellulose
The development of fermentation organisms capable of co-fermenting C5 and
C6 sugars
The purification and recycling of wastewater with the objective of reaching a
zero discharge system
58

SECTION 11 - REFERENCES
Barrett, J., Ethanol Reaps a Backlash in Small Midwestern Towns, WSJ (Friday,
March 23, 2007).
Blackburn, B., T. MacDonald, M. McCormack, P. Perez, M. Scharff and S. Unnasch,
Evaluation of Biomass-to-Ethanol Fuel Potential in California, CEC 500-99-022,
California Energy Commission (December 1999)
California Energy Commission, Report # CEC-600-2006-010 (2006A)
California Energy Commission, 2006 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, CEC-
100-2006-001-CTF (2006B )
California Energy Commission,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/biomass/ethanol/projects.html,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/projects/fact_sheets/COLLINS1.pdf
Fieser, L. F., and Fieser, M, Organic chemistry, 2 nd Edition, Heath and Company,
Boston, Chapter 18, p. 483 (1950).
Gildart, M., Jenkins, B.M., Williams, R. B., Yan, L., Aldas, R.E. and Matteson, C., An
Assessment of Biomass Resources in California, CEC PIER Contract 500-01-
016 Report (2005).
Hasler, P., and Nussbaumer, T., Gas Cleaning for IC Engine Applications from Fixed
Bed Biomass Gasification, Biomass and Bio-energy, 16(6), 385-395 (1999).
Jenkins, BM, Biomass in California: Challenges, Opportunities and Potentials for
Sustainable Management and Development, California Biomass Collaborative,
California Energy Commission report, CEC-500-01-016 (2005)
Jenkins, BM, A Preliminary Roadmap for the Development of Biomass in California,
California Energy Commission report, CEC-500-2006-095-D (2006)
Klass, D. L., Biomass for Renewable Energy, Fuels and Chemicals, Academic Press
(1998).
Minteer, S., Alcoholic Fuels, CRC Press (2006).
Nechodom, M., Schuetzle, D., Ganz, D., Cooper, J., Sustainable Forests and the
Environment, Environmental Science and Technology Journal, In Press (2007)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and
Bioproducts Industry –The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual
Supply, DOE (April 2005).
59

Perlack, R., L. Wright, A. Turhollow, R. Graham, B. Stokes and D. Erbach, Biomass as
Feedstock for a Bio-energy and Bio-products Industry: The Technical Feasibility
of a Billion-ton Annual Supply, Oak Ridge National Laboratory under U.S. DOE
contract DE-AC05-000R22725 (April 2005)
Quaak, P., Knoef, H, Stassen, H., Energy from Biomass –A Review of Combustion
and Gasification Technologies, World Bank Technical Paper #422 (1999).
Quincy Library Group, Northeastern California Ethanol Manufacturing Feasibility
Study, Feedstock Supply and Delivery Systems Final Report, prepared by TSS
Consultants, June 1997.
Schuetzle, D., Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing Biomass Gasification
Technology: Pilot Plant Gasifier and Syngas Conversion Testing, NREL
Technical Report #510-37581, Golden, CO; prepared under TSS Consultants
Subcontract to NREL No. ZCO-2-32065-01 (February 2005).
Parsons, E. L. and Shelton, W. W. Advanced Fossil Power Systems Comparison
Study, National Energy Technology Laboratory (December, 2002).
Schuetzle, D. and Greg Tamblyn, An Assessment of Biomass Conversion
Technologies and Recommendations in Support of an Integrated
Thermochemical Refinery Approach for the Production of Energy and Fuels
from Rice Harvest Waste, DOE Report #DE-FC36-03G013071, Golden, CO,
prepared under TSS Consultants Subcontract to DOE No. DE-FC36-
03G013071 (August 2007),
Spath, P.L. and Dayton, D.C., Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas
to Fuels and Chemicals with Emphasis on the Potential for Biomass-derived
Syngas, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA. Report #
TP-510-34929 (2003).
Tiangco, V., Sethi, P., Simons, G. and K. Birkinshaw, Biomass Resource Assessment
Report for California, California Energy Commission (1994)
TSS Consultants, Gridley Ethanol Demonstration Project Utilizing Biomass
Gasification Technology - Pilot Plant Gasifier and Syngas Conversion Testing,
NREL/SR-510-3758 (February 2005)
U.S. Patents 4,675,344; 4,749,724; 4,752, 623; 4,752,622; 4,762,858
Von Bernath, H., G. Matteson, R. Williams, L. Yan, M. Gildart, B. Jenkins, et al., An
Assessment of Biomass Resources in California, California Biomass
60

Collaborative, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research
Program (2004).
Wall Street Journal, page A8 (Feb. 14, 2007).
Wall Street Journal, page A12 (Feb. 15, 2007).
Wall Street Journal, page A1 (March 23, 2007)
Western Governor’s Association, Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, Biomass
Task Force Report (Jan. 2006)
61

APPENDIX 1 - TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPER PROFILES
This appendix summarizes the information gathered by the study on organizations
engaged in active development of technologies for producing ethanol, or other forms
of alcohol fuel, from cellulosic biomass feedstocks. Over fifty organizations worldwide
were identified during the course of the study as possibly pursuing such technologies.
Most of these organizations responded to a survey questionnaire developed and
distributed by the project team requesting basic non-confidential information on their
organizations, characteristics of their bioalcohol process technologies, and their
technology development status and future plans.
Some survey respondents indicated they were not presently active in this field or that
their technology development did not involve a complete process for producing an
alcohol fuel from cellulosic biomass. A few organizations declined to respond to the
survey and others indicated they prefer to keep most or all of their development
progress confidential. Therefore, additional sources of information were used to
supplement the survey, including websites, papers and presentations and direct
contacts. Only publicly-releasable information supplied by technology developers or
otherwise found in the public domain was used to compile these profiles. For the most
part, the information is exactly as reported by the development organizations, with no
attempt by the project team to screen or substantiate this developer-specific
information.
Following in this appendix are profiles of 38 organizations that were found to be
actively engaged in the development of a cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol production
process. These profiles are grouped in various technology categories previously
described in the report (and summarized in Table 1, page 9).
Of the organizations listed, 26 are headquartered in the U.S., 5 in Canada, 2 in Brazil,
and one each in Sweden, Germany, Spain, Denmark and Japan. This list is believed
to include most of the noteworthy entities currently active in this field, especially in the
U.S. and Canada. However, there may very well be other organizations, especially
outside North America, engaged in bioalcohol process development. There are also
many other organizations (not listed) pursuing development of related components of
bioalcohol production technologies, such as enzyme development for biochemical
processes, catalyst development for thermochemical processes, etc.
62

CATEGORY 1–THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
INCORPORATING PYROLYSIS/STEAM REFORMING
WITHOUT OXYGEN
Nova Fuels, Fresno, California
Organizational Background–Nova Fuels is an independent technology innovation
company pursuing development and commercialization of a biomass-to-alcohol fuel
process designed to produce a mixed alcohol product called Novahol.
Technology Characteristics–The Nova Fuels technology uses a thermochemical
steam reforming processes to produce syngas. Biomass is ground to 1”-2” and
injected into the pyrolysis/steam reformer using a screw auger. Appropriate
feedstocks can include wood waste, agricultural waste, sorted municipal solid waste,
and other clean carbon sources. This process is illustrated in Figure A1.
The gasifier and its steam reforming section are a proprietary design of Nova Fuels
and can be sized for different feedstock rates. Due to the presence of the 1500º F
superheated steam in the reactor vessel, the Nova Fuels system provides both a long
residence time and little opportunity for fouling the reactor internals with tar.
Catalysts will be used to convert the syngas to a mixture of alcohols, consisting
primarily of methanol and ethanol and traces of propanol, butanol and pentanol.
Nova Fuels believes that they have carried out enough engineering and modeling work
to proceed directly to commercial scale development. They have designed their
thermochemical conversion systems to convert 250 DTPD of biomass feedstock to
syngas.
Development Status–Nova Fuels is currently engineering a commercial scale
facility, having opted to bypass the demonstration phase. The end product of the
catalytic process is Novahol which is made up of a range of fuel alcohols and can, if
necessary, be refined to pure ethanol, propanol, butanol, or pentanol. Novahol, said to
have an octane rating of 120, could also potentially be used as a fuel by itself, as an
oxygenator for gasoline and diesel fuels (including biodiesel), and as an octane
booster for gasoline. Nova Fuels is anticipating that the US EPA and CARB will
ultimately approve this alcohol mixture as a gasoline additive.
Future Plans–Nova Fuels is planning to build its first commercial facility at a site in
Medical Lake, WA. This plant is intended to employ 8 of Nova Fuels’ nominal size
processing modules for a total processing capacity of 2000 tons per day of biomass
materials. Most of the feedstock will be wheat straw, supplemented by material from
paper and lumber mills. The company has also been exploring potential projects in
California and elsewhere.
63

Figure A1. Nova Fuels Process Flow Illustration
Nova Fuels, all rights reserved
Pearson Bioenergy Technologies, Aberdeen, Mississippi
Organizational Background–Pearson Bioenergy Technologies has carried out
research efforts since the early 1990s to develop technologies for the conversion of
biomass material into syngas and the syngas into alcohol, including ethanol. As a
result, Pearson has developed a system for the production of syngas, electric power
and bioalcohol using a unique combination of gasification and steam reforming
processes. In addition, Pearson has developed proprietary Fischer-Tropsch type (F-T)
catalysts to convert syngas to ethanol.
Technology Characteristics– The feedstock is sized to 3/16” and fed, along with
superheated steam, into a gas-fired primary reformer. Prior to entering the reformer,
air is removed from the feedstock to minimize dilution of the syngas product with
nitrogen. The multi-stage steam reformer (gasifier) is said to have a “cold gas”
efficiency of 81%. The raw syngas then passes through a series of gas clean-up steps
to remove any ash or tars. The clean syngas is then compressed to a high pressure
and passed through a series of F-T stages to adjust the ratio of H 2 to CO to an
optimum for reaction to ethanol. A proprietary catalyst developed by Pearson is
utilized. The hot, raw syngas is cooled in the steam production/heat recovery system
and the recovered heat is used to produce super heated steam and lower grade heat
for feedstock drying. A simplified illustration of the Pearson process is presented in
Figure A2.
Since the F-T catalyst cannot produce a single alcohol product (ethanol in this case)
with one pass, in order to increase the yield of ethanol it is necessary to separate the
other products (e.g., methanol) by distillation and reintroduce the methanol with the H2
64

and CO at the compression stage. The nearly complete conversion of the methanol to
ethanol may require recycling up to 7 or 8 times.
Development Status–The Pearson technology is currently operational at the pilot
scale stage at the company’s facility located at the Aberdeen, MS industrial park. The
pilot plants have a nominal capacity for processing 30 tons of biomass per day.
Among the feedstocks tested to date at the facility are rice straw from the Gridley,
California area, and mesquite wood from Texas. A February 2005 report by TSS
Consultants, sponsored by U.S. DOE/NREL (2005) examines the Pearson technology
in detail for potential application to the proposed Gridley Ethanol Project.
Future Plans–Pearson continues to pursue applications of its technology in various
proposed projects in a number of U.S. states, including Mississippi, Texas, California
and Hawaii.
Figure A2. Pearson Technologies Process Flow Diagram
Pearson Bioenergy Technologies, Inc., all rights reserved
Power Energy Fuels, Inc., Lakewood, Colorado
Organizational Background–Power Energy Fuels, Inc. (PEFI) was formed in 1996
as a Nevada Corporation. The company has a licensing agreement with
PowerEnerCat, Inc. for the exclusive worldwide rights to the Ecalene process. Ecalene
is a mixed alcohol, comprised of ethanol, methanol, butanol, propanol, hexanol and
other alcohols.
Technology Characteristics–PEFI is developing its own downdraft gasifier, which
produces the low BTU syngas needed for production of Ecalene. The gasifier is
planned to accept up to 300 tons per day with approximately 30% moisture content.
The company has integrated the gasification process into the Ecalene process, called
the Power Energy System. The process, illustrated in Figure A3, employs a
proprietary catalyst. The company also is able to work with other gasification vendors
65

to produce Ecalene. The Ecalene fuel production process is also suited for use with
larger IGCC systems, such as the GE Energy Gasifier, formerly the Chevron/Texaco
technology, and the e-gas gasifier from Conoco Phillips.
Development Status–PEFI has not reported on its actual technology development
activities or results to date. However, the company claims to currently have the
capability to produce and sell the mixed alcohol Ecalene, and is pursuing funding for
projects. The company is working with modular designs with production capacities of
from 21,000 to 30,000 gallons per day, intended to be close to the feedstock supply
source. The process can reportedly employ a wide variety of agricultural, forestry and
municipal waste feedstocks. Ecalene, said to have a blending octane value of 124, is
registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a fuel additive,
and has potential applications as a neat fuel in hydrous or anhydrous form.
Future Development Plans–PEFI is currently working with a large oil company as
well as Eastman Kodak on the large IGCC plant. The company will continue to
develop their downdraft gasifier while searching for additional funding. The company’s
business plan incorporates various approaches to commercializing the Ecalene
process, including plant licensing agreements, production royalties, new plant sales,
and joint venture partnerships.
Figure A3. PEFI Fuel Process Diagram
66

Range Fuels, Inc., Denver, Colorado
Organizational Background–Range Fuels, Inc. is a privately held company funded
by Khosla Ventures, LLC. The company was formerly known as Kergy, Inc., and
before that BioConversion Technology, LLC (BCT). The company, which employs 25
people, operates a pilot facility in Denver, CO, testing its gasification-based process
for producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass, which the predecessor companies have
been developing for a number of years.
Technology Characteristics–The Range Fuels technology relies on gasification in
the absence of oxygen. The system, which the company calls K2, uses a two step
process to convert biomass to a synthetic gas and from there convert the gas to
ethanol. It can accept a variety of biomass feedstocks, such as wood chips,
agricultural wastes, grasses, and cornstalks as well as hog manure, municipal
garbage, sawdust and paper pulp into ethanol. The K2 system is also modular;
depending on the quantity and availability of feedstock, the K2 system can scale from
entry level systems to large configurations. This allows for location near the biomass
source and selection of the most economical plant size for each application.
Development Status–Range Fuels has tested its gasifier at the 25 ton per day scale
in the company’s pilot plant. Technical results of this development progress to date
are not disclosed.
Future Plans–Range Fuels intends to design, build, own and operate facilities
applying its proprietary technology, and has plans to fully commercialize this
technology. The company is presently pursuing a commercial demonstration project
incorporating its technology in Soperton (Truetlen County) Georgia. Partners in this
project include Merrick and Co., PRAJ Industries, Georgia Forestry Commission,
Western Research Institute, Yeomans Wood and Timber, Truetlen County
Development Authority, BioConversion Technology and CH2M Hill, and Gillis Ag and
Timber. USDOE, in February 2007, awarded a grant of up to $76 million to Range
Fuels to co-fund this project.
Range Fuels’ Georgia project is scheduled to break ground in 2007. This plant is
intended to ultimately produce 40 million gallons of ethanol plus 9 million gallons of
methanol per year. The primary feedstock for this plant will be wood waste from
Georgia’s milions of acres of indigenous Georgia Pine. The project is intended to
begin operation at a scale of 10 million gallons per year and add additional modules to
reach the above full capacity. About 1,200 tons per day of wood chips and forest
waste feedstock are expected to be processed at full operating capacity.
67

Thermo Conversions, Denver, Colorado
Organizational Background–Thermo Conversions (TC) is a privately help company
involved in joint ventures with several organizations to pursue thermochemical
bioenergy technology development. Partner companies include Wiley Engineering
and others. TC plans are to develop and deploy fully integrated systems for the coproduction
of bioalcohols, electricity and heat.
Technology Characteristics–The TC technology utilizes thermochemical
pyrolysis/steam reforming in the absence of oxygen or air, intended to optimize
conversion efficiency of biomass carbon to syngas. TC claims to have made a
number of significant technical innovations and improvements to the state-of-the-art
including: modular design that facilitates sectional construction and allows rapid
service of parts and components; a track-feed biomass introduction system; a system
that eliminates air from entering the pyrolysis chamber, minimizing oxidation of organic
compounds; injection of ionized water into the reactor, enhancing syngas production
and reducing production of tars and phenols; and a flue gas closed-loop recycling
system to enhance carbon source conversion and reduce emissions.
Energy efficient production of cleaned syngas is predicted by TC to represent energy
content in the 400-600 BTU/cubic ft. range. This syngas can be used for the
production of electricity, heat and steam or converted to liquid fuels and chemical
feedstocks allowing the handling of most all types of feedstock materials.
Development Status–The TC technology has been integrated with a syngas to
bioalcohol and electricity production technology developed by Pacific Renewable
Fuels (PRF). The PRF technology employs next-generation catalysts and process
control technologies for which several patents are pending. Parts, components and
materials are applied that have undergone long-term testing under real-world
operating conditions and that are readily available from reliable suppliers. The trackfeed
biomass introduction system utilized has been proven to be reliable through many
years of use by the coal industry.
Future Plans–A 200 ton/day TC production plant for the conversion of biomass to
electricity and bioalcohol is being built at a location in the Port of Toledo, OH area.
This TC plant will be equipped with instrumentation that will allow environmental,
energy and mass balance measurements. The plant has been designed with a high
level of modularity so that operational changes can be made quickly to solve any
problems that may arise and to further enhance the “optimization” of syngas energy
value, purity, and volume output from the system. TC indicates they are also
designing other plants for deployment in the U.S. and Canada.
68

CATEGORY II–THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
INCORPORATING GASIFICATION WITH OXYGEN
Bioversion Industries, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Organizational Background–Bioversion Industries Inc. (Bioversion) was established
in 2005 in Ontario, Canada by Thermo Design Engineering Limited, an Alberta
engineering and construction company that specializes in petrochemical and chemical
process systems and Woodland Chemical Systems Inc., a developer of process
technologies for the areas of energy, environment, and waste disposal. Bioversions is
licensed by Woodland Chemical for the Catalyzed Pressure Reduction (CPR)
technology.
Technology Characteristics–The CPR technology is a gasification technology
designed to convert lignocellulosic feedstock to ethanol. The feedstock is sized to less
than two inch blocks, and then dried to fifteen percent moisture. The ethanol
production system creates extra heat that is used to dry the feedstock. The CPR
technology then utilizes a proprietary gasifier to produce a synthesis gas composed of
carbon monoxide, hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide and minor amounts of larger
carbon molecules. The system is equipped with a gas clean-up system to remove
contaminants that may disrupt the alcohol catalyst. The syngas then reacts with the
catalyst to produce alcohol. The alcohol is then purified to ethanol containing 0.75
percent water.
Development Status–Bench scale studies were initiated in 1991 with the
development of a system operating at 50 gm of biomass per hour. A 25 kg/hr pilot
scale gasification model was developed in 1995, which incorporated indirect heating
and processing of syngas to organic liquids.
Computer simulations were carried out using Honeywell Unisym dynamic simulation
software to validate the pilot scale studies. The company is currently developing a
demonstration facility and completing the engineering design phase.
Future Plans–Bioversions is currently developing their first industrial scale plant in
Eastern Canada with construction expected to begin in 2007. The company is
currently negotiating relationships with U.S. ethanol producers. In addition Bioversions
is in discussions with a major international investment bank and with a leading
renewable energy group to complete financing of the company’s first owned plant in
2007.
69

Enerkem Technologies, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Organizational Background–Enerkem Technologies, formed in 1998, is a
technology developer with the mission to develop advanced technologies for the
conversion of wastes and biomass into marketable electricity, biofuels and coproducts.
Enerkem’s patented technologies involve partial oxidation systems, gas
clean-up and catalytic reforming. Catalytic synthesis of alcohols (ethanol and/or
methanol) from syngas is one of the company’s areas of specialization.
Technology Characteristics–The Enerkem gasification system, illustrated in Figure
A4, is based on partial oxidation of feedstock to produce syngas and then catalytic
conversion of syngas to alcohol. The feed material is metered into the gasification
chamber, which consists of a fluidized bed reactor. Air or oxygen-rich air enters the
gasification chamber from the bottom of the reactor. The gasification reactor operates
in a range of 800 to 1,000 °C at 2 to 6 atmospheres of pressure. The syngas travels
through a series of gas clean-up steps, including: cyclones; a syngas quench; venture;
demister; and finally an electrostatic precipitator. The conditioned syngas is sent
through a steam reformer, and then converted to methanol. The methanol product is
converted to ethanol and/or methyl acetate and ethyl acetate. The fuel grade ethanol
product is then separated from system byproducts.
Development Status–Enerkem operates a pilot/demonstration plant in Sherbrooke,
Quebec. Among the biomass feedstocks said to be candidates for application of the
company’s technology are agricultural and forestry residues, municipal waste
components, and various industrial wastes.
Future Plans–Enerkem seeks to apply its technologies either by operation of its own
plants or in partnership with established users, or by licensing to
independent users.
70

Figure A4. Enerkem Process Diagram
Enerkem Technologies, Inc., all rights reserved
Standard Alcohol Company of America, Inc., Durango,
Colorado
Organizational Background–Standard Alcohol Company of America, Inc., formed in
1993, is pursuing a production process for a fuel it cals “Envirolene”, a mixed alcohol
fuel. The company has formed a subsidiary, New Energies LLC of Omaha, Nebraska,
with the objective of commercializing the production of Envirolene from manure and
other agricultural wastes.
Technology Characteristics–The Envirolene production process, as described by
New Energies LLC is gasification, or a process of molecular disassociation where the
feedstock material, dried and sized to meet the process needs, is introduced into a
gasifier where it is heated up to several thousand degrees in an oxygen-free
(reduction) environment. The resulting carbon/hydrogen syngas is then sent through a
fixed-bed methanization type reactor which converts the syngas to the mixed alcohol
product. The process is said to be simple, scaleable, and resulting in low-emissions
and minimal waste effluents.
The claimed advantages of Envirolene include high octane rating (138), high energy
content, low emissions, biodegradability, and a mid-range evaporation rate (4.61 psi),
Intended applications of this product include as a gasoline or diesel fuel blending
component, an FFV fuel, an aviation gasoline replacement and/or a de-icer fuel for
aircraft turbine engines.
71

Development Status–The completed development steps or the plans and schedule
for further research and development of Envirolene have not been announced by
Standard Alcohol Company or New Energies LLC.
Future Development Plans–Standard Alcohol Company indicates that its work with
higher mixed alcohol synthesis remains private. They indicate that, at some point,
they may choose to release information or otherwise participate in specific forums of
public disclosure. The firm has declined interviews with government agencies and
does not lecture at biofuels conferences concerning their patented and patent-pending
gas to liquids technology or formula developments. They have privately formed a
licensing authority and continue to pursue licensing their patents to publicly traded
firms, electric utilities, Indian tribes or foreign governments.
SVG GmbH, Spreetal, Germany
Organizational Background–The Sustec Schwarze Pumpe GmbH (SVZ GmbH)
company is a located in Spreetal, Germany. In 2005 SVZ GmbH became a part of the
Sustec Group, Switzerland. According to the company web site the Schwarze Pumpe
site will be developed into a center for industrial application and demonstration of
innovative coal and waste gasification technologies. The company’s original
development of coal gasification technology has expanded to include conversion of
various biomass waste materials to methanol.
Technology Characteristics–The Company has experimented with three
gasification processes since the original plant was built in 1982. The first system is a
solid bed gasification process used for coal and solid waste. This first plant was
designed to use low-grade coal. The gasifier operates at a pressure of 25 bars and a
temperature of 800 to 1300°C. The company indicates that under pressure, the
system uses steam and oxygen as gasification agents. The waste enters the gasifier
through an airlock system. The gasifier produces syngas and ash in the form of slag.
The syngas then goes through a gas clean-up step before it can be used for electricity
or fuels production.
In order to remain operational, the company modified the gasification technology to
handle liquid wastes. The second gasifier developed by SVZ GmbH was the
Endrainet flow gasification system. The contaminated oils, tars and slurries are driven
by steam over a burner system in the reactor that operates at 1600 to 1800°C. The
system produces a syngas and all organic pollutants are captured in the slag.
The third gasification system developed by SVZ GmbH was the British Gas-Lurgi
(BGL) gasifier developed by British gas and Lurgi. The system is designed to operate
on a feedstock of mixed waste with coal. The feedstock enters the system via an
airlock system. The gasifier operates at a temperature of 1600°C and 25 bars.
Similarly to the other gasifiers, the BGL system utilizes steam and oxygen as the
gasification agents. The main products of the gasifier are syngas and a liquid slag.
72

The slag leaves the gasifier and is quickly shock cooled to form a vitrified slag. The
company uses the syngas to make methanol.
Development Status–The solid bed gasification system operates at approximately
15 tons per hour. The Endrainet flow gasifier has a capacity of approximately 16.5
tons per hour. The BGL gasifier processes pre-treated solid waste at approximately
38.5 tons per hour. The company lists feedstocks able to be processed by its
technology as: wood, sewage sludge, domestic garbage, plastics, light shredded
materials, and other solid waste.
Future Plans–SVZ GmbH’s facility in Germany is being developed into a center for
industrial application and demonstration of innovative coal and waste gasification
technologies.
Syntec Biofuels, Inc., Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Organizational Background–Syntec Biofuels (Syntec) was established in 2001 at
the University of British Columbia. The company has since been developing catalysts
for conversion of ethanol using synthetic gas derived from renewal sources. For the
last 2 years, the Syntec research team has focused on developing new ethanol
catalysts that utilize base metal variants suitable for commercial deployment.
Technology Characteristics–The Syntec technology, depicted in Figure A5, utilizes
the thermochemical conversion of biomass to synthesis gas. The company integrates
other established processes to make syngas from biomass. The syngas can then be
catalyticaly converted to ethanol using Syntec’s proprietary catalyst. In 2004, Syntec
filed a patent for its first ethanol catalyst using precious metals. The fuel production
technology relies on low pressure catalytic technology, similar to what is being used in
the methanol industry.
Development Status–The Company has completed both concept and bench scale
testing of their technology. Initial experiments to prove out the technology were
carried out at lab facilities at the University of British Columbia through a service
contract in paralel with the company’sown facilities in Vancouver and later in
Burnaby. Syntec continues to test their technology at the pilot scale.
Future Plans–Syntec is in the process of establishing alliances with potential
strategic partners for feedstock, infrastructure, funding and a site for a demonstration
plant in the next 2 years. Syntec has filed several patents and expects to fully
commercialize their product within three years.
73

Figure A5. Syntec Biofuel, Inc., Technology
Syntec Technology
©2006, Syntec Biofuel Inc.
Thermogenics, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico
Organizational Background–Thermogenics is a privately held corporation
specializing in development of the company's patented gasification system. The
company has been financed by private sources as well as U.S. DOE.
Technology Characteristics–The Thermogenics technology, illustrated in Figure
A6, relies on an air blown gasification technology. The gasifier converts cellulosic
feedstock into synthesis gas that is cleaned with an electrostatic precipitator, and then
cooled. The clean syngas can then be used for the production of mixed alcohols.
Development Status - Feedstocks that have been tested or considered include:
sorted municipal and commercial waste, shredded paper, wood waste, dewatered
sewage sludge, scrap tires, agricultural waste, automobile shredder "fluff", paint
sludge, oil field wastes and hydrocarbon contaminated soils
Future Plans–The Company has partnered with Power Energy Fuels Inc. to provide
the alcohol processing equipment.
74

Figure A6. Thermogenics, Inc., Technology
ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc., Baltimore,
Maryland
Organizational Background–ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc. (TRI) was
founded in 1996 as a licensee of proprietary technology developed by MTCI. The
technology includes designs applicable to an integrated biomass biorefinery. TRI has
partnered with a number of organizations to further develop their technology. Some of
their partners include: Brigham Young University; North Carolina State University,
University of Utah, US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy; Center for Technology Transfer, Inc.; American Forest and Paper
Association and TAPPI.
Technology Characteristics– TRI’s patented technology, shown in Figure A7, is
known as the PulseEnhanced steam reforming gasification system, where the
feedstock reacts in a gasifier with steam and oxygen at a high temperature and
pressure in a reducing (oxygen-starved) atmosphere. This process produces a
medium-Btu syngas comprised primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and smaller
quantities of carbon dioxide and methanol. This syngas can be used as a substitute for
natural gas or as a feedstock for various biofuels and other products, including
ethanol, methanol, biodiesel and acetic acid. A unique feature of the technology is an
indirect heating method using modular pulsating heaters in a steam-driven bubbling
fluid bed vessel. The system simultaneously employs a water-gas shift reaction to
produce additional hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hot syngas leaves the
gasification chamber and is passed through cyclones to remove particulate matter,
75

cooled then quenched and scrubbed. A portion of the syngas is burned in the pulsed
heaters to supply the necessary heat, making the steam reformer energy selfsufficient.
The remaining syngas is available for conversion to liquid fuels via catalytic
transformation.
Development Status–TRI has demonstrated their gasification technology at the
commercial scale in the pulp and paper industry, producing syngas from spent liquors
common to this industry. The resulting syngas is used in these applications to produce
electricity and/or process heat. Applications of the process to produce alcohol fuels
using various agricultural and forestry-based feedstocks are being pursued. TRI has
an operating test facility in Baltimore capable of processing 30 pounds per hour of
solid biomass feedstock.
Future Plans–TRI and its partners are reportedly pursuing development of projects
in several different countries involving applications of its technology for production of
fuels, including bioalcohols.
Figure A7. TRI PulseEnhanced Technology
ThermoChem Recovery Intl., all rights reserved
76

CATEGORY VIII–BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
INCORPORATING ACID HYDROLYSIS/FERMENTATION
Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., Irvine, California
Organizational Background–Originally formed in 1992 as Arkenol, Inc., BlueFire
Ethanol is the operating company established to deploy the patented Arkenol
Technology for producing ethanol from biomass. The original parent company, ARK
Energy (since acquired by Tenneco, Inc.), developed electric power cogeneration
projects. In 1994, Arkenol, in partnership with Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD), was granted certification by the CEC for the Sacramento Ethanol and Power
Cogeneration Project (SEPCO), a joint-venture intended to produce ethanol and
electricity from rice straw and other agricultural wastes. However, the Arkenol/SMUD
partnership dissolved and the project was not constructed.
Technology Characteristics–The Arkenol Technology, illustrated in Figure A8, is a
concentrated acid hydrolysis process, incorporating various technological
improvements to traditional hydrolysis, along with modern control methods, and newer
materials of construction. One particular innovation is use of commercially available
ion exchange resins to separate the sugars produced in the process from the acid
solution, which is then re-concentrated and recycled. Lignin is also separated from the
hydolyzate for use as a boiler fuel.
In a full commercial application, the process would involve a sequence of the following
six steps for producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass feedstocks:
1. Feedstock preparation
2. De-crystallization/hydrolysis reaction vessel
3. Solids/liquid filtration
4. Separation of the acid and sugars
5. Fermentation of the sugars
6. Product purification
The technology is said to be extremely versatile, both in its ability to utilize a wide
variety of feedstocks and in the end-products that it can produce. All of the feedstock
used in the process is intended to be converted to saleable products, including:
ethanol, lignin, gypsum, and animal yeast. In the presence of a viable market, carbon
dioxide may also be captured and sold as a byproduct of the process.
Development Status–BlueFire’s technology has undergone twelve years of
progressive development involving several stages of pilot plant operations. The first of
these was conducted at the company’s own research facility in Orange, California,
where a 1 ton-per-day batch facility was employed for testing from 1994 to 1999.
77

In 2000, Arkenol entered into a cooperative agreement with JGC Corp. of Yokohama,
Japan. With funding from the Japanese New Energy Development Organization
(NEDO), JGC first constructed and operated a 2 tons-per-day pilot test of the Arkenol
process for two years at JGC’s research center in Oharai, Japan, which demonstrated
the ability of the Arkenol technology to produce fermentable sugars. This led to an
expanded (up to 5 tons-per-day) pilot facility built and operated in conjunction with an
existing conventional ethanol plant in Izumi Japan from 2002 to 2006. The Izumi pilot
project involved a fully integrated demonstration of all Arkenol process components,
producing ethanol for use in a Japanese government vehicle test program. Lignin
combustion testing, involving 4 tons of lignin fuel, was also reportedly conducted.
Among the biomass feedstock materials said to have been tested with the Arkenol
process in the Japanese pilot projects are: rice straw, wheat straw, wood wastes,
green wastes, MSW, paper, residuals from Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), and
sugarcane bagasse.
Future Development Plans–BlueFire has partnered with Waste Management, Inc.,
a major U.S. waste management firm to develop plans for a series of projects
intended to produce ethanol from urban green waste at the partner company’s landfil
disposal sites. The first of these projects, planned for a Southern California landfill site,
would be designed to process 700 metric tons per day of material and produce 19
million gallons of ethanol per year. In February 2007, Blue Fire was awarded a grant
by the U.S. DOE for up to $40 million for this project. BlueFire is pursuing the
remaining funding and selecting equipment vendors and engineering providers for this
project and, subject to obtaining pending regulatory approvals, hopes to break ground
in 2007. Further projects at additional MSW landfill sites and at other possible venues
involving agricultural and forestry biomass feedstocks are also being explored. The
California Energy Commission awarded BlueFire a grant in April 2007 to support the
company’s technology development.
78

Figure A8. BlueFire Arkenol Technology
Blue Fire Ethanol, Inc., all rights reserved
Bioenergy International, LLC, Norwell, Massachusetts
Organizational Background–BioEnergy International, LLC is a privately held
biotechnology company, founded by the former principals of BC International
Corporation (BCI). BCI, a former technology development company, pursued an acid
hydrolysis-based technology during the 1990s that was originally intended to be
applied in the Gridley and Collins Pine biomass-to-ethanol projects in California.
BioEnergy International has ongoing development activities aimed at ethanol
production from cellulosic materials. Meanwhile, the company is pursuing conventional
corn-to-ethanol projects in Louisiana and Pennsylvania.
Technology Characteristics–BioEnergy's research and development is said to be
focused on the early commercialization of products produced by microbial
fermentations of sugars derived from biomass. The company has entered into
agreements with the University of Florida involving various aspects of biochemical
conversion process research and development, including: organisms modified to
ferment all sugars derived from biomass to produce selected specialty chemicals; the
process technology for genetically engineering the organisms; the development of the
organisms for commercialization, excluding ethanol.
79

Development Status–BioEnergy International claims to be developing a “pipeline of
novel biocatalysts”, but has not publicly released information about its curent activities
or progress involving development of a cellulosic biomass-to-alcohol process.
Future Plans–As it moves forward with its conventional corn-to-ethanol projects,
BioEnergy International intends to continue improving its process technology for the
production of ethanol from biomass, including the fermentation of sugars generated
from the processing of the cellulose components of agricultural wastes, to augment its
corn based process technology. The company’s goal is to have this technology ready
for commercial deployment at one of its corn-to-ethanol plants by 2008.
Brelsford Engineering, Inc., Bozeman, Montana
Organizational Background–Brelsford Engineering Inc. (BEI) has developed a
cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol technology based on a patented hydrolysis process
utilizing dilute acid. Part of BEI’s development eforts have been funded by the
Montana Renewable Energy Foundation. BEI’s development originated with a smalscale
grain-based ethanol production plant designed, built, and operated for USDOE
by EG&G Idaho, Inc. at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) in 1980. It
was dismantled in 1982. Subsequently, BEI obtained the complete EG&G Idaho
Engineering Designs and Reports.
Technology Characteristics–The BEI process, shown in Figure A9, utilizes a dilute
acid two-stage plug-flow reactor system. The slurry feedstock is fed into the feed
tank, where sulfuric acid is combined with biomass. The slurry goes through a
progressive cavity pump to the primary reactor that operates at 135°C. The output of
the primary reactor is centrifuged then exposed to fresh sulfuric acid and heat. The
feedstock goes through a slurry mixer and then into the secondary reactor, which is
kept at 180°C. The slurry is then flashed to lower the temperature. Waste heat is
recycled to the primary reactor. The acid and water mixture is then returned to the
slurry feed tank where it re-enters the system. The slurry goes back into the primary
reactor to produce highly concentrated sugars. The sugars are fermented to produce
ethanol.
Development Status - BEI has completed bench-scale and pilot-plant testing of its
process. However, the results of these tests are not publicly available. The company
claims to have tested its process with the following feedstocks: soft and hardwood saw
milling wood wastes; wheat and barley straw; corn stover and corn fiber; and municipal
refuse-derived cellulose and green wastes.
Future Plans–BEI offers for private sale the industrial design of the BEI Cellulose
Hydrolysis Processing & Reactor System, along with specifications of available
process equipment, instruments and control systems.
80

Figure A9. BEI Process
Celunol Corporation, Dedham, Massachusetts
Organizational Background–Celunol Corporation, headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, is a privately-held research and development company that previously
operated as BC International Corporation (BCI). Celunol, in 1995, (then BCI) secured
a license agreement for a biomass-to-ethanol technology, developed at the University
of Florida. In February 2007 Celunol announced a merger agreement with San Diego,
CA-based Diversa Corporation, a developer and producer of specialty enzymes
founded in 1994.
Technology Characteristics–The Celunol technology utilizes metabolically
engineered microorganisms to ferment sugars to ethanol. The company has
genetically engineered strains of Escherichia coli bacteria to be able to ferment a
portion of cellulosic based sugars into ethanol. The technology is said to be able to
convert almost all the sugars found in cellulosic biomass to ethanol.
Development Status–The Company has announced the start-up, as of November
2006, of its pilot facility in Jennings LA. This pilot plant has an initial capacity of
50,000 gallon of ethanol per year, with plans for expansion to 1.4 million gallons per
year demonstration facility by the end of 2007.
81

Future Plans–The company has licensed its technology to Marubeni Corporation to
operate a 323,424 gallon per year plant in Osaka, Japan, expected to be operational
in 2007 and expanded to a capacity of 1.057 million gallons in 2008. With completion
of Celunol’s merger with Diversa, the combined companies intend to accelerate the
commercialization of their cellulosic ethanol production technology. A commercialscale
facility at the Jennings, LA site is among the future projects under consideration.
Dedini Industrias de Base, Piracicaiba, SP, Brazil
Organizational Background–The Brazilian company Dedini, formed in 1920, is one
of Brazil’s largest and most diverse industrial corporations,with areas of business
ranging from chemicals, to food and beverages, to mining and cement, and including a
number of energy-related business areas. One of Dedini’s primary areas of
specialization is equipment for sugar and ethanol production plants as well as
complete turn-key plants. Over 80% of the ethanol produced in Brazil reportedly
employs Dedini equipment. In 1987, Dedini began development of biomass-to-ethanol
production technology, in partnership with the Brazilian sugar and ethanol producer
Copersucar and the State of Sao Paulo Research Supporting Foundation (FAPESP),
with funding support from the World Bank.
Technology Characteristics–Dedini’s technology, shown in Figure A10, is known
as the Dedini Hidrolise Rapida (DHR) process, Portuguese for Rapid Hydrolysis. DHR
uses the “organosolve” hydrolysis process to convert sugarcane bagasse into sugars
which are then fermented and distilled into ethanol via conventional ethanol plant
processes. The single-stage process employs both a very dilute acid for reduction of
cellulose and hemicellulose to sugars and a strong solvent for lignin extraction. Of
many lignin solvents tested, ethanol itself proved most effective and was selected for
application. Both the ethanol solvent and the acid are recycled in the process, and
lignin is recovered for use as a supplementary boiler fuel. DHR’s main unique feature
is reduced hydrolysis reaction time (only a few minutes) in a continuous highthroughput
process, with quick cooling of the hydrolysate. This is said to enable low
capital and operating costs, higher yields and reduced operating complexity. Patents
for the DHR process have been issued (beginning in 1996) in Brazil, the U.S.,
Canada, the European Union, and Russia, and applied for in Japan and other
countries.
Development Status–Following initial laboratory-scale testing, Dedini developed a
100 liters-per-day pilot plant at the Copersucar Technology Center in Piracicaiba,
which has undergone 345 test runs over 2,100 hours with the DHR process.
Technical-economic feasibility of the process is said to be confirmed by the pilot plant.
Since 1992, Dedini and its partners have also operated a “semi-industrial”
demonstration plant with the DHR technology, located at the Sao Luiz Sugar and
Ethanol Plant in Pirassununga, Sao Paulo State. The DHR demonstration plant is
coupled with the conventional sugarcane-to-ethanol plant, sharing various utility and
82

support systems and using the conventional plant’s fermentation/distilation systems
for the finished ethanol production steps. For feedstock, the DHR demonstration plant
uses a sidestream of the same sugarcane bagasse supply normally used to fuel the
adjacent sugarcane-to-ethanol plant’s boilers. The demonstration plant has the
capacity to process about 2 tons of bagasse per hour and produce about 5,000 liters
(1,300 gallons) of ethanol per day, and is typically operated for five-day periods at a
time continuously.
Future Development Plans–Dedini and partners intend to continue operating the
demonstration plant for an unspecified period of time in order to better define the
engineering parameters and engineer solutions to remaining technical issues, leading
to design of an industrial-scale unit. Dedini’s ultimate intention is to develop
commercial DHR technology to offer ethanol producers as part of its core business
selling equipment to the sugar and ethanol industries. Feedstocks other than
sugarcane bagasse could eventually be explored for application of the DHR process,
and the possibility of integrating enzymatic processing with DHR is not being ruled out.
However, the near-term intention is to develop commercial applications of the existing
DHR process using only sugarcane bagasse and integrated with conventional
sugarcane-to-ethanol plants.
Figure A10. Dedini Hidrolise Rapida (DHR) Process
Dedini, all rights reserved
83

HFTA/UC Forest Products Lab, Livermore, California
Organizational Background–Technology invented at the University of California
Forest Products Laboratory (UCFPL) for the purpose of producing ethanol from
cellulosic (primarily forestry) materials continues to be pursued by a private company,
HFTA. Patents covering the technology are owned by the University of California, and
an exclusive option on commercialization rights is held by HFTA, formed in 1994 by
UCFPL staff. Much of the past HFTA/UCFPL research on the technology has been
supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Research
Laboratory. The UCFPL was a research and graduate teaching facility operated under
the auspices of the University of California, Berkeley, at the Richmond, California field
station. Facilities included a chemical laboratory, a fermentation laboratory, and largescale
chemical processing laboratory equipment, including pulping digesters, wet
oxidation reactor, and a batch biomass/hydrolysis reactor. The University of California
has closed this laboratory and the equipment and staff capabilities are no longer
available in that setting.
Technology Characteristics–The HFTA/UCFPL process utilizes dilute nitric acid as
a catalyst in an acid hydrolysis process to break down cellulosic materials into their
constituent sugars for fermentation to ethanol. The technology was developed
focusing mainly on wood chips, but is said to be generally applicable to all
lignocellulosic feedstocks, including forest thinnings, sawmill residues, waste paper,
urban wood waste, corn stover, switchgrass, rice or wheat straw, and sugarcane
bagasse. The technology can be used in a single-stage or two-stage process, with
residence times of 5-8 minutes in each reactor stage. Lignin collected via filtration is
claimed to be sufficient for all process energy requirements. The HFTA/UCFPL
technology could also be applied as the pre-treatment step for enzymatic hydrolysis
processes.
A key feature of the HFTA/UCFPL technology is its use of nitric acid, rather than
sulfuric or hydrochloric acids used in most other hydrolysis processes. Nitric acid was
selected by HFTA/UCFPL due to several identified characteristics, including its
miscibility with water, allowing low acid concentrations to sufficiently catalyze the
hydrolysis reaction. Nitric acid also “passivates” stainless steels, effectively forming a
protective coating shown to provide corrosion protection at the required operating
temperatures, acid concentrations and abrasiveness of the process. This is said to
reduce the cost of materials needed for processing equipment. The nitric acid-based
process is also claimed to reduce water requirements by affording greater water
recycling, as well as reducing wastewater treatment requirements and solid waste
residuals.
Development Status–HFTA/UCFPL has completed over a decade of research and
development of its technology, through the bench-scale testing phase. Numerous
technical reports and papers have been authored by the project researchers
documenting the results and findings. Economic evaluations have also been
conducted for the process. Since the University of California closed the UCFPL
84

several years ago, HFTA has been without a physical venue to carry on its
development of the process. HFTA claims that the development and testing conducted
to date demonstrate that the technology is ready for pilot plant verification.
Future Development Plans–HFTA continues as a business entity, headquartered in
Livermore, California. The University of California, Berkeley, Office of Intellectual
Property and Industrial Research Alliances includes the HFTA/UCFPL technology
among its listed available technologies, identifying it as an “eficient and cost-effective
biomass technology for clean energy”. The next stage of anticipated development of
the technology has been described as scale-up that will require a stable feedstock
supply and access to financing for a pilot plant with a capacity of 20 to 100 tons per
day. Commercial equipment is said to be available for all major components of a fullscale
plant, allowing almost parallel development of pilot and commercial facilities. At
this point, neither funding nor plans for continuation of development work involving the
HFTA/UCFPL technology have been announced.
Losonoco, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Organizational Background–Losonoco was formed in the UK in 2003 and
moved its headquarters to Florida in 2006. The name derives from “low sulfur
dioxide, no carbon dioxide”. The company’s business plan is to design, build, own
and/or operate biorefineries producing ethanol and electricity primarily from
cellulosic biomass.
Technology Characteristics–Losonoco’s proprietary biomass-to-ethanol
technology, illustrated in Figure A11, is a two-stage dilute acid hydrolysis process; it
consists of five steps described by the company as follow:
1. Feedstock preparation: Chopping, shredding and steam treating the feedstock
to soften it and start the process of breaking down the lignin
2. Acid hydrolysis: Using dilute acids, temperature and pressure to break open the
lignin and release the natural sugars
3. Sugar separation: Removing the acid/sugar solution from the hydrolysate;
separating the sugar from the acid and neutralizing it
4. Ethanol manufacture: Fermenting the sugars into a ‘beer’; removal of the ‘wet’
ethanol from the beer by distillation and removing the water from the ethanol
5. Carbon dioxide manufacturing: Capture, purification and liquefaction of the
carbon dioxide
A key feature of Losonoco’s technology is said to be its precise operating conditions
(temperature, pressure, acidity and residency) for each feedstock or mix of
85

feedstocks. The process is said to be able to use a variety of cellulosic feedstocks,
including wheat and rice straw, yard waste, commercial wood waste, agricultural
residues and forestry products and residues. Lignin byproduct from the process is
intended to be used as boiler fuel. The company also claims to have developed a
significant improvement in the fermentation process, a specially-created organism that
improves ethanol yields by 25 percent over conventional yeast fermentation.
A key feature of Losonoco’s technology is said to be its precise operating conditions
(temperature, pressure, acidity and residency) for each feedstock or mix of feedstocks.
The process is said to be able to use a variety of cellulosic feedstocks, including wheat
and rice straw, yard waste, commercial wood waste, agricultural residues and forestry
products and residues. Lignin byproduct from the process is intended to be used as
boiler fuel. The company also claims to have developed a significant improvement in
the fermentation process, a specially-created organism that improves ethanol yields by
25 percent over conventional yeast fermentation.
Development Status–Pilot-scale testing of Losonoco’s process was conducted at
the test facilities formerly operated by Tennessee Valley Authority, reportedly involving
some 40 different biomass feedstocks. Additional advanced pilot-scale and
demonstration stages of development are said to be ongoing, leading to plans for an
initial small-scale commercial facility. Emissions from the process are said to have
been quantified, but are proprietary. Wastewater effluents are said to be minimal.
Future Development Plans–Losonoco says it has projects under discussion or in
development stages at Merseyside and Teeside in the UK, in Sicily, and in the states
of Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Washington and
California. Permitting for one of more projects is intended to commence in 2007, with
construction to begin in 2008 at the first site still to be selected. Losonoco is looking to
partner in project development with forestry, pulp and paper companies and other
wood waste feedstock suppliers; also in pursuing synergies between cellulosic ethanol
production and conventional sugar/starch-based ethanol production, using residues
such as sugarcane bagasse and corn stover as feedstocks for its process.
86

Figure A11. Losonoco Wood-to-Ethanol by Dilute Acid Hydrolysis
Commercial wood
Forestry waste
Straw
FEEDSTOCK
PREPARATION
Shredder
Chipper
Steam
Explosion
ACID
HYDROLYSIS
Stage 2
Dilute Acid
Hydrolysis
Stage 1
Dilute Acid
Hydrolysis
SUGAR
SEPARATION
Gypsum Lime
Neutralisation
C6 sugars
Sugar
Liquid
Solid
Separation
C5 sugars
Acid
Acid recovery
Process
Steam
Sugar
Lignin + Stillage
Power plant
Electricity
ALCHOHOL
MANUFACTURE
Fermentation
Distillation
Dehydration
Fuel Ethanol
CARBON DIOXIDE
MANUFACTURE
CO2 Capture & Purification
Industrial CO2
Losonoco, all rights reserved
Masada Resource Group, LLC, Birmingham, Alabama
Organizational Background–Masada Resource Group (MRG) was formed in the
mid-1990s by a group of experienced businesspeople to pursue waste conversion to
renewable energy. MRG and its affiliate companies have developed a patented
proprietary technology, known as the CES OxyNol Process, for converting municipal
solid waste and municipal sewage sludge to ethanol. In 1996, MRG’s afiliate PMO
entered into an agreement with the City of Middletown, New York for development of
an integrated waste management facility incorporating the CES OxyNol Process to
produce ethanol from the city’s municipal waste streams. After years of pursuing this
project, the protracted ilness and untimely death of MRG’s founder and CEO, in 2005,
interrupted project plans and necessitated corporate restructuring and new
management. Under new direction, MRG/PMO is continuing development of the CES
OxyNol Process, including pursuing the Middletown MSW-to-ethanol project.
Technology Characteristics–The CES OxyNol Process, shown in Figure A12, is
a concentrated sulfuric acid hydrolysis process. It is intended to utilize a primary
waste stream: municipal solid waste (MSW); and two additional waste streams;
municipal waste-water biosolids (sludge) and off-spec waste paper. The MSW and
87

waste paper are handled on one process train and sludge on a parallel process
train. The MSW is pre-sorted, including removal of recyclables, then shredded and
dried prior to being subjected to the process.
Wastewater biosolids or sludge is composed, on average, of eighty percent water
and twenty percent solids. The sludge is treated with acid, and then mixed with the
hydrolyzed cellulose. The solid fraction (lignin and biosolids) is collected,
dewatered and used as a renewable solid boiler fuel. This fuel can be used
internally to meet process energy requirements, or can be sold for use in solid fuel
boilers. The acidic sugar stream is treated to recover and recycle the acid and
concentrate the sugar stream. The resulting sugar stream is still too acidic for
biological fermentation, and is buffered with an agent to bring the sugar solution to
a normal pH. Buffering the sugar stream results in the precipitation of gypsum and
the removal of some heavy metals associated with MSW and sludge.
The sugar stream is then fermented into ethanol. During fermentation, the carbon
dioxide is captured, conditioned and sold as an industrial gas. The ethanol is
distilled, denatured and sold to the transportation fuels market. The process is said
to result in conversion to beneficial use of over 90 percent of the waste feedstock
streams.
Development Status–Much of the early research and development of Masada’s
process was conducted by Mississippi State University and the Tennessee Valley
Authority in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. This testing involved the acid recovery
portion of the technology in addition to key process system components, including
the successful conversion of cellulose to sugar and fermentation into ethanol, in
equipment supplied by third party vendors. Current research and development
efforts are being lead by Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama.
Since inception of the Middletown project, known as the Orange Recycling and
Ethanol Production Facility, MRG/PMO has pursued various aspects of
development of this project, including engineering and design, permitting and
community public relations, financing, feedstock supply and product off-take
agreements. The project is said to be fully permitted by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As part of the permitting process, all
energy and mass balances were reviewed by the NYSDEC. These reviews
included water usage and wastewater discharge, and air emissions.
Future Development Plans–MRG recently submitted a bid to purchase the
Tennessee Valey Authority’s facility in Muscle Shoals testing facility that was used for
the earlier testing of the CES OxyNol Process. This equipment consists of hydrolysis
units, centrifuges, fermentation and distillation units in addition to other key system
components. Masada intends to use the equipment in part or in whole at Auburn
University as part of its ongoing efforts to refine, commercialize and adapt the CES
88

OxyNol process. TVA is decommissioning this equipment as part of its ongoing effort
to streamline it operations and meet the goals of its mission.
The Orange Recycling and Ethanol Production Facility planned for Middletown, New
York is intended to be a commercial scale facility. It has a permitted capacity of
230,000 tons of MSW, 71,000 tons of off-spec waste paper, and 71,000 tons of dry
biosolids per year. The facility is designed to produce about 8.5 to 9.5 million gallons
of ethanol per year, along with 21,000 tons of glass, plastics and metals not normally
recovered from the municipal waste stream. Additionally, 27,000 tons of carbon
dioxide, 21,000 tons of gypsum, and 50,000 tons of fly ash will be produced and sold
annually.
Figure A12. MRG CES OxyNol Process
The CES OxyNol Proces
Sludge
Water
Inert Fines to Disposal
Recycled
Sulfuric
IN Acid
Brewers
Yeast
OUT
City of
Birmingham
Garbage
Waste
Material Dried
Cellulose
Recycling
Facility
Cellulose
to
Sugar
Conversion
Sugar
Water
Fermentation
and
Distillation
Ethanol
Recyclables
Air Out
Steam
Fly Ash
Lignin
Fuel
Boiler/
Gasifier
Gypsum
Gypsum
Gas
Water
Stillage
Plant
Wastewater
Treatment
CO 2
CO 2
© 2007 Masada OxyNol, LLC
For Illustrative Purposes Only
Paszner Technologies, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Organizational Background–Paszner Technologies has pursued development of a
biomass-to-alcohol (ethanol and/or butanol) technology called Acid Catalyzed
Organosolv Saccharification or ACOS. The ACOS technology was originally invented
in 1976 and subsequently was the subject of litigation over ownership and licensing
rights, before Paszner ultimately prevailed and assumed sole ownership of the related
patents. Paszner has actively sought financial support, joint-venture partners and/or
licensees for application of its technology.
89

Technology Characteristics–The Paszner ACOS Process is a hydrolysis process
described as “a unique solvent pulping variant in which the chemistry in the reactor
has been modified in a manner that total (100%) dissolution of all biomass
components becomes possible in a single step, achieved by the use of a benign
congruent solvent system”. The proprietary solvent chemistry brings about
simultaneous hydrolysis of both carbohydrates and lignin and prevents unwanted
byproducts (such as furfurals). 100 percent solvent recycling is said to be achieved,
with no wastewater disposal requirements. No feedstock pre-treatment is required
other than chipping or hammer-milling. The process is intended to be a simple, lowcost,
low-temperature, short reaction time process applicable to any lignocellulosic
feedstocks, including all coniferous and deciduous tree and shrub species and their
barks, agricultural crop residues and grasses, municipal cellulosic solid wastes,
various manures and paper mill sludge. The process is said to be amenable to smallscale
applications.
Development Status–The Paszner ACOS process has been under development for
28 years, with various bench-scale and pilot-scale testing conducted. This
development work has received limited funding support from Energy Mines and
Resources Canada, a Canadian government agency. This testing is said to have
involved some 35 lignocellulosic species of feedstocks. An engineering feasibility
study was completed in 1994. The most recent physical testing phase of the process
was apparently completed in 2001, and funding for further phases of development has
yet to be obtained. Paszner delivered a presentation on its technology at the USDOE
Ethanol Workshop held April 2003 in Sacramento.
Future Development Plans–Paszner Technologies has identified and developed
preliminary plans for projects applying its plans at numerous sites in Canada, the U.S.,
and various other countries. However, none of these projects is known to be moving
forward at this time, with Paszner continuing to pursue funding for continued
development of its process and to seek potential partners for its commercialization.
Petrobras, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Organizational Background–Petrobras was formed in 1953 when Brazilian
President Vargas signed a law establishing the monopoly of the Brazilian federal
government over the activities of the oil industry in the country and authorizing the
creation of Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras as the state company to be the executor
of the monopoly. Today Petrobras is the world’s14th largest oil company, and
operates as a semi-public corporation, with activities in at least seven countries
besides Brazil. Petrobras has been instrumental in the development of Brazil’s
ethanol fuel program (Proalcool) since its inception in the 1970s. Recently, Petrobras
announced that the company is developing a biomass-to-ethanol process at its
corporate research and development center.
90

Technology Characteristics–The biomass-to-ethanol technology under
development by Petrobras, illustrated in Figure A13, involves an acid hydrolysis
process, thus far being tested on castor bean cake, a residual of a castor oil biodiesel
production process (described as an “amylaceous” material). Ultimately, the intent is to
apply the process to sugarcane bagasse, a lignocellulosic residual material produced
in large quantities from conventional sugarcane-to-ethanol processing. Petrobras has
reportedly patented this proprietary process, but has yet to release any more detailed
information, beyond including mention of this development activity in several public
forums, such as the Sixteenth International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels (Rio de
Janeiro, November 2006).
Development Status–Petrobras indicates that the company has completed
successful bench-scale laboratory experiments with its biomass-to-ethanol process, as
of the fourth quarter of 2006. The process is said to produce 100 liters of ethanol per
ton of castor bean cake feedstock.
Future Development Plans–The next stage of Petrobras’ development of its
technology is a planned pilot-scale facility scheduled for start-up in the first quarter of
2008. Further plans call for a demonstration facility intended to be operational in 2010.
Figure A13. Petrobras Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology
Petrobras, all rights reserved
91

Pure Energy Corp., Paramus, New Jersey
Organizational Background–Pure Energy Corporation (PEC), established in 1992,
is a renewable energy and biotechnology development company, with partner
laboratories and testing centers in five states. PEC’s activities have been partly
funded by USDOE, USEPA and other federal and state agencies. Among various
biofuel production technologies under development by PEC is an integrated biorefinery
concept that combines biochemical and thermochemical technologies. PEC has also
developed and patented a number of proprietary fuel formulations
Technology Characteristics–The PEC technology process, shown in Figure A14,
involves feedstock size reduction followed by an integrated two stage hydrolysis
process. The resultant slurry contains lignin, ash and unreacted cellulose, which can
be used to generate electricity and process steam. The glucose produced through
hydrolysis can be treated to produce ethanol and organic acids. The xylose
component is processed using thermochemical treatment. The technology combines
fuels, solvents and chemicals production by combining fermentation and catalytic
thermochemical conversion processes into a single processing system. Among the coproducts
obtainable from the process are organic acids, furans, aldehydes and esters.
Development Status–PEC reports that, since 1997, it has operated its biorefinery
system in the laboratory, at the pilot scale and in a demonstration plant, working in
conjunction with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Over 42 different biomass feedstocks
have reportedly been tested, including various agricultural wastes, municipal solid
waste components and wood waste and other industrial wastes.
Future Plans–PEC plans to continue developing or licensing innovative technologies
for the production of fuels, the fuels' constituent chemicals and their formulations. The
company indicates that it is prepared to scale up its technology and implement it in a
commercial plant.
92

Figure A14. PEC Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology
Xethanol Corp., New York, New York
Organizational Background–Xethanol entered the ethanol business in 2003 with
acquisition of an existing corn-to-ethanol plant in Hopkinton Iowa, and purchased
another similar plant in Blairstown Iowa in 2004. In 2005, Xethanol went public with its
stock listed on the American Stock Exchange. In addition to conventional corn-toethanol
production, Xethanol has announced plans to develop a cellulosic ethanol
production technology and apply this process in projects the company is pursuing in
several Eastern U.S. states to produce ethanol from various sources of biomass
wastes and residues. Since becoming a publicly-traded company, Xethanol has been
the subject of widely-circulated reports and analyses by investment advisory firms, and
the company has undergone corporate reorganization and management changes.
Technology Characteristics–Xethanol has become involved with an acid
hydrolysis-based cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol technology under development at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). The Virginia Tech
process has been described as a “cost-effective pretreatment process that integrates
three technologies–cellulose solvent pretreatment, concentrated acid
saccharification, and organosolv, and overcomes the limitations of existing
processes”. A novel feature of the process is its use of a phosphoric acid/acetone
solution. The process is said to operate at atmospheric pressure and 50 C (120 F),
instead of other systems operating at higher pressures and between 150 and 250
degrees C. Byproducts include lignin and acetic acid.
Development Status–The Virginia Tech process, which shares some of its
development origins with related process development at Dartmouth College, has
93

eportedly been tested successfully at the laboratory scale. Plans for a pilot-scale
facility are being developed. Augmentation of the process with special enzymes has
also been studied in conjunction with NREL and other organizations. Xethanol has
reportedly secured an agreement for licensing the Virginia Tech process. In addition,
the company has entered into a CRADA with the U.S. Forest Service Forest Products
Laboratory (FPL) for eventual application of an advanced strain of ethanol processing
yeast being developed by FPL at its Madison WI lab.
Future Development Plans–Xethanol has described plans for a number of
additional ethanol production facilities using various technology approaches and
feedstocks. One project, a joint venture with Renewable Spirits LLC, is proposed in
Bartow, Florida, and would begin using waste citrus peels as feedstock. Xethanol has
also acquired a former fiberboard plant in Spring Hope, N.C., where it intends to set
up a pilot plant for its process, reportedly scheduled for completion in 2007.
94

CATEGORY IX - BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES USING
ENZYME HYDROLYSIS AND FERMENTATION
Abengoa S.A., Sevilla, Spain
Organizational Background–Abengoa S.A. is a Spanish company with a presence
in over 70 countries, including the U.S. Abengoa operates business units related to:
solar, bioenergy, environmental services, information technology, and industrial
engineering and construction. Abengoa’s subsidiary, Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation,
formed in 2003 and headquartered in St. Louis, MO, owns and operates several U.S.
corn-to-ethanol plants. Abengoa also has a major ongoing corporate effort to develop
technology for production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass.
Technology Characteristics–Abengoa is developing a novel biomass-to-ethanol
process, shown in Figure A15, with emphasis on thermochemical fractionation and
enzymatic hydrolysis to release these sugars for ethanol fermentation. In addition,
Abengoa is studying various routes for thermochemical conversion of the biomass,
with the goal of selecting the technology with the most promising technical and
economical attributes. The company is also considering using thermochemical
conversion of waste to generate syngas. This syngas will be used in a reciprocating
engines/generator to produce electricity and heat for the biorefinery.
Development Status–Abengoa is conducting a multi-stage technology effort for the
development of the biomass-to-ethanol process technologies. Following laboratory
and bench-scale testing, the company is building a 1.2 ton/day pilot facility at its
existing York, NE ethanol plant to evaluate an integrated bioprocess under a current
USDOE award. The company is also in the process of building a 77 ton per day
demonstration plant at the site of its existing conventional ethanol plant in Salamanca,
Spain. This demonstration plant, with a capacity of 5 million liters of ethanol per year,
is scheduled to begin operation during the second half of 2007. The company has
further plans to build a larger commercial-scale demonstration plant in Kansas. In
February 2007, Abengoa was awarded a U.S. DOE grant of up to $76 million for the
latter project.
Future Plans–Abengoa is evaluating several sites for its planned project in Kansas,
which will reportedly cost $300 million. This plant is planned to produce up to 15
million gallons of ethanol per year using 700 tons per day of corn stover, wheat straw,
milo stubble, switchgrass, and other feedstocks. The cellulosic ethanol production will
be combined with a conventional ethanol plant planned to produce an additional 85
million gallons per year. Process energy for the entire facility will be obtained via
biomass gasification. The facility is scheduled to be in operation in late 2010.
Based on the operations and scale-up of the aforementioned plant, AB plans to design
a 2000 dry metric ton per day system. This technology wil deployed at AB’s existing
95

ethanol plants and subsequently licensed to qualified third parties. Abengoa Bioenergy
and has committed $100 million to R&D for the next four years.
Figure A15. Abengoa Biomass-to-Ethanol Technology
Abengoa S.A., all rights reserved
Archer, Daniels, Midland Company, Decatur, Illinois
Organizational Background–Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM), founded in
1902, is one’s of world’s largest and most diverse agricultural processors, producing
food ingredients, animal feed, fuels and other agriculturally-derived products in many
countries. ADMhas been the world’s largest producer of ethanol fuel since entering
this market in the late 1970s, and currently operates about 20 percent of U.S. corn-toethanol
production capacity. The company produces ethanol using both the dry-mill
and wet-mill processes, having pioneered development of the wet-milling process and
the varied slate of corn-based products derived as byproducts from ethanol production
in wet-mills, such as corn syrup, high-fructose corn sweetener, corn gluten meal and
others.
ADM began investigating and sponsoring research in the area of conversion of corn
fiber to ethanol via hydrolysis processes as early as 1984. A number of different
process approaches were explored. Currently, ADM is pursuing development of a
hydrolysis-based process for producing ethanol from corn fiber, jointly developed with
the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in
96

Richland Washington, with U.S. DOE grant co-funding. The National Corn Growers
Association is also a participant in this project. ADM and the U.S. Government share
patent rights to the technology.
Technology Characteristics–The ADM technology is intended to process the
fibrous fraction of the corn kernel to produce higher value-added products, including
ethanol, from this fraction, which currently is used as a low-value animal feed
component. Corn fiber contains 35 percent hemicellulose, 18 percent cellulose, 17
percent starch, 11 percent protein, 6 percent ash, 3 percent oil, 1 percent mannan,
and 4 percent other materials. The hydrolysis process being developed by ADM
involves treating corn fiber in an initial thermochemical hydrolysis step, in which
residual SO 2 in the corn fiber from the conventional ethanol production process is
utilized as an acid catalyst to hydrolyze the starch and hemicellulose polymers. This
process involves a temperature of 140°C and residence time of 30 minutes, and is
said to hydrolyze most of the starch and 72 percent of the hemicellulose in the corn
fiber. Fermentation of the corn fiber hydrolysate generated by the above step has
proved to be successful in producing a high concentration of ethanol from the
component glucose and xylose. Other related process refinements are also under
development intended to yield improved feed products and other byproducts from the
remaining components of the corn fiber not converted to ethanol.
Development Status–The pilot-scale testing phase of this project is nearing
completion, with reportedly successful results. This work has been carried out since
2003 using ADM’s and PNNL’s facilities, along with facilities at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. A final report on this work is in
preparation and expected to be released in mid-2007.
Future Development Plans–Plans for further development or demonstration stages
and ultimate commercialization of this technology have not yet been announced by
ADM or the other project participants. Such plans are assumed to be contingent on
the results and findings of the yet-to-be-released report on the project phase now
being completed. Potential applicability of this process, if commercialized, appears to
be extensive, since virtually any corn-to-ethanol plant could incorporate the process to
significantly increase ethanol output from the existing feedstock supply. The process is
said to yield an additional 0.3 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, about a 10-15
percent increase in the output of conventional corn-to-ethanol plant operations. This
amounts to an ultimate potential for over one billion gallons of additional ethanol
production if the process was to be applied to all U.S. corn-to-ethanol production
capacity currently operating or scheduled. Applicability of the process to feedstocks
other than corn fiber has yet to be closely studied. However, in general, other types of
biomass feedstocks with high hemicellulose, which includes various other agricultural
crop residues in particular, may be eventual candidates for application of this process
if it becomes commercialized.
97

SEKAB Group, Ormskoldsvik, Sweden
Organizational Background–SEKAB Group, newly-reorganized in 2006, is a
Swedish industrial consortium consisting of the following four established and new
companies:
SEKAB E-Technology -- research and development of industrial processes for
cellulose-based biofuels in biorefineries
SEKAB Industrial Development -- industrial development and construction of
ethanol production facilities
SEKAB International Project -- organization for international investment in
production plants
SEKAB BioFuels & Chemicals -- provision, refinement and marketing of
bioethanol as fuel and chemicals
SEKAB BioFuels and Chemicals (formerly Svensk Etanolkemi AB) is one of the largest
existing producers of ethanol in Northern Europe. SEKAB E-Technology (formerly Etek
Etanolteknik AB) has, since 1999, pursued development of biochemical processes for
producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass materials. Since 2004, the company has
operated a pilot facility in Ornskodsvik to test these processes, in cooperation with
several Swedish universities and research institutes.
Technology Characteristics– SEKAB’s biomass-to-ethanol technology development
(begun as Etek), has involved both a dilute acid hydrolysis process and an enzymatic
hydrolysis process. The technology is based on hydrolyzing the cellulose and
hemicellulose, whereupon the sugar is fermented to ethanol, which is then distilled. In
weak acid hydrolysis, sulfuric acid or sulfur dioxide is used as a catalyst at
temperatures of around 200ºC. In enzymatic hydrolysis, the material is first treated
with a mild weak acid hydrolysis after which enzymes hydrolyze the remaining
cellulose in a third stage.
Development Status–Both the weak acid and enzymatic processes are currently
being evaluated at SEKAB’s pilot plant, which has a capacity of 300-400 liters of
ethanol per day using 2,000 kilograms (dry weight) of feedstock. The initial feedstock
tested has been fir wood chips. The plant is said to be extremely flexible with
significant feedback possibilities in the process flow. In the four fomenters, it is
possible to ferment with fed-batch or continuous technology. SEKAB’s pilot facility is
said to operate 24 hours per day, and the project has a total staff of about 20 people.
Air emissions and wastewater effluents have reportedly been measured, with energy
balance determinations in process. Project staff members have delivered various
technical papers and presentations on their technology development, including at the
Sixteenth International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in
November 2006.
Future Development Plans–In parallel with operation of its pilot facility, SEKAB is
planning a larger demonstration and reference plant in the northern part of Sweden,
98

construction of which could begin in 2007. The company is also studying two more
biorefineries having an ethanol capacity 500 to 700 times higher than the existing pilot
facility. Other products besides ethanol will be produced at these biorefineries:
electricity, lignin pellets, district heating, and high-grade chemicals. Testing of other
feedstocks besides fir wood chips is also planned. SEKAB sees its current
development activities as steps in a sequence of long-term industrial investment in
cellulose-based ethanol and the international development of production plants. The
aim is to develop an industrial structure for providing knowledge and equipment and
for building production plants in Sweden and the rest of the world.
Iogen Corp., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Organizational Background–Iogen Corporation was established in 1974 with three
employees (then Iotech Corp.) as a commercial manufacturer of enzymes for use in
industries such as pulp and paper, textiles, and animal feeds. Today, the company
operates a 30,000 square feet enzyme manufacturing plant and employs nearly 200
people. For most of its history, Iogen has also been pursuing biomass-to-ethanol
production technology, based on the company’s own development of special enzymes
for converting cellulosic materials into sugars. Iogen’s supporting partners for its
biomass-to-ethanol process development have included the Canadian Government,
Goldman Sachs and Co., Petro Canada, and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, which
owns a 22 percent equity share of Iogen. The company has been seeking to build
upon experience achieved with its existing biomass-to-ethanol demonstration facility in
Otawa and construct a “commercial prototype” plant. In February 2007, Iogen
received a U.S. DOE grant of up to $80 million to co-fund such a project in the State of
Idaho.
Technology Characteristics– Iogen’s patented technology, shown in Figure A16,
incorporates a multi-stage enzymatic hydrolysis process. Four steps are involved in
the complete biomass-to-ethanol production process, described as follows: (1)
Feedstock Pretreatment–using a modified steam explosion process to increase the
surface area of the biomass feedstock accessible to the enzymes (2) Enzyme
Production–high-eficiency enzymes are made using Iogen’s proprietary technology
for use in the hydrolysis step (3) Enzymatic Hydrolysis–using a multi-stage process in
an Iogen-developed reactor, Iogen’s celulase enzymes convert the celulosic material
to glucose sugars (4) Ethanol Fermentation and Distillation–fermentation is done
using recombinant yeasts and microbes tailored to Iogen’s specific process.
Lignin byproduct, said to have 80 percent of the energy content of common coal, is
also produced in the process for use as boiler fuel. Iogen’s process is said to produce
about 340 liters of ethanol and 250 kilograms of lignin per tonne of fibrous cellulosic
feedstock processed. To date, Iogen’s main focus has been on processing of wheat
straw, a common agricultural residue in the Ontario region. Other cereal grain straws,
such as oat and barley straw are also adaptable, and various other potential
feedstocks of interest include corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus, sugarcane
99

agasse, and hard wood chips. Soft wood is not considered compatible with the
process. Feedstock with at least 60 percent carbohydrate content is said to be
required for Iogen’s process.
Iogen claims to have completed analyses of its process energy balance and of criteria
that include air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and wastewater
effluents and solid wastes; however the results are maintained as confidential
information. The company does indicate that ethanol produced by its process results in
more than an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to
gasoline. Production cost estimates and other economic analysis of Iogen’s
technology is also confidential.
Development Status–Iogen and its partners and sponsors have reportedly invested
some $135 million in its biomass-to-ethanol process development to date, including
about $18 million of Canadian Government funding. Following laboratory and benchscale
testing, a one ton-per-day pilot plant was initially operated beginning in 1983.
The current demonstration-scale (or “semi-works”) facility, which produced its first
cellulosic ethanol in April 2004, was built at a reported cost of $45 million. This facility
is capable of processing about 30 tons of dry wheat straw per day and producing
about 2.5 million liters of ethanol per year (63 gallons/dry ton). The Canadian
Government announced in February 2007 that it would contribute an additional $7.7
million toward a $25.8 million project to upgrade this facility.
Future Development Plans–Iogen and its partners have been exploring potential
plans in a number of Canadian provinces, U.S. states and other countries for a
commercial-scale (or “commercial prototype”) biomass-to-ethanol facility employing its
process. Factors considered in site selection include: availability and cost of
feedstock; quality of existing local infrastructure; magnitude and timeframe of
government policy commitment; and ability to conclude all necessary commercial
agreements. Based on these factors, the company has announced a narrowing of
locations for this first project to include North Central Saskatchewan, East Central
Alberta, Eastern Germany and Southeast Idaho.
Following the 2007 U.S. DOE grant award, the Idaho project now appears to have the
best prospects, although funding plans for this facility are apparently still to be
finalized. Total cost to configure and construct the plant and associated facilities is
said to be up to $350 million (U.S.). This facility, planned for a site at Shelley, Idaho,
would process 700 dry tons per day of agricultural residues–said to include wheat
straw, barley straw, corn stover, switchgrass and rice straw -- producing about 18
million gallons of ethanol per year (71 gallons/dry ton). Final announcement of the
project and initiation of construction is expected before the end of 2007.
100

Figure A16. Iogen Biomass-to-Ethanol Process
Iogen, all rights reserved
PureVision Technology, Inc., Fort Lupton, Colorado
Organizational Background–Pure Vision Technology, Inc. (Pure Vision) was
established in 1992 as a research and development organization. Pure Vision has its
primary research and development laboratories located in Golden, CO at the Hazen
Research, Inc. campus. The privately held company owns patented and proprietary
biorefinery technology for pre-treating cellulosic biomass for ethanol production.
Technology Characteristics–The Pure Vision technology, illustrated in Figure A17,
has been developed as a broad technology platform with many applications for
different industries. The technology utilizes countercurrent processing in an extruder
system to process the feedstock. The first stage of the extruder uses water and acid.
The second stage exposes the biomass to an alkali prior to discharge. The reactive
fractionation process produces cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, which can then be
further converted to usable products via enzymatic hydrolysis. The cellulose fraction
101

could be converted to glucose, then fermented and distilled to produce ethanol. The
Hemicellulose fraction can be converted to xylose, then fermented and distilled to
produce ethanol. Finally, the lignin can be used to create industrial chemicals or
energy in the form of process steam and electricity.
Development Status–From 2003 to present the Pure Vision team has been working
on their Process Development Unit (PDU). The PDU was developed as a proof of
concept endeavor. During 2005 Pure Vision was able to demonstrate continuous
operation of the fractionation technology on a scale of 200 pounds of biomass per
hour.
Future Plans–A larger three to five ton per day system, Engineering Development
Unit (EDU), is currently under development. The Company expects to have the EDU
operational during the first quarter of 2007.
Figure A17. PureVision Process
RITE/Honda R&D Co., Kyoto, Japan
PureVision, all rights reserved
Organizational Background–The Research Institute of Innovative Technology for
the Earth (RITE) was established in 1990 as a joint-venture between the Japanese
government and private companies to conduct research on climate change
stabilization/mitigation technologies. RITE has been conducting biochemical-related
research on a number of different fronts since its inception. Honda R&D Co. is the
research and development subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., the world’s number four
automaker. RITE and Honda R&D have formed a cooperative venture to develop and
102

commercialize a biomass-to-ethanol process technology, combining biochemical
technology developed by RITE and engineering technology of Honda.
Technology Characteristics–The RITE/Honda biomass-to-ethanol process, shown
in Figure A18, is based upon a technology termed “enzymatic saccharification”
wherein a special saccharifying enzyme is applied to cellulosic feedstocks following a
pretreatment step, resulting in production of C5 and C6 sugars (glucose, xylose,
arabinose, etc.). A special microorganism developed by RITE, identified as
“corynebacterium” is also said to enhance the subsequent sugar-to-ethanol
conversion. A particular advantage claimed for the technology is its ability to reduce
the harmful effects of fermentation inhibitors common to most ethanol production
processes, allowing a significant increase in ethanol productivity. The RITE/Honda
process is intended for application to “soft biomass” feedstocks, meaning the inedible
leaves and stalks of various plants; examples mentioned include rice straw and corn
stover.
Development Status–A joint press release by RITE and Honda R&D in September
2006 announced the success of research progress to date, claiming that “the new
process represents a large step forward for practical application of soft biomass as a
fuel source”. The process has been patented in Japan. The success achieved to date
leads to identified next steps intended to permit scale-up and integration of the
individual process components into a single facility, together with further progress in
cost-reduction anddetermination of “social compatibility”.
Future Development Plans–RITE and Honda R&D have announced plans to
continue their joint venture and pursue further development stages for their process,
leading to “industrialization” of the process and incorporation into a biorefinery
producing ethanol and co-products, said to include “industrial commodities and
automotive products”. The joint venture’s plans include construction of a pilot facility
beginning in April 2007, intended to provide data results by the end of 2007. Following
this, a demonstration plant is intended to be designed and built beginning sometime in
2008.
103

Figure A18. RITE/Honda Process
Colusa Biomass Energy Corp., Colusa, California
Organizational Background–Colusa Biomass Energy Corporation (CBE), founded
in 2001, is a publicly-traded biomass-to-energy company focusing on biofuels for
transportation. The company is located in the heart of the Sacramento Valey’s rice
producing area. CBE has patent rights to an acid hydrolysis-based technology for
producing ethanol and co-products from cellulosic biomass feedstocks, focusing
primarily on rice straw.
Technology Characteristics–The technology employed by CBE uses a hammermill
or ball-mill to grind the rice straw and rice hulls to 45-55 mesh (~300 microns or
1/100”). Dilute sulfuric (or other) acid (0.03 M), along with the ground biomass, are
added to a steam explosion chamber. This process consists of the chemical
impregnation of the ground biomass, short time steam cooking, and pressure release,
refining and bleaching. An anti-oxidant is added in order to protect the biomass
against oxidation during the cooking stage and to simultaneously develop hydrophilic
groups on the fiber surface during the steam treatment.
The solids are separated from the liquid phase using a belt-press filter to 70-80% total
solids. This material is feed into a second counter-current extractor using sodium
hydroxide to dissolve the lignin and silica. An ultra-filtration membrane system,
104

developed by CBE, is used to separate the cellulose from the lignin from the sodium
silicate. The filtered cellulose is washed with a washing centrifuge. A belt-press filter
is used to remove water to 70-80% cellulose. The cellulose is hydrolyzed with acid
hydrolyzing enzymes. The sugars, generated from the hydrolyzed cellulose, are
fermented to ethanol. Ethanol and lignin are mixed in a ratio of 3.8 parts of ethanol to
1.0 part lignin (weight/weight) to produce a petroleum-like fuel.
Development Status–A pilot plant testing the process employed by CBE was
reportedly operated for 24 months beginning in the mid-1990s. CBE has acquired a 20
acre site in Colusa, California to employ this process for the production of bioethanol,
silica/sodium oxide and lignin from waste rice straw and rice hulls. The company has
engaged an engineering firm to develop full plant specifications and plans. The
company began rice straw harvesting operations during the 2006 harvest season.
Future Development Plans–The Colusa Biomass Project is scheduled to be
initiated in the fourth quarter of 2007. The Colusa facility is planned to consume as
much as 165,000 tons of waste biomass annually, with planned production of from 10
to 20 million gallons of ethanol and 28,000 tons of silica/sodium oxide per year.
Silica/sodium oxide is a widely used ingredient with applications in the paper industry,
by detergent and soap producers and for the production of gels, catalysts and
zeolytes. CBE has also identified at least five additional locations in the U.S. for
possible future projects employing its technology.
DuPont and Co./POET, Wilmington, Delaware/Sioux Falls,
South Dakota
Organizational Background–DuPont and POET (formerly Broin Companies)
formed a partnership in 2006 to combine forces in developing and commercializing
technology for the production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass feedstocks, primarily
corn stover. DuPont, formed in 1802, is a large producer of chemicals and other
products, with operations in over 70 countries. Broin/POET, which began by building a
small-scale ethanol plant on the family’s Minnesota farm in 1983, has since designed
and constructed ethanol plants in five states, approaching a total of more than 30
plants. Since 2003, DuPont has been conducting a U.S. DOE-sponsored research
program to develop technology to produce ethanol from corn stover. In February 2007,
Broin/POET was awarded a U.S. DOE grant of up to $80 million to integrate cellulosic
ethanol production into an existing corn-to-ethanol facility at Emmetsburg, Iowa.
(Note: Separately, DuPont, in collaboration with BP, is pursuing development in the
UK of a process for producing butanol using sugar beets as feedstock. This process
development is not a subject of this study, since it does not thus far involve cellulosic
biomass feedstocks.)
Technology Characteristics–DuPont’s biomass-to-ethanol technology, shown in
Figure A19, is a mild alkaline enzymatic hydrolysis process developed in partnership
105

with Deere and Company, Diversa Corporation, Michigan State University, DuPont
subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, and U.S. DOE’s National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (Figure 19). The process incorporates a specially-developed organism,
known as zymomonas mobilis, said to convert higher volumes of both the (cellulose
and hemicellulose) or simple and complex sugars to ethanol than other biochemical
systems, and at a faster rate. The technology was designed to be incorporated into an
“integrated corn-based biorefinery”, combining al steps from miling and pretreatment
of corn stover through fermentation and ethanol production. This biorefinery concept is
also intended to cut natural gas use by 85 percent compared with typical ethanol
plants by putting a portion of the stover waste through a gasifier and using the gas for
on-site fuel.
Development Status–Bench-scale testing of the DuPont biomass-to-ethanol
technology has been conducted at the company’s Wilmington, Delaware laboratories.
This work confirmed the performance of the enzymatic process in three years of
testing, leading to the joint venture with Broin/POET, which was already pursuing
plans for an integrated biorefinery under DOE sponsorship. Broin/POET, a recognized
innovator in the ethanol production technology field, brings a number of its own
technology advancements to the partnership, including its advanced corn fractionation
and raw starch hydrolysis processes. Plans for carrying out a pilot-scale phase of the
project have been described.
Future Development Plans–Expansion of the existing dry-mill ethanol plant at
Emmettsburg is planned to begin upon finalizing terms of the grant agreement with
DOE, and will take 30 months to complete. This facility, with a current ethanol
production capacity of 50 million gallons per year, will be capable of producing 125
million gallons per year of ethanol from both corn and corn stover once the $200
million expansion and integration of the cellulosic process is complete. The overall
intended result is a biorefinery producing 11 percent more ethanol from a bushel of
corn and 27 percent more ethanol from an acre of corn, while consuming 24 percent
less water and using 83 percent fewer fossil fuels than what is needed to operate a
conventional corn to ethanol plant. Stated goals of the DuPont/POET collaboration are
to bring cellulosic ethanol to commercial viability by the end of the decade and to have
it match the cost of conventional ethanol production within about 7 years.
106

Figure A19. DuPont Process
BioGasol ApS, Lyngby, Denmark
Organizational Background–Biogasol ApS (Biogasol) was founded in 2006 as an
engineering and technology Company developing and designing technologies for
biofuel production. The company is moving to commercialize a cellulosic biomass-toethanol
technology which the company founders have been working to develop for
over a decade at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). The company,
employing 16 people, is operated out of DTU.
Technology Characteristics–The Biogasol technology, illustrated in Figure A20, is
an enzymatic hydrolysis process that relies on pretreatment of lingocellulosic material
to open the biomass in order to release the polysaccharides. The biomass is then
treated with enzymes to hydrolyze cellulose and hemi-cellulose. The product of this
step is glucose and xylose. The glucose is easily fermented to produce ethanol. The
xylose requires another fermentation process. The pre-treatment process is a newly
developed method called Wet Explosion, a combination of steam-explosion and wet
107

oxidation, applying both the addition of oxygen and a pressure release at high
temperature (170-200 o C). BioGasol’s method uses no chemicals and only a smal
amount of oxygen is added. A wide variety of feedstocks can reportedly be
accommodated by the process, including straws, corn fiber and stover, grasses,
bagasse and wood.
Development Status–The Biogasol technology is currently being tested in a pilotscale
facility at DTU. Biogasol has collaborated with Novozymes to develop an
enzyme system for application in its process.
Future Plans–Biogasol has plans for a larger demonstration facility, scheduled to
start in 2007. The company eventually plans to license their technology worldwide.
Figure A20. Biogasol Technology
Biogasol, all rights reserved
Swan Biomass Company, Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Organizational Background–Swan Biomass was formed in the 1990s as a
collaboration between Amoco Corp. and Stone and Webster Engineering. Today,
Swan operates as an independent company pursuing commercialization of
acid/enzymatic hydrolysis-based technology for producing ethanol from various
celulosic feedstocks, which Swan’s principals have been engaged in since the origins
at Amoco. Swan has also been a contractor or sub-contractor in several U.S.
Department of Energy-sponsored projects and studies involving biomass-to-ethanol
technology.
108

Technology Characteristics–The Swan technology is an advanced form of
enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation of biomass to produce fuel ethanol. Swan has
utilized the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s research and development
facilities for testing of its process. The company has also worked with Purdue
University on a modified yeast applicable to ethanol production. The Swan technology
is said to be able to accommodate a variety of biomass feedstocks.
Development Status–The company reports that the technology is currently ready for
commercial deployment. Emissions of some criteria air pollutants (particulates, NOx,
SOx, CO, HC ’s, VOC’s, toxics) are said to have been measured; emissions of others
are being determined. Net energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions analysis
have also reportedly been completed for the technology. In its currently preferred
configuration waste biomass will be imported to balance energy requirements.
Detailed technical data results for the process are being held confidential by Swan.
Future Development Plans–Swan is part of a venture being undertaken in the
Imperial Valley of California to produce ethanol from sugarcane. Known as Imperial
Valley Biorefining LLC, this project intends to apply the Swan technology to convert all
of the sugarcane plant, including the cellulosic components, to ethanol at an initial
scale of approximately 30 million gallons per year. Expanded applications, including
other projects in Imperial Valley and elsewhere are also planned. Additional
feedstocks are also being investigated, including other agricultural wastes and
residues and wood. Swan’s business plan is to license its technology for multiple
project developers and act as a project facilitator, rather than construct or operate
projects of its own.
Mascoma Corp., Cambridge, Massachusetts
Organizational Background–The Mascoma Corporation was founded in 2005
based on many years of cellulosic ethanol research and development by Dartmouth
College laboratories. Mascoma maintains corporate offices in Cambridge, MA and
research and development labs in Lebanon, NH. In 2006 Mascoma secured Series A
funding in the amount of $4 million from Flagship Ventures and Khosla Ventures. In
November 2006 the company raised an additional $30 million in Series B funding from
General Catalyst Partners, with additional participation from Kleiner Perkins Caufield &
Byers, Vantage Point Venture Partners, Atlas Venture, and Pinnacle Ventures, as well
as existing investors Khosla Ventures and Flagship Ventures.
Technology Characteristics–The Mascoma thermophilic Simultaneous
Saccharifcation and Fermentation (tSSF) technology is based on the modification of
thermoanaerobacterium saccharolyticum. This strain has demonstrated the ability to
produce ethanol from xylose at elevated fermentation temperatures. This innovation
substantially reduces the cellulase required in the production of ethanol. The
Mascoma technology has been tested at the laboratory scale level.
109

Development Status–Mascoma reports that the company’s technology is ready for
demonstration and commercial projects. Mascoma is partnering with Genencor to build
and operate a cellulosic biomass-to-ethanol plant in Rochester, New York, pending
local permit approvals and definitive agreements among the relevant parties. The
State of New York has provided a grant of $14.8 million for this $20 million project. The
plant is expected to operate using paper sludge, wood chips, switch grass and corn
stover.
Future Plans–Mascoma estimates that construction and start-up of the Rochester,
NY facility will take 10 to 12 months. Mascoma has also signed a license and joint
development agreement with Royal Nedalco, a European ethanol technology leader
and producer. The objective of this technology partnership is to license Nedalco’s
yeast-based technology for use in Mascoma’s recently announced demonstration plant
and for use in future Mascoma commercial plants, and to explore collaborative
research efforts to accelerate production of bioethanol. The companies expect to
exchange related know how and to engage in specific joint research programs to
develop lignocellulosic ethanol from agricultural side streams, such as straw and wood
waste.
110

CATEGORY X–OTHER BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Genotypes, Inc., Pacifica, California
Organizational Background–Genotypes, Inc. is a small California firm founded in
1992 as a contract research company to assist biotech/pharmaceutical companies
with yeast strain improvement. Its principals are experienced biochemists with
extensive backgrounds in the biotechnology industry. Since 1996, Genotypes has
been pursuing development of a novel technology approach to producing ethanol from
solar energy in shallow ponds employing specialty cultured organisms. The company
has filed several patents on its technology, beginning in 1998, involving bioengineering
the desired organism to photosynthetically produce ethanol in ponds.
Technology Characteristics–The Genotypes technology, shown in Figure A21,
involves use of a bioengineered photosynthetic (nitrogen-fixing) organism–
cyanobacteria stabilized as organelles in yeast–to produce ethanol in one meterdeep
ponds using only solar energy, water, atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace
minerals. Biomass would be produced during the growth of the organism up to an
appropriate density, then the biomass production would be essentially turned off and
replaced by direct conversion of photosynthetically produced sugars to ethanol. Thus
the organism would produce its own biomass feedstock, resulting in no net carbon
emissions since carbon dioxide taken up to produce sugars, which are directly
converted to ethanol in the organism, would be released by burning the alcohol but
then reabsorbed upon making more ethanol in the same organism. Genotypes
estimates the potential ethanol yields from this process to be in the range of 37,000
gallons per acre per year. This would translate, for example, into a land area
requirement of about 670 square miles to produce the ethanol equivalent of
California’s curent gasoline supply. Genotypes also estimates a potential ethanol
production cost from its pond technology could eventually be as low as $0.33 per
gallon.
The advantages claimed for this unique technological approach are: 1) Scaleable–
would use less than 1% of land that corn ethanol uses - could eventually be scaled to
completely replace gasoline. 2) Cost effective: scaled-up projections of less than
$1.00/gallon. 3) Carbon Neutral (no net carbon dioxide put in the air)–
environmentally friendly. 4) Sustainable–will not run out of feedstocks: sunshine,
carbon dioxide, and trace minerals. Also, the pond system is considered highly
adaptable to desert-type climates and areas not well-suited for conventional
agriculture or bioenergy crops.
Development Status–Genotypes has conducted laboratory research aimed at
developing the best photosynthetic organism for ethanol production at its former
laboratory in South San Francisco. The laboratory was sold in 2000, and Genotypes
continues to see partnerships with other developmental organizations and/or funding
to carry on this development work. The company has delivered a number of
111

presentations on its technology to governmental agencies and at various workshops
and other forums in California.
Future Development Plans–Gentoypes continues to seek funding for further proofof-concept
of its technology approach. Proposals containing plans for a concerted next
stage of research and development have been submitted to various organizations for
funding consideration.
Figure A21. Genotypes Technology
From atmosphere, from power plant, smoke
stacks, and from production systems I and II
Andglycolytic
production of
alcohol should occur
at the same time to
avoid morebiomass
production
Genotypes, all rights reserved
112

CATEGORY XI–INTEGRATED BIOREFINERY WITH
GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND HEAT FROM
WASTE MATERIALS
Waste-to-Energy, Paso Robles, California
Organizational Background–Waste-To-Energy (WTE) is a small California firm with
a background in the waste management field. Since 2000, WTE has been engaged in
the development of projects in California to produce ethanol from municipal waste
materials and from agricultural waste materials. Currently, WTE has strategic
partnerships with several other technology development companies and other public
and private organizations to develop and apply both thermochemical and biochemical
conversion processes for ethanol production from various biomass feedstocks. WTE
has identified four proposed projects it is actively pursuing at MSW and agricultural
sites in Southern and Central California. As a founding member of the Bioenergy
Producers Association, WTE is also a prominent participant in initiatives to revise
California’s curent state regulatory requirements to beter facilitate bioenergy
conversion projects.
Technology Characteristics–WTE’s technology approach is unique in that it seeks
to apply different technologies and combinations of technologies that best fit the
feedstock source characteristics and other site-specific features of its various planned
projects. For some projects and feedstocks, a dilute acid hydrolysis (biochemical)
process is intended for application, while a pyrolysis steam reformation and catalytic
(thermochemical) system would be applied for other projects, in which cases electricity
would also be generated. For example, one planned project would employ pre-sorted
MSW waste materials in a pyrolysis steam reformation system, with some of the
resulting syngas used to produce ethanol in a catalytic process and the remainder
used to generate electricity and/or process heat to serve the facility’s energy
requirements and/or to export. Another planned project, using agricultural wastes,
would employ a two-stage dilute acid hydrolysis process to produce ethanol along with
lignin for boiler fuel and other potential byproducts such as yeast, gypsum and furfural
for the plastics market. Integrated biochemical/thermochemical systems are also
included among the various technology designs under development by WTE and its
partners, which include a California technology engineering firm, BioEnergy
Development (BED).
Development Status–WTE reports that its partnership with BED has resulted in
several completed stages of testing of both its biochemical and thermochemical
technology processes (shown in Figure A22), leading to planned demonstration
projects in the San Francisco Bay area. Partial funding for these projects is being
provided under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Testing to date has involved sorted MSW
113

materials (such as urban green waste), construction/demolition wood wastes, and
agricultural prunings. In the planned demonstration projects, between 15 and 25 tons
per day of these types of material are intended to be processed. Preliminary air
polutant emission analysis has been done for WTE’s thermochemical process, with
further emission source-testing plans being pursued with the Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District.
Future Development Plans–WTE’s project plans involve proposed MSW-to-ethanol
conversion operations to be collocated with existing municipal waste processing
facilities in Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), Riverside and Los Angeles County.
These projects would use between 250 and 1,500 tons per day of municipal waste
materials as feedstocks. The timetables for these projects, with the Santa Maria
project intended to be first, have been stalled pending anticipated adoption of
proposed revisions to California’s waste management regulations that afect the
permitting and operating requirements for such projects. Pending resolution of the
regulatory issues affecting these MSW-to-ethanol projects, WTE has chosen to first
pursue a project using agricultural residues at a site in the Central Valley. This project,
currently in permitting stages, would use 900 tons per day of agricultural waste
feedstocks. Meanwhile, the demonstration project results are intended to provide
further process validation applicable to al of WTE’s future projects.
Figure A22 Waste-To-Energy Technology Diagram
Waste-To-Energy, all rights reserved
114

CATEGORY XII–FERMENTATION OF SYNGAS FROM
THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES
Bioengineering Resources, Inc., Fayetteville, Arkansas
Organizational Background–Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (BRI) was formed to
commercialize a unique patented process that employs a bacterial culture to convert
synthesis gas into ethanol. Development of this process by University of Arkansas
researchers began some 18 years ago.
Technology Characteristics–The BRI technology, illustrated in Figure A23, uses an
enclosed two-stage gasification process to thermally decompose the carbon molecules
in organic feedstocks. A patented microorganism then reconstructs CO, CO2 and H2
into ethanol and water. Finally, anhydrous ethanol is produced by conventional
distillation followed by a molecular sieve. The microbiological conversion of hydrogen,
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to ethanol uses a strain of bacterium in the
clostridium family. BRI carried out pilot studies using a 2-foot reaction chamber in
which an aqueous solution of nutrients are added. Hydrogen, carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide are added from gas cylinders. The bacteria convert these gases to
about 2-3% ethanol. Higher ethanol concentrations inhibit bacteria metabolism.
Products are continuously removed from the reactor and ethanol is recovered by
distillation. The synthesis gas exits the gasifier at temperatures of up to 2,350°F, and
must be cooled to about 98°F before being fed to the microorganisms. This cooling
process generates waste heat that can be used to create high temperature steam to
drive electric turbines.
Development Status–BRI reports that six years of testing at the company’s
laboratory and 1.5 ton-per-day pilot plant, both located in Fayetteville, Arkansas, have
successfully demonstrated that syngas with various impurities can be used.
Future Plans–BRI has formed a joint venture with a Florida land management
company, Alico, Inc. to apply the BRI technology in a project planned by Alico in
LaBelle, FL. In February 2007, Alico was awarded a U.S. DOE grant of up to $33
million for this project. This plant is intended to produce 13.9 million gallons of ethanol
a year and 6,255 kilowatts of electric power, as well as 8.8 tons of hydrogen and 50
tons of ammonia per day. For feedstock, the plant will use 770 tons per day of yard,
wood, and vegetative wastes and eventually energycane.
115

Figure A23. BRI Technology Diagram
BRI, all rights reserved
116

APPENDIX 2. CALIFORNIA ETHANOL PRODUCTION PROJECTS
Organization
Name
Parallel Products
Golden Cheese
Company of
California
Altra, Inc.
(formerly Phoenix
Bioindustries)
Location
Rancho
Cucamonga
Operating Ethanol Production Facilities
Capacity
MGY
Start
Year
5 1984 food and
beverage
industry
wastes
Corona 3.5 1985 cheese
processing
wastes
Feedstock Byproduct(s) Comments
recycled
materials
Goshen 27 2005 corn distillers grain
animal feed
Pacific Ethanol,
Inc.
Madera 40 2006 corn distillers grain
animal feed
Total production capacity in 75.5
operation
Ethanol Production Facility under Construction
plans
announced for
expansion to 35
MGY
Calgren
Renewable Fuels
LLC
Pixley 55 2007 corn distillers grain
animal feed
Total production capacity under
construction
55
117

Proposed Conventional (Sugar/Starch Feedstock) Ethanol Production Facilities
Organization
Name
Pacific Ethanol,
Inc.
Pacific Ethanol,
Inc.
Location Capacity
MGY
Start
Year
Feedstock Byproduct(s) Comments
Stockton 60 2008 corn environmental
impact review
underway
Brawley 60 2008 corn distillers grain
animal feed
Cilion, Inc. Keyes 55 2008 corn distillers grain
animal feed
Cilion, Inc. Famoso 55 2008 corn distillers grain
animal feed
Cilion, Inc. Imperial 110 2008 corn distillers grain
animal feed
permit
application
filed
w/Imperial Co.
American
Ethanol, Inc.
Imperial
Bioresources,
LLC
Imperial Ethanol
(subsidiary of
U.S. Farms, Inc.)
Santa Maria 50 corn distillers grain
animal feed
Brawley 58 sugarcane,
sugar beet
Imperial
County
50 sugarcane,
corn
electricity,
animal feed
submitted to
Santa Barbara
Co. for
permitting
review
negotiations
ongoing to
purchase Holly
Sugar Co. plant
as site
feasibility
studies being
completed;
several sites
under
evaluation
118

Proposed Advanced Technology (Cellulosic Feedstock) Ethanol Production
Facilities
Organization
Name
Location Capacity
MGY
Start
Year
Feedstock Byproduct(s) Comments
Blue Fire Ethanol,
Inc.
Blue Fire
Ethanol, Inc.
Blue Fire
Ethanol,
Inc.
Blue Fire
Ethanol,
Inc.
Blue Fire
Ethanol, Inc.
Blue Fire
Ethanol, Inc.
Blue Fire
Ethanol, Inc.
Waste to Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Waste to
Energy
Imperial Valley
Biorefining, LLC
Colusa Biomass
Energy Corp.
Imperial
Valley
Biorefining,
LLC
Imperial
Valley
Biorefinin
g, LLC
Imperial
Valley
Biorefini
ng, LLC
Imperial
Valley
Biorefining,
LLC
Colusa 20 rice straw,
waste rice
hulls, other
cellulosic
materials
City of Gridley Gridley 13 2010 rice straw,
rice hulls and
food
processing
plant waste
Imperial Valley
Biorefining,
LLC
silica, lignin
electricity (11.5
MW) and
steam for a colocated
food
processing
plant; silica ash
products
(ceramic
construction
and filtering)
Imperial Valley
Biorefining,
LLC
biochemical
technology;
groundbreaking
planned 4 th
Quarter 2007
thermochemica
l (coproduction
of
bioalcohols,
electricity and
steam
119