Get documents about "Chemical Sales Jobs Corona Ca
W
Description
Chemical Sales Jobs Corona Ca document sample
Document Sample
Value Networks for Biomass
Power and Biofuels
Working Document to Support the Development
of Recommendations for a Bioenergy Action Plan for
the State of California
FINAL
Purpose of Document
This document contains information on biomass in California which is organized using
Bioenergy Value Networks, a framework created by Navigant Consulting to facilitate
analysis of policy options. This document was created with data extracted from the
references reviewed as part of an assignment to capture existing information on
biomass in California and to support the development of Recommendations for a
Bioenergy Action Plan for the State (Contract No. 700-02-004). Value Networks for
Biomass Power and Biofuels is a supporting document, and is not intended, in whole or
in part, to be comprehensive or conclusive. The potential state actions listed in this
document are a compilation from various sources and do not represent a prioritized or
final list of recommended actions. This can be found in the Recommendations for a
Bioenergy Action Plan. The reader should be advised that Navigant Consulting has not
independently verified the data contained in the references utilized.
1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
4 Appendix
2
Bioenergy Value Networks » Overview
Value Networks for Biomass in California produce power, heat,
biofuels and chemicals and other products.
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Transportation Refining Distribution Markets
AGRICULTURE Power Electricity
• Agricultural Residues Transmission Electricity
• Energy Crops
Collection & Transportation Infrastructure
CCHP & Distribution
• Food Processing Residues
• Animal Wastes (farm) Waste heat Excess
• Animal Renderings electricity
Heat Thermal loads
FORESTRY
• Forest Residues - Tree Biofuel imports
thinnings, slash, etc. Biodiesel
• Onsite Mill Residues
Blending,
Transport
distribution,
MUNICIPAL WASTES Fuels; other Vehicles
marketing &
• Diverted Municipal Solid liquid Fuels
fueling
Waste (MSW)
• Urban wood wastes
• Landfill Gas “Green” bio-
Chemicals & Distribution &
• Wastewater Biogas products &
Products Marketing
• Wastewater Sludge chemicals
• Waste oils/fats/grease
Bio-product imports
Resource Imports Co-products e.g., food, feed, fertilizer
3
Bioenergy Value Networks » Simplified Value Networks for Bioenergy
The focus of this analysis was on power and fuels.
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Transportation Refining Distribution Markets
AGRICULTURE
• Agricultural Residues
• Energy Crops Power Electricity
Collection & Transportation Infrastructure
• Food Processing Residues Transmission Electricity
• Animal Wastes (farm) CCHP & Distribution
• Animal Renderings
Waste heat Excess
electricity
FORESTRY Process Heat
• Forest Residues - Tree & Space Thermal loads
thinnings, slash, etc. Heating
• Onsite Mill Residues Biofuel imports
Biodiesel
MUNICIPAL WASTES Blending,
Transport
• Diverted Municipal Solid distribution,
Fuels; other Vehicles
Waste (MSW) marketing &
liquid Fuels
• Urban wood wastes fueling
• Landfill Gas
• Wastewater Biogas
• Wastewater Sludge Co-products e.g., food, feed, fertilizer
• Waste oils/fats/grease
Resource Imports
4
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
4 Appendix
5
Biopower » Simplified Value Networks for Biopower
Primary Value Networks for Biopower.
Resources Collection & Conversion &
Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
AGRICULTURE
• Agricultural Residues
• Energy Crops
Collection & Transportation Infrastructure
Power Electricity
• Food Processing Residues
Transmission Electricity
• Animal Wastes (farm)
CCHP & Distribution
• Animal Renderings
Waste heat Excess
FORESTRY electricity
• Forest Residues - Tree
thinnings, slash, etc. Heat Thermal loads
• Onsite Mill Residues
Biofuel imports
Biodiesel
MUNICIPAL WASTES
• Diverted Municipal Solid Transport Blending,
Waste (MSW) Fuels; other distribution, Vehicles
• Urban wood wastes liquid Fuels marketing &
• Landfill Gas fueling
• Wastewater Biogas
• Wastewater Sludge
• Waste oils/fats/grease Co-products e.g., food, feed, fertilizer
Resource Imports
6
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower » Common Issues
Certain characteristics and issues are similar for many biopower
resources. These are referred in succeeding slides as Common Issues.
Power Electricity
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
CCHP Distribution
Biomass Resource Waste heat Excess
electricity
Heat Thermal loads
Co-products fertilizer (ash)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Of the 34 MDT technically • Current collection and • Thermochemical processes • Biomass capacity is about • Most are operating
available today, only 4-5 transportation (e.g., combustion, 2% of statewide peak under negotiated fixed
MDT are currently characteristics tend to gasification) tend to be power capacity (7 pg 33) price amendments to
utilized. (7 pg 53) be unique for each high throughput as • Current biomass accounts Standard Offer 4 (SO4)
resource types and are compared with for 24% of California net contracts created in 2001
detailed in the following biochemical processes and renewable system power, at a price of 5.3¢/kWh (7
slide. can utilize a wide range of and 20% of gross pg 40)
biomass types (7 pg 33) renewable power. (7 pg • Many facilities receive
Utilization/ • Existing and near-term 36) capacity payments
Situation planned biomass grid • Because power is exported under the SO4 contracts
generating capacity in CA to the grid, most facilities of 2¢/kWh (7 pg 40)
in 2005 was 969 MWe require interconnection to • Onsite, self-generation
including solid fuel transmission substation and combined heat and
combustion power plants power (CHP)
and engines, boilers, and • Smaller onsite facilities
may be entitled to utilize applications also exist.
turbines operating on
landfill gas, sewage simpler interconnection
digester gas, and biogas standards under Rule 21
from animal manure.
7
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower »Common Issues
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Fuel costs estimates • Most transportation cost • Most conversion and • Interconnection costs • For new facilities, the 2004
between $20 and $40/BDT characteristics and refining characteristics and are high for standby Market Price Referent (MPR)
are assumed when issues are unique for issues are unique for each and exit fees if plant without Supplemental
developing LCOE figures. each resource and resource and described in is designed to satisfy Energy Payments (SEP) is
(7 page 50) described in the slides the slides below. local load. ~5.8¢/kWh
below. • Interconnection costs • The more efficient the
Costs vary by location. technologies, the less impact
feedstock price has on the
LCOE.
• Direct combustion plants
exceed the cost of wind and
geothermal because of fuel
costs.
8
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower » Common Issues
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Production costs for • Transportation costs of • New biomass development to • Interconnection • Lack of Direct Access retail and
biomass fuel exceeds distributed resources meet RPS requirements may process is time wholesale level (7 pg 57)
that for fossil fuels (7 may limit size of only occur when feedstock and cost uncertain • RECs not permitted to meet RPS,
pg 58) facility to the fuel that supplies and long-term (7 pg 60) limiting market for biopower
can be delivered energy purchase contracts can • Simplified onsite
within a short distance be assured. (7 pg 36) • Net metering capped (7 pg 60)
generation
(7 pg 48) • Few programs exist for interconnection • Fixed price contracts or SEPs do not
• Competition exists training skilled personnel to (Rule 21) can still account for inflation. (7 pg 57)
among vested utility, work in biobased industry. be costly (7 pg 60) • Increased capital costs for more
fuel, and waste Educational institutions efficient technology my reduce any
management typically do not have the returns gained that could have offset
infrastructures (7 pg funds to develop these SEPs not accounting for inflation
56) programs. (7 pg 58)
• SRAC calculation uncertainty
• Lack of coordination • Uncertainties in new
among jurisdictional technologies make financing • Muni’s only have RPS ‚targets‛
agencies (7 pg 56) difficult (7 pg 57) rather than requirements.
Constraints
• A lack of environmental data • Muni contracts do not pay SEP
in new technologies makes payments since SEP monies are from
permitting difficult. (7 pg 57) public goods charges (PGC) not
collected by munis
• Lack of public awareness and
advocacy (7 pg 56) • Federal tax credits for biomass are
not as favorable as for other sources
• Time consuming to permit (7
pg 59) • No GHG market
• Lack of environmental impact • Few direct development incentives
data on projects in operation exist and lack of predictable state
results in ‚worst case‛ public and federal management programs
perception (7 pg 60) (7 pg 56)
• Lack of stable long-term economic
and financial incentives and
compensation for public benefits
provided (7 pg 56)
9
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower » Common Issues
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•Co-firing with other •Locations benefiting •Gasification combined •Smaller distributed •Renewable Portfolio
fuels, such as natural gas transmission system cycle systems facilities may be able to Standard (RPS)
and coal, allows greater ‚Hotspot sites‛ have advancements should better capture benefits contracts with IOUs
flexibility in fuel been identified in enable efficiencies to associated with voltage paying Market Price
selection. Improvement the Strategic Value increase from current 20- support for the local grid, Referent (MPR) +
in both thermo and bio Analysis (37) 28% up to 35% or more, (7 reduced power Supplemental energy
conversion options will pg 33) transmission, decreased Payments (SEP)
lead to greater fuel •Conversion efficiency transportation, and better •SO4 contracts with
selection flexibility. (7 improvements, growth in potential for waste heat IOUs or Muni’s paying
pg 33) population, and dedicated utilization in combined higher SRAC or fixed
•Total feedstock expense crops resource should heat and power (CHP) (7 prices
to supply the statewide enable an incremental pg 34)
•Federal Development
technical resource generation growth of •Some types of biomass Incentives –Production
estimate of 34 MDT at 7,100MW by 2017. (7 pg systems could operate in Tax Credits ( PTC)
$30/BDT would equal 34) peak markets, or , could
approximately $1B. serve as base load facilities •Monetizing
Potential, Timing, •Without improving environmental and
(biogas not considered) efficiencies, incremental to conserve natural gas
& Magnitude supplies for meeting peak waste management
•Resources are available capacity in 2017 would be benefits to defray fuel
to meet projected closer to 4,800MW. (7 pg demands (7 pg 14)
costs and improve
demand, but such 34) •Distributed smaller economics (7 pg 41)
development would •By 2017, energy from generation systems have
stimulate competition for wider access to CCHP •Combining power
biomass could reach applications improves
biofuels like in the early 60,000GWh or 18% of opportunities. (7 pg 42)
1990s, but could be offset economics such as
projected statewide •Resource location relative matching power and
by policies in waste consumption of to electric grid is critical
management to separate heat applications (16 pg
334,000GWh. (7 pg 34) 42)
solid waste. (7 pg 36)
•If biomass were to
maintain a 20% share of
net system power, then
660MW of biomass
capacity would need to be
added by 2017, assuming
an average capacity factor
of 85%. (7 pg 36)
10
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower » Common Issues
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•The current technical •The future value of
potential is 4700MW which greenhouse gas
could generate about (GHG)/carbon
35,000GWh, or 12% of the credits, other
283,000 GWh of electricity emissions credits
currently used in the state (7 or offsets and
pg 33) renewable energy
•Incremental capacity certificates (RECs)
additions exclusive of will all have a
existing and near term significant impact
planned generation could on biopower
exceed 3,600 MW. (7 pg 34) economics.
•After meeting the RPS,
annual increment of 14-16
Potential, Timing, & MW would be needed to
Magnitude (continued) maintain biomass share if
electricity demand continued
to increase at the same rate
and the RPS target remained
at 20% (7 pg 36)
•If the state accelerates the
implementation of the RPS to
33% by 2020, annual
additions would need to
increase to maintain 20%
share at approximately 70-
95MW per year and net
cumulative addition through
2020 of 1,450MW. This
would be ~2,400MW total. (7
pg 36)
11
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower » Common Issues
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•Reduced dependence on •‚The renewable energy •Flexible energy •Meeting Renewable
non renewable fuel sector generates more jobs resource that can be Portfolio Standard.
per MW for electric power
•Rural economic installed, per unit of dispatchable or Biopower currently
development energy produced, and per baseload. (7 pg 41 provides 20 percent of
dollar invested than does check) the renewable energy
fossil fuel sector‛ (7 pg 9) resources
•Distributed
•Biomass is estimated generation can •Using biomass in
create 3-6 jobs/MW (37 pg alleviate load conversion technology
30)(7 pg 9) pockets and provide rather than natural gas
•Lower emissions, higher grid support reduces CO2 emissions
efficiency, better resource •Onsite generation from natural gas (7 pg 4)
utilization with new, more avoids retail •Resource Adequacy
efficient technology electricity costs (7 pg Contribution to help
Benefits 42) provide power capacity
•Self-gen reliability reserves to enhance grid
reliability and to help
reduce risk of electric
price volatility due to
possible power supply
shortages.
•Baseload capability. Use
of biomass power
facilities for this purpose
could help reduce the
amount of incremental
new gas-fired facilities
that would otherwise be
required.
12
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower » Common Issues
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•Need to adopt a policy on •Agency coordination •Increase public and policy •Grid benefits of •Increased use of biomass
CO2 sequestration to meet •Smaller (onsite?) awareness about technology congestion in RPS, RPS needs a
state goals. applications to reduce and benefits through reduction and category for transmission
•Air quality permitting handling cost demonstration voltage support benefits, baseload
needs to take into account •Expediting of permits could be support or some
•New technology to combined category. (7 pg
alternative fates of monetized (16 pg
improve fuel handling •Research and development 57)
biomass fuels, which are 29, 42)
and transportation (R&D) to increase
usually much worse (16 infrastructure conversion efficiency with •Extension of PTCs,
pg 26) without higher capital cost •Uniform statewide development programs,
•Need better developed interconnection production tax incentives
production systems (7 •Skilled operating personnel standard
pg 53) •Carbon credits,
•Need comprehensive incentives for CO2
lifecycle assessment for •Expand net sequestration through
Needs integrated waste metering for crop uptake
management and other biomass; eliminate •Greenhouse gas (GHG)
biomass strategies. (45 pg 7) caps credits
•Direct incentives for •RECs need to account for
development (7 pg 53) direct environmental
•Incentives for increasing services provided, so
efficiency biomass gets unique
compensation (16 pg 11)
•Matching of power and
heat applications and •long-term contacts
combining of conversion
applications to gain
economic competitiveness
(7 pg 41)
13
WORKING DRAFT
Biopower » Common Issues
Potential State Actions1
2006
• CEC to provide permitting support to local agencies
— Develop a State New Source Review program
— Develop a single BACT for LFG projects
— Exemptions for biogas technologies as Pollution Control Projects
— Explore Cross or Inter pollutant netting
• Complete a comprehensive RD&D ‚roadmap‛ to guide future research, development and demonstration activities through the California
Biomass Collaborative and other organizations
• Create training programs for operating personnel
• Promote state, local government procurement standards to use more biopower
• Work on extension of Federal PTC’s
Administrative
Actions • Establish standards for the sustainable development and use of biomass that ensure environmental objectives are met in all areas, including air
and water quality.
• Coordinate state production incentives: SEP, state production tax credits, tradable credits to make useful for new projects
• Work with WGA to influence federal funding decisions
• Develop programs to monetize the environmental benefits of biomass-to-energy by estimating the costs of alternative fates for the biomass
materials (e.g., forest fires). Could be implemented via a carbon tax, carbon adder, or other means).
• Conduct RD&D on cropping systems, harvesting, handling, storage & distribution practices and technology, in coordination with a larger state
and Federal level R&D effort.
• Appoint Bioenergy Interagency Working Group (BEIWG) to implement the Action Plan and coordinate biomass activities on a statewide level.
2007 – 2010
• Establish carbon tax that benefits biopower production
• Encourage congress to mandate utilization of biomass energy at federal facilities
• Develop clear long-term biopower regulatory policy.
• CPUC to expand role of biomass in RPS due to its baseload capacity abilities.
Regulatory Actions • CPUC to continue efforts on simplifying interconnection standards and practices
• CPUC to expand net metering for biomass; eliminate caps
• CPUC to create methodology that encourages long-term power contracts for new biopower projects
• Create state tax credits, energy investment tax credits or expand tax exempt financing from California Pollution Control Financing Authority
Legislative Actions • Establish loan guarantee revolving fund to reduce risk
• Seek dedicated state funding in FY 2006 and FY 2007 budgets to support new financing, tax initiatives, and other programs.
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
14
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
Agriculture
Forestry
Municipal Wastes
3 Biofuels Value Networks
4 Appendix
15
Biopower » Agriculture
Value Networks for Biopower from Agricultural Resources.
Resources Collection & Conversion &
Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
AGRICULTURE
• Agricultural Residues
Collection & Transportation Infrastructure
• Energy Crops Power Electricity
• Food Processing Residues Transmission Electricity
• Animal Wastes (farm) CCHP & Distribution
• Animal Renderings
Waste heat Excess
electricity
FORESTRY
Forest Residues - Tree
Thermal loads
thinnings, slash, etc. Heat
Onsite Mill Residues Biofuel imports
Biodiesel
MUNICIPAL WASTES Blending,
Diverted Municipal Solid Transport
distribution,
Waste (MSW) Fuels; other Vehicles
marketing &
Urban wood wastes liquid Fuels
fueling
Landfill Gas
Wastewater Biogas
Wastewater Sludge
Waste oils/fats/grease Co-products e.g., food, feed, fertilizer
Resource Imports
16
Biopower » Agricultural and Food Processing Residues › Current Situations Assessment (1 of 2)
Agricultural and Food Power Electricity
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
Processing Residues CCHP Distribution
Woody orchard and vineyard prunings,
field crop residues such as cereal straws Waste heat Excess
and corn stover, vegetable crop residues electricity
and; food processing residues: primarily Heat Thermal loads
woody rice hulls, shells and pits (7 pg17)1
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• 1 MDT/yr prunings used for • Offsite residues • Direct combustion • Distribution and • Existing markets are
power productions; typically transported by trucks technology (current) interconnection similar for all biomass
with other other biomass (7 • Large storage area often • 93 MW orchard and vine characteristics similar for and are detailed in the
pg17) needed to balance waste power producing all biomass conversion overall discussion
• Field crops not generally timing of harvesting facilities in operation types and detailed in the slides.
utilized in power with energy production producing 694 GWh/yr (7 overall discussion slides.
Utilization/ applications (7 pg17) (7 pg 49) pg 35)
Situation • Vegetable crop residues • Collection and costs • 44 MW food processing
typically reincorporated into depends on crop & waste power production
soils. (7 pg 17) harvesting process (7 pg facilities in operation
• 250,000 tons/yr food 48, 49) producing 328 GWh/yr (7
processing waste utilized for • Densification not typical pg 35)
power (7 pg17) in current infrastructure
(7 pg 49)
1. High moisture content food processing residues (e.g., cheese whey) can be utilized in onsite anaerobic digestion CCHP applications, or disposed of through municipal
waste water and utilized as described in the WWTP section. (7 pg 33).
17
Biopower » Agricultural and Food Processing Residues › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•An average of $22/BDT for •Short haul costs included •New biomass power plants •See Common Issues. •LCOE estimated at
ag residues depending on in resource cost, but do are estimated to have an 6.2¢/kWh without
distance and quality of not include storage and installed capital costs of production tax credit
resource (37 pg 11) processing (37 pg 53) between $1,500-$3,000/kW (PTC) for 25MW stoker
•Facilities utilizing (7 pg 38) boiler facility (37 pg 60,
feedstock onsite may 62) assumed for ag
have limited additional applications with fuel at
collection and $22/BDT assumed for
Costs transportation costs.(7 pg hauling prunings.
48) •LCOE estimated at
•Residue management or 4¢/kWh for onsite
utilization costs not nutshell type food
typically accounted for in processing applications
commodity selling price with no fuel costs (37 pg
(7 pg 48) 62)
•Distance to fuel is critical. •Production systems and •Fuel quality is critical; •See Common Issues •See Common Issues.
Low density, low BTU fuel markets not well combustion system fouling
limits allowable distance. (7 developed. (7 pg 53) more common with field
pg 49) crops than woody biomass.
•Some crops require retilling (7 pg 17)
Constraints of residue to maintain soil
nutrients (7 pg 48)
•Food processing wastes
may only be seasonally
available. (7 pg 49)
18
Biopower » Agricultural and Food Processing Residues › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• 4.9 MDT/yr prunings, • Estimates assume a 25 • 496 MW & 3,691 GWh • See Common Issues • Reduced fuel costs
field crop, and mile radius limit from a technical at current could lower direct
vegetable crop substation for capacity factor (55%) combustion
residues, and food transportation, & efficiency (20%) application LCOE
processing residues although some resource (includes orchard and closer to that of
estimated technical potential may be vine, field and seed, wind projects. (7
potentially available beyond feasible vegetable and food pg 41)
today (8 tbl 4.1) distance. (37 pg 72) processing biomass) (7 • Advanced more
• Orchard removals are pg 35) efficient conversion
available year round • Could increase to technologies could
Potential, Timing (7 pg 49) ~750MW & 5,600 reduce LCOE
& Magnitude GWh/yr with new closer to wind,
• Resource production
expected to remain at technology (e.g., although increased
current levels (7 pg BIGCC @ 35% capital costs could
28) efficiency) offset this. (7 pg 41)
• SB 705 restrictions on • Valuing heat in
open burning and SB CCHP applications
700 repeal of ag air can reduce LCOE
permitting below wind.
exemptions increases Could reduce
resource availability LCOE to
(45 pg 26) .057¢/kWh. (7 pg
42)
19
Biopower » Agricultural and Food Processing Residues › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
•Could create •Local (rural) economy •Local (rural) economic •See Common Issues •Decreased
additional farm benefits. A significant boost (37 pg 30)(7 pg 9) decomposition of
revenue from new portion of the fuels and residues in open fields
products and markets feedstocks originate in reduces other green
(7 pg xiv) rural areas of the state. house gas pollutants
•Opportunities exist for Could create new value- such as methane
added markets and new
Benefits integrating dedicated
local jobs.
biomass crops into
remediation programs
to repair salt-affected
and other
contaminated lands.
•Better Agency •Agronomic practices and •Restarting mothballed See Common Issues •Farm commodity
coordination (Waste, management approaches plants tax/fee to incentivize
Ag and Energy) to may need to change, (7 •See Common Issues development (45 pg 10)
support increased use pg 53) •See Common Issues
of ag resources •See Common Issues •Need more developed
•Biomass densification markets (7 pg 53)
Needs (7 pg 49)
•Power and heat
applications need to be
matched to gain
economic
competitiveness (7 pg
41)
20
Biopower » Agricultural and Food Processing Residues › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Agency (Waste, Ag and Energy) coordination.
—Ag Agency report on market for agricultural crop residues
—Develop statewide system for capturing environmental benefits of biopower
—Widely disseminate broad based benefits of biopower – demo projects
• Facilitate long-term fuel delivery contracts to maintain collection and delivery infrastructure .
• Create training programs for operating personnel
• Establish (or provide loan guarantee for) a commercial demo biogasification project
Administrative • Establish regional manure management centers as potential sites for dairy bio-digesters in the San Joaquin Valley.
Actions • Streamlined permitting.
• Develop clear long-term biopower regulatory policy.
• Expand and broaden programs such as the Dairy Power Production Program to encourage greater use of animal, food processing, and urban
residues and waste waters for power generation and biofuels production.
• See Common Issues
2007-2010
• Create new R&D programs on harvesting, handling, and storage practices and technology
• New R&D to solve fouling problem and increase efficiency
• Initiate a proceeding to address net metering opportunities for biomass (including consolidating net metering accounts on a farm, using
Regulatory existing power lines on their properties for grid access, & higher net metering limits).
Actions
Legislative
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
21
Biopower » Energy Crops › Current Situation Assessment
Power Electricity
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
Biomass Energy Crops CCHP Distribution
Lignocellulosic crops including salt
Waste heat Excess
and water tolerant species. Includes
electricity
grasses, trees, and aquatic species1
Heat Thermal loads
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Not currently utilized in • NA • 0 MW in operation • NA • No specific market for
California energy crops, but could
Utilization/ compete in RPS
Situation solicitations just as
residue projects are
doing.
• Dedicated crops assume all • Pretreatment or sorting • Higher capital costs for
production costs, but may processes to remove improved technologies to
also contribute to other contaminants deal with pollutants
high value benefits such as
Costs soil remediation (7 pg 48)
• Variable production costs
due to species, production
site, level of management,
resulting yield (7 pg 48)
• Water is the likely the • See Common Issues • Pollutants contained in • See Common Issues.
limiting resource (5g 27) crops utilized for soil
• Crop yields are variable remediation, then
Constraints and depend on crop type harvested for energy
and inputs (7 pg 27) production, may cause
negative impacts to energy
conversion processes
1. It is assumed that sugar, starch and oil crops (as well as lignocellulosic crops) could be used to create biofuels. Refer to the biofuels section for discussion. The
lignocellulosic portion of sugar, starch & oil crops (i.e., residues) could be used for power production as covered in the section on agricultural residues.
22
Biopower » Energy Crops › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• Specific crops can be used for • Assumes full • May help support • See Common Issues • PTC available for
soil remediation allocation of industry ‚closed loop‛
• Eucalyptus is currently used production costs development before biomass conversion
in CA for integrated farm in commodity other resource systems at 1.9¢/kWh
drainage management price infrastructures are in over ten years (7 pg
(IFDM) (7 pg 27) place (7 pg 1) 11) vs. 0.9 ¢/kWh for
‚open loop‛ biomass
• Integrated systems, such as
IFDM, and other soil
remediation practices may
‚prove one of the major
growth areas in the future‛ (7
pg 53)
• 4.5 MDT estimated to be
grown in CA by 2020. This
Potential, represents 1/3 total biomass
Timing & resource growth by 2017. (7
pg 28) (8 tbl 4.1) (note: it is
Magnitude unclear what crop types
makes up the estimate).
• Best near-term opportunity on
San Joaquin 1.5 M acres of
lands that have never been
drained or 100,000 acres that
need better drainage and
could be used for agriculture.
(7 pg 27)
• The decrease in Federal
support from some ag crops
could promote the
development of alternative
crops such as energy crops (7
pg 27)
23
Biopower » Energy Crops › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• Could supplement • See Common Issues • Waste heat from power • See Common Issues. • See Common Issues
other biomass facilities generation could be
• Soil remediation from used to purify drainage
salt tolerant species and water by extracting
those that uptake salts (7 pg 28)
pollutants including • Other conversion and
Benefits trees, grasses and refining benefits are
halophytes, and similar for all biomass
improves over all and detailed in the
sustainability of general discussion
agriculture (7 pg 26, 27) slides.
• Biomass growth can
sequester CO2 in soils
• Assessment of • See Common Issues • Continued testing to • See Common Issues • See Common Issues
potentially viable crops determine any saline
and land impacts on thermal and
• Promotion of planting bio processes (7 pg 29)
renewable fuels • Other conversion and
• Concerted R&D effort refining needs are are
Needs (7 pg 27) similar for all biomass
conversion applications
• Analysis of types of and are detailed in the
crops needed for soil general discussion
remediation , and for slides.
other Valley
environmental
considerations (7 pg 28)
24
Biopower » Energy Crops › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• See Common Issues.
• Conduct RD&D on cropping systems, harvesting, handling, storage, and distribution practices and technology, in coordination with a larger
state and federal level R&D effort.
Administrative
Actions
• See Common Issues.
Regulatory
Actions
• Reduction in support to other agricultural commodities would influence the development of energy crops
Legislative • Incentives for growing energy crops need to be developed
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
25
Biopower » Animal Waste › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Power Electricity
Animal Waste
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
Includes manure from dairy CCHP Distribution
cows, range cattle, and boiler
chickens (7 pg 17) Waste heat Excess
electricity
Heat Thermal loads
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Approximately 33,000 milk • Onsite collection if • Methane from anaerobic • See Common Issues • CA Dairy Power
cows are supported by the dairies digestion of waste fires Production Program
Dairy Power Production • Not currently feasible reciprocating engines (7 pg 40) and other federal dairy
Program (7 pg 17) for pastured animals (7 • Anaerobic digesters typically programs offer
pg 48) 50kW- several MW (7 pg 40) development incentives
(7 pg 40)
• Waste heat used to improve
digester or for other onsite • Dairies can use net
Utilization/ processes (e.g., cheese metering programs or
production) (7 pg 40) RPS solicitations
Situation (although smaller size
• 4 MW in operation producing may limit the
30 GWh/yr (7 pg 35) practicality of latter
• There are less than 7 animal option).
and food processing digesters • See Common Issues
operating in the state, and
approximately 16 that are not
operating. (37 pg 50)
• Costs low when anaerobic • Costs low when • ~$3,500/kW installed capital • See Common Issues • LCOE is estimated
digestion on site at dairy (7 anaerobic digestion on costs and $300/kW O&M for 4.3¢/kWh for 100kW
pg 40) site of dairy (7 pg 48) dairy waste biogas in 2005 system in 2003 constant
Costs dollars (37 pg 19) dollars for energy from
an animal waste
digester (7 pg 42)
26
Biopower » Animal Waste › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Resource distributed in • Collection costs for • Sulfur in gas can cause • See Common Issues • See Common Issues
nature for range cattle range operations may combustion system fouling in • Net metering for dairies
operations be infeasible (7 pg 48) older systems (7 pg 40) expected to end 2006 (7
• Increasing concerns over • Need to have confined • Despite new models equipped pg 42)
VOC emissions for pens to be able to collect to remove sulfur, additionally • Dairies and farms have
confined animal feeding waste required NOx scrubbing different rules than
Constraints operations (CAFOs) (45 pg equipment still costly (7 pg 40) solar for Net Metering ,
6) • Gas scrubbing and catalytic and some provisions
emission control devices may may be limiting their
cause efficiencies to decline (14 participation.
pg 33)
• Refer to Agriculture section for
permitting constraints.
27
Biopower » Animal Waste › Opportunity Assessment
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•~3.6 MDT/yr of all animal •Onsite •385 MW & 2,863 GWh net •See Common Issues •Anaerobic digestion
manure technically available applications technical potential at of animal wastes and
today, ~2.0 MDT/yr of current efficiency (7 pg 35) LFGTE systems could
confined dairy manure •~$3,000/kW installed achieve a lower LCOE
technically available today (8 capital, $240/kW O&M – than wind where
tbl 4.1) 2010 , and ~$2,600/kW there are no fuel costs
•Expected to increase over installed capital, $150/kW (7 pg 41)
Potential, time, MSW and animal O&M – 2017 (37 pg 19) •See Common Issues
Timing, & waste expected to account
for 2/3 gross resource
Magnitude growth by 2017, which could
be estimated to be about 1-2
MDT (7 pg 28)
•Due to SB 700 and the loss of
air permitting exemptions
for agriculture, alternative
waste management practices
will increase the availability
of the resource.
•Utilization reduces methane •Conversion and refining •See Common Issues •See Common Issues
release into atmosphere benefits are similar for all
•Refer to Agriculture section biomass conversion
for farm revenue benefits applications and are
Benefits detailed in the general
discussion slides.
•Improved waste •Agency •Incentives for increasing •Refer to •long-term contracts
management practices coordination efficiency Agriculture section •Increased use of
•Existing costs of waste •Skilled personnel for interconnection biomass in RPS
management practices and net metering
Needs needs. •Extension of
should compared against production tax credits
conversion alternatives.
•Carbon credits
28
Biopower » Animal Waste › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Increase funding for the Dairy Power Production Program
• See Common Issues
Administrative
Actions
• Legislation to simplify and expand net metering for biomass and biogas
Regulatory • See Common Issues
Actions
• See Common Issues
Legislative
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
29
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
Agriculture
Forestry
Municipal Wastes
3 Biofuels Value Networks
4 Appendix
30
Biopower » Forestry
Simplified Value Networks for Biopower from Forestry Resources.
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
AGRICULTURE
• Agricultural Residues
Collection & Transportation Infrastructure
• Energy Crops Power Electricity
• Food Processing Residues Transmission Electricity
• Animal Wastes (farm) CCHP & Distribution
• Animal Renderings
Waste heat Excess
electricity
FORESTRY
• Forest Residues - Tree
Thermal loads
thinnings, slash, etc. Heat
• Onsite Mill Residues Biofuel imports
Biodiesel
MUNICIPAL WASTES Blending,
Transport
• Diverted Municipal Solid distribution, Vehicles
Fuels; other
Waste (MSW) marketing &
liquid Fuels
• Urban wood wastes fueling
• Landfill Gas
• Wastewater Biogas
• Wastewater Sludge
Co-products e.g., food, feed, fertilizer
• Waste oils/fats/grease
Resource Imports
31
Biopower » On-Site Mill Residues › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Power Electricity
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
CCHP Distribution
Onsite Mill Residues
Onsite Mill Residues include waste from Waste heat Excess
sawmill operations (7 pg 19, 20) electricity
Heat Thermal loads
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Approx. 1.3 M tons/yr of • Onsite mill residue • Direct combustion technology • Much of the power • See Common Issues
sawmill residues used for collection and (current) generated is being used on
power production (7 pg 20) utilization well • 268 MW in operation site and is not exported to
• Onsite forest residues established producing 1996 GWh/yr (7 pg the grid. (7 pg 20)
located primarily in far 35) • See Common Issues
Utilization/ northern California; ~50% • CHP applications such as
Situation on public land waste heat used for kiln
• Remaining available drying lumber (7 pg 42)
residues are used for • Most forest product
landscape and other operations already generate
products. (7 pg 20) power from their residues.
• Little or no costs assumed • Refer to Agriculture • Refer to Agriculture section See Common Issues • See Common Issues
for onsite utilization of mill section for limited for installed capital costs for
residues (37 pg 54) cost of collection at stoker boiler configurations
Costs onsite facilities. assumed used in smaller
onsite applications.
• Declining forest product • See Common Issues • See Common Issues. • See Common Issues
Constraints industry (33 pg 4)
32
Biopower » On-Site Mill Residues › Opportunity Assessment
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
•3.3 MDT of mill •Sites that benefit •Improved technologies •Biomass meets utilities •By products from
residues technically transmission system with higher efficiencies baseload requirements remaining forest
available today (7 (‚Hotspot sites‛) are becoming available •Range of facility sizes product residues
pg 15) identified. (37) like fluidized bed or should allow for
•Resource size is gasification interconnection at a •See Common Issues
Potential, Timing expected to remain •Restarting mothballed variety of substation
at current levels in plants is one option voltages, but resource
& Magnitude the future. location relative to
•1,666 MW & 12,408 GWh
technical (7 pg 35) at electric grid is
current capacity factor important (37)
(85%) & efficiency (20%)
(37)
•Competitive at larger
project size
•See Common Issues •Benefits to distribution
are similar for all
biomass conversion
applications and are
Benefits detailed in the general
discussion slides.
•See Common Issues. •See Common Issues •See Common Issues
Needs
33
Biopower » On-Site Mill Residues › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• See Common Issues
Administrative
Actions
• See Common Issues.
Regulatory
Actions
• Advocate policies that collect payments from beneficiaries of environmental benefits, for example surcharges on water bills for forest thinning
that improves water shed quality
Legislative
• See Common Issues.
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
34
Biopower » Off-Site Forest Residues › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Power Electricity
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
Forest Residues CCHP Distribution
Thinnings, log slash, scrub, and Waste heat Excess
chaparral.
electricity
Heat Thermal loads
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Current utilization of • Forest residue • See Common Issues • See Common Issues. • See Common Issues.
forest thinnings and slash collection and • Development of mobile
is unclear. It is assumed to transport is distance biomass conversion systems
be chipped onto the forest constrained
Utilization/ floor.
(e.g., skid mounted) could
facilitate utilization of forest
Situation • Chaparral is cleared residues
primarily in the Southern
California region for fire
protection (7 pg 20)
• ~$40/BDT forest thinnings • Collection cost • $2,800/kW installed capital • LCOE estimated at
and ‘timber stand becomes prohibitive costs and $232/kW O&M for 8.98¢/kWh for 25MW
improvement’ (37 pg 11) on certain terrain fluidized bed application in fluidized bed facility
Costs 2005 at 2004 dollars, not and assuming a 1¢/kWh
including $40 fuel cost. (37 pg increase per $10/ton
13) increase in fuel cost. (37
pg 60, 62)
35
Biopower » Off-Site Forest Residues › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• Seasonal harvesting • Forest terrain can be • See Common Issues • See Common Issues. • See Common Issues
limitation infeasible for thinning
• Reliability, long-term • Equipment access to lands
supply of resource may be limited seasonally
• Controversy over how/if due to winter or fire
thinning should occur seasons (7 pg 49)
• No consensus between • Refer to Agriculture section
Constraints for transportation cost
environmental agencies
how to manage. (7 pg 53) constraints to the size of
the facility.
• Chaparral has no
commercial value (7 pg20)
• No markets exist for forest
management operations (7
pg 53)
1.
36
Biopower » Off-Site Forest Residues › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
•2003 Healthy •Long-term fuel supply •Refer to onsite forestry • See Common Issues •See Common Issues
Forests Restoration contracts would for conversion potential.
Act and 2005 support consistent
Energy Policy Act delivery
Potential, Timing increases potential •Onsite applications can
for thinnings (7 pg minimize cost of
& Magnitude 53) transportation
•11 MDT/yr
estimated technical
potential off-site
forest residue
•Decreased fire risk •See Common Issues •Emissions from power •See Common Issues
benefits water and plants is significantly
air quality and less than impacts from
minimizes habitat catastrophic fires.
destruction •Decreased spending on
Benefits •Reduced wild fire fire protection which
risks to large urban amounts to
populations near approximately
fire prone areas.(7 $900M/year (45 pg 26)
pg 53)
37
Biopower » Off-Site Forest Residues › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
•Need better state • Public awareness about •Offset credits for •See Common Issues. •Long-term contacts for
policy regarding benefit of thinning thinning, prescribed harvesting/thinnings
forest thinning (7 • Integrated policy burning, and wildfire, •Market must exist for
pg 53) between Energy and should be developed forest management
•Alternative fire Forestry Agencies and recognized by US biomass (7 pg 54)
prevention EPA (45 pg 9)
• Consensus between
strategies are environmental
needed, since organizations and land
suppression management agencies
strategies have that wildland urban
created the fuel interfaces need to be
Needs load (7 pg 53) managed to reduce fire
risk. (7 pg 54)
• Costs of biomass
management should be
reasonably allocated to
the beneficiaries.
• Need for increasing fuel
supply infrastructure
specifically related to
fire prevention. (7 pg
57)
38
Biopower » Off-Site Forest Residues › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Determine geographic areas in the Wildland Urban Interface most in need of fuel reduction.
• Identify actions that can be taken by the Board of Forestry to encourage biomass production and use.
• Work with Federal government to implement policies under the Healthy Forest Act that would provide larger, long-term biomass supply from
Federal lands.
• Facilitate long-term fuel delivery contracts to maintain collection and delivery infrastructure .
• Work with Fed Govt to implement policies that would provide long-term biomass supply from federal lands.
• New R&D on harvesting, handling, and storage practices and technology
Administrative • Identify ‚biomass energy zones‛ in key forest and range areas and key agricultural areas of California, based on known resource potential.
Actions • Examine the alternative methods for disposing of fuel reduction materials and determine the best practices for forestry management that have
the least greenhouse gas impacts compared to wildfires.
• Build upon the existing California Climate Action Registry protocols and continue development of additional protocols for forest management
and resource conservation (i.e., use of forest materials for fuels and wood products).
• Create fuel management surcharge fees to have beneficiaries pay for benefit of thinning activities.
• Assist the Department of Corrections and Forestry and Fire Protection in the installation of combined heat and power units at six facilities
statewide.
• See Common Issues
• Establish incentive for delivery infrastructure
Regulatory • Establish fuel management surcharge fees to have beneficiaries pay for benefit of thinning activities.
Actions • See Common Issues
• See Common Issues.
Legislative
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
39
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
Agriculture
Forestry
Municipal Wastes
3 Biofuels Value Networks
4 Appendix
40
Biopower » Municipal Wastes
Simplified Value Networks for Biopower from Municipal Wastes
Resources Collection & Conversion &
Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
AGRICULTURE
• Agricultural Residues
• Energy Crops
Collection & Transportation Infrastructure
Power Electricity
• Food Processing Residues
Transmission Electricity
• Animal Wastes (farm)
CCHP & Distribution
• Animal Renderings
Waste heat Excess
FORESTRY electricity
• Forest Residues - Tree
thinnings, slash, etc. Thermal loads
Heat
• Onsite Mill Residues
Biofuel imports
Biodiesel
MUNICIPAL WASTES
• Diverted Municipal Solid Transport Blending,
Waste (MSW) Fuels; other distribution, Vehicles
• Urban wood wastes liquid Fuels marketing &
• Landfill Gas fueling
• Wastewater Biogas
• Wastewater Sludge
• Waste oils/fats/grease Co-products e.g., food, feed, fertilizer
Resource Imports
41
Biopower » Diverted Municipal Solid Wastes › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Power Electricity
Diverted Transmission & Electricity
Transportation
Infrastructure
Collection &
Municipal Solid Wastes CCHP Distribution
(MSW) Waste heat Excess
High and low moisture content organics electricity
generated by municipalities, including clean Heat Thermal loads
construction waste (aka urban wood), paper and
cardboard, green wastes and trees, food wastes
Co-products fertilizer (ash)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• Diverted MSW available for • Well established • Low moisture content or • See Common Issues • Specifics related to the
biomass conversion collection of non ‘solid fuel’ (urban wood) sale of energy from
applications consist of 1.5 M sorted materials typically directly urban wood are
tons of diverted clean • Tipping fees are combusted. unidentified.
construction/urban wood charged for collection • 239 MW planned or in • See Common Issues
directly combusted in power and disposal into a operation producing 1780
plants. Demolition waste is not • Details of market sales
Utilization/ landfill and or transfer GWh/yr (7 pg 35) of any energy from
allowed for combustion due to station although many biopower
Situation air containments (7 pg 23) MSW is unidentified.
• 50% of all MSW facilities are capable of
• Diverted paper and cardboard currently diverted accepting urban wood
assumed to be recycled. from land fills under waste and very few burn
• Diverted green wastes used for state requirement (7 this exclusively.
compost or alternative daily pg 22)
cover.1 Quantities are
unidentified. (7 pg 22)
1. Diverted green waste is allowed as ‘alternative daily cover’ (ACD) in landfills and can be considered to contribute to the generation of landfill gas. Refer
further to the discussion of landfill gas.
42
Biopower » Diverted Municipal Solid Wastes › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• $22/BDT for clean construction • Tipping fees can • $2,800/kW installed capital • See Common Issues. • LCOE estimated at
waste( aka: urban wood) (37 pg offset transport costs and $392/kW O&M for 6.98¢/kWh without
11) costs fluidized bed application in production tax credit
• The cost of green waste or • Transportation 2005 at 2004 dollars, (PTC) for 25MW
paper and cardboard is mostly costs are similar for including $22 fuel cost. (37 fluidized bed facility (37
Costs unidentified, although it has all biomass pg 13) (note: capital and pg 60, 62) assumed for
been stated generally that conversion O&M costs for technologies large urban applications
materials recovered at transfer applications and to combust unsorted MSW with a with fuel at
stations are assumed to be are detailed in the would be higher) $22/BDT.
available at little or no overall discussion
additional costs. (7 pg 48) slides.
• Lack of diversion credit can • Mixed waste • Public perception of waste • See Common Issues • ‚MSW‛ does not add to
create limitations for long-term stream conversion technologies (7 RPS because it is
supply reliability (7 pg 5) • Collection and pg 7, 60) disallowed in SB 1078
• Waste conversion processes delivery costs • Conversion technologies • See Common Issues
development could increase may discourage the public
resource competition and from producing less waste.
change tipping fees. (7 pg 48) (7 pg 60)
• Green wastes may only be • The ability for tipping fees to
seasonally available. (7 pg 49) change for landfill disposal
Constraints may inhibit competition
• No state policies limit total
disposal, and no consensus from new conversion
exists how to reduce disposal to technologies.
landfills (7 pg 54) • Permitting facilities due to
• There is a perception that NOx (7 pg 7)
conversion technologies may
draw resources away from
existing users of biomass from
MSW. (7 pg 60)
43
Biopower » Diverted Municipal Solid Wastes › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
•State polices aimed at •Presorting •832 MW & 6,179 GWh •See Common Issues •Compost is by product
reducing landfilled •Onsite applications technical potential at of diverted material
material (7 pg 5, 54) current efficiency (7 pg from landfill
•Regulations to move 35)
•~7.4 MDT/yr anaerobic digestion of •LCOE can decline
technically available MSW out of a •Bioreactor landfills with tipping fees, if
today (8 tbl 4.1) ‘transformation’ category have efficiencies fuel and handling cost
•MSW and animal will allow it to receive estimated to remain do not increase (7 pg
waste expected to diversion credits (7 pg 55) constant over time at 40, 41)
account for 2/3 resource 30%. (7 pg 29) •See Common Issues
Potential, •Definitions changes for
growth by 2017 (7 pg other types of biomass
Timing & 28) which could be conversion applications
Magnitude estimated to be less could also result in the
than 1-2 MDT, based availability of diversion
on the estimate that credits. (7 pg 55)
there will be a ~6.4
increase from 33.6 MDT
to 40 MDT, and if ~4.5
MDT of that increase is
expected from
dedicated crops. (7 pg
28)
•Diversions from •Can provide increase in •New technologies like •See Common Issues
landfills, extends jobs in urban areas (37 pg gasification reduce
landfill capacity and 30)(7 pg 9) environmental impact
reduces methane of MSW conversion
Benefits production (7 pg 29)
•Tipping fees can increase
transport distances. (7 pg •Revitalize local (urban)
•Reduced dependence 48) economy (37 pg 30)(7
on non renewable fuel pg 9)
44
Biopower » Diverted Municipal Solid Wastes › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•Changes in waste •Incentives aimed to •Change in public •See Common Issues •The portion of waste
management policy that reduce waste perception about waste that can be considered
would open up market for generation to increase conversion technologies (7 renewable for RPS
large quantities of collection infrastructure pg 7, 60) eligibility needs to be
separated solid waste (7 •Improvement in •Full diversion credit for determined
pg 36) handling and conversion technologies (7 •See Common Issues.
•long-term supply separation technology pg 5, 55) •Monetizing
reliability (7 pg 55) (7 pg 54) (45 pg 12) •Conversion options environmental and
•Expanded definition of •Extended producer should rely on waste management
waste transformation to responsibility programs performance based benefits to defray fuel
include composting and and limitations on standards, environmental costs and improve
Needs biomass conversion (7 pg quantities of organic and life cycle assessment economics (7 pg 41)
55) material that can be for integrated waste
•Increased diversion rates landfilled (7 pg 54) management and other
need to be set (7 pg 58) biomass strategies. (7 pg
60) (45 pg 9)
•Producer responsibility
programs and limitation •Conversion facilities
on total organic carbon should be characterizes as
content and energy refineries and be regulated
content of waste such that under non disposal facility
have been implemented in elements (NDFE) (45 pg
EU. 12)
45
Biopower » Diverted Municipal Solid Wastes › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Limit amount of organic matter allowed in landfills
• Increase landfill tipping fees to provide stable funding for grant and incentive program
• Increase public and policy education and awareness about technology and benefits through demonstration
• Waste management limitations could be based on per capita disposal
• Implementing regulations to restricting total organic carbon into land fills or by energy content
• Evaluate potential for increasing in-state processing of municipal waste (decrease out-of-state disposal)
Administrative • Improved handling and separation technology for MSW
Actions • Develop plan to deploy bioreactor landfill technology on a commercial basis to increase the decomposition of organic material
• Refer above to general actions that can be implemented.
• See Common Issues
• Define conversion technologies with environmental and life-cycle assessments
• Implement ‚extended producer-responsibility programs and limitations of the total organic content and energy content of waste going to
Regulatory landfills‛
Actions • Increase diversion credit for conversion technologies
• See Common Issues
• Propose amendments to existing law to provide diversion credits to local jurisdictions for solid waste processed by conversion technologies.
(AB 1090 is a possible vehicle).
Legislative
• See Common Issues
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
46
Biopower » Landfill Gas › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Power Electricity
Transportation
Landfill Gas
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
CCHP Distribution
Landfill gas is a mixture of roughly 50%
methane gas and 50% CO2 created from the Waste heat Excess
natural decomposition of the organic
electricity
fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW)
that is disposed of in landfills. Heat Thermal loads
Co-products fertilizer (ash)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• CA is a national leader in • Onsite LFG collection • Methane collected from • 228 MW exported to grid • See Common Issues
landfill gas recovery and systems required in landfill typically fires (from a total of 258MW in
utilization. larger landfills reciprocating engines. operation) (37 pg 50)
• Some CHP applications (7 • See Common Issues.
pg 23)
Utilization/ • Avg size approx 2-5MW
Situation
• 59 facilities currently
operate in CA (37 pg 50)
• 258 MW in operation
producing 1,921 GWh/yr (7
pg 35)(37 pg 50)
• Fuel resource is generally • Resource efficient due to • Capital costs range from • See Common Issues • IOU RPS allows
free or of little cost co-location of fuel and ~$1,100/kW for gas gensets payment up to MRP
plant to $6,000/kW (7 pg 40) for w/o SEP. Currently
• Collection system costs advanced technologies like 5.8¢/kWh
Costs are not a part of landfill fuel cells. • 2 MW landfill gas
gas to energy project project is estimated to
costs have a LCOE in 2003
constant dollars of
4.4¢/kWh (7 pg 42)
47
Biopower » Landfill Gas › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Waste diversion away • Not all landfills have • Cost of permitting and • Because most facilities are • See Common Issues
from landfills limits collections systems in development for small less than 10 MW,
expansion of LFG facilities, place. facilities is high on a per interconnection process
however current waste in • Flaring may be more kW basis can be simplified, but not
place still provides a economical than • Highly efficient bioreactor always the case
product through 2017. (7 producing energy and landfills only at • Because AB 939 does not
pg 29) may produce less developmental stages (7 pg allow diversion credit for
emissions (but does not 29, 55) most conversion
provide offsets from • Flaring still has lower point technologies, siting
electricity generation). source emissions than facilities in jurisdictions
Constraints internal combustion that have not met
engine. (7 pg 59) diversion requirement may
be difficult.
• Siting facilities is difficult
due to the approval
requirements under county
siting elements which
require majority votes
from jurisdictions with the
majority of the populations
for disposal facilities.
48
Biopower » Landfill Gas › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•79 BCF/yr is technical •Gas collection •Bioreactor landfills employ •Utility •By 2017 1/3 of the
potential systems can be leachate recirculation and interconnection state’s 20% RPS could
•Expected to increase with installed as a retrofit membrane covers to standards exist come from LFG and
population growth (7 pg 29) at existing landfills increase the rate of gas under Rule 21 WWTP biogas (7 pg
•Pretreatment of generation, as do high-rate could be 28, 36)
•It is estimated that 1/3 of in vessel digesters. considered for LFG
increase of biomass waste prior to •Is a natural fit for
landfilling could •242 MW technical potential facilities to lower municipal utilities
Potential, generation will come from cost of
landfill and WWTP (37 pg 65) mitigate long-term producing 1803 GWh (7 pg •See Common Issues
interconnection.
Timing, & methane emissions 35)
•Gas storage could be added issues. (45 pg 30)
Magnitude to digesters to increase •Successful
resource availability during commercialization of fuel
peak generation times (7 pg cells & microturbines may
23) make smaller (<500kW) LFG
projects economic
•Immediate shifts to
bioreactor landfills can •Gas collection system cost
increase rate of gas could be attributed to the
generation by 30% by 2017. (7 landfill operation. (7 pg 40)
pg 23, 29)
•Biogas can also produce •Reduces fugitive •See Common Issues
transportation fuels or be methane emissions
upgraded to pipeline quality. into atmosphere (7
(7 pg 23) pg 23)
Benefits
49
Biopower » Landfill Gas › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
•LFG is a cost competitive •Improvement •Increase public and policy •Siting of facilities •See Common Issues.
technology that is widely in handling and awareness about technology needs to be
deployed in CA. More effort separation and benefits through considered under
is needed on accelerating technology (7 demonstration ‚Non Disposal
deployment and creating pg 54) •See Common Issues Facility Elements‛
opportunities at smaller •See Common
landfills Issues
Needs
•Change view of landfill to a
biochemical reactor
•Identifying improved
management strategies (7 pg
29)
50
Biopower » Landfill Gas › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Develop plan for rapid development of landfill gas opportunities. Should include technology needs (e.g., emissions, permitting,
interconnection, cost effectiveness of smaller sites) and business model needs as well as incentives to encourage facilities to upgrade with new
technology.
• Establish a streamlined approach to the New Source Rule (NSR) for LFGTE and other biogas power projects, including:
• Explore exemptions for biogas power technologies as Pollution Control Projects (PCPs), ‚essential public services,‛ and ‚resource recovery
projects.‛
Administrative
• See Common Issues
Actions
• See Common Issues.
Regulatory
Actions
• Create state tax credits, energy investment tax credits or expand tax exempt financing from California Pollution Control Financing Authority
• Establish loan guarantee revolving fund to reduce risk
Legislative • See Common Issues
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
51
Biopower » Wastewater Biogas and Sludge › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Power Electricity
Wastewater Treatment
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
Biogas & Sludge CCHP Distribution
Methane of 60% concentration and resulting Waste heat Excess
biosludge is created from the anaerobic electricity
digestion of organic matter in waste water
Heat Thermal loads
(7 pg 23)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Organic biosolids sludge • Onsite collection of • Methane fuels • Approximately 1 MW is • See Common Issues
transported off site and methane and biosludge reciprocating engines exported to grid of the 63
highly utilized in non • Biosludge transported typically to run onsite MW in generation(37 pg
energy uses (e.g., by truck for off site treatment plant operations, 50)
agricultural land utilization and the waste heat is used • See Common Issues
applications, NOx control to enhance digester
Utilization/ in cement mixes, or to efficiency.
landfills where they • 18 plants in operation
Situation contribute to LFGTE (7 pg produce 63 MW produce
23) 469 GWh/yr (7 pg 35)
• Total BCF utilized in • 115 facilities exist in the
power operations unclear state, the total number of
(7 pg 23). plants operating needs to
be verified (37 pg 50)
52
Biopower » Wastewater Biogas and Sludge › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Power Electricity
Transportation
Infrastructure
Transmission & Electricity
Collection &
CCHP Distribution
Wastewater Treatment
Waste heat Excess
Biogas & Sludge electricity
Heat Thermal loads
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• $0 costs due to onsite • $1,350/kW installed capital • See Common Issues • 4.06¢/kWh at 2005
collection (37 pg ) costs and $175/kW O&M current dollars with no
• Transport and disposal for WWTP biogas in 2005 PTC for a 1MW facility
costs of biosludge at 2004 dollars (37 pg 20) (37 pg 60)
Costs
unidentified, or, unclear if
any money is received
from sludge utilization.
• Onsite food processing • See Common Issues. • See Common Issues
power applications would
decrease disposal through
municipal waste water
Constraints systems and could
decrease organic matter
availability at WWTP
53
Biopower » Wastewater Biogas and Sludge › Opportunity Assessment
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
•11 BCF/y technically •15 MW & 109 GWh net •Onsite food industry •See Common Issues
available today (7 pg 15) technical potential today digesters
•Increased adoption of at current efficiency (7 pg
anaerobic technologies 35)
by munis increases •Biological conversion
biogas availability(7 pg genset efficiencies
Potential, 29) estimated to remain
Timing, & constant over time at
Magnitude 30%
•$1,250/kW installed
capital, $171/kW O&M
in 2010. $1088/kW
installed capital,
$168/kW O&M in 2017
(37 pg 20)
•Onsite application •Utilization reduces •See Common Issues •See Common Issues
methane release into
atmosphere
Benefits
•See Common Issues. •See Common Issues •See Common Issues.
Needs
54
Biopower » Wastewater Biogas and Sludge › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• See Common Issues
Administrative
Actions
• Incentives for increasing efficiency
Regulatory • See Common Issues
Actions
• See Common Issues
Legislative
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
55
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
4 Appendix
56
Biofuels » Simplified Value Network for Biofuels
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
AGRICULTURE
• Agricultural Residues
Collection, Transportation Infrastructure
Power Electricity
• Energy Crops Transmission Electricity
• Food Processing Residues CCHP & Distribution
• Animal Wastes (farm)
Processing & Storage
• Animal Renderings Waste heat Excess
electricity
FORESTRY Process Heat&
• Forest Residues - Tree Thermal loads
Space Heating
thinnings, slash, etc. Biofuel imports
• Onsite Mill Residues
Biodiesel
Blending,
MUNICIPAL WASTES Transport
distribution,
• Diverted Municipal Solid Fuels; other Vehicles
marketing &
Waste (MSW) liquid Fuels
fueling
• Urban wood wastes
• Landfill Gas
• Wastewater Biogas
• Wastewater Sludge Co-products e.g., food, feed, fertilizer
• Waste oils/fats/grease
Resource Imports
57
Biofuels » Resources and Feedstocks
Biomass resources for biofuel production can be put into four main
feedstock categories.
Resources
Primary Biofuels Options
AGRICULTURE
• Agricultural Residues Feedstock for
• Energy Crops Resource Conversion/ Conversion Process
• Food Processing Residues Upgrading
• Animal Wastes (farm)
• Animal Renderings Agricultural Crops
• Biological conversion to
(sugars/starches), Food Sugars/Starches
ethanol
FORESTRY Processing Residues2
• Forest Residues - Tree Agricultural Residues3, • Biological conversion to
thinnings, slash, etc. Energy Crops, Food ethanol
• Onsite Mill Residues Lignocellulosic
Processing Residues2, • Thermochemical
Biomass
Offsite and On-site Forestry conversion to multiple
MUNICIPAL WASTES Residues, Diverted MSW transportation fuels
• Diverted Municipal Solid
Agricultural Crops • Physio-chemical
Waste (MSW)
(beans/oils), Waste Bio-oils conversion to biodiesel
• Urban wood wastes
• Landfill Gas oils/fats/grease
• Wastewater Biogas Animal Waste (farm) • Biological conversion to
• Wastewater Sludge Landfill Gas &
Landfill Gas, Wastewater multiple transportation
• Waste oils/fats/grease Biogas
Biogas, Wastewater Sludge fuels
1. Animal renderings are not included in the analysis since the availability, in significant quantities is based on unplanned, periodic events,
which is not conducive to development of a biofuels industry.
2. Majority of Food Processing Residues is lignocellulosic based. Some small fraction is waste sugar and starch material; it is probably too
dispersed and seasonal to be the base for major ethanol production in the state.
3. Approximately 80% of Agricultural Residues is estimated to be lignocellulosic content.
58
Biofuels » Options for Conversion and Refining
Using the four major feedstocks there are multiple pathways to create
transportation fuels (and other liquid & gaseous fuels).
Physio-
Biological Thermochemical
Chemical
Conversion5 Conversion
Conversion
Sugar &
Ligno- Ligno- Bio-oils
Starches Landfill Gas &
Feedstock (Agricultural
cellulosic
Biogas
cellulosic (Waste oils/fats
(All sources) (All sources) and Ag. crops)
crops)
Cellulose-to- Anaerobic Gasification/ Trans-
Conversion Fermentation Pyrolysis &
sugars, then digestion, syngas esterification or
& Refining of sugars
fermentation cleaning, processing
upgrading
Hydrogenation
separation
Primary • Pipeline quality • Fischer-Tropsch Upgraded bio-
Energy Ethanol gas liquids oils (not very Biodiesel
Products • CNG • Mixed alcohols1 likely for
• LNG • DME2 transportation)
• Hydrogen (via • Ethanol3
reforming) • Methanol
• Hydrogen
1. Via catalytic synthesis. 2. Dimethyl ether. 3. Via syngas fermentation. 4. Pyrolysis oils require substantial upgrading before they can be used for
transportation applications (e.g., before they can be processed in a conventional refinery). It is more likely they would undergo more modest
upgrading for use as boiler fuel or in a stationary IC engine or gas turbine. 5. Also includes direct microbial conversion of sunlight to hydrogen.
59
Biofuels » Options for Conversion and Refining
NCI considered four main routes of biomass conversion to
transportation fuels which rely on three main feedstocks.1
Physio-
Biological Thermochemical
Chemical
Conversion Conversion
Conversion
Sugar &
Ligno- Ligno- Bio-oils
Feedstock Starches Landfill Gas &
cellulosic cellulosic (Waste oils/fats
(Agricultural Biogas
(All sources) (All sources) and Ag. crops)
crops)
1 2 3 4
Cellulose-to- Anaerobic Gasification/ Trans-
Conversion Fermentation Pyrolysis &
sugars, then digestion, syngas esterification or
& Refining of sugars
fermentation cleaning, processing
upgrading
Hydrogenation
separation
Primary • Fischer-Tropsch Upgraded bio-
Energy • Pipeline quality liquids Biodiesel
Ethanol oils (not very
Products gas • Mixed alcohols likely for
• CNG • DME transportation)
• LNG • Ethanol
• Hydrogen (via • Methanol
reforming) • Hydrogen
1. While all are technical feasible, these are considered the primary options based on a combination of resource potential and technology status.
60
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation
Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation
Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification
Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification
Cross-Biofuels Policy Recommendations
4 Appendix
61
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Overview
California uses ~25% of U.S. ethanol production, but produces almost
none in-state.
• All U.S. ethanol is produced from sugars & starches
(almost entirely from corn) Ethanol from Sugar/Starch Fermentation
• CA’s current demand for ethanol is ~ 1 billion gpy (7
p 44).
• Nationally, production capacity is ~4.1 billion gpy, Biological
with ~1.7 billion gpy under construction. Conversion
• Conversion of sugar & starch feedstock to ethanol is a
fairly mature process, with opportunities for
efficiency improvements.
• Currently CA does not have dedicated sugar & starch Sugar &
Ligno-
crops for ethanol production and is importing almost Starches
all ethanol consumed in the state; ethanol plants Feedstock (Agricultural
cellulosic
under construction in CA are importing corn from the (All sources)
crops)
Midwest.
• Currently CA gasoline is ~6% ethanol content by
volume, a renewable/non-petroleum/biofuel market
inroad that would be extremely hard to match in the Conversion Cellulose-to-
Fermentation
near-term with any other option. (T. McDonald sugars, then
personal communication) & Refining of sugars
fermentation
• The Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 eliminated the
oxygenate requirement, and while a renewable fuel
standard was imposed it is to be met by companies (as Primary
opposed to geographic regions) and can be done so Energy
anywhere in the country. Thus the future of ethanol in Ethanol
CA is uncertain. (31 p 3) Products
62
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 3)
Transportation
Infrastructure
Collection &
Sugar & Starches Blending,
(Includes: Agricultural Crops and Transport Fuels; distribution,
Vehicles
approximately 20% of Agricultural and other liquid Fuels marketing &
Food Processing Residues) fueling
Co-products
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• CA uses residual • None currently, other • Most CA ethanol comes • CA gasoline contains • In 2004 ~900 million gal ethanol
sugars, cheese whey; than importation of from Midwest plants on average ~6% was used in CA 2004 (20+% of US
resulting in 10MM gpy ethanol via train • As of 1/2006, US ethanol. total).
of ethanol (well established); production capacity ~4.3b • 70 CA petroleum • Historically, ethanol cost +40-50
• No/minimal use of ethanol plants gpy with ~1.7b gpy under products terminals are ¢/gallon of gasoline equivalent
sugar/starch crops currently under construction upgraded for ethanol. higher than gasoline production
grown for fuels. construction will cost.
import corn from the • CA has about 35 million • Gasoline refiners in
• CA starting to import Midwest. gallons per year produced CA have long-term • Almost no E85 use; although size
corn from Midwest in-state using residual contracts for ethanol of FFV fleet in CA exceeds 260,000
(Pacific Ethanol, sugars from food delivery from the vehicles (<1% of on-road vehicles)
Utilization/ Phoenix Biofuels/25 processing and imported Midwest. [95% and is an order of magnitude
Situation MM gpy facility); corn.* delivered by rail, 5% larger than next most numerous
fermentation residues • One other project is by barge/marine alternative fuel vehicle category in
for animal feed; crop currently under tanker] CA. Although sales are
material not fermented construction in California • One E85 retail decreasing. (29 p2)
could be burned for fuel that would add another 35 refueling station; 4 • FEPA 2005 extended AMFA CAFÉ
on-site (e.g. corn million gallons per year to fleet refueling stations credits through 2010 which
stalks)(7 p 44) California’s in-state in CA (26) provide support for technology
supply. ** viability; but does not assure
• Dry milling is the expansion of current FFV market
technology of choice for share or in-use FFV population (29
new plants p 4)
* Parallel Products, Rancho Cucamonga, has been in operation since 1984, producing up to 5 million gal/yr of ethanol from food and beverage industry wastes. Golden Cheese of California,
Corona, has been in operation since 1985, producing up to 3.5 million gal/yr of ethanol from cheese processing wastes. Phoenix Bioindustries/Western Milling Co., Goshen, started up a 25 million
gal/yr ethanol plant in the fall of 2005.
** Pacific Ethanol has a 35 million gallon/year plant under construction in Madera, also to use corn, with operation scheduled for fourth quarter 2006.
63
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 3)
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• Startup costs associated • Investments in trucks • Capital cost is about • Ethanol benefits from federal • Ethanol projected to stay
with putting additional for feedstock transport $1.5 m per 1MM gpy of tax policy that provides tax competitive as new
land under cultivation. • Importing feedstock production. credits when blended with supply comes on-line;
into CA requires • Producing co-products petroleum fuels, among currently ethanol may be
contracts with railroad with ethanol is other incentives in excess supply.
companies (a 35m gpy important for • The value of the tax credits • Price of ethanol highly
ethanol plant requires ~ profitability, up to 50% for the blender is 51¢ per dependant on incentives,
1 train delivery of corn of revenue can come gallon of ethanol. price of feedstock, and
per week) from sales of co- price of gasoline, but has
Costs products (31 p 20) historically been in the
range of $1.00-1.50/gal.
• E85 could cost less than
gasoline in near-term
(20,23), although recent
studies show that on an
energy-per-gallon basis,
the equivalent price is
still above regular
gasoline (29 p 4)
64
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Current Situation Assessment (3 of 3)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Currently, there are no • In CA the infrastructure • Modern corn dry-milling • Because of its • FEPA 2005 eliminates
dedicated feedstocks is currently not in place, technology produces only characteristics (phase oxygenate requirement;
grown in CA for and would need to be modest net energy gains separation resulting from making long-term demand
ethanol production. developed in parallel to relative to petroleum fuels solubility in water), for ethanol in CA
• The main candidate crop production. (when considering the pipeline operators have uncertain. Federal RFS can
crops are corn and entire fuel chain), but does been reluctant to ship be met by companies on a
sweet sorghum produce significant ethanol or ethanol-gasoline nation-wide basis. (31 p
petroleum displacement blends, on a commercial 17)
• There are no (Wang) scale. Ethanol is shipped
comprehensive studies • E10: Higher ethanol blends
• Production in CA could by truck or railroad to with gasoline (e.g., E10)
on what it would take finished product terminals.
to create dedicated lead to some price pressure opposed by CARB b/c/o
on natural gas (5 p 44), At higher ethanol blends evaporative emissions and
sugar & starch separation is less likely to
feedstocks for ethanol unless other fuels (e.g., increased NOx (not an
biomass residues) are used occur and pipelines can be issue with E85).
in CA or what the used to ship ethanol. (31 p
potential is. to meet mill energy needs. • E85: There is some
Every gallon of ethanol 11)
Constraints uncertainty if US auto
requires ~40,000 Btu of • One critical element for the manufactures will
natural gas. FFV is availability of continue to make FFV & if
infrastructure to provide they will invest in E85
E85 as an alternative fuel. specific emissions issues
(31 p 29) which is a (26,20). Vehicles generally
‚daunting proposition‛ (29 require 1.34 g of E85 to
p 4) replace 1 g of gasoline (29
• Current distribution p 4)
network has limited • Ethanol w/ Diesel: No
capacity for ‚segregation‛ ASTM specs for use of
(keeping E85 separate from ethanol with diesel. Other
other fuels) (need delivery technical barriers also exist
infrastructure, refueling for using ethanol in diesel
stations and certified vapor engines (e.g., materials
recovery) compatibility) (26)
65
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Best near-term opportunity for • Would need to • In 2030 even if 4 million • Consuming over 20% of total
dedicated crop development develop alongside FFVs in CA used E40 (on US production, in-state
is on retired land in San in-state production average) and the rest of the ethanol production could
Joaquin Valley capacity and be fleet used E10, CA would support huge demand even
• CA DFA studies identified commensurate in represent <20% of U.S. without any increase in
sweet sorghum, kenaf, scale. projected production. demand.
Jerusalem artichoke sugar • CA gasoline expected to
beets and eucalyptus. If on maintain 15-35 ¢/gallon
1MM acres, could generate retail premium, which could
500MM gpy. (31 p 22) ensure ethanol supply to CA
• Corn in CA generally market (over other states)
considered uneconomical; • Widespread E10 could
recent industry analysis displace 9% of on road gas
shows CA production more and diesel by 2025 and result
Timing & energy efficient (dry corn w/ in demand of 1.4b gpy by
Magnitude sun in CA) (31 p 22) 2020, 40% of CA alternative
• CA has approx. 1 mdt/y of fuel goal. (20 p AD-2F-1)
sugar & starch feedstock • Elimination of Federal
available from Agricultural requirements for oxygenate
and Food Processing Residues means that these
(7), however, this would be requirements cannot be
difficult for a dedicated counted on to assure long-
ethanol plant because the term ethanol market
feedstock may be highly • Pursing an E85 strategy for
dispersed and seasonal meeting state goals is a
• Estimated dedicated crop longer-term strategy than
technical potential by 2020 is 5 promoting/mandating E10
M BDT/y with 90%
availability (includes
lignocellulosic and oil and
sugar crops, no break-out for
sugar & starch crops (5 p S.3).
66
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Local source of DDGS or • Would provide • Could combine • Ethanol at a blend • Higher ethanol content
similar co-products may additional conventional ethanol level of up to 10% provides hedge against
lower animal feed costs employment to production with use of can be used in petroleum price increases
• Increased agricultural trucking. agricultural residues or conventional • Assuming CA refiners/
production in CA other biomass as fuel for gasoline fuel systems marketers exceed their
• GHG emissions reductions the ethanol plants with little or no Federal RFS requirements,
• Additional in-state jobs change from they may have excess credits
• CA could leverage residues production to end-
to offset NG costs in ethanol associated with local to sell.
ethanol industry use • ‚Ethanol blending is now
production.
Benefits • Dedicated crop production widely recognized as a
might lead to crop shifting viable public policy strategy
but could utilize marginal with greatest near-term
lands (5 p 2.4) potential to reduce
petroleum dependence and
CO2 emissions.‛ (REAP)
• FFVs have merits as an
alternative fuel vehicle
because consumers have
option to fuel with
petroleum-based gasoline or
ethanol
• Assistance for farmers • In state crops for • Continued improvements • For E85 market to • Consistent state policy on
converting to new crops or ethanol would in conventional technology expand, distribution ethanol to stimulate high
expanding production on require to reduce energy needs and infrastructure is capital investment required.
idle land. infrastructure; could to improve value of co- required • For E85 market to expand,
• Assessment of potential land take advantage of products (e.g., corn dry consumers need awareness
Needs and water implications. existing farm fractionation) of FFV options (26)
infrastructure. • If corn is not the main
feedstock, finance
community may need
additional assurances to
offset perceived risk
67
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Assess sugar/starch crop potential and issues relative to other energy crops or biodiesel crops
• Support RD&D to better understand which sugar/starch crops would be best suited to conventional ethanol production
• Conversion support or incentives for farmers to switch to sugar/starch crops
• Assistance in resolving air quality issues
• Examine a ‚systems‛ or ‚portfolio‛ approach to air quality` issues which allows tradeoffs along the value chain.
• Create ethanol (or more broadly, biofuel) purchasing program for state or local vehicle fleets (see Carl-Moyer program which accelerated
adoption of cleaner and cost-effective vehicles at the municipal level)
• Establish fuel specifications that promote the increased use of biofuels in transportation fuels.
• No backsliding – declare ethanol will be part of fuel mix at minimum of current levels for next 10 years, to maintain existing demand in order
Administrative to create a market [production]).
Actions • Education/outreach
• Research exhaust emissions and permeation effects of low ethanol blends on environment (31 p 57)
• Encourage in-state production opportunities until blending issue is resolved and RFS is in place, create minimum annual statewide ethanol
consumption levels.
• Initiate an effort to install an extensive E-85 fueling network throughout California (in cooperation with the Energy Commission, ARB and the
Department of Food and Agriculture).
• Encourage auto companies to expand production of FFVs, including FFV hybrids.
• Create a FFV and alternative fuel purchasing program for state or local vehicle fleets (see Carl-Moyer program which accelerated adoption of
cleaner and cost-effective vehicles at the municipal level).
• Revise the state’s vehicle procurement process to encourage the purchase of flexible fueled vehicles. Develop convenient fueling infrastructure
to support FFV fleet.
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
68
Biofuels » Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Address air quality issues holistically to enable higher blends of ethanol in gasoline
Regulatory
Actions
• Legislation for a Renewable Fuel Standard that creates a longer term market for ethanol, consistent with other state goals on transportation
energy use and GHG emissions
• Like Minnesota, CA could adopt aggressive policies to provide incentives for E85 refueling stations.
Legislative • Package of tax incentives, production incentives, loan guarantees, and/or grants to encourage in-state production and use of biofuels. Exact mix
of incentives TBD.
Actions • Establish stable funding to establish needed bio-fueling infrastructure
• Consider phasing in requirement for FFVs for all vehicles sold in the state
• Take steps to facilitate transition of all vehicles to FFVs, including the phasing in of a requirement to have all vehicles sold in the state be FFVs
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
69
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation
Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation
Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification
Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification
Cross-Biofuels Policy Recommendations
4 Appendix
70
Biofuels » Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation › Overview
The conversion of lignocellulosic feedstock to ethanol is not yet
commercial; but could have tremendous benefit for CA.
• Dedicated biomass crops, including herbaceous and
woody crops, have not emerged as a large scale Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Biomass
agricultural enterprise in CA, but there is increasing
interest due to changes in renewable fuels, including
ethanol (5) Biological
Conversion
• Ethanol production from cellulosic biomass is still
developmental (5)
• Cellulose conversion may contribute over the long
Sugar &
term, and represents a larger resource base than Ligno-
Starches
sugars and starches. Feedstock (Agricultural
cellulosic
(All sources)
• Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass can achieve crops)
much higher net energy gains have the potential for
lower cost than ethanol from sugars and starches. (5)
Conversion Cellulose-to-
• ‚With high land prices and crop values, the Fermentation
sugars, then
prospects of a flourishing CA ethanol industry & Refining of sugars
fermentation
heavily depends on using cellulosic material for
feedstock. ‚(26 p 3)
Primary
• ‚Feasibility of *lignocellulosic+ ethanol industry in Energy Ethanol
CA depends largely on the development of new and
Products
more efficient technologies that convert biomass to
ethanol and significantly decrease cost.‛ (26 p 26)
71
Biofuels » Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Transportation
Infrastructure
Collection &
Lignocellulosic Biomass Blending,
(Agricultural Residues*, Energy Crops, Transport Fuels; distribution,
Vehicles
Food Processing Residues*, Offsite and other liquid Fuels marketing &
On-site Forestry Residues, MSW, Urban fueling
Wood)
Co-products
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Current utilization of the • CA has an • Pilot facilities are in operation in the • See ‚Ethanol from • See ‚Ethanol from
lignocellulosic resource is abundant amount U.S. and Canada at scales <1 mmgpy. Sugar & Starch‛ Sugar & Starch‛
detailed in the biopower of feedstock; • No commercial lignocellulosic plants Fermentation Fermentation
section. challenge is cost
Utilization/ competitive access.
are in operation, but several have
• No lignocellulosic energy been proposed over the years.
Situation crops are being grown in (31 p 24)
• Investment capital has been
CA • See relevant unavailable (31 p 3); level of risk
biopower value uncertain (31 p 21)
networks
• Unknown for ethanol • See relevant • Unknown but cost is targeted to be • See ‚Ethanol from • See ‚Ethanol from
production; but see biopower value similar to sugar/starch to ethanol Sugar & Starch‛ Sugar & Starch‛
lignocellulosic feedstocks networks productions. Fermentation Fermentation
in the biopower section for • Current state-of-the-art is about $4-
information on costs. 5/gallon-yr of capacity for a world
Costs
• For cellulosic ethanol, each scale plant (>100 MM gpy). Target is
additional $10/ton for much lower.
feedstock results in $0.07- • Long-term target is production cost
0.14/gal; feedstock cost is <$1/gal (7 p50).
critical (7 p 50)
* Approximately 80% is estimated to be lignocellulosic
72
Biofuels » Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Current resource is • See relevant biopower • Commercial scale, low-cost cellulosic • See ‚Ethanol from • See ‚Ethanol from
distributed. value networks ethanol will not be available for Sugar & Starch‛ Sugar & Starch‛
• Major production several years; technology is just Fermentation Fermentation
challenge is cost of approaching readiness for
collection and handling commercial demonstration
for forest, ag and other (>10MMGPY).
cellulosic wastes (31 p 3) • Cost issues related to enzyme
• Plants may need to be manufacturing, fermentation
located near resources technology and high-capital cost of
(31 p 24) pre-treatment
• Permitting process significantly
Constraints increases the cost of sitting an ethanol
plant; it can take 12 – 18 months. (31 p
27)
• Plant size matters as economies of
scale apply. However, size is limited
by availability of feedstock (31 p 28).
• CA producers have to compete with
mature Midwest ethanol industry
based on corn and other countries
where production costs are lower
(although import tax currently
reduces this threat) (31 p 28)
73
Biofuels » Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Even without new energy crops, CA • See relevant biopower • If cost effective technology • See ‚Ethanol from • See ‚Ethanol
has 27 mdt/y of lignocellulosic value networks exists to convert lignocellulosic Sugar & Starch‛ from Sugar &
feedstock technically available.1 • Challenges related to feedstock to ethanol, then there Fermentation Starch‛
• Rice straw is most attractive source collection of forest are business opportunities in Fermentation
(31 p 24). materials (delicate eco- CA.
• Cellulosic biomass could support systems, cost) and
1.5b gpy (@ 70 gal. of ethanol per ton agricultural residues
of biomass). The same amount from (cost, storage, wet
corn would require 3 million acres materials). (31 p 23)
(1/3 irrigated land in CA) and 12
million acre-feet of water (7)
Timing &
• Trials underway on salt tolerant
Magnitude species for application in salt-
affected San Joaquin Valley. (5 p
S.2.4)
• Could achieve scale similar to
biopower w/ability to accept large
quantities of biomass (7)
• Estimated dedicated crop technical
potential by 2020 is 5 M BDT/y with
90% availability (includes
agricultural oil and sugar & starch
crops, no break-out for
lignocellulosic ‚energy‛ crops) (5 p
S.3)
1. Approximately: 4 mdt/y Agricultural & Food Residues, 14 mdt/y on-site & Off-site Forestry Residues, 9.2 mdt/y Diverted MSW.
74
Biofuels » Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Lignocellulosic plants may have • See relevant biopower • A biofuel plant could be sited • See ‚Ethanol from • See ‚Ethanol
environmental remediation value networks where a biopower plant cannot Sugar & Starch‛ from Sugar &
potential because large electricity Fermentation Starch‛
• Additional farm income from new transmission capacity out of Fermentation
crops and/or sale or residues facility is not needed for
• Beneficial use of marginal land biofuels.
• If starch/sugar crops also grown for • Plants could be energy self
ethanol, residues could be used for sufficient, thus contributing to
cellulosic ethanol to bring additional the RPS and not impacting NG
economies of scale. markets.
Benefits
• CA rich in ag and forestry
lignocellulosic resources (31 p 23)
• Dedicated crop production might
lead to crop shifting but could
utilize marginal lands (5 p 2.4)
• Ethanol produced from
lignocellulosic material is about 3
times more effective in reducing
GHG compared to corn (45 p 39)
• Better inventory of available • See relevant biopower • Research on radically reducing • See ‚Ethanol from • See ‚Ethanol
lignocellulosic resources in CA. value networks cost of enzyme production and Sugar & Starch‛ from Sugar &
• New/improved fermentation. (7) Fermentation Starch‛
techniques and • Commercial scale plant is Fermentation
Needs technologies for required to test recent
harvesting residues. developments in enzyme
manufacturing; high capital
cost of pre-treatment is barrier.
75
Biofuels » Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Identifying financing for start-up companies will remain an important consideration in bringing new products to market.
• Assess energy crop potential and issues relative to other land uses
• RD&D on new/improved harvesting of agricultural residues
• Commercialization program for cellulosic ethanol in California
Administrative
• RFS should contain provisions that encourage in-state cellulosic ethanol (similar to Federal RFS)
Actions
• Conduct RD&D on critical technology platforms needed to commercialize lignocellulosic biofuels, including enzyme production for cellulosic
ethanol and thermochemical conversion options.
• Figure out how to get an integrated biorefinery built in California
• Seek a larger portion of DOE research funds for bioenergy
• Streamlined permitting for cellulosic ethanol plants (maybe to also encourage cogeneration with lignin residues or co-location with existing
Regulatory biomass power plants)
Actions
Legislative
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions. Implicit here is that all
the market and fuel related issues from Sugar & Starch ethanol production also apply here. The actions listed here are focuse d more on resources
and production technology.
76
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation
Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation
Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification
Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification
Cross-Biofuels Policy Recommendations
4 Appendix
77
Biofuels » Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification & Processing › Overview
Gasification can turn almost any biomass resource into transportation
fuel; NCI considered those most likely to contribute significantly.
Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic
• There are benefits to CA considering Gasification and Processing
non-ethanol transportation fuel
options given the air quality concerns Thermo-
chemical
associated with ethanol Conversion
• Gasification of lignocellulosic material
Ligno-
may be a better use of California’s Feedstock cellulosic
resources than the diversion of sugar (All sources)
and starch crops to ethanol
production.
Conversion Gasification/
Pyrolysis &
• There are potentially large emissions & Refining syngas
upgrading
processing
benefits for CA to develop substitutes
for diesel fuel. • Fischer-Tropsch Upgraded bio-
liquids oils (not very
• Pyrolysis is less mature than • Mixed alcohols1 likely for
Primary
gasification, but in the long-term Energy • DME2 transportation) 4
could also contribute to the overall • Ethanol3
Products
• Methanol
energy mix. • Hydrogen
1. Via catalytic synthesis. 2. Dimethyl ether. 3. Via syngas fermentation.
78
Boilerplate Materials » Chevrons
Biofuels » Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification & Processing › Technology Options (1 of 2)
NCI considered three thermochemically-derived fuels as the most
likely to contribute significantly to CA transportation fuel demand.
Biofuel Comments
•High-performance diesel blendstock. Fischer-Tropsch (FT) liquids can be blended with
diesel. FT diesel is sulfur free, contains no aromatics and is high cetane. The conversion
Fischer-
technology (for clean syngas to FT liquids) is relatively well established and several
Tropsch (FT)
large plants, based mainly on natural gas, are under construction around the world.
Liquids
Crude FT liquids can be readily refined in stand-alone plants or can be brought to
existing petroleum refineries.
•Gasoline additive. Mixed alcohols can be treated like ethanol, but offer higher octane
Mixed and energy density. The conversion technology (specifically, catalysts for MOH
Alcohols synthesis) is still is development, but one U.S. company (Power Energy Fuels Inc) is
(MOH) preparing to market a MOH product (Ecalene) and has received EPA registration, but
in general, will require certification for use in transportation applications.
•Clean diesel replacement. DME is being considered in Europe as a substitute for diesel,
with significant emissions benefits (mainly NOx and particulates). However, DME
requires motor vehicle conversion since it must be stored similar to propane. For fleet
DME
vehicles this is an option. DME production from clean syngas is straight forward, as it
is almost identical to methanol production. In the near-term DME could be blended
with propane for traditional cooking and heating applications.
79
Boilerplate Materials » Chevrons
Biofuels » Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification & Processing › Technology Options (2 of 2)
NCI did not consider other processes due to concerns regarding
potential to contribute to transportation fuel demand.
Biofuel Comments
Ethanol (via •Gasoline additive. The technology to produce ethanol via syngas
syngas fermentation is still in early stage development.
fermentation)
•Gasoline additive. There are serious barriers to methanol uptake in the
Methanol marketplace due to concerns over toxicity and handling.
•Transportation fuel replacement. This is a long-term option dependant on
development of a hydrogen distribution and retail infrastructure within the
state, as well as hydrogen storage and hydrogen-powered vehicles.
Hydrogen However, biomass-derived hydrogen may be the lowest cost option for
renewable hydrogen, and developments with other thermochemically-
derived biofuels will benefit hydrogen production (e.g., gasification and gas
cleanup).
80
Biofuels » Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification & Processing › Current Situation Assessment
Transportation
Infrastructure
Lignocellulosic Feedstock
Collection &
Blending,
(Agricultural Residues*, Energy Crops, Transport Fuels; distribution,
Food Processing Residue*, Offsite and Vehicles
other liquid Fuels marketing &
On-site Forestry Residues, MSW, Urban fueling
Wood)
Co-products
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution** Markets**
Transportation
• No lignocellulosic biomass • See relevant • FT (BTL) has been produced in small • CEC staff assume • Not currently used
resource is being gasified biopower value quantities in Europe (20) existing diesel fuel retail
in CA for biofuels. networks infrastructure can store
• Developing thermochemical
• Utilization of the technologies may provide alternative and dispense diesel
Utilization/ with up to 20% RE
lignocellulosic resource are for large-scale lignocellulosic
Situation detailed in the biopower fermentation for ethanol production diesel content w/o
section. (7 p 44) modifications (20)
• See also relevant biopower
value networks
• See relevant biopower • See relevant • FT (BTL) has the potential to be the • FT (BTL) fuel is
value networks biopower value most productive per acre of RE diesel anticipated to have 0-
networks fuel options and produces higher 30% higher costs than
Costs quality fuel (20) diesel. Recent studies
• In general, TC conversion options say 7% higher. (20)
should have highly yields per acre by
virtue of utilizing the entire plant.
• See relevant biopower • See relevant • FT (BTL) has significant capital cost, • DME would require • Current biodiesel tax
value networks biopower value plant complexity and risk compared new fuel infrastructure incentives do not
networks to conventional crude production and apply to FT (BTL) (20)
Constraints refining (20). • Same is true of DME
• FT (and DME and Mixed-OH) unless can be blended
facilities for biomass are conceptual at with existing fuels
this time (7 p 47)
* Approximately 80% is estimated to be lignocellulosic.
** Ethanol Distribution and Markets covered in ‚Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation‛
81
Biofuels » Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification & Processing › Opportunity Assessment (1 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution2 Markets2
Transportation
• Cellulosic biomass could • See relevant • Largely unknown due to multiple • Would need to be • CEC staff assume 5%
support 1.5b gpy (@ 70 g of biopower value technology developments that are developed in displacement of diesel
ethanol per ton of networks required (gasification, gas cleanup, parallel to with RE diesel by 2015
biomass). The same synthesis technologies) production & use and 20% by 2025
amount from corn would • FT (BTL): unknown future volume (20) (1000m gpy)
require 3 million acres (1/3
irrigated land in CA) and • Generally speaking, could be large as it
12 million acre-feet of leverages California’s significant
water (7) lignocellulosic resources.
• Trials underway on salt • E.g., every 1 million dry tons could
tolerant species; for produce ~70 MM gal of FT liquids
Timing & application in salt-affected
Magnitude San Joaquin Valley
• Even without new energy
crop, CA has 27 mdt/y of
lignocellulosic feedstock
technically available.1
• Estimated dedicated crop
technical potential by 2020
is 5 M BDY/y with 90%
availability (includes
agricultural oil and sugar
& starch crops, no break-
out for lignocellulosic
‚energy‛ crops) (5 p S.3)
1. Approximately: 4 mdt/y Agricultural & Food Residues, 14 mdt/y on-site & Off-site Forestry Residues, 9.2 mdt/y Diverted MSW.
2. Ethanol Distribution and Markets covered in ‚Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation‛
82
Biofuels » Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification & Processing › Opportunity Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution** Markets**
Transportation
• Lignocellulosic plants may • See relevant • FT liquids offer a higher degree of • FT liquids should • Higher FT costs may
have environmental biopower value tailoring for specific engines than be largely offset costs associated
remediation potential networks biodiesel (7 p 45) fungible with with compliance with
• Dedicated crop production • In the long term, thermochemical existing low-sulfur diesel
might lead to crop shifting conversion could be combined with infrastructure. requirements.
but could utilize marginal traditional biological conversion plants • MOH should be • MOH currently eligible
Benefits lands (5 p 2.4) to create fully integrated biorefineries. largely fungible for key Federal
• Elements of TC biofuels plants can also with existing incentives
be used for power generation (e.g., ethanol • DME could have near-
gasification, gas cleanup) infrastructure term market blending
with propane to ease
transition to transport
fuel
• Assessment needed of • See relevant • Investment for production capacity to • FT – no special • Clear, long-term state
economic feasibility of biopower value meet 20% diesel replacement goal is needs government program
feedstocks for attaining networks unknown (20) to encourage
• DME – new
Needs 20% diesel displacement • Impacts on cost of evolving technology infrastructure development of
CA goal. (20) and possible increases in feedstock cost necessary
• MOH – similar to infrastructure
unknown (20) ethanol
** Ethanol Distribution and Markets covered in ‚Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation‛
83
Biofuels » Multiple Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification & Processing › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Identifying financing for start-up companies will remain an important consideration in bringing new products to market.
• Assess energy crop potential and issues relative to other land uses
• Conduct RD&D on critical technology platforms needed to commercialize lignocellulosic biofuels, including enzyme production for cellulosic
ethanol and thermochemical conversion options.
Administrative • RD&D on new/improved harvesting of agricultural residues
Actions
• RD&D on critical technology platforms needed to commercialize thermochemical (TC) derived biofuels
• Commercialization program for TC-derived biofuels in California
• RFS should contain provisions that encourage in-state TC-derived biofuels (similar to how Federal RFS gives ‚bonus credits‛ to cellulosics
ethanol)
• Streamlined permitting for TC biofuel plants (maybe to also encourage co-location with existing biomass power plants)
Regulatory • Necessary fuel specs for the various TC-derived biofuels.
Actions
• Incentives for TC-derived biofuels production, distribution and fueling infrastructure (e.g., production incentives, investment
tax credits, fuel excise tax exemptions)
Legislative
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
84
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation
Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation
Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification
Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification
Cross-Biofuels Policy Recommendations
4 Appendix
85
Biofuels » Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification › Overview
NCI considered four main routes of biomass conversion to
transportation fuels which rely on three main feedstocks.
Biodiesel from Bio-oil
• Biodiesel feedstock comes from two Transesterification
main biomass resources; waste oils, Physio-
fats and grease and agricultural crops Chemical
such as soybeans and oil seeds Conversion
• There are currently no dedicated oils
crops in CA being used for biodiesel Bio-oils
Feedstock (Waste oils/fats and
production Agricultural crops)
• Biodiesel’s maximum on-road
transportation fuel displacement is Trans-
frequently characterized as 5% on an Conversion
esterification or
& Refining Hydrogenation
average nationwide basis by the
biodiesel industry; higher blends are Primary
possible. Energy Biodiesel
Products
86
Biofuels » Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification › Current Situation Assessment (1 of 2)
Transportation
Infrastructure
Collection &
Blending,
Bio-Oils Transport Fuels; distribution,
Vehicles
(Waste oils/fats/grease and Agricultural other liquid Fuels marketing &
Crops such as beans/oil seeds) fueling
Co-products
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• No oil/bean energy • Waste oils are currently • Production is expanding • In CA 4 production • 2004 US production
crops dedicated to collected for disposal. rapidly. In 2004 27 facilities, 29 distributors from 27 commercial
biodiesel production. biodiesel plants in US (primarily petroleum plants >33 m g. (20)
• Oil crops for biodiesel produced over 33 million distributors), 23 retail • CA consumption was
production are gallons. (20 p AD-2J-4). In outlets (34) less than 5m gallons in
currently in field trials 2005 the US produced over 2004 (20 p AD-2J-2).
Utilization/ within the states (5 p 75 MM gal (biodiesel.org).
• Several gov’t and utility
Situation S.2.4) fleets in CA use
biodiesel (26 p 3)
• B20 considered
alternative fuel under
FEPA requirements. (26
p 3)
• Production cost for diesel • Biodiesel receives tax • Biodiesel appears
from seed oil ~$2.50/gal credits when blended with broadly competitive as
(driven by feedstock cost) petroleum fuels (19) a blending ingredient
• Tax credit equivalent to • Added expense for fuel (19)
Costs
$1.00/gal enacted 2004 for handling and logistics • B20 retails 12 to 22 cents
biodiesel from virgin oils increase price (34) per gallon more than
(50¢/gal if from waste oils) petroleum diesel (20
AD-2J-4)
87
Biofuels » Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification › Current Situation Assessment (2 of 2)
Collection &
Resources Conversion & Refining Distribution Markets
Transportation
• Because only the oil • DOE estimates that 1 gal of • CEC staff assume terminals • Some compatibility issue
component of crops can petroleum fuel is required and racks will require $50- with seals & gaskets in
be used for biodiesel, to produce 3.37 gal of $500k modification per engines manufactured
the yield of fuel per acre biodiesel on a ‚well-to- terminal for biodiesel. (20) before 2004 with blends
is relatively low. Co- wheels‛ basis (20) • Concerns about fuel higher than B20 (20)
utilization of the • Tailoring the characteristics quality by OEM’s and • Biodiesel contains 7% less
lignocellulosic fraction of biodiesel to specific petroleum industry (34) energy per gallon than
of dedicated oil crops diesel engine requirements CARB diesel (20)
would improve overall is difficult (7 p 45)
Constraints yields of energy per • Higher NOx emissions
acre. • Large scale production of result in regulatory
biodiesel could drive up oil problems in CA. (7)
crop prices (food oil • According to a CEC study
demand is inelastic) (7 p that evaluated the overall
45) social value of various
non-petroleum fuel
alternatives, biodiesel was
rated as slightly negative
‚overall benefit‛ (19 p 6)
88
Biofuels » Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification › Opportunity Assessment
Collection & Conversion &
Resources Distribution Markets
Transportation Refining
• Oil crops production • Would need to • In general, market is • CEC staff assume • Biodiesel’s max. diesel
could be developed in develop alongside growing rapidly (50- existing diesel fuel displacement is frequently
CA; San Joaquin Valley. in-state production 100% per year). retail infrastructure characterized as 5-10% on a
• Oil crops for biodiesel are capacity and be According to can store and dispense nationwide basis, by biodiesel
Timing & currently in field trials commensurate in biodiesel.org, at start diesel with up to 20% industry.
scale. of 2006, 35 companies RE diesel content w/o • CEC assumes 5% displacement of
Magnitude (sunflower & safflower)
reported plants under modifications diesel with RE diesel by 2015 and
construction, 20% by 2025 (1000m gpy) (2025
suggesting additional figure equivalent to 4.75% of on-
capacity of 278 MM road gasoline and diesel) (19 p 6);
gallons could be this is an aggressive case, base case
online by mid-2007 is 40-80 m gpy by 2020 (26 p 5)
• High value utilization of • Would provide • Net energy gains for • B20 can be used in • Over lifecycle, biodiesel produces
waste oils could result in additional biodiesel conventional 78% less CO2 emissions than
higher collection rates employment to (output/input=3.2) are petroleum fuel petroleum diesel.
(this is speculative). trucking greater than ethanol systems with little or • Lower toxicity and greater
(1.3-1.6) no change from biodegradability than diesel;
• Biodiesel produces production to end-use emissions lower except for NOx.
(19)
Benefits byproducts of oil seed • B20 improves lubricity properties
meal and glycerol. of low-sulfur diesel
• Most engine manufactures
approve of B20 in heavy duty
engines (apart from VW) (26 p 4)
• Biodiesel is sulfur free, helping
meet low-sulfur diesel
requirements.
• Assessment needed of • In state crops for • Investment for
economic feasibility of biodiesel would production capacity to
feedstocks for attaining require meet 20% diesel
Needs 20% diesel displacement infrastructure; could replacement goal is
CA goal. (20) take advantage of unknown (20)
existing farm
infrastructure.
89
Biofuels » Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification › Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Identifying financing for start-up companies will remain an important consideration in brining new products to market.
• Identify after-treatment technology or other engine modifications for diesel cars that will eliminate NOx increases (could be part
of new cars, but issues remains with old vehicles).
• Conduct statewide assessment of biodiesel feedstock
Administrative • Assess oil crop potential and issues relative to other energy crops or agricultural crops
Actions
• Aggressively pursue collection of waste fats oils & grease in a manner that facilitates conversion to biodiesel
• Education/outreach
• Require state fleets to use biofuels (general, not just biodiesel).
• Develop programs to encourage private fleets to use biodiesel blends
• Does the state need fuel specs for biodiesel and biodiesel blends? ASTM standard already exists for B100 for us as fuel or for
Regulatory mixing with petroleum fuels (ASTM D 6751).
Actions • Address air quality issues holistically (e.g., NOx may go up, but other pollutants may go down, like PM, HC, CO).
• Address biodiesel emissions issue related to NOx.
• Incentives for biodiesel production, distribution and fueling infrastructure (e.g., production incentives, investment tax credits,
fuel excise tax exemptions
Legislative
Actions
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
90
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
Ethanol from Sugar & Starch Fermentation
Ethanol from Lignocellulosic Fermentation
Fuels from Lignocellulosic Gasification
Biodiesel from Bio-oil Transesterification
Cross Biofuels Policy Recommendations
4 Appendix
91
Cross Biofuels Policy Actions » Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Create a demonstration and commercialization program for lignocellulosic biofuels (including those derived from municipal
wastes) in California.
• Urge the Governor to join the 31 other U. S. states that are members of the Governor’s Ethanol Coalition.
• Provide conversion support or incentives for farmers to switch to sugar/starch crops or other energy crops.
• Examine the air pollutant emissions performance of biofuels and biomass power and recommend appropriate emissions
performance standards. Ensure that the regulations maximize the flexibility to use biofuels while concurrently preserving or
enhancing the environmental benefits of the regulations.
• Work with federal agencies to coordinate on the possible development of national policies to reduce net greenhouse gas
emissions and improve infrastructure and public access to renewable fuels and products aimed at enhancing the value of
renewable energy and emission reduction credits to realize the intrinsic benefits of renewable resources.
• Establish incentive programs to support investments in new and emerging technologies relating to bio-energy, such as
Administrative gasification, cellulosic ethanol, BTL, distributed energy systems, landfill gas-to-energy, and for technologies that are linked to
Actions alternative fuels and to climate change initiatives.
• Develop programs to monetize the environmental benefits of biomass-to-energy and bio-fuels by estimating the costs of
alternative fates for the biomass materials (e.g., forest fires). Could be implemented via a carbon tax, carbon adder, or other
means).
• Identify financing options for start-up companies to aid in bringing new products to market.
• Conduct emissions testing to measure benefits, tradeoffs, and impacts of biofuel use. R&D on engine modifications & after-
treatment to address emissions issues, including exhaust and permeation. Key examples include low ethanol blends and NOx
from biodiesel.
• Establish procurement standards to encourage other public entities (school districts, UC system) to use biofuels and purchase
biomass power.
• Direct CEC to prepare a comprehensive, peer-reviewed economic assessment of the costs and benefits of expanded use of
biofuels by fuel type, and impacted group (fuel producers, fuel distributors, agriculture, government and consumers).
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
92
Cross Biofuels Policy Actions » Potential Actions
Potential State Actions1
• Establish necessary fuel specifications for transportation bio-fuels used in blends and as neat fuels. Include low-ethanol blends
with gasoline, E85, E-diesel, FT diesel, B5, B20, B100. Spec should recognize the climate change benefits of renewable fuels. Work
Regulatory with existing specs, such as ASTM standard for B100 for us as fuel or for mixing with petroleum fuels (ASTM D 6751).
Actions
• Develop streamlined permitting for cellulosic ethanol and thermochemical biofuel production plants (maybe to also encourage
cogeneration with lignin residues or co-location with existing biomass power plants)
• Develop the rules and regulation for the RFS
• Establish a Renewable Fuels Standard that covers biofuels that can be used in blends or as neat fuels. The RFS would cover all
biofuels and could contain special provisions to encourage in-state production and the deployment of new technology. The RFS
would be a way to help achieve existing state goals on transportation energy use and GHG emissions.
Legislative • Design and recommend a package of tax and other financial incentives to encourage use of biomass, biofuels and bio-products.
Actions These could include: in-state production or tax credits, investment tax credits for E-85 delivery infrastructure, insurance
products such as efficacy insurance to reduce cost of risk to private sector, fuel excise taxes based on energy content, fuel tax
exemptions.
• Develop appropriate incentives for growing energy crops
• Create a Public Goods type charge to fund biofuels production and infrastructure development
1. This list is a compilation from various sources and does not represent a prioritized or final list of recommended actions.
93
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to Bioenergy Value Networks
2 Biopower Value Networks
3 Biofuels Value Networks
4 Appendix
94
Appendix » Bibliography
Bibliography
1) 109th Congress of the United States of America, August 8, 2005, Federal Energy Policy Act 2005, Title IX, Subtitle C,
Section 932, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.
2) Blackburn, Bill, Tom MacDonald, Mike McCormack, Pat Perez and Val Tiangco, California Energy Commission,
December 1999, Evaluation of Biomass-to-Ethanol fuel Potential in California, California Energy Commission,
Sacramento, CA.
3) Brown, Susan J., November 9, 2005, California Biomass Collaborative “Bio-Energy Interagency Working Group”. California
Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
4) California Biomass Collaborative. 2004. An Assessment of biomass resources in California. PIER Consultant Report,
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, 2004
5) California Biomass Collaborative, April 2005, Biomass Resource Assessment in California, Draft Consultant Report in
Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, Publication
number CEC-500-2005-066-D.
6) California Biomass Collaborative, January 2004, California Biomass Collaborative Policy Committee Progress Report.
7) California Biomass Collaborative, June 2005, Biomass Challenges, Opportunities, and Potentials for Sustainable
Management and Development PEIR Collaborative Report, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
8) California Biomass Collaborative, September 2005, An Assessment of Biomass Resources in California, 2005, Draft Report.
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
9) California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2006, Rice Straw Utilization Grant Program
<http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/aep/aes/rs_grant_ program/index.htm>.
10) California Department of Food and Agriculture, December 2005, Rice Straw Tax Credit Program
<http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/aep/aes/rstc_program/ index.htm>.
11) California Energy Commission, 2003 Net system power calculation, Publication 300-04-001R.
12) Clinton, William, October 25, 2000, Executive Order 13173 - Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the
Central San Joaquin Valley <http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayEO.cfm?id=EO_13173_>.
95
Appendix » Bibliography
Ethanol » Notes
Bibliography
13) Coleman, Brooke, Danielle Fugere, January 5, 2006, Securing California’s Ethanol Market. Renewable Energy Action
Project, Bluewater Network
14) Commission of the European Communities, July 12, 2005, Commission Staff Working Document, Annex to the
Communication from the Commission, Biomass action plan, Impact Assessment, Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels.
15) Commission of the European Communities, July 12, 2005, Communication from the Commission, Biomass action plan
Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
16) Environmental and Energy Study Institute Home Page, <http://www.eesi.org/>
17) European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, December 2005, How to support renewable
electricity in Europe? An assessment of the different support schemes, Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels.
18) European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, March 31, 2005, Public Consultation of the EU
Biomass Action Plan, Results of the on-line website DG TREN “Questionnaire”, Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels.
19) Fong, Dan, California Energy Commission, July 2005, Options to Reduce Petroleum Fuel Use (Second Edition), California
Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, Publication number CEC-600-2005-024-ED2.
20) Fong, Dan, California Energy Commission, June 2005, Addendum: Options to Reduce Petroleum Fuel Use (Second Edition),
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, Publication number CEC-600-2005-024-ED2-AD.
21) Gildart, M.C. and H. von Bernath, California Biomass Collaborative, December 2005, Scoping Study for Rice Straw
Utilization in California Draft Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
22) Green, Nathanael, National Resources Defense Council, December 2004, Growing Energy, How Biofuels Can Help End
America’s Oil Dependence, National Resources Defense Council, New York, NY.
23) Interagency Task Force for the Economic Development of the Central San Joaquin Valley, June 2004, 2003-2004
Progress Report and Action Plan, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
96
Appendix » Bibliography
Ethanol » Notes
Bibliography
24) Jones, Melissa, Michael Smith, and Suzanne Korosec, California Energy Commission, September 2005, 2005 Integrated
Energy Policy Report Committee Draft Report, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, Publication number
CEC-100-2005-007-CTD.
25) Kennedy, Robert, California Energy Commission, November 2005, Ethanol Market Outlook for California, California
Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, Publication number CEC-600-2005-037.
26) Koyama, Kenneth, California Energy Commission, May 2005, Alternative Fuels Commercialization, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento, CA, Publication number CEC-600-2005-020.
27) MacDonald, Tom, California Energy Commission, January 2004, Ethanol Fuel Incentives Applied in the US, Reviewed
from California’s Perspective, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Publication number P600-04-001.
28) MacDonald, Tom, Mike McCormack, Pat Perez, Todd Peterson, and Valentino Tiangco, California Energy
Commission, March 2001, Costs and Benefits of a Biomass-to-Ethanol Production Industry in California, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento, CA, Publication number P500-01-002.
29) MacDonald, Tom, September 26-28, 2005, Alcohol Fuel Flexibility – Progress and Prospects, Fifteenth International
Symposium on Alcohol Fuels. San Diego, CA.
30) McCormack, Mike, Transportation Fuels Office, February 8, 2005, Outlook for Ethanol Use in California Transportation
Fuels – Policy Drivers, Challenges and Opportunities, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
31) Moller, Rosa Maria, PhD., November 2005, A Brief on Ethanol, The Debate on Ethanol: Prospects and Challenges to
California Producers, California Research Bureau, California State Library, CRB 05-009.
32) Moller, Rosa Maria, PhD., December 2005, Brief on Biomass and Cellulosic Ethanol California Research Bureau,
California State Library, CRB 05-010.
33) Morris, G., Green Power Institute, July 31, 2003, The Status of Biomass Power Generation in California July 31, 2003,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
34) National Biodiesel Board, October 12, 2004, Report of the Biodiesel Working Group, California Energy Commission
Sacramento, CA.
97
Appendix » Bibliography
Bibliography
35) Oregon Department of Energy, April 12, 2005, Oregon’s Renewable Energy Action Plan, Oregon Department of Energy,
Salem, OR.
36) The Center for Resource Solutions Team, November 1, 2005, Achieving a 33% Renewable Energy Target, California
Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, CA.
37) Tiangco, Valentino, Prab Sethi, and Zhiqin Zhang, California Energy Commission, June 2005, Biomass Strategic Value
Analysis, Draft Staff Report in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California Energy Commission,
Sacramento, CA, Publication number CEC-500-2005-109-SD.
38) United States Department of Agriculture, 2006, Value Added Producer Grants
<http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm>.
39) United States Department of Energy, November 7, 2005, Funding Assistance Opportunity, Biomass Research and
Development Initiative Grant Notification 2005, <https://e-center.doe.gov/iips/faopor.nsf/UNID/C2D6EAD8316FFEE585
2570AD0077A88F?OpenDocument>.
40) United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 22, 2005, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Regulation of Fuel
and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard Requirements for 2006.
41) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) LMOP Landfill Database,
California state operational landfills, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/proj/xls/lmopdataca.xls
42) Updated Informative Digest, Amendments to The Clean Fuels Regulations Regarding Clean Fuel Outlets.
43) Western Governors Association, September 2005, WGA Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative Draft Report of the
Biomass Task Force, Western Governors Association
44) Western Governors Association, January 2006, Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative Biomass Task Force Report,
Western Governors Association.
45) Williams, Robert, B., California Biomass Collaborative, December 2005, Environmental Issues for Biomass Development
in California Preliminary Draft, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
46) Williams, Rob, California Biomass Collaborative, December 2005, Biomass in Solid Waste in California: Utilization and
Policy Alternatives Preliminary Draft. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
98
Appendix » List of Acronyms >> Biopower
Acronym Explanation
$/kWh Dollars per kilowatt hour. The standard unit of measure for the price of energy.
$/kW Dollars per kilowatt. The standard unit of measure to represent the installed costs of power plants.
BTU British thermal unit.
CCHP Combined cooling, heat and power. CCHP applications examples include the use of water treatment plant generated methane
combusted to energize onsite reciprocating engines to run plant operations, and the waste heat from the generator is applied to digesters
to increase process rates.
CHP Combined heat and power.
CO2 Carbon dioxide.
GWh Gigawatt hours. The standard unit of measure for the total amount of energy produced over a period of time. One gigawatt is 1,000
MW.
GHG Greenhouse gas.
IOU Investor Owned Utility
LCOE Levelized cost of energy.
MDT Million Dry Tons. The standard unit of measure for biomass.
MPR Market Price Referent. Used to calculate payment of RPS contacts and SEPs.
MW Megawatt. The standard unit of measure for the amount of power produced from a plant. One megawatt is 1,000 kilowatts.
PTC Production Tax Credit
R&D Research and Development
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard. The requirement that IOUs must contract a percent of there load with renewable energy.
SEP Supplemental Energy Payments. These are funds available to pay renewable power producers who have been awarded contracts under
RSP solicitations. The supplemental payment represents the cost of energy being pay above a calculated market price referent (MPR)
SO4 Standard Offer Contracts under PURPA
SRAC Short run avoided costs. The calculated price at which energy prices are determined under SO4 contracts. The prices is typically
calculated based on current natural gas market prices.
99
Appendix » List of Acronyms >> Biofuel
Acronym Explanation
B100 100% biodiesel
B20, B5, B2 Petroleum diesel blended with 20%, 5%, and 2% biodiesel, respectively
Biomass-to-Liquids - produces primarily a high-quality synthetic diesel product through gasification of biomass followed
BTL by conversion of the syngas to a liquid using a the Fisher-Tropsch reaction. Requires further upgrading (similar to
conventional refining) to produce finished fuels
CARB California Air Resources Board
CA reformulated gasoline with 5.7 percent ethanol, the only oxygenated gasoline available in CA after MTBE was phased-
CaRFG3
out 3/31/03
E10 Ethanol Blend - Gasoline blended with 10% ethanol
E85 Ethanol Hi-Content Blend - Gasoline blended with 85% ethanol
E40 Half-time use of E85 by drivers of FFVs
FFV Flexible Fuel Vehicles – capable of running on any mixture of gasoline and E85
California Low Emission Vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards. In the future all manufactures will have to
LEV2
comply with LEV2.
RFG Reformulated gasoline
Thermal Conversion Process – creates diesel-like crude oil using temperate and pressure to breakdown and process
TCP
biomass input
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle
100
Appendix » Biomass Resources Defined
Definition of Biomass Resources for Power and Biofuels
Agricultural Residues: Woody orchard and vineyard prunings, field crop residues such as cereal straws and corn
AGRICULTURE stover, vegetable crop residues and; Food Processing Residues: primarily woody rice hulls, shells and pits (8pg17)
• Agricultural Residues
Energy Crops: ‚Dedicated Crops‛ which include lignocellulosic ‚Energy Crops‛ and also sugar and starch crops, and
• Energy Crops oil crops such as sunflower and safflower. Sugar, starch, and oil crops, as well as lignocellulosic crops could be used to
• Food Processing Residues create biofuels, whereas energy crops grown specifically for biopower would be limited to lignocellulosic crops.
• Animal Wastes (farm)
• Animal Renderings Animal wastes (farm): Animal waste includes manure from dairy cows, range cattle, and poultry
Animal rendering: Residues from animal processing facilities and potentially, animal carcasses in the event of
outbreaks of avian flu or other diseases requiring the culling of animal populations.
FORESTRY Onsite Mill Residue: Onsite Mill Residues are waste streams from forest products mills, such as waste from sawmill
operations
• Forest Residues - Tree
thinnings, slash, etc.
• Onsite Mill Residues Forestry Site Residues: Off site forest residues are considered to be forest thinnings, log slash, scrub, and chaparral.
Municipal Solid Waste: Diverted MSW available for biomass conversion applications consist of both high and low
MUNICIPAL WASTES moisture content organics generated by municipalities, including clean construction waste (aka urban wood), paper
• Diverted Municipal Solid and cardboard, green wastes and trees, food wastes, and . (8pg 22, 23)
Waste (MSW) Urban wood waste: clean wood waste, such as construction waste and tree trimmings. Generally excludes painted or
• Urban wood wastes contaminated wood.
• Landfill Gas
Landfill gas: Landfill gas is a mixture of roughly 50% methane gas and 50% CO2 created from the natural
• Wastewater Biogas decomposition of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) that is disposed of in landfills. (8pg 23)
• Wastewater Sludge
• Waste oils/fats/grease Wastewater biogas & sludge: Methane of 60% concentration and resulting biosolids (sludge) is created from the
anaerobic digestion of organic matter in waste water (8pg 23)
Waste oils/fats/grease: Various types of animal and vegetable waste (e.g., yellow grease from restaurants)
101
Related docs
