The Coskata Process

In Pennsylvania, Coskata announced the successful start-up of their semi-commercial flex ethanol facility located in Madison.  The accomplishment by the #1 company in last year’s 50 Hottest Companies in Bioenergy “represents the successful scale-up of the company’s technology, and will serve as a showcase for the world’s first commercially-viable flex ethanol process,” according to a company statement.

“Coskata is open for business and ready to scale,” said Bill Roe, president and CEO of Coskata, in an interview with the Digest.  The start up is a big deal – we are able to run 24/7 on our platform, demonstrate our ability to scale directly from this size, affirm our designs and begin our built out. A lot of strategic partners wanted and needed us to complete this step.”

As far as expansion, Roe described two camps of potential partners. The early movers, with whom the company is now in discussions about licensing its technologies, who have been “simply waiting to see us operate at scale” before proceeding in licensing. The second cam Roe described as “more conservative, generally larger oil companies, who are going to create multiple sites using some biofuels platform. They do not want to build the first.” In addition, the company expects to complete construction and build out on its first commercial-scale plant, to demonstrate its technology at that scale to larger partners, in the next 18 months.

According to Coskata, their flex ethanol facility will be producing ethanol from numerous feedstocks, including wood biomass, agricultural waste, sustainable energy crops, and construction waste.  This flexible approach at the Madison facility is enabled by plasma gasification technology from Westinghouse Plasma Corporation. Coskata’s technology, as demonstrated through Project Lighthouse, will be able to reduce greenhouse gasses by as much as 96% over conventional gasoline, while using less than half the water that it takes to get a gallon of gasoline.  In addition, the company’s ability to produce non grain-based ethanol that is as much as 7 times as energy positive as the fossil fuel used in the process, addresses many concerns related to traditional processes, including energy efficiency and the use of grain.

“Our mantra from the start,” added Roe, “is that next generation fuel is going to have to compete at parity with oil without long term subsidies. With $90-$100 oil, we’re competitive now. We know that even environmentalists say ‘this is great, but if it costs more I don’t want it.”

The facility is a demonstration of “minimum scale engineering”, an industry standard term which means it is the smallest size that will still allow the company to scale directly to 50 million and 100 million gallon Coskata facilities.  Some of the ethanol that is being produced at the facility has been delivered to the General Motors Milford Proving Grounds for early testing, as well as to another major strategic partner.

Coskata leverages proprietary microorganisms and efficient bioreactor designs in a unique three-step conversion process that can turn virtually any carbon-based feedstock into ethanol, from anywhere in the world. Coskata’s biological fermentation technology is ethanol-specific and enzyme independent, contributing to high energy conversion rates and ethanol yields.  Additionally, the process requires no additional chemicals or pre-treatments, serving to streamline operational costs.  In fact, the company has one of the lowest production costs in the industry, allowing them to directly compete with gasoline without long-term government subsidies.

On the potential for competition with electric vehicles, Roe said “I don’t think it’s a debate, we’re all sympatico. Propulsion systems will evolve over time and eventually we are going to migrate to an all-electric fleet using clean power. But it takes 15 years to turn over a fleet, and it is going to take time to change the way that we generate power. For the all-electric fleet, we are looking at a 2030-2050 proposition, not 10 years away. For now, bioethanol is a great, early, near-term solution.”

Roe paid tribute to the Coskata team, adding “it really is a fairy tale story to complete this stage of the project. At the core of the Madison project, we’ve got Dick Tobey, our technical guru, a 20-year Dow guy who left before his retirement package was mature because of his belief in this opportunity. Jeff Burgard, a 27-year veteran of UOP’s engineering team; James Fawley, our strategist who came to us from BP; Wes Bolsen, who joined us from ICM. The fact that we all like each other has made the hard work easier.”

Coskata starts up cellulosic ethanol production in Pennsylvania: “Open for business and ready to scale,” says CEO is a post from: Biofuels Digest

Readers of the Digest will remember that last Friday, we ran an exclusive interview with Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa in which the Senator invited the Director of the EPA’s office of Transportation and Air Quality, Margo Oge, to visit his farm in Iowa.

The invitation came after it was revealed in House testimony that Ms. Oge had not visited a US farm in the 41 years since she had arrived in the US, something that became relevant when her office was assigned the responsibility by former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson of measuring direct and indirect emissions from biofuels as required by the 2007 Energy Security and Independence Act.

We are delighted to inform readers that, according to the Senator and as reported on Opisnet and elsewhere, that after the story ran in Biofuels Digest, the EPA contacted Senator Grassley’s office “to indicate that they would like to try and work something out. So my staff is in the process of trying to find time in my schedule and the EPA staff schedule when we can all be in Iowa.”

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Regina McCarthy, nominated as assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation have also been invited.

The story that ran on Friday examined the larger question of a growing communications gap between farm and city, and suggested, in line with EPA-funded research demonstrating that “place-based education” has an impact on attitudes towards the environment, that a greater engagement between regulators and farms was a first and important step towards a national consensus on biofuels policies.

The Digest looks forward to proposing ways over the next few days in which a broad section of those who care about farms, green jobs, energy independence and climate change can also participate in what is shaping up to be a highlight of the summer, the EPA’s visit to the Grassley farm. Early indications are that another farm more convenient to airports may be chosen for the visit.

No one can say how one day on a farm will impact EPA’s view on indirect land use change, and the proposed elimination of soy biodiesel as an permissable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard (because of the controversial contention that soy biodiesel leads to Amazonian deforestation).

But 10,000 people showing up to say “thank you” to the EPA for making the effort, would certainly be news, would show positive engagement, would be inclusive, would send a positive message in a world of negative campaigning, and might alter the balance. Just showing up and saying “I am” has been known to make a difference. Or as so many Americans would put it, “Yo soy”.

As biodiesel supporter Neil Young sang in the classic CSNY hit, “Woodstock,” about the celebrated festival of forty summers ago:

“I’m going on down to Yasgurs farm
I’m going to join in a rock n roll band
I’m going to camp out on the land
I’m going to try and get my soul free
We are stardust, we are golden
We are billion year old carbon,
And we’ve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden.”

And from Biofuels Digest to the EPA: Thank you.

EPA leaders respond to Sen. Grassley’s invitation to visit a farm: “They would like to try and work something out”. is a post from: Biofuels Digest

KL Energy CEO Randy Kramer and VP Process Engineering Dave Litzen

KL Energy (formerly KL Process Designs) has been in the news all year. First, by opening the first commercial-scale ethanol production facility this year. Then, with the news rumbling out of South Dakota that they were considering the construction of a second plant. Third, rave reviews from industry insiders who have visited the facility. Fourth, for inexplicably missing out on the bucketfuls of grant money the Department of Energy has been handing out to cellulosic ethanol companies this year.

Now, KL is back in the news, with the announcement of an infusion of provate equity and the announcement that they are converting to a public company, via reverse-merger, and renaming the company KL Energy (KLEG.OB).

KL Energy CEO Randy Kramer joined Biofuels Digest for a quick interview this week as news of the reverse merger arrived. Kramer is a founder of the company, and leads a close-knit team that has been getting strong reviews as a “can do crew” in cellulosic ethanol.

BD: Do you see the EISA Act, prescribing 21 billion gallons of blended cellulosic ethanol by 2022 as such a big tent that there’s room for all, or do you see specific technologies and companies gaining an edge?

RK: I think it is a big tent, and there is a lot of room. But most of the talk about gasification and pyrolysis is just talk, or at the lab level, at least you don’t see the impact yet at the plant level. I’ve visited a number of plants. “We’ve broken ground” is the kind of thing you hear. But there’s nothing there.

BD: KL Energy is a producer, and also an engineering and biotechnology firm. Do you see the company pursuing expansion more as a vertically integrated producer, or in a technology licensing and engineering services model?

RK: As far as new markets, we’re not ready to lock in; both options are on the table.

BD: How has the rolling financial crisis this year and the controversy over ethanol affected you?

RK: The financial crisis hasn’t affected us much, I have to say. The only impact we have felt this year is some impact from a lack of recognition of our company at the Department of Energy. We have applied to the DOE on several occasions for grants, but we’ve not been successful. People who are knowledgeable at the ground level in the industry know how far we are along, and know that we are viable, that we’re doing it. But the lack of DOE support has slowed us to an extent.

BD: With respect to private equity, is the $6.,1 million you’ve just announced a beginning or the end for this round?

RK: We’re in the middle of another set of negotiations right now. So not the end.

BD: The new plant, where are you in that project?

RK: By spring, we’ll be breaking ground on the second plant, that’s what this financing is all about.

BD: Will it be essentially in the same region, using similar feedstocks as the first plant in Upton, Wyoming?

RK: The second will be the same in terms of the general region, and the feedstock strategy of using wood waste.

BD: What about international expansion? Will you go overseas, and if so, how will you structure it? Are you looking at Japan, Brazil, elsewhere in North America, for example.

RK: All of the above. All options are on the table, including both ownership and  licensing. every day I’m having a new conversation or a 2nd or 3rd conversation with a prospective partner.

BD: You have a small core team that has come a long ways together. As a smaller company, how do you approach the prospect of rapid expansion? As contemplated in the Energy Act, the sector grows from producing 100,000 gallons a year to 21 billion by 2022. As a small company without the deep bench of a Chevron or BP, how will you manage growth while maintaining excellence?

RK: Maintaining mid level competent management is our focus. We do have a deep bench, actually. We have received many, many resumes for top-level process engineers from the petrochemical business, for example, who say that they are tired of the old industries, and want to be working in this new business of making alternative energy.

Our partnership with the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology has opened a lot of doors to good people for us. In project management, we have heard from many military retirees who have spent years defending oil patch countries, who want to be a part of this new era in energy, and who really define leadership and management.

BD: With cellulosic ethanol, we are moving from an era of working with high-yield starches and sugars to lower-yielding biomass. Will we continue to see monster 100 million gallon a year ethanol plants, or will plants become much smaller so that they are closer to feedstock?

RK: It’s a question of the cost of the feedstock, and more importantly the transportation cost of that feedstock. We’re always looking for the right wood waste stream, such as a sawmill. That will shape the size and the location of plants. Instead of the technology driving the size of plants, the size of the feedstock source will.

BD: You’re an upstream company as an ethanol producer rather than a distributor or retailer. How much do you think about the downstream side, and how the process of bringing fuels to market will change as the cellulosic ethanol era unfolds? Will we see clusters of plants built around markets, or single plants built around feedstock?

RK: We think about it a lot, actually. For example, we think about surrounding New York City with 5 or 6 plants. We have two locations picked out already. We see a situation where we surround a city with an ethanol supply.

BD: Looking at the 36 billion gallons of ethanol required under EISA in 2022, that’s a lot more than can be supplied with E10. Do you E85 gaining more traction in the short term, or do you see E20, E30 blends proving more attractive.

RK: We don’t think E85 is the answer today – maybe in 20 years – optimally we’d see a change to E20 or E30 instead of going all the way with an in-your-face change like E85.

BD: With respect to E20 and E30, have you looked at the American Coalition for Ethanol’s studies on E30 showing no net fuel economy loss compared to all-gasoline?

RK: We’ve seen them, for sure. ACE, god bless them, they work hard, but we have our own studies and run our own tests. We wouldn’t go forward only on their data. We want to have our own, and what we have shows that E20 and E30 works.

BD: Are you seeing the same story, that with blends in the E20-E30 range we don;t see  a significant drop-off in mileage, or any at all?

RK: Yes we do.

Biofuels Digest Interview: Randy Kramer, CEO, KL Energy is a post from: Biofuels Digest

When the decision was made in January to increase the program’s length to one hour, the producers added a new face: anchorwoman Natalie Allen, formerly of CNN and MSNBC. Allen, along with scientists Dr. Heidi Cullen and Dr. Marcus Eriksen, and zoologist Jarod Miller, cover fuels, feedstocks, “green gizmos”, plus portraits and profiles of both the enviromental issues and the people driving the response to climate change.

It’s a program that’s well worth the investment of time by viewers, and I was delighted to spend some time this week with Natalie, who shared some insights about the program, the stories, and the viewers. More information about Forecast Earth can be obtained at the extensive and informative website. Natalie’s blog can be accessed here.

BD: Hi Natalie, tell us a little about about Forecast Earth.

NA: We cover the big picture – the climatologists and scientists; the medium picture – new stories and profiles from me; and the small picture – such as green gizmos. We’re watched by Moms who are thinking about their children. By green businesspeople who are trying to make a difference. And people who really focus on climate change.

BD: How did you come to join the program?

NA: I was asking myself what could I do next in TV that could be important. From 1992 to 2001 I was at CNN, anchoring mostly during daytime, then I was at at MSNBC. Last year I was freelancing at NBC when the phone rang. The producers at the Weather Channel said they were expanding their climate initiatives, that Forecast Earth had fantastic scientists and they wanted a news person to front the show as it expanded to an hour.

I felt when I joined that this would be the news story of our time, and look how much it has changed.

BD: What’s different about Forecast Earth, from work you had done at other news networks?

NA: I remember research that there less than 3 minutes on climate and the environment on news channels each day. 3 minutes! And as you can imagine, at CNN and MSNBC you get 3-4 minutes, max, to tell a story. Here we do one thing, and we give it time.

BD: You’re a news person in a sea of scientists, how do you see your role?

NA: To the scientists here, and I’m the one without the PhD, I’m like the everyperson, always trying to think of the questions that the viewers would ask.

BD: How do you approach story selection?

NA: You know, I think it was the lady who does my hair that said it first: “Don’t continually show me the polar bear floating on the melting ice; tell me what I can do.”

BD: How has the program changed you personally, the way you approach daily life?

NA: Well, I was already recycling, using cotton bags at the Publix, that sort of thing. But now, I basically freak out if I can’t recycle.

BD: Tell us about a favorite segment, perhaps a story about someone who is making a difference.

NA: Ray Anderson runs a carpet business in Georgia, and is very successful. A few years ago a client asked him “what’s your environmental plan?” and he replied “What do you mean? We don’t have one.” He looked into it, and now he’s turned his company around, and his carpet business — and let’s face it, carpet can last in landfills for a long time — will be carbon zero by 2013. “What matters,” he said, “is not your stock price but what you leave behind.” He proudly said he was the first in Georgia to own a Prius, beat Ted Turner to it.

BD: Of the stories you’ve done, tell us about one that has touched you the most personally?

NA: Robert Swan, who was the first to walk to both the North and South Pole and who has seen the melting icecaps and the ozone hole; he was one of those who talked about climate change for years when nobody would listen.

BD: If you could send a message to your viewers what would it be?

NA: Thank you, each one of you, for caring about climate change.

The Weather Channel’s Natalie Allen, anchor of Forecast Earth: “Don’t continually show me the polar bear floating on the melting ice. Tell me what I can do.” is a post from: Biofuels Digest

Professor Bruce Dale is Professor of Chemical Engineering and former Chair of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Michigan State University. In 1996 he won the Charles D. Scott Award for contributions to the use of biotechnology to produce fuels, chemical and other industrial products from renewable plant resources. Dr. Dale has authored over 90 referred journal papers, is an active industry consultant and expert witness, and holds thirteen U. S. and foreign patents. He joined Biofuels Digest by telephone today for a Newsmaker interview.

Digest: With the food vs. fuel debate, what do you see as positive and what is negative? Is there a potential to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as cellulosic ethanol gets mixed up with corn ethanol in a “ban biofuels” movement?

Dale: There’s a potential to throw out the baby with the bath water but I think cooler heads will prevail. Not to run down corn or sugar I heard a prominent person at NRDC drew a distinction between cellulosic and first generation. Ten minutes later a GM guy said the same thing.

What’s distressing is the failure of the media, and society as a whole. The never draw comparisons. It’s not like we have a perfect fuel. Gasoline is what we have. It’s ethanol, made at this time from grain, or gasoline. We are in a real pickle and we need alternatives.

Shopping for a car I wouldn’t say I am going to buy a Lexus no matter what. I would make choices and comparisons. That’s not happening with the debate.

On the positive side, I think that biofuels are robust enough that they can take the criticism.

Digest: In the base of misleading coverage of biofuels, do you see it as a product of the fact that most people haven’t been exposed to the complexities of agriculture, trade, environment and business – so we have a learning curve – or are there more sinister forces at work?

Dale: There are all kinds of motivations , of people. There are some powerful interests that want to strangle biofuels in their infancy, so some coverage isn’t honest, can’t be. A lot of this is Future Shock, it takes a while to become educated on the technology and not many journalists are educated in science or engineering. They are intelligent but it will take time.

It turns out that Timothy Searchinger – who is affiliated with Princeton – is a lawyer and not a scientist. He was with the environmental defense fund. It’s remarkable that no one took a few minutes to Google him to find out his background. I don’t know him, but it’s not a study that would have passed muster among the people I know who analyze life cycle impacts. It doesn’t meet the standards to be published.

With respect to direct land use effects, clearly if you plough up an acre of CRP land, then an impact analysis has to be done and should be. But to speculate about the impact of market forces a half a world away, it is really weak and dangerous.

Let me give you an example. If our friends in the automotive industry put more electric hybrids on the road, it would use more nickel from mines in Kenya. The Searchinger analysis says that the electric car’s impact has to be measured in terms of any negative impact that comes from a rise in nickel demand and nickel prices, anywhere in the world where this has a consequence.

It’s unethical and we don’t have the data. We are so far away from being able to do that analysis.
 
Digest: E85 has not received the support many had hoped for it. The public seems to have understood very easily that ethanol has 30 percent less BTUs than gasoline, but they haven’t as easily understood the positive potential from ethanol’s higher octane levels. Is that why E85 is lagging?

Dale: I am aware of the arguments over E85’s loss of mileage. The auto industry can design or tune engines to take more advantage of ethanol’s higher octane, but they have bigger fish to fry and they don’t get into that.

Digest: What do you see as the biuggest challenge for cellulosic ethanol. The high production cost? 

Dale: Speaking as a chemical engineer, and in terms of process engineering, I am confident that we will get the costs down on cellulosic ethanol production, and that it will happen more quickly than people think. There is more than enough biomass to provide the cellulosic feedstock, there is plenty of plant material. In terms of how we are going to collect and transport thousands of tons of biomass, now is the time. The USDA should be establishing research centers on the scale of the DOE’s funding of biomass conversion into fuel. It needs to happen. The cellulosic issue will happen in the next five years.

Digest: What processes besides enzymatic cellulosic ethanol have the most promise? Pyrolysis? Gasification?

Dale: Ultimately there are a number of thermal and biological processes and our use of them will be largely determined by the properties of the feedstock. For reasons I am not going to get into here, the thermal processes are more likely for woods, especially soft woods, while the biological processes are more likely to be used with the straws and grasses.

Digest: Are new fuels going to be a major part of the picture. What about biobutanol?

Dale: I like butanol as a fuel molecule, but in the patents and papers I have read, there’s never more than a 2 percent concentration of butanol. There’s too much water, and I don’t see how they are going to solve this. But I wish them well, because it is a very good molecule.

Digest: What do you see as the biggest challenge for biofuels as a whole.

Dale: I am an optimist, but I am not particularly optimistic about our political leadership in either party. I don’t see much realism from the parties or the candidates on energy or transport issues. We need leadership on this, and the new President has to supply this. If he or she does not “get this” problem of our petroleum dependence, it will be a lot more difficult to realize our goals.

We need to keep the pressure up on our elected representatives to find honest solutions to petroleum. Let’s be grown ups, there are no perfect alternatives out there except to keep our dependence on petroleum.

Biofuels Digest Newsmaker: Ethanol guru Dr. Bruce Dale is a post from: Biofuels Digest