You are on page 1of 96

T H E B U M P E R F U E L G R O U P

Proposal for an Alternative


Fuel Production Site
Yamhill County, Oregon Edition

7 7 0 S W S c o t s m a n C o u r t , D u n d e e , O R 9 7 11 5 Te l e p h o n e : 5 0 3 . 5 3 7 . 2 1 3 1 w w w. B u m p e r F u e l . o r g
B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

2
About the Report

This report was prepared by Joshua Ferguson and Liz Marlia-Stein as concerned citi-
zens of Yamhill County, Oregon. It is intended to offer information to our local officials
about the benefits that a local cellulosic ethanol plant would provide. Our hope is for
this report to be used as a reference tool, not only in Yamhill County but throughout the
country and around the globe, to help curb mankind's dependency on oil.

Funded by Citizens of Yamhill County, Oregon

The efforts put forth through this report have been noticed by Yamhill County residents
and business owners. These supporters, along with the authors of this report, have
given money to ensure that the desired information is spread to local officials and busi-
ness people throughout the state of Oregon.

Completed: January 2009. Published: February 2009.

Available by way of PDF file from the BumperFuel Group: BumperFuel@gmail.com

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

3
Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the following people for their contributions and support: Ramsey McPhillips, McPhillips
Farm; Loren Berg, Loren Berg Chevrolet; McMinnvilles Lions Club; David Belyea with DEQ, State of Oregon; Repre-
sentative David Wu, Oregons Congressional District 1; Senator Ron Wyden and staff, State of Oregon; Representative
Jim Weidner, State Representative District 24; A1 Logging; Ian Hill, SeQuential Biofuels; Rigel Stone, BlueFire Fuels
Inc.; Wes Bolsen, Coskata, Inc.; Matthew Glass, InEnTec LLC; Iogen Corporation; Waste Management; Clay Okabay-
ashi, General Motors Corporation; Chad Roberson, OCE North America; and citizens of Yamhill County.

Dedications

This report is dedicated to the Ferguson and Marlia families.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this document includes statements of BumperFuels beliefs, expectations, hopes or
intentions regarding the future. All forward thinking statements are made as of the date hereof and are based on the
information to the BumperFuel Group as of such date. It is important to note that actual outcome and the actual re-
sults could differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially include risks and uncertainties, such as technological, environmental, legislative, financial and mar-
ketplace changes.

About BumperFuel

The BumperFuel Group is an alternative fuel advocacy alliance based in Yamhill County, Oregon. Out of our concern
for the environment and improving our nations economy, we devoted ourselves to next generation energy re-
search and promoting the establishment of a cellulosic ethanol plant in Yamhill County. By replacing landfills with
zero waste and alternative energy systems, we hope to make Yamhill County a leader in the production of green
fuel and power. BumperFuels ultimate goal is to reduce the countys emission of greenhouse gas and use of foreign
oil. The BumperFuel Group includes members representing the logging, farming, commerce, educational, political
and environmental community.

Any reproduction of this document, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the BumperFuel Group
is prohibited.

COPYRIGHT 2009, BumperFuel Group

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

4
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 9

Purpose and Need 9

Financial Benefits 11

Background 13

History of Cellulosic Ethanol Production 13

Description of Cellulosic Ethanol Production 14

Benefits of Cellulosic Ethanol Over Other Energy Sources 17

Cellulosic Ethanol Versus Gasoline 18

Future of Cellulosic Ethanol 20

Impact of the Plant 23

Products Produced 23

Water Usage 24

Emission Output 24

Land Usage 26

Noise Pollution 28

Transportation Impact 28

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

5
Feedstock Data 29

Logging Waste 29

Municipal Waste from Yamhill County 32

Municipal Waste From Other Counties 32

Expected Municipal Waste Increase 32

Sale of Ethanol 34

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 34

Renewable Fuels Association 34

SeQuential Biofuels 35

Requirements for Alternative Fuels 37

Federal 37

State 38

Alternative Fuel Production in Oregon 39

Lane County 39

Multnomah County 39

Marion County 39

Morrow County 41

Highlights of Cellulosic Ethanol Companies 43

Iogen Corporation 43

BlueFire Ethanol 45

InEnTec 51

Coskata 54

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

6
Flexfuel Vehicles 58

General Motors 58

Ford Motor Company 58

Chrysler Limited Liability Partnership 59

Government Funding, Loans and Tax Credits 60

Federal 60

State of Oregon 63

Venture Capitalist Investment 65

State of Oregon Support 67

Yamhill County Support 68

How to Attract Alternative Fuel Companies 69

Conclusion 71

Attachments 74

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

7
B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

8
Executive Summary
Purpose and Need

The purpose of this report is to familiarize county officials about cellulosic ethanol and
secure their support for establishing a plant in Yamhill County, Oregon. We will also
document the many advantages of this alternative source of energy and explain why
local investment would be a huge asset to our county.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a study in 2005 reporting that
biofuels can slash global warming emissions, improve air quality, reduce soil erosion,
and expand wildlife habitat. Shifting to biofuels would bring tremendous benefits to
Americas national security, economy, and environment. NRDC believes that by the
year 2050, biofuels could save U.S. citizens about $20 billion per year on fuel costs and
virtually eliminate our demand for gasoline. Biofuels could reduce our countrys
greenhouse emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year equal to more than 80 percent of
transportation-related emissions in 2002.1

Because of this study, and the foresight to recognize the need for alternative energy
sources, Oregons Governor Ted Kulongoski established a coalition in 2005 exclaiming,
To meet the nations growing transportation fuel needs and reduce our vulnerability to
imported oil, we must set an aggressive course of action to expand ethanol use and
production. This coalition is currently working with leaders in the fields of energy, ag-
riculture, government research, and environment to determine a desired course of
action.2

The U.S. Department of Energy states on their website, Currently, biomass is the only
clean, renewable energy source that can help to significantly diversify transportation
fuels in the U.S. The Biomass Program is helping to transform the nations renewable

1 Greene & Mugica, N. Y. (2005, July 2005). "Bringing Biofuels to the Pump." Retrieved January 12th, 2008, from
www.nrdc.org/air/energy/pump/pump.pdf.

2 Governors' Ethanol Coalition (2005). Ethanol From Biomass, America's 21st Century Transporation Fuel Recom-
mendations, Governors' Ethanol Coalition. 2008.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

9
and abundant biomass resources into cost-competitive, high-performance biofuels, bio-
products, and biopower. 3

For years, reporters, researchers, and ethanol-based groups have touted the benefits of
cellulosic ethanol, stating that it is the fuel of the future. The future is upon us, and as
research continues to progress, interest in using biofuels is spreading like wildfire.
There is growing support to take waste and convert it into liquid fuel. Commercial-
scale cellulosic ethanol plants are on the forefront of this growing industry. Just re-
cently, Margaret Clark, Vice Chair of the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management
Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force and Council Member for the City
of Rosemead, wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Task Force sup-
porting the BlueFire cellulosic ethanol plant which is currently under construction in
LA County. She told them that at this time, there are over 140 conversion-technology
facilities that are successfully operating in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, each using one
of several processesthermal, chemical, and biological.4 This trash-to-fuel process is
already being used to fuel a variety of cars and trucks, and because the IEA (Interna-
tional Energy Agency) expects oil to rebound to $100 plus per barrel and reach $200 per
barrel by 2030, this is an opportune time to invest in cellulosic ethanol.5

McKinsey & Company consultants state that if the 2022 mandate is met for the 2008 En-
ergy Bill, the ethanol industry, including the cellulosic ethanol producers, will have
revenues of $50 billion to $70 billion dollars per year.6 Think of what this industry
could do for Yamhill County. Merely working with cities in the county to set aside land

3 U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). "Biomass Program." Retrieved December 18th, 2008, from
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/.

4 Clark, M. (2008). Support for Bluefire Ethanol Project Conditional Use Permit Number 2007-00137. B. o. S. f. t. C. o.
L. Angeles. Los Angeles, Margaret Clark. 2009: Letter to the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County from the Los
Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force for the support of
the BlueFire Cellulosic plants. See attachment B

5 Associated Press. (2008). "Cost of crude seen rising to $200 by 2030." Tohes Global Retrieved December 11, 2008,
from http://global.tohes.com/viewnews.asp?id=113.

6 Hodge, N. (2008, January 31st, 2008). "Cellulosic Ethanol companiees, New Hope for Biofuels." Green Chip Stocks
Retrieved December 12th, 2008, from http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/cellulosic-ethanol-companies/205.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

10
and attracting an existing company that is already looking to expand will get our
county on the bandwagon and provide us with a share of this substantial revenue.

Financial Benefits

To justify the cost of converting to new technology, we must establish financial advan-
tages. Cellulosic ethanol is estimated to save our country 1.5 million barrels of oil per
day by 2022.7 It is also anticipated that by 2022, ethanol production will:8

Add more than $1.7 trillion to our countrys GDP.

Generate an additional $436 billion of household income.

Create 1.1 million new jobs in all sectors of the economy.

Add $209 billion in new federal tax receipts.

The U.S. Department of Commerce states, When commercially viable cellulosic ethanol
lowers U.S. fuel prices, the economic effects will be broad. U.S. Consumers will spend
less disposable income on fuel and will have more to spend on other consumable
items. Crude oil-production would decrease by 1.8% as both demand and price lower.
Not only would we see decreases in demand for oil but reductions in U.S. dollar expen-
ditures on imports. We could replace oil imports with domestic ethanol production, re-
sulting in a stronger dollar and increased prices for U.S. exports.9

What will this do for Oregon? Currently, we spend $10 billion on energy, with 85% of
the money leaving our state. Just imagine the increase in state revenues from which
Oregon will benefit by investing in cellulosic ethanol plants throughout our state. Ore-
gon will become a leader in alternative energy and have a sustainable-energy economy
through its use of cellulosic ethanol. In 2007, Governor Kulongoski paved the way for

7 Ibid. 7

8 Renewable Fuels Association. (2008). "Renewable Fuel Standards." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/standard/.

9 Osborne, S. (2007). Energy in 2020: Assessing the Economic Effects of Commercialization of Cellulosic Ethanol.
Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

11
our states energy independence when he signed the state of Oregon Proclamation on
July 2, 2007.10 This report is designed to aid the Governor in reaching his goal of mak-
ing Oregon the leader in emerging sustainable energy.

10 Theodore R. Kulongoski, G. o. O. (2007, July 2nd, 2007). "State of Oregon Proclamation, Office of the Governor."
Retrieved December 12th, 2008, from http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/pdf/energymonth.pdf.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

12
Background
History of Cellulosic Ethanol Production

In 1898, a scientist in Germany took wood and diluted acid to hydrolyze the cellulose to
glucose and was able to produce 18 gallons of ethanol with one ton of waste.

During World War I, a plant was established in the United States that produced 25 gal-
lons of ethanol. It was closed shortly after the war because of a drop in lumber produc-
tion.

During World War II, the U.S. Government set aside funding to build a cellulosic plant
in Springfield, Oregon. Startup problems kept it from opening. However, it did create
additional research at the TVAs Wilson Dam Facility, where the process was fine-tuned
and became a benchmark for future facilities.

Studies did not resume again until the 1970s when oil shortages began to increase.
These studies continue through today and have been conducted by our nations De-
partment of Energy and Department of Agriculture.

During the 70s, we witnessed the groundbreaking of the first commercial-scale cellu-
losic ethanol biorefinery in the United States. This facility, near Soperton, Georgia, used
leftover wood residues from timber harvesting to produce ethanol and realized that
other plants would soon follow, employing a variety of technologies and feedstock.11

Iogen Corporation, a Canadian-based company, was the first company in North Amer-
ica to build and operate a commercially viable plant. They sold fuel in the 90s mainly
to their own government. 12

In 2002, BlueFire Ethanol opened a small cellulosic ethanol plant in Izumi Japan. The
plant converted municipal waste, tires, wood, and miscellaneous farm debris into etha-

11 Wikipedia. (2008). "Cellulosic Ethanol - History." Retrieved December 5th, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol.

12 Iogen Corporation. (2008). "Iogen Corporation Facilities." Retrieved December 10th, 2009, from
http://www.iogen.ca/company/facilities/index.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

13
nol. The CEO of BlueFire Ethanol, Arnold Klann, states, Since BlueFire technology has
been in actual production for over four years in NEDOs pilot plant in Japan, we are
well beyond the research and development stage of our business plan.13

Oregons first cellulosic ethanol plant, in Boardman, will be completed in 2009. This
plant will utilize wheat straw, corn stoverthe portion of the stalk that remains in the
field after harvest, and poplar residuals to make ethanol.14

2007 statistics showed that a total of 426,248,940 gallons of ethanol was imported to the
United States from Brazil (188,825,960 gallons), Jamaica (75,193,188 gallons), and El Sal-
vador (73,280,595 gallons). Questions have begun to surface about whether we should
continue importing the fuel or begin processing it, ourselves, on a larger scale.15

The race to make cellulosic ethanol has gone on for over 100 years. The contest is no
longer about the ability to produce the fuel in a commercially viable plant, but instead
about each company proving that their technology is better than their competitors.

Description of Cellulosic Ethanol Production

The production of cellulosic ethanol is similar to corn ethanol in that it takes a renew-
able resource and converts it into fuel. The process begins with waste byproducts that
come from municipal waste; industrial, logging, and farming waste; and grass seed or
other organic and inorganic materials. There are various ways to process the feedstock;
yet, Coskata, Inc.s method has proven to be the most efficient. The feedstock is put into
the gasification chamber where it is exposed to a plasma torch at 20,000 F, as hot as the
surface of the sun. As clean gas leaves the reactor, sulfur is extracted and harvested for
use in other products; halogen gases are collected for resale as well. The leftover slag
is inert and sold as a useful productideal for use as bricks or highway material. From

13 Bluefire Ethanol. (2006, July 19th 2006). "BlueFire Announces Plan for Rapid Development of Multiple Facilities."
Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/4.

14 Pacific Ethanol. (2008, January 29th, 2008). "Pacific Ethanol Wins DOE Cellulosic Energy Grant." Retrieved January
25th, 2009, from http://www.pacificethanol.net/site/index.php/news/news_article/285/.

15 Osborne, S. (2007). Energy in 2020: Assessing the Economic Effects of Commercialization of Cellulosic Ethanol.
Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

14
the gasification chamber, pure carbon-bearing gas flows into a reactor. Inside the reac-
tor are specially bred microbes that consume the synthetic gas, or syngas, and con-
verts it into 99.7% pure ethanol. The microbes that are used during the production
process are nontoxic and biodegradable. 16

As already described, feedstock can come from a variety of sources; even nonfood
sources can be used. Industry experts and analysts are expecting paper and pulp com-
panies like Domtar Corporation to start selling their byproducts to the cellulosic ethanol
plants in the near future. Cellulosic ethanol is a much more versatile fuel to produce
than corn since cellulosic ethanol plants can be developed in almost any area; corn
ethanol plants, on the other hand, need to be built where corn is produced. The Cellu-
losic Ethanol Industry expects that forest resources and corn stover will be the largest
providers of feedstock.17

16 Coskata Inc. (2008). "Frequently Asked Questions." Retrieved December 10th, 2008, from
http://www.coskata.com/AboutFAQ.asp.

17 Curtis, B. (2008). 2007 Year in Review. U.S. Ethanol Industry: The Next Inflection Point. B. E. R. Group. San Fran-
cisco, BCurtis Energies & Resource Group. 2008: BCurtis Energies & Resources Group 2007 review of the ethanol in-
dustry.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

15
!
Source: Coskata, Inc. Coskata conversion process, 2008, http://coskata.com/images/Thecoskataprocess_000.jpg.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

16
Benefits of Cellulosic Ethanol Over Other Energy Sources

In 2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) set targets to have cellulosic ethanol produced
at $1.07 a gallon by 2012 to make it price competitive with gasoline and corn-based
ethanol. At $1.07 a gallon, cellulosic ethanol would be competitive with oil-barrel prices
of $50.00 and gasoline sold at $1.60 a gallon. (Note: These figures are in 2004 dollars.)
The DOE states that cellulosic ethanol has the potential of being produced for $0.33 a
gallon if:18

The cost of the enzymes is reduced to $0.05 a gallon from the current $0.40 a gallon.

The cost of the feedstock decreases in price to $30.00 per ton. Note that by using
trash, the estimated cost per ton is $0.00.

The producer can increase the ethanol yield to 90 gallons of fuel per ton of feedstock
from the average of 60 tons per yield.

The U.S. Department of Commerce predicts that if cellulosic ethanol reaches 49.5 billion
gallons by 2020:18

Domestic U.S. fuel prices would fall by 5.2%.

World oil prices would decline by 3.1%.

U.S. oil import would decline by 10.7% or by 1.2 million barrels per day.

U.S agriculture would gain 54,000 jobs.

Another benefit of using cellulosic ethanol is the amount of water used in comparison to
other energy sources. Water usage in the production process for cellulosic ethanol is
less than one gallon of water versus three to eight gallons for other sources.19

18 Osborne, S. (2007). Energy in 2020: Assessing the Economic Effects of Commercialization of Cellulosic Ethanol.
Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

19 Renewable Fuels Association (2008). Changing the Climate, Ethanol Industry Outlook 2008. Washington, D.C., Re-
newable Fuels Association.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

17
Comparing the BTU (British Thermal Units) of using cellulosic ethanol in place of other
energy sources, evidence shows that the BTU return for each BTU of fossil fuel used in
production processes shows that cellulosic ethanol gives more than seven times the re-
turn for the BTU input. This is a positive net energy balance, meaning that there is a
greater energy return than the energy required to make it. The comparisons are as
follows:20

.45 BTUs for electricity.

.81 BTUs for gasoline.

.98 BTUs for coal.

.98 1.36 BTUs for corn ethanol.

7.7 to 10.31 BTUs for cellulosic ethanol.

Cellulosic Ethanol Versus Gasoline

When using cellulosic ethanol, there will be up to a 20% decrease in miles per gallon.
However, mileage is not the only comparative factor that needs to be addressed. Cellu-
losic ethanol emissions are decreased by up to 90%, and less energy is needed to pro-
duce each gallon of ethanol.21 Therefore, comparing cellulosic ethanol with gasoline,
more fuel will be needed from cellulosic ethanol to go a determined distance, yet overall
emissions will be significantly reduced. Also, the energy to produce the extra fuel will
use less BTUs than gasoline uses, resulting in a better use of energy compared to gaso-
line.

According to this information, the use of cellulosic ethanol reduces oil consumption
considerably. Over a distance of 100,000 miles, a Chevrolet HHR, using flexfuel, will

20 Hostrand, D. (2007, July 2007). "Energy agriculture - ethanol energy balance." AgDM newsletter Retrieved Septem-
ber 15th, 2008, from http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/hofjuly07.html.

21 Coskata Inc. (2008). "Frequently Asked Questions." Retrieved December 10th, 2008, from
http://www.coskata.com/AboutFAQ.asp.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

18
use 20 barrels of oil less than a 2009 Toyota Prius, using gasoline, does. The HHR will
also emit less than a quarter of the emissions of the Prius. 22

Source: Wang et al. GHG emission comparison, May 22, 2007. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 2, 024001

22 Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). "Compare Side-by-Side." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

19
Future of Cellulosic Ethanol

According to a number of sources, the future of cellulosic ethanol is very encouraging.


Here are just a few accounts:

In 2007, Coskata, Inc. and other cellulosic ethanol companies, surpassed the 2012
goal of producing an ethanol yield of 90 gallons of fuel per ton of feedstock from the
average of 60 tons a yield. Coskatas return, at this point, is 100 gallons of fuel per
ton of feedstock.23

Feedstock, using the Coskata system, can come from 100% municipal waste, includ-
ing paint, toxins and other hazardous material. The more cellulose that the material
has, the lower the amount of left over slag. 100% municipal trash can result in as
much as 30% slag, whereas wood from trees creates about 2% slag. Tires, plastic bot-
tles, and construction waste are considered three of the better materials for
feedstock.24

Coskata, Inc. is teaming up with General Motors, and together they are working
with the Chinese and Australian Governments to build trash-to-fuel plants in the
two countries. 25

As of September 2008, 24 cellulosic ethanol sites are under development, construc-


tion, or currently operating in 20 states, one of which is located in Boardman, Ore-
gon. Six of these 24 plants utilize, or will utilize, municipal waste for their produc-
tion method.26

23 Osborne, S. (2007). Energy in 2020: Assessing the Economic Effects of Commercialization of Cellulosic Ethanol.
Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.

24 Bolsen, W. (2009). Coskata Process - Slag and feedstock. J. F.-B. Group. Warrenville, Wes Bolsen. See attachment A

25 General Motors. (2008, October 27th, 2008). "GM Studies Feasibility of Non-Food Based Biofuels Commercialization
in China." Retrieved October 27th, 2008, from
http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/environment/news/2008/nonfood_102208.jsp.

26 Renewable Fuels Association (2008). Changing the Climate, Ethanol Industry Outlook 2008. Washington, D.C., Re-
newable Fuels Association.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

20
The U.S. Government set mandates of having 250 million gallons of cellulosic etha-
nol produced by 2013. 27

Cellulosic ethanol is expected to be a $52.5 billion industry by 2015.28

When including the fact that most manufacturers and municipalities pay to dispose
of their refuse, Jeff Surma, the CEO and cofounder of InEnTec, formerly Integrated
Environmental Technologies, LLC, states that it could cost between $0.10 to $0.95 per
gallon to produce cellulosic ethanol from waste, depending on feedstock costs and
enzyme use.29

When the energy source of choice is hydrogen, ethanol will be there to make it hap-
pen, as ethanol is a good processing fuel for on-board production of hydrogen. 30

Oregons United States Representative, David Wu, signed onto House Bill, H.R.
1424, which includes a tax credit to businesses that install alternative fuels like E85
and extends energy-production tax credits for businesses that produce cellulosic
ethanol. In his letter to the writer of the bill, he states: Tax incentives and infra-
structure programs for green-economy initiatives are common sense and will di-
rectly benefit this countrys movement toward an economy focused on producing
new technologies and renewable energy production.31

A next-generation fuel is biobutanol. Like ethanol, biobutanol breaks down raw


feedstock, such as municipal trash; but unlike ethanol, it is modified to have a longer
chain of hydrocarbons, which allows it to mix well with water and be less corrosive.

27 Ibid. 17

28 Lignol Energy Corporation. (2008, June 2008). "Cellulosic Ethanol - The Sustainable Fuel." Retrieved January 5th,
2009, from www.lignol.ca/files/08-Lignol-FS-v9-nobleed.pdf.

29 Bullis, K. (2007, January 19th, 2007). "Creating Ethanol from Trash." Retrieved November 11th, 2008, from
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18084/.

30 Iogen Corporation. (2008). "FAQ Iogen Corporation " Retrieved December 10th, 2009, from
http://www.iogen.ca/company/faq/index.html.

31 Wu, D. (2008). Alternative Energy Support. J. Ferguson. Portland, David Wu. See attachment I

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

21
The fuel can be stored easily and transported within the existing gasoline pipelines.
Plans are underway to build plants to produce biobutanol by 2012. Companies,
such as Cobalt Biofuels, Dupont, BlueFire, Gevo, and Tetravieae Bioscience are all
interested.32 Locations for these plants have not yet been determined, which gives
Yamhill County an opportunity to be a part of the forefront in fuel technology.

Major DOE Biofuels Project Locations


Geographic, Feedstock, and Technology Diversity
RSE
Key Cargill Inc Woody
Pacific Ethanol Biochemical
Company Biochemical Mascoma (Old Towne, ME)
Wheat Straw/Corn Stover
Process (Boardman, OR) Various Biochemical
Feedstock (Minneapolis, MN) Various
(Location) Purdue University (Lebanon, NH)
Biochemical
Stora Enso North America
Iogen DSM Innovation Center
(West Lafayette, IN)
Thermochemical DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy
Biochemical Biochemical
Wheat Straw Wood Chips Research Center
(Wisconsin Rapids, WI) Various
(Shelly, ID) (Madison, WI) (Parsippany, NJ)
DOE Joint Bioenergy Institute Dupont
Iowa State Poet
(Berkeley, CA) Biochemical
Thermochemical Biochemical
Switchgrass Corn Stover Various
Novozymes (Ames, IA) (Wilmington, DE)
Emery Energy (Emmetsburg, IA)
Biochemical
Various Thermochemical Lignol
(Davis, CA) Corn Stover Biochemical Ecofin, LLC Research Triangle Institute
(Salt Lake City, UT) Wood Residues ICM Biochemical Thermochemical
(Commerce City, Biochemical (Nicholasville, KY) Woody Biomass
Genencor
CO) Switchgrass, Corn (Research Triangle Park, NC)
Biochemical Abengoa
Blue Fire Stover
Various Biochemical/
(Palo Alto, CA) Biochemical (St. Joseph, MO) Mascoma
Thermo DOE Bioenergy
Municipal Solid Waste Switchgrass
Ag Waste, Switchgrass Science Center
(Corona, CA) (Vonore, TN)
(Hugoton, KS) (Oak Ridge, TN)
Southern Research Range Fuels
Verenium Corp Institute Thermochemical
Biochemical (2) Thermochemical Wood Chips
Various Various (Soperton, GA)
(San Diego, CA) (Birmingham, AL)

Alico
Thermochemical/Bio
Citrus Waste
Six Commercial-Scale Biorefinergy Projects: up to $385 million (LaBelle, FL)

Seven Small-Scale (10%) Biorefinery Projects: up to $114 million (first round)


Regional Partnerships
Three Bioenergy Centers: up to $405 million South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD
Four Thermochemical Biofuels Projects: up to $7.7 million Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Four Improved Enzyme Projects: up to $33.8 million Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK
Five Projects for Advanced Ethanol Conversion Organisms: up to $23 million Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR

Source: U.S. Dept. of Energy. Biofuel project locations, 2008. http://www.energy.gov/media/ProjectLocations.pdf

32 Ladd, C. (2008, September 2008). "7 Next-Gen Biofuels to Drive Beyond Gasoline." Popular Mechanics Retrieved
October 29th, 2008, from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4277305.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

22
Impact of the Plant
In what ways does an alternative-fuel plant have an impact on a community and its en-
vironment? There are a number of factors to consider before building a plant. What is
needed to produce the fuel? Is the production process safe for all those involved? Is the
result worth the investment?

Products Produced

The products manufactured by a cellulosic ethanol plant are, of course, the final, posi-
tive result. These plants can produce:

Ethanol, used for fuel.

Methanol, which is converted into biodiesel.

Lignin, which is used to produce energy for the plant.

Gypsum, which is used for drywall.

Yeast, an animal supplement.

Remaining inorganic material, a nontoxic substance that is pooled together in a mol-


ten glass, can be used for building roads or bricks for buildings.33

Source: InEnTec LLC. Slag using the InEnTec process, 2008.


http://www.inentec.com/images/thumb_glassbrick.jpg

33 Bullis, K. (2007, January 19th, 2007). "Creating Ethanol from Trash." Retrieved November 11th, 2008, from
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18084/.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

23
Water Usage

Water is vital in the processing of cellulosic ethanol, and some methods use more than
others. For instance:

The biological method may consume up to three gallons of water per gallon of fuel
produced, with an energy yield of 66%. This process is used by companies, such as
Logen, PET, SunEthanol, and Verenium.34

The gasification method, in comparison, uses one gallon of water per gallon of fuel
produced, with the same energy yield. This is the process used by Coskata, Inc. and
Range Fuels.35

The plant currently being built by BlueFire Ethanol in Lancaster, California will use
tertiary-treated water from a wastewater treatment plant nearby.36

A 40-million gallon a year ethanol plant uses the same amount of water per day as
the average 18-hole golf course. Compare this with the amount of water it takes to
produce one gallon of gasoline2.5 to 8 gallons of water; or one pound of ham-
burger4 gallons of water; or a pound of chicken11.6 gallons.34

Even though a substantial amount of water is used throughout the process of cellulosic
ethanol, it is far less than other manufactured goods.

Emission Output

Emission output can vary depending on the process each company uses. The range of
greenhouse gas (GHG) output is low in any of the processes used, and there is no need
for the purchase of air quality offsets.

34 Renewable Fuels Association (2008). Changing the Climate, Ethanol Industry Outlook 2008. Washington, D.C., Re-
newable Fuels Association.

35 Ladd, C. (2008, September 2008). "7 Next-Gen Biofuels to Drive Beyond Gasoline." Popular Mechanics Retrieved
October 29th, 2008, from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4277305.html.

36 Davis, B. (2009). Pollution from BlueFire production process. J. Ferguson. Irvine, Bill Davis. See attachment F

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

24
BlueFire has done an outstanding job of ensuring that their process is environmentally
friendly by getting the Sierra Club, National Resource Defense Council, National Sci-
ence Foundation and others involved in the peer-review studies. The BlueFire process
includes Post Sorted Municipal Solid Waste, which is also referred to as Green Waste.
Their process includes sorting through the waste to ensure that they comply with Cali-
fornias strict air-quality standards and to make sure the feedstock they use provides
them with the needed cellulose. As stated by William B. Davis in an email, All thresh-
olds for hazardous, carcinogenic, or gaseous emission have been determined to be sig-
nificantly below health threshold limits by the respective enforcement agencies. Blue-
Fires environmentally-friendly design allows the plant to have a Zero Discharge Facil-
ity Permit from the state of California and the EPA. Even their onsite vehicles will use
ethanol or other alternative fuels. Mr. Davis stated that an upcoming report by the Cali-
fornia Air Quality Board will state that the Lancaster Facility will, . . . have the largest
negative greenhouse gas footprint and consume no natural gas [during startup), and
use no potable water in its process . . .37

The Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) process, used by InEnTec, uses a gas-cleaning
system that scrubs out any harmful particulates. This process has passed all emission
tests successfully--a substantial achievement as it allows for hazardous materials to be
used as the feedstock. Even if theres mercury in the feedstock, the PEMs gas cleaning
system will filter and remove it, preventing discharge into the environment. Organic
materials are turned into a syngas and the non-organic materials into a nontoxic slag
that becomes a glass like material.38

InEnTec has passed the following certification processes:39

37 Ibid. 21 See attachment F

38 Glass, M. (2009). Emissions from the PEM production process. J. F.-B. Group. Bend, Matthew Glass. See attachment
C

39 InEnTec. (2009). "Testing Certifications & Approval." Retrieved Januar 29th, 2009, from
http://www.inentec.com/certifications.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

25
The Environmental Technology Evaluation Program, a division of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency for hazardous waste, medical waste, and electronic scrap.

The Japanese Industrial Waste Management Foundation for Kawasaki Heavy Indus-
tries.

The Medical Waste Alternative Treatment Technology Approvals for six states, in-
cluding; California, New Hampshire, Texas, New York, Michigan, and Oregon.

The Washington Department of Ecology and USEPA for the Allied Technology
Group site.

The Taiwan Environmental Protection Agency which had Global Plasma perform the
test.

Tehama County Air Pollution Control District for a medical waste treatment facility
in Northern California.

InEnTecs ability to pass numerous certification processes shows the companys com-
mitment to providing clean energy from waste technologies.

Though the various companies have different processes, they all have the same goals--to
provide an environmentally-friendly product that is produced in an environmentally-
friendly setting.

Land Usage

An alternative-fuel plant will need 10 to 25 acres. It may be constructed on any


site, and most often, developers look for brown land, an area that has been contami-
nated in some way and is harmful to use for other types of construction. Compare this
with an expansion of an existing landfill. The Riverbend Plan Amendment and Zone-
Change Narrative states some negative aspects of an increase in the size of the landfill.
These are:40

40 Riverbend Landfill & Recycling Center, I. J. S., Angelo Planning Group, and Cable Houston. (2008, June 2008). "Plan
Amendment and Zone Change Narrative for the Riverbend Landfill Expansion." from
http://www.riverbendlandfill.com/documents/expansion/1rlnarrative.pdf.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

26
Displacement of farmland.

Displacement of an RV park.

Expansion closer to Highway 18.

Expansion closer to a river and in a floodplain.

Concerns regarding protection of groundwater and surface water.

Concerns that an expanded disposal capacity could provide a disincentive for waste
reduction, reuse, and recycling programs.

None but the last negative aspect would be involved with the development of a cellu-
losic ethanol plant.

Source: BumperFuel Group. A proposed plant site in Yamhill County, 2009.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

27
Noise Pollution

Noise pollution is a factor that may cause concern, yet a cellulosic ethanol plant is ex-
pected to have lower noise levels than those produced at a dump site. Some of these
concerns are:

Large vehicles will need to enter and exit the plant site.

Train service will bring waste to the site and carry fuel out.

Machines will be needed to operate the plant; however, as they will be inside the
plant, they will create a minimum amount of noise to the outside. In comparison,
the current landfill site has machines operating outside that create a noise nuisance.

Transportation Impact

Transportation and traffic patterns must also be considered.

It is recommended that land near a railroad track is optimum for reducing truck
traffic through the county. With the current traffic challenges we face in Dundee,
this would only be a positive factor.

If the site is located at or near Riverbend Landfill, traffic should not increase any
more than what would be expected with the growth of the landfill.

Once the site is determined, ODOT would need to be involved to review traffic-
increase needs.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

28
Feedstock Data
Feedstock from cellulosic ethanol comes from a variety of sources. Non-organic materi-
als, including those with an oil base, can be used. Non-food plant material such as
wood waste, agricultural waste, and dedicated energy crops like switch grass and sug-
arcane bagasse are good feedstock. Yamhill County has a strong base of organic waste,
coming from logging companies and farms. It also has a fair amount of non-organic
waste, which is found at the Riverbend Landfill. As we are adjacent to other counties
(Marion, Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas) with an abundant supply of organic
and non-organic materials available, Yamhill County is an ideal location for a cellulosic
ethanol plant. At this time, however, the feedstock already available in the county is
more than enough for a full-scale plant. If the county permits the building of a cellu-
losic plant that can accept municipal trash as a priority, the plant will not only produce
valuable fuel but will avoid the need to expand the dumpsite before it reaches capacity
in the next six years.

Logging Waste

The wood waste that is burned each year in Oregon would be an excellent source of
feedstock for cellulosic ethanol plants. In the falling or logging process, wood that is
not of desirable quality to make lumber is left behind as unused or unwanted waste.
This includes:

Tops and bottoms of trees.

Limbs and broken parts.

Wood under 5 in diameter.

Defected or rotted wood.

Wood that is split or shattered from falling.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

29
The unwanted waste is either brought to a mill for chipping or is slash piled and
burned, emitting caustic pollutants into our atmosphere.

As a tree farm is under rotation every 40-50 years, careful management is needed to
produce a healthy stand of timber. Therefore, the trees are thinned every 20-25 years,
creating excess waste that is used for chipping; or in the case of an over-supply of tim-
ber at the mill, hauling the wood waste is no longer feasible and is burned instead. Ac-
cording to Larry Heesacker of A1 Logging, Inc. located near Carlton, Oregon, their
company produces 66-100 tons of waste per day from April to November, and he com-
mented that there are as many as 10 to 12 other logging companies of their size in the
general area that produce an equal amount of waste. In regards to the harvesting of fir
trees, clear-cutting is the optimal practice used since fir trees are not shade-tolerant and
easily attract diseases if not managed carefully.41

Forest management is critical to the industry in order to have the least amount of nega-
tive impact on our environment. A1 Logging saw an immediate advantage to locating a
cellulosic ethanol plant near their area. Just in employment alone, a plant that produces
25-million gallons of fuel per year would bring in approximately 40 new Yamhill
County jobs to the industry. Other benefits included a reduction in waste that could be
a potential fire hazard; also, less slash piling and burning which would decrease the
amount of harmful gases released into our atmosphere.

Regarding the delivery of waste to the cellulosic ethanol plant, it was noted that they
would need to meet the goal of 38-45 dollars a green ton to optimize their profits. The
majority of benefits would not only increase the profitability of their company and oth-
ers like them but would also be a huge asset in generating income for the counties
where they are located.42

41 Ferguson, J. (2009). Interview Larry Heesacker by Joshua Ferguson with the BumperFuel Group. McMinnville.

42 Dazey, C. (2009). Logging Information from A1. J. Ferguson. Willamina, Carryl Dazey. See Attachment G

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

30
Source: BumperFuel Group. Logging waste from privately owned tree farms, waiting to be chipped, 2009.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

31
Municipal Waste from Yamhill County

The Riverbend Landfill is a great source for municipal waste to feed a cellulosic ethanol
plant. According to 2007 figures, our landfill takes in more than 240,000 tons per year
from our county alone. This equals 40% of the total waste sent to the landfill. This
number is expected to increase to 265,000 tons per year by 2014. The methane plant,
suggested by Riverbend Landfill, will not significantly reduce the greenhouse gases
emitted by the site, nor will it reduce the chance of additional contamination into the
ground soil or adjacent river. Riverbends tipping fees are $30.40 per ton.43 However,
many experts from the ethanol industry suggest that tipping fees will decrease with
competition from a cellulosic plant. George Sterzinger, the executive director of the Re-
newable Energy Policy Project, states that the cellulosic ethanol industry will face stiff
competition from landfills; therefore, the industry should count on paying for the feed-
stock since the landfills have an economic stake to keep it themselves.44

Municipal Waste From Other Counties

The Riverbend Landfill currently has an additional 360,000 tons of waste per year from
surrounding counties. This will only increase as counties throughout Oregon refuse to
have landfills in their area. In 1991, Oregon had 94 landfills; by 2007, the state had only
30.43 As we advance from landfills to fuel plants, the number of landfills will continue
to decline and viable land will increase. The counties with the foresight to build alter-
native fuel plants in their communities will be considered the big winners.

Expected Municipal Waste Increase

Waste Management is asking the county to expand their Riverbend Landfill location by
over 120 acres because they believe it will reach capacity within six years. During the
next 20 years, they expect the site to take in 600,000 to 900,000 tons per year with an op-

43 Riverbend Landfill & Recycling Center, I. J. S., Angelo Planning Group, and Cable Houston. (2008, June 2008). "Plan
Amendment and Zone Change Narrative for the Riverbend Landfill Expansion." from
http://www.riverbendlandfill.com/documents/expansion/1rlnarrative.pdf.

44 Bullis, K. (2007, January 19th, 2007). "Creating Ethanol from Trash." Retrieved November 11th, 2008, from
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/18084/.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

32
erational income of $1.1 million. The land needed is 3 to 6 times more than that needed
for a cellulosic ethanol plant, and the increased waste will fit in line with an expected
increase in plant feedstock over the years. A trust fund has been established to pay for
the closure and post-closure maintenance of the Riverbend site, reducing the worries of
an early closure. 45

Source: Waste Not of Yamhill County. Riverbend Landfill near McMinnville, Oregon, 2009.

45 Riverbend Landfill & Recycling Center, I. J. S., Angelo Planning Group, and Cable Houston. (2008, June 2008). "Plan
Amendment and Zone Change Narrative for the Riverbend Landfill Expansion." from
http://www.riverbendlandfill.com/documents/expansion/1rlnarrative.pdf.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

33
Sale of Ethanol
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Currently corn produces only a small fraction of the 7-billion barrels of oil that is con-
sumed in the United States. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) be-
lieves we will need to draw from multiple biomass sources to meet a large percentage of
the fuel needs in the near future. Reports like the one they published in August of 2006
tells why The Department of Energy is focusing on cellulosic ethanol. In the report,
they mentioned why cellulosic ethanol would outdistance other ethanols, stating: Bio-
chemical conversion techniques can also make use of more abundant cellulosic bio-
mass sources such as grasses, trees, and agricultural residues. The National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory (NREL) stated that cellulosic ethanol, is the only viable sce-
nario to replace 30% of U.S. petroleum use.46

Renewable Fuels Association

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) stated in their September 2008 Ethanol Produc-
tion and Demand Report that ethanol demand continued to outpace production. The
expected 9-billion gallons of ethanol produced by American companies was not enough
to meet the demand in 2008, so the United States was expected to import another 107-
million gallons of ethanol by the years end. The need for ethanol will only increase as
the RFA pushes for gasoline blends to include 10% ethanol throughout our country in
the next few years.47

46 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2006). From Biomass to Biofuels. U. S. D. o. Energy. Golden, U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy; Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

47 Renewable Fuels Association (2008). Changing the Climate, Ethanol Industry Outlook 2008. Washington, D.C., Re-
newable Fuels Association.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

34
SeQuential Biofuels

Oregon is fortunate to have a forward-thinking alternative-fuel provider. SeQuential


Biofuels (www.sqbiofuels.com) was founded in 2000 by Ian Hill and Tomas Endicott in
Eugene, Oregon where it is still based today.49

SeQuential currently sells bioethanol, biodiesel, and other traditional fuels, and the
company is looking to be the first in the country to provide electric-vehicle battery-swap
options. They have recognized that most of their alternative-fuel buyers are college
educated, are most likely to buy green power for their home, and are middle to
upper-middle class citizens. At the Eugene facility, 45% of their sales are generated
from alternative fuels when the cost of gasoline is upwards of $3/gallon; it is 30% when
the cost of gasoline is around $2 a gallon. SeQuential offers their fuel to 30 independent
retailers throughout Oregon as well as their environmentally-friendly fueling station in
Eugene.

Currently, the company is reviewing three locations in the Portland-Metro area to build
additional alternative-fueling stations. SeQuential works with the city and county to
locate brown land that can be cleaned up and utilized for their stations. They ask that
the county or city owning the land pay $10,000 to $20,000 up front to help clean up the
contaminants. Once the land has been cleared, SeQuential buys the land for a prede-
termined amount, which includes the cost of the cleanup. The stations would ideally be
located in areas of high traffic and in the past have been built with grants from city and
state governments. 49

48 SeQuential BioFuels. (2008). "Ian Hill; Founder, Board Member and Retail Development " Retrieved December 8th,
2008, from http://www.sqbiofuels.com/BIOS/Ian%20Hill%20Bio.pdf.

49 Ferguson, J. (2009). Personal interview with Ian Hill of SeQuential by Joshua Ferguson. Eugene.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

35
Source: SeQuential BioFuels. SeQuential biofuel fuel locations in Oregon, 2008,
http://www.sqbiofuels.com/images/oregonmap.jpg

Source: SeQuential BioFuels. SeQuential biofuels Eugene, Oregon fueling station, 2008,
http://www.sqbiofuels.com/images/web%20update/images/station_b.jpg

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

36
Requirements for Alternative Fuels
Federal

The Federal Government developed specific requirements in recent years for alterna-
tives fuels, specifically non-corn or sugar-based fuels. In 2005, the Federal Government
passed EPACT2005 which required 7.5-billion gallons of renewable fuels to be produced
in 2012. By 2013, 250-million gallons of the alternative fuels must be produced from cel-
lulosic ethanol. This act included a credit of $30,000, or up to 30% of a stations cost for
buying an alternative fuel pump, to be effective through 2009.50

In 2007, 6.8-billion gallons of ethanol was produced in the United States. The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) states that the amount of ethanol pro-
duced in the United States must increase to 36-billion gallons by 2022. The bill puts a
cap on corn ethanol at 15-billion gallons, calls for 15-billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol,
and states that another 5-billion gallons must come from other advanced biofuels. 51 The
bill also requires that a fuel must reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 60% to
qualify as an advanced bio-fuel.52

President Obamas aggressive alternative-energy plan has a focus on creating 5-million


jobs while making the United States a leader on climate change. His goal includes sav-
ing more oil in ten years than we currently import from Venezuela and the Middle East
combined, ensuring that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012
and implementing an economy wide cap-and-trade program that will reduce green-

50 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2007). Research Advances Cellulosic Ethanol. Golden, U.S. Department of
Energy; Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

51 National Governors Assocation. (2008, October 15th, 2008). "States to Enhance Access to E-85 Fueling Stations."
National Governors Association Retrieved October 27th, 2008, from
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.6c9a8a9ebc6ae07eee28aca9501010a0/?vgnextoid=15e60783f8bfc110
VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD.

52 Renewable Fuels Association. (2008). "Renewable Fuel Standards." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/standard/.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

37
house gas emissions to 80% by 2050. This plan includes an injection of $150 billion to
help build an alternative-fuel infrastructure over the next 4 years.53

State

The state of Oregon requires that all gasoline include 10% ethanol, at this time, to re-
duce GHG as well as oil consumption.54 House Bill (HB) 3543 is set to reduce GHG to
10% by 2020 and 75% by 2050. These goals are compatible with Senate Bill (SB) 838,
which requires Oregon to have 25% of its energy from renewable resources by 2025.55
Oregons goals for reduced GHG would be realized with the conversion to alternative
fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol.

Source: KATU. BioFuels made in Oregon, 2008,


http://media.katu.com/images/080117_bio_fuel_oregon.jpg

53 Obama-Biden Transition Team. (2008). "The Obama Biden Plan - Energy Plan Overview." Retrieved December
11th, 2008, from http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/.

54 State of Oregon. (2008). "Oregon Incentives and Laws; Renewable Fuels Mandate." Retrieved December 12th, 2008,
from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind.php/or/6274.

55 State of Oregon (2007, July 3rd, 2007). "Governor Kulongoski Signs Biofuels Legislation, Press Release." Retrieved
December 10th, 2008, from http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/P2007/press_070307b.shtml.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

38
Alternative Fuel Production in Oregon
Lane County

Lane County has spent the last two years actively searching for an alternative-fuels
company. They have set aside a 10-acre project site that is located inside the urban
growth boundary of Junction City. The land is to be sold to a prospective owner at a
low cost to attract multiple companies. Throughout their search, they have received
multiple prospective clients but are still working on the resolution of the local and state
permits. The county has received grants to help with the studies and anticipates addi-
tional grants for the funding of the construction.56

Multnomah County

Scott Robinson, with Oregon Metro Government, has stated in an email that the re-
gional council members are looking at 0% landfill options like those in Sweden and
Denmark, though no final option has been determined. The Metro Council is consider-
ing the possibility of converting trash to fuel. Further studies and a final answer are ex-
pected in 2009.57

Marion County

Marion County has been at the forefront of alternative fuel production. They had the
first biodiesel facility in the Northwest, which was launched in 2004. The plant is
owned by SeQuential-Pacific Biodiesel LLC (Eugene, Oregon) and Pacific Biodiesel
(Maui Hawaii), and it has been producing 1-million gallons of fuel per year since the
day it opened. SeQuential saw the biodiesel market grow significantly over the past
few years; and in 2008, SeQuential Pacific Biofuels completed their second biodiesel
plant in Marion County. This plant can produce 5-million gallons of fuel per year from

56 McKenzie-Bahr, M. (2009). Lane County's alternative fuel project. J. F.-B. Group. Eugene. See attachment D

57 Robinson, S. (2009). Email about alternative waste project for Portland, Oregon. J. F.-B. Group. Portland, Scott Rob-
inson. See attachment E

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

39
used cooking oil and regionally produced oil from seed crops.58 Marion County has
embraced alternative fuels, allowing them to feature their green side, as well as in-
crease the number of jobs and tax base for the county.

Source: SeQuential-Pacific Biofuels. Drawing of the biodiesel plant in Salem, Oregon, 2008,
http://salembiodiesel.com/bioplant.jpg

58 SeQuential Biofuels. (2008). "Salem Biodiesel Production Facility Opens." Retrieved January 25th, 2009, from
http://www.sqbiofuels.com/production.htm.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

40
Morrow County

Morrow County is a great example of how a county and city can work together on at-
tracting multiple alternative-fuel sites.

The first ethanol plant built in Oregon is located in Boardman and constructed by Pa-
cific Ethanol. This plant currently produces 40-million gallons of fuel per year and has
been in operation since the third quarter of 2007.59 Pacific Ethanol is currently adding a
cellulosic ethanol pilot plant that will produce an additional 2.7-million gallons of fuel
per year. This plant is partnering with BioGasol ApS and BioEnergy Institute, a joint
venture of Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory. The
technology being used at the plant will allow it to utilize wheat straw, wood chips, and
corn stover as the feedstock. The pilot plant is expected to be completed in the fourth
quarter of 2009 and has received matching funds from the Federal Government to help
with the costs.60

Portland General Electric (PGE) has introduced algae farming to Morrow County in
which greenhouse gas is taken from the coal power plant and fed to algae. This process
reduces the carbon emissions of the energy plant by more than 76% and mercury emis-
sions by 90%. It also provides algae ethanol and feed for animals. Columbia Energy
Partners is working with PGE on this project with hopes of learning how to turn this
small-scale project into a commercially viable-scale system. 61

59 Pacific Ethanol. (2008). "Facilities & Locations / Columbia." Retrieved January 26th, 2009, from
http://www.pacificethanol.net/site/index.php/facilities/facilities_article/107/.

60 Pacific Ethanol. (2008, January 29th, 2008). "Pacific Ethanol Wins DOE Cellulosic Energy Grant." Retrieved January
25th, 2009, from http://www.pacificethanol.net/site/index.php/news/news_article/285/.

61 Portland General Electric. (2008, November 21st, 2008). "PGE: Algae turns CO2 gases into fuel, livestock feed."
Retrieved January 25th, 2009, from http://www.katu.com/news/business/29759079.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

41
Source: Pacific Ethanol. Ethanol plant in Boardman, Oregon, 2008,

http://www.pacificethanol.net/site/_images/plant_photos/Columbia_10.07_main.JPG

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

42
Highlights of Cellulosic Ethanol Companies
This report covers four companies that currently produce cellulosic ethanolIogen
Corporation, BlueFire Ethanol, InEnTec, and Coskata, Inc. Each one is highlighted for a
specific reason. There are many other companies that are at various stages of develop-
ment. Some are under full operation, others are under construction, a few are research-
ing possibilities, and many are determining a location for a first or second site.

Iogen Corporation

Iogen Corporation is located in East Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (http://


www.iogencorp.us). Biofuels Digest rated them #18 of the hottest
companies around the globe for the coming year, 2008-2009.62 The
company opened in the 1970s with the intent of becoming a leading
Source: Iogen Cor- biotechnology firm in Canada. They are the first pre-commercial dem-
poration. Iogen
logo, 2008,
onstration facility to convert biomass to cellulosic ethanol using en-
http://www.iogen. zyme technology. 63 The Iogen process requires at least 60% carbohy-
ca/images/logo.jp
drate content to be cost effective, and it must be done in large
g
quantities. 64

The plant sits on a 10-acre site in Ontario. Here, agriculture residues make 2-million li-
ters of clean-burning cellulosic ethanol fuel per year. Feedstock for the plant includes:

Wheat

Oats

Barley straw

62 Lane, J. (2008, December 22nd, 2008). "The Hottest 50 Companies in Bioenergy." Biofuels Digest Retrieved January
5th, 2009, from http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/12/22/coskata-sapphire-energy-and-virent-head-the-50-
hottest-companies-in-bioenergy-rankings/.

63 Iogen Corporation. (2008). "About Iogen Corporation " Retrieved December 10th, 2009, from
http://www.iogen.ca/company/about/index.html.

64 Iogen Corporation. (2008). "FAQ Iogen Corporation " Retrieved December 10th, 2009, from
http://www.iogen.ca/company/faq/index.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

43
Corn stover

Hardwood chips

Switch grass

Other grasses

The plant operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and can handle all functions involved
in the production processreceipt of feedstock, pretreatment of up to 30 tons of feed-
stock a day, conversion of cellulose fiber into glucose, fermentation, and distillation.
They are currently assessing potential locations for a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol
plant and hoping to open partnerships before long.65

Iogen receives support from both government and corporate funds. Public and private
investment is estimated at $130 million over the past 25 years. Investors include Royal
Dutch/Shell, Petro-Canada, and Goldman Sachs.66

The companys intent is to commercialize their cellulosic ethanol process by licensing


their technology through turnkey plant construction partnerships. Iogen will gener-
ate new income from license fees and supplying the necessary enzymes to these new
licensees plants. They believe that they can be competitive with the price of rack (pre-
tax) gasoline, and if 35% of the gasoline in Canada had 10% cellulosic ethanol in it, the
reduction in greenhouse gasses would be equivalent to removing 400,000 cars from the
road.67

65 Iogen Corporation. (2008). "Iogen Corporation Facilities." Retrieved December 10th, 2009, from
http://www.iogen.ca/company/facilities/index.html.

66 Iogen Corporation. (2008). "Iogen Corporation Partners." Retrieved December 10th, 2009, from
http://www.iogen.ca/partners/overview/index.html.

67 Iogen Corporation. (2008). "Iogen Corporation Benefits." Retrieved December 10th, 2009, from
http://www.iogen.ca/cellulosic_ethanol/benefits/index.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

44
BlueFire Ethanol

BlueFire is located in Irvine, California


(http://www.bluefireethanol.com) and was identified as #13 in the
Source: BlueFire
Biofuels Digest of hottest companies for 2008-2009. 68 This company
Ethanol. BlueFire
logo, 2008. uses the Arkenol patented process, which holds ten patents in the U.S.,
Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa, with additional
patents pending. The process utilizes acid hydrolysis rather than enzymes, a technique
they have been perfecting for over ten years. The company has a goal of producing
1.5-billion gallons of ethanol with $2.7 billion in revenue by 2012.69

BlueFire is one of the cellulose-to-ethanol companies worldwide with demonstrated


production of ethanol from urban trash. Their plants currently utilize the following
feedstock:

Municipal waste

Farm waste

Logging waste

Energy crops like switch grass, wheat straws, rice, and other agricultural residues

The companys first plant was built in Japan as a commercial demonstration plant that
showed proof-of-concept. It has been in production since 2002 and is operated by JGS
Corporation, in conjunction with NEDO, a Japanese government entity. This plant uses
urban, commercial, and farming waste to produce the ethanol fuel.70

68 Lane, J. (2008, December 22nd, 2008). "The Hottest 50 Companies in Bioenergy." Biofuels Digest Retrieved January
5th, 2009, from http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/12/22/coskata-sapphire-energy-and-virent-head-the-50-
hottest-companies-in-bioenergy-rankings/.

69 BlueFire Ethanol. (2006, August 22nd, 2006). "BlueFire Ethanol Identifies Southern California Landfill as Initial Lo-
cation in the U.S. for Commercialization of Cellulose Ethanol Technology." Retrieved December 12, 2008, from
http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/6/.

70 BlueFire Ethanol. (2008). "Izumi Biuorefinery - in operation since 2002." Retrieved November, 11th, 2008, from
http://www.bluefireethanol.com/images/IZUMI_Status_2004_for_BlueFire_051606.pdf.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

45
Because of the success of their Japanese plant, the company set out to build bio-
refineries in markets with the highest demand for ethanol. Their intent was to dra-
matically reduce delivery costs and increase biofuels supply, while providing a unique
waste processing technology that helps cities better manage the problem of overflowing
landfills. BlueFire was one of six companies to be awarded a $40-million grant from
the Department of Energy. Their first commercial scale plant will be located in Lancas-
ter, just northeast of Los Angeles. A construction permit was received in July, 2008, and
earlier reviews noted that the completion date was estimated to be late 2009 and would
cost approximately $30 million. 71 However, when the authors of this study toured the
site, it was reported to them that construction would be delayed due to funding. Blue-
Fire confirmed that disruption in the capital markets, as well as time spent overcoming
an appeal against the companys conditional use permit, combined with high materials
prices in the second half of the year, contributed to the Lancaster project delay. When
the authors spoke with a Waste Management employee at the site, the exact location of
the cellulosic ethanol plant was pointed out to them. The 10-acre site is next to the Lan-
caster Landfill where the plant will consume 175 tons a day of post-sorted municipal
solid waste, in cooperation with Waste Management Corporation 72, and it will produce
3.2-million gallons of ethanol per year. A bio-butanol conversion plant will also be lo-
cated on the site. BlueFires CEO, Arnold R. Klann, recently commented about the Lan-
caster plant: We have made significant progress in our efforts to build the first
cellulose-to-ethanol facility in California. This facility will be a catalyst for cellulosic
fuel production throughout our nation and will provide the first building block in gen-
erating the 16-billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year that were outlined in the
recently-passed Energy Bill. 73

71 BlueFire Ethanol. (2007, May 22nd, 2007). "BlueFire Announces Second Project Location." Retrieved December
12th, 2008, from http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/30/.

72 Govreau, J. (2008, July 28th, 2008). "BlueFire Gets County Permit to Proceed With Construction of Landfill Waste-to-
Ethanol Plant in Califonia." Reuters Retrieved January 3rd, 2009, from
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS67515+28-Jul-2008+MW20080728.

73 Miller, C. S. (2008, July 24th, 2008). "BlueFire Ethanol to build in California." Retrieved January 21st, 2009, from
http://bioconversion.blogspot.com/2008/07/bluefire-ethanol-to-build-in-california.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

46
BlueFires second commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant will begin construction in
2010 near Mecca, California, which is southeast of Palm Springs in Riverside County
near the Salton Sea. It is currently in its Phase I engineering design phase and is esti-
mated to produce 19-million gallons of fuel per year. Besides the grant money received
from the Department of Energy, BlueFire will begin raising funds for the remainder of
the $130 million for construction costs in the near future. They will work with Burrtec
Waste Industries, JGC Corporation, Brinderson Roelsien, MECS Inc., NAES, and Petro
Diamond to complete the project by the middle of 2012. 74

The companys Orange County plant will be located in Corona, California. Other com-
panies taking part in its development are Waste Management, Petro-Diamond (Mitsubi-
shi subsidiary), JGC Corporation, MECS, and Colmac Energy. The plant will also pro-
duce 19-million gallons of fuel per year by using 700 tons a day of sorted green waste,
wood waste, and other cellulosic-urban waste for feedstock. The cellulosic-urban waste
will come from a landfill that has been depositing 10,000 tons a day from Southern Cali-
fornia counties since 1986. BlueFire and Waste Management expect the revenue from
the plant to be $55 million a year with an operating income of $25 million a year, before
tax credits or government incentives. BlueFires CEO states: The proposed landfill site
in California is the perfect location and provides a model that can be easily replicated
across multiple regions of the United States to the fuel markets. Our partner (Waste
Management) in this transaction, alone, has control of over 200 landfills in North Amer-
ica where BlueFires technology can be deployed.75

The BlueFire plants that will soon be under construction will take approximately 14
months to build and are expected to show a profit by the third quarter of operation.76 A

74 BlueFire Ethanol. (2008). "Mecca California plant press release." Retrieved February 19th, 2009, from
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/bluefire_fact_sheet_12_9_08.pdf.

75 BlueFire Ethanol. (2006, August 22nd, 2006). "BlueFire Ethanol Identifies Southern California Landfill as Initial Lo-
cation in the U.S. for Commercialization of Cellulose Ethanol Technology." Retrieved December 12, 2008, from
http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/6/.

76 Bluefire Ethanol. (2006, July 19th 2006). "BlueFire Announces Plan for Rapid Development of Multiple Facilities."
Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/4.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

47
press release by the company quoted BlueFires CEO saying: While our waste-to etha-
nol process doesnt need the tax credit to be commercially viable, the farm bill does help
to mitigate the financial markets perceived risks . . .. 77

BlueFire is looking for additional partnerships like the two they have with Waste Man-
agement in Lancaster and Corona, California. The following are characteristics for ideal
location sites:

Near current landfill locations.

Near long-term landfill diversion facilities.

Have an ethanol sales plan.

Have the potential for co-location with co-generation facilities.

Have developed a business plan that links to a waste-segregation plan.

Are in a county that is working on a pipeline of similar projects.

Have regional diversity.

Have a good transportation infrastructure in place.

Have one or more businesses with a strong credit worthiness and/or credibility in
the marketplace.

BlueFire proposes that the production sites need strategic partnerships, with candidates
who demonstrate experience and exhibit a qualified-business model from which the
BlueFire technology will form a key business component. 78 In a press release, dated
July 24, 2008, BlueFire noted: Ethanol will be produced from biorefinery facilities op-
portunistically constructed on or near landfills, or waste collection and waste-separation

77 BlueFire Ethanol. (2008, May 16th, 2008). "Farm Bill Helps Advance U.S. Biofuels Production." Retrieved Decem-
ber 15, 2008, from http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/53/.

78 Bluefire Ethanol. (2006, July 19th 2006). "BlueFire Announces Plan for Rapid Development of Multiple Facilities."
Retrieved October 23, 2008, from http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/4.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

48
sites.79 To expedite their interest in expansion, BlueFire utilizes a prefabrication and
modular construction method which cuts costs, maintains quality, and creates the
fastest-to-market time for deployment of the complex. The modular design allows for
easy growth and construction.80 Just recently, BlueFire announced that Ubiex, Inc. has
signed a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with them to develop a cellulosic etha-
nol facility in South Korea. BlueFire will provide the preliminary engineering design
package and technical support for the project. Their CEO comments: By providing a
viable cellulosic ethanol solution for countries that are agrarian-based or have signifi-
cant cellulosic residue that can be converted into liquid fuels that offset the countries
import of energy and secures its energy future, BlueFire remains well-positioned for
long-term sustainability and international growth.81

79 BlueFire Ethanol. (2007, May 22nd, 2007). "BlueFire Announces Second Project Location." Retrieved December
12th, 2008, from http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/30/.

80 BlueFire Ethanol. (2008, July 24th, 2008). "BlueFire Ethanol Awarded Final Permits to Construct the Nation's First
Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Production Plant." Retrieved November 18th, 2008, from
http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/57.

81 BlueFire Ethanol. (2008, December 11th, 2008). "BlueFire Retained by Ubiex, Inc. to Design Cellulosic Facility in
South Korea." Retrieved November 11th, 2008, from http://www.bluefireethanol.com/pr/64/.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

49

Source: BumperFuel Group. BlueFires Lancaster, California future plant location 2009.

Source: BlueFire Ethanol. Rendering of waste to fuel plant in Lancaster, California 2008.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

50
InEnTec

InEnTec is located in Bend, Oregon (http://www.inentec.com). Their


Source: InEnTec
LLC. InEnTec logo, Plasma-Enhanced Melter (PEM) Process is a proven technology that
2008,
has been around for over 13 years. Mr. Surma, CEO of InEnTec, stated
http://www.inente
c.com/images/ins_ in an email: InEnTec originated from research conducted at the Pacific
logo.gif
Northwest National Laboratory [PNNL] in Richland, Washington and
the Plasma Fusion Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[MIT].82

The company states that the PEM process is commercially viable and can be used
with virtually any waste product as feedstock. The PEM process uses the following
feedstock:83

Medical waste

Municipal waste

Tires

Asbestos insulation

Construction related products

InEnTec sells the PEM system to companies that operate the plants. As a rule, InEn-
Tec does not own or operate the plants, itself. They do, however, have a commercially
viable plant in Nevada that is currently under construction and expects it to be com-
pleted in 2010, using the PEM process. The plant will use 90,000 tons of municipal
waste from the Tahoe-Reno area and should produce 10.5-million gallons of fuel per

82 Surma, J. E. (2008). Letter to Mr. McPhillips regarding InEnTec's PEM process. R. McPhillips. Bend, Jeffrey E.
Surma. See attachment H

83 InEnTec. (2008). "Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) Systems Overview." Retrieved December 10th 2008, from
http://www.inentec.com/pemprocess.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

51
year. Even with a cost of $120 million to build the plant, the company expects it to have
a strong financial return. 84

InEnTec has installed and operated PEM systems in several other locations. A G100P
PEM in Richland, WA is designed to transform 20% or 25 tons per day of the city's
municipal solid waste. Another facility in Richland was used to process mixed hazard-
ous and radioactive waste-some of the most difficult to manage. InEnTec is currently
installing a system at the Dow Corning facility in Midland Michigan to convert certain
spent materials into new process feedstocks.85

All of these plants have taken 18 to 24 months to construct. Commercial-scale plants


should take less time to build, as InEnTecs current design is modular and therefore
quicker to deploy.86 Not all of InEnTecs plants are planned to convert the waste to
ethanol, but all of InEnTecs plants convert waste into energy while emitting little to no
greenhouse gases.87

84 InEnTec. (2008, July 22nd, 2008). "Ethanol Breakthrough." Retrieved December 3rd, 2008, from
http://www.inentec.com/news-07-08.html.

85 InEnTec. (2009). "Testing Certifications & Approval." Retrieved Januar 29th, 2009, from
http://www.inentec.com/certifications.html.

86 Surma, J. E. (2008). Letter to Mr. McPhillips regarding InEnTec's PEM process. R. McPhillips. Bend, Jeffrey E.
Surma. See attachment H

87 Glass, M. (2009). Emissions from the PEM production process. J. F.-B. Group. Bend, Matthew Glass. See attachment
C

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

52
Source: InEnTec. G300 PEM system in Iizuka, Japan, 2008,
http://www.pacificethanol.net/site/_images/plant_photos/Columbia_10.07_main.JPG

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

53
Coskata

Coskata is located in Warrenville, Illinois (http://www.coskata.com).


Source:
Coskata.Inc. They were rated #1 for Biofuels Digest hottest companies for 2008-
Coskata logo, 2008,
200988 because they have what many in the industry consider to be
http://www.coskat
a.com/images/cos the most advanced process using the biological and thermo-chemical
kata_logo.jpg process.

Argonne National Laboratory determined that the Coskata process


could yield a 7.7 net energy balance and reduce greenhouse gases by as much as 80% to
90% versus gasoline. The process involves changing the feedstock into synthetic gases.
Each type of feedstock is separated and then converted to fuel by using plasma technol-
ogy; the plant matter is gasified. It is this dual process ability that makes Coskatas sys-
tem stand out. Once the feedstock has been separated, organic microbes are introduced
to the syngas to convert it into liquid fuels. They allow the microbes to grow in colonies
and form slimes, which is different from most producers that swirl the microbes in
water to prevent colonies and slime. The process will distill the fluid to about 50% and
then membrane technology makes the fuel 99.9% pure. This reduces the cost and en-
ergy needed to produce the fuel, allowing the company to claim a cost of less than $1/
gallon to make the fuel.89

Coskatas highly-developed process allows the company to make 100 gallons of fuel
with 1 ton of dry feedstock 90 and has proven to cut greenhouse gas emissions from

88 Lane, J. (2008, December 22nd, 2008). "The Hottest 50 Companies in Bioenergy." Biofuels Digest Retrieved January
5th, 2009, from http://biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/12/22/coskata-sapphire-energy-and-virent-head-the-50-
hottest-companies-in-bioenergy-rankings/.

89 Coskata Inc. (2008). "Advantages of the Coskata Process." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.coskata.com/processadvantages.asp.

90 Coskata Inc. (2008). "Feedstock Potential." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.coskata.com/ethanolfeedstockpotential.asp.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

54
stump to wheel by 90%. Conceivably the company could make 50-billion gallons of
fuel a year if they could harness all the CO and H2 from every steel mill in the world. 91

The Coskata system uses a wide variety of feedstock including:92

Municipal waste

Energy crops, like switch-grass

Carbon heavy garbage, like tires

Farm waste

Logging waste

The company is currently in the process of building a commercial demonstration plant


in Madison, Pennsylvania. The plant is expected to cost $25 million dollars and will be
located near the Westinghouse Plasma Center, which is the current site of a pilot gasifier
plant owned and operated by Westinghouse Plasma Corporation, a provider of equip-
ment used for the Coskata process. The fuel produced at the plant will be used at the
General Motors Milford Proving Grounds in Milford, Michigan. This location is ex-
pected to start production in 2009.93

Coskata is in discussion with U.S. Sugar to build a 100-million gallons a year site in
Clewiston Florida. The site is expected to be the largest second-generation ethanol
plant in the country, and they anticipate higher profits than other sugar-to-fuel ethanol
plants. Their plant will be able to convert leftover sugarcane into fuel, as well as con-
vert the leaves, plant tops, and crushed-up stems (bagasse) from fields into fuel rather

91 Kanellos, M. (2008, April 7th, 2008). "Coskata CEO explains how to get to $1 a gallon ethanol." CNET Retrieved
September 9th, 2008, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9913192-54.html.

92 Coskata Inc. (2008). "Feedstock Potential." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.coskata.com/ethanolfeedstockpotential.asp.

93 Coskata Inc. (2008, April 20th, 2008). "Coskata Inc. Selects Madison, Pa. for Commercial Demonstration Facility to
Produce Next-Generation Ethanol." Retrieved December 10th, 2008, from
http://www.coskata.com/PageBody/MadisonFacilitypressrelease.htm.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

55
than burn them. Both Coskata and U.S. Sugar expect to use loan guarantees from the
state of Florida and the Federal Government.94 They hope to break ground in 2009.95

Funding for Coskata has come from venture capital, corporate investment from compa-
nies like General Motors, and private equity funds. The Madison plant has been con-
structed completely with private money.96

General Motors is helping Coskata expand into Australia and China, currently the third
largest producer of ethanol. Holden, a division of General Motors, is currently working
with Coskata to construct a plant in Australia. 97 General Motors of China has also
helped Coskata make a connection with the Chinese government, where they intend to
build a commercially viable plant in their country in the near future.98

William Roe, CEO of Coskata, states that the fuel can be made for less than $1 a gallon,
providing a strong cost benefit for the fuel. This includes the price for the feedstock, en-
ergy, and labor; but it does not include paying off the capital of the plant, taxes, retail
markups, government subsidies, or other expenses that are added to the sale of the fuel.

Costkatas goal is not to own or operate large plants but, instead, to sell their technology
to large companies that will own and operate the plants themselves. They do and will

94 Morrison, C. (2008, November 19th, 2008). "U.S. Sugar Looks Sweeter With Coskata Second-Gen Ethanol Plant."
BNET Energy Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/1000391/us-sugar-looks-sweeter-with-coskata-second-gen-ethanol-plant/?tag=co
ntent;col1.

95 Energy Current - News for the Business of Energy. (2008, November 17th, 2008). "U.S. Sugar, Coskata consider Flor-
ida ethanol facility." Energy Current, News for the Business of Energy Retrieved January 26th, 2009, from
http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=2&storyid=14361.

96 Coskata Inc. (2008, April 20th, 2008). "Coskata Inc. Selects Madison, Pa. for Commercial Demonstration Facility to
Produce Next-Generation Ethanol." Retrieved December 10th, 2008, from
http://www.coskata.com/PageBody/MadisonFacilitypressrelease.htm.

97 Duncan, J. (2008, December 6th, 2008). "Holden embraces alternative fuels." NineMSN News Retrieved December
31st, 2008, from http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=682972.

98 Sims, B. (2008, October 27th, 2008). "Coskata plans to enter Chinese ethanol market." Ethanol Producer Magazine
November 2008 Issue. Retrieved January 5th, 2008, from
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=4944&q=coskata&category_id=56.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

56
continue to own small and mid-sized demonstration plants, and they are currently con-
versing with large forestry companies, chemical manufacturers, and petroleum
producers.99

Source: Coskata Inc. Rendering of waste to fuel plant in Madison, Pennsylvania 2008.

99 Kanellos, M. (2008, April 7th, 2008). "Coskata CEO explains how to get to $1 a gallon ethanol." CNET Retrieved
September 9th, 2008, from http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9913192-54.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

57
Flexfuel Vehicles
The Renewable Fuels Association stated in their September 2008 Ethanol Production
and Demand Report that ethanol demand continues to outpace production.100 There are
over 7-million flexfuel vehicles on the road today that are fueling this demand, and the
three major U.S. automakers are expected to produce another million+ flexfuel vehicles
this year. By 2012, their goal is to make half of their products flexfuel capable. 101

Currently General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler offer the following vehicles:

General Motors102

Buick Lucerne

Cadillac - Escalade

Chevrolet HHR, Impala, Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe, Avalanche, and Express

GMC Sierra, Yukon, Yukon XL and Savanna

Pontiac G6

Ford Motor Company103

Ford F-150, Crown Victoria, Fusion, and Expedition

Mercury Grand Marquis and Milan

100 Renewable Fuels Association. (2008). "Statistics." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#Top.

101 National Governors Assocation. (2008, October 15th, 2008). "States to Enhance Access to E-85 Fueling Stations."
National Governors Association Retrieved October 27th, 2008, from
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.6c9a8a9ebc6ae07eee28aca9501010a0/?vgnextoid=15e60783f8bfc110
VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD.

102 General Motors. (2008). "Vehicle Overview." Retrieved December 20th, 2008, from
http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/altfuel/vehicles/overview/.

103 Ford Motor Company. (2008). "Ford Corporate webpage." Retrieved December 20th, 2008, from
http://www.ford.com/vehicles/commercial-vehicles/environmental-vehicles/leading-ethanol-capable-vehicles/fle
xible-fuel-vehicles-331p.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

58
Lincoln Town Car and Navigator

Chrysler Limited Liability Partnership104

Chrysler Sebring, Town & Country, and Aspen

Dodge Ram, Avenger, Caravan, Dakota, and Durango

Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander

Flexfuel vehicles are currently the only product that offers a range of vehicles for every
personal and business need while still providing an economical vehicle for low and
moderate-income Americans.

104 Chrysler LLC. (2008). "Fueling Renewable Energy Sources." Retrieved December 20th, 2008, 2009, from
http://www.chryslerllc.com/en/environment/green_fuels/.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

59
Government Funding, Loans and Tax Credits
Since 2005, Federal and State governments have implemented laws that require an in-
crease in the usage of alternative fuels. These bills, and others, have been comprised of
a fair number of grants, loans, and tax credits to help this new industry thrive and sur-
vive. President Barack Obama also has an aggressive plan to reduce the amount of oil
the United States uses for fuel. The plan includes a large injection of funding for the
Cellulosic Ethanol Industry. This report covers some of the funding, loans, and tax
credits that are currently available for cellulosic ethanol plants, as well as financial in-
centives that are expected soon from both the Federal Government and State of Oregon.

Federal

Much of the funding for alternative energy began in 2005 with the Title XVII of the En-
ergy Policy Act (EPAct). The EPAct was designed to stimulate investment and commer-
cialization of energy from clean technologies. It provided 100% loan guarantees, of not
more than 80% of the project, for programs that fostered President George W. Bushs
goal of diversifying the countrys energy needs. In 2006, over 143 applications were vy-
ing for the $9 billion available.

The projects had strict oversight and needed to meet the following criteria: 105

The project must employ new technologies that avoid, trim down, or sequester air
pollutants of greenhouse gases, compared to technologies that are in service com-
mercially in the United States on the day the financial loan is executed.

The company borrowing the money must have a large equity stake in the project,
and proceeds from any debt or government grants will not be considered equity.

Receiving grants or other forms of government assistance does not exempt the pro-
ject from the loan-guarantee program.

105 Department of Energy. (2007, October 4th, 2007). "DOE Announces Final Rule for Loan Guarantee Program." Re-
trieved January 4th, 2009, from http://www.energy.gov/news/5568.htm.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

60
Administrative fees charged by the Department of Energy (DOE) and credit-subsidy
costs cannot be included in the project cost when determining the guaranteed loan
amount from the DOE.

Fees will be charged to cover administrative expenses incurred by the DOE.

The Secretary of Energy will need to determine that the project has a reasonable
prospect of being paid back before the guaranteed loan can be issued.

The DOE has the higher lien on the projects assets that have been pledged for the
loan guarantee, if there is a default on the loan.

The companies that received funding in 2006 under the biomass section of the EPAct of
2005 program include:106

Alico

BlueFire Ethanol

Choren USA

Endicott Biofuels, LLC

Iogen Biorefinery Partners, LLC

Voyager Ethanol, LLC

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 opened up grants to be given for re-
search, development, and commercial application of biofuels. It authorized $25 million
for the fiscal year 2008 through 2010 for states with a low rate of ethanol production.
Another $500 million will be allocated starting in 2008 and ending in 2015 under this
program for the advancement of biofuels that reduce GHGs by 80% as compared to cur-
rent fuels.107

106 Ibid. 57

107 Renewable Fuels Association. (2007). "The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - H.R. 6." Retrieved
December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/cellulosic/documents/SummaryofCelluloseRFSProvisionsEISA2007.pdf.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

61
In January, 2008, the DOE announced that it would provide $114 million over 4 years to
small-scale cellulosic plants. These plants must produce liquid transportation fuels as
well as bio-based chemicals and bioproducts used in industrial applications.108

The 2008 Farm Bill, also known as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, in-
cluded additional loan guarantees and a per-gallon credit for the Cellulosic Ethanol In-
dustry. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be offering a loan
guarantee of up to $250 million a project under the farm bill. The first wave of applica-
tions was due by December 31, 2008 and will be issued by March 31, 2009. The second
wave of applications is due by April 20, 2009 and will be issued in September, 2009.109
The Farm Bill also provides tax credits for producers of cellulosic ethanol. From 2008
through 2013, a cellulosic ethanol producer may receive a tax credit to offset against the
producers income-tax liability of $1.01 a gallon. This tax credit does not offset the al-
ternative minimum tax liability, and credits in excess of tax liability will not be paid. To
encourage new pilot plants, producers that make less than 60-million gallons of fuel
each year from these plants will receive an additional $0.10 a gallon credit.110

Public Law No: 109-432 allows an additional first-year depreciation deduction for cellu-
losic ethanol plants of 50%.111

108 Curtis, B. (2008). 2007 Year in Review. U.S. Ethanol Industry: The Next Inflection Point. B. E. R. Group. San Fran-
cisco, BCurtis Energies & Resource Group. 2008: BCurtis Energies & Resources Group 2007 review of the ethanol in-
dustry.

109 United States Department of Agriculture. (2008, November 19th, 2008). "USDA Invites applications for advanced
biorefinery guaranteed loans." Retrieved December 12th, 2008, from
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_2KD?contentidonly=true&navid=FARMBILL2008&content
id=2008/11/0298.xml.

110 Renewable Fuels Association. (2007). "The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - H.R. 6." Retrieved
December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/cellulosic/documents/SummaryofCelluloseRFSProvisionsEISA2007.pdf.

111 Renewable Fuels Association. (2006, December 20th, 2006). "New Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol Depreciation Allow-
ance "50% Depreciation for Cellulosic Biomass Ethanol Plant Property"." Retrieved December 8th, 2008, from
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/resource/cellulosic/documents/RFAIssueBrief-CellulosicEthanolDoubleDepreciation.p
df.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

62
President Barack Obamas plans will emphasize the importance of investing in climate-
friendly forms of energy. He will push for $150 billion to be spent in developing and
promoting commercial-scale renewable-energy businesses with a strong focus on cellu-
losic ethanol. 112 Samuel Bodman, President Obamas Secretary of Energy, is an adamant
fan of cellulosic ethanol and has done research in this area, which is why many believe
there will be a focus on this technology by the Obama Administration.113

All together, the energy focus of our new presidential administration, accelerated de-
preciation, tax credits, grants, and guaranteed loans give the legal and financial upper-
edge that the alternative-fuel providers have needed to build an infrastructure that can
compete with the large oil companies.

State of Oregon

The state of Oregon has an aggressive plan that works hand-in-hand with the federal
governments desire to grow the alternative-fuel industry. This includes loan assistance
and tax credits for both the producer and the consumer.

The Energy Loan Program (SELP) offers low-interest loans for projects that save energy,
produce energy from renewable resources, use recycled materials to create products, or
use alternative fuels. The loans can be issued to businesses, individuals, cities, counties,
state and federal agencies, public corporations, cooperatives, and non-profit
organizations.114

The Legislature recently approved an increase in the business energy tax credit (BETC).
This increase allows a company to receive a credit for the first $10 million invested for
every dollar spent. There is a credit cap of 50%, and the credit may be used over 8 years
or used as a passthrough to allow the project owner to transfer credits for a lump sum

112 Obama-Biden Transition Team. (2008). "The Obama Biden Plan - Energy Plan Overview." Retrieved December
11th, 2008, from http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/.

113 Davis, J. (2008, January 21st, 2009). "Biodiesel Board Congratulates Vilsack & Chu." Domestic Fuel Retrieved De-
cember 12, 2008, from http://domesticfuel.com/2009/01/21/biodiesel-board-congratulates-vilsack-chu/.

114 State of Oregon. (2008). "Energy Loan Program." Retrieved December 10th, 2008, from
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/LOANS/selphm.shtml.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

63
of cash. This energy tax credit gives groups that build alternative-fuel plants in Oregon
a great incentive when connected to the property-tax exemption allowed for renewable
energy-development zone sites.115

Oregon residents get a $0.50 credit, up to $200 a year per vehicle for buying E85 or B99,
thanks to Oregon Revised Statute 315.141, which is in effect from January 1, 2007 to
January 1, 2013. 116

115 State of Oregon. (2008). "Oregon Incentives and Laws; Biofuels Production Property Tax Exemption." Retrieved
December 12th, 2008, from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind.php/or/6273.

116 State of Oregon. (2008). "Oregon Incentives and Laws; Biofuels Use Tax Credit." Retrieved December 12th, 2008,
from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/view_ind.php/or/6272.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

64
Venture Capitalist Investment
Venture capital investment in the Cellulosic Ethanol Industry will change from research
funding to commercial-scale plant funding. A senior advisor to the NextGen Biofuels
Fund in Canada stated that second-generation ethanol (cellulosic ethanol) is headed
toward more of a project-financing culture, where they will need to adapt their modus
operandi, partnerships and ways of doing business.

Cellulosic ethanol companies have been able to take advantage of government grants,
government guaranteed loans, and initial loan offerings because of the range of fuel
stock that they can use verses the first-generation ethanol companies that mainly use
food crops like corn and sugar. This puts companies like Range Fuels, BlueFire, Du-
Ponts Danisco, and Coskata in a much better financial position to receive venture capi-
tol investment over the first-generation ethanol providers which have lost over $9 bil-
lion in market value this past year. The federal government requirement of an addi-
tional 21-billion gallons of fuel a year to come from cellulosic ethanol creates an incredi-
ble opportunity for the industry that most venture capitalists realize.

The high cost of building a cellulosic ethanol plant is more than most venture capitalists
have available. This cost challenge has kept one-quarter to one-third of the venture
capital-backed cellulosic companies from building a plant.117 However, this has not
kept them from investing in the booming industry, with $650 million invested from 2007
to the first-quarter of 2008. Investors in 2008 tended to lean towards companies that
were in the process of building large commercially-viable sites.118 As the industry con-
tinues to improve, however, investments will continue to rise.

117 Buss, D. (2008, November 25th, 2008). "In the Background, Cellulosic Ethanol Moves Forward." Auto Observer
Retrieved January 1st, 2009, from
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/11/in-the-background-cellulosic-ethanol-moves-forward.html.

118 Curtis, B. (2008). 2007 Year in Review. U.S. Ethanol Industry: The Next Inflection Point. B. E. R. Group. San Fran-
cisco, BCurtis Energies & Resource Group. 2008: BCurtis Energies & Resources Group 2007 review of the ethanol in-
dustry.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

65
The companies that were scaling up before the credit crunch are in a good position to
succeed, unlike the ones that are still in the proving stages, which will find it increas-
ingly difficult to get startup funding. Venture capitalists are most interested in compa-
nies that have signed deals like the one Coskata has with the Sugar Industry in Clewis-
ton, Florida. Todd Kimmel, a venture capitalist investor, states it best when he says,
Market correction has put a ceiling on, or at least [has] bound, how these companies
can get to market.119

119 Buss, D. (2008, November 25th, 2008). "In the Background, Cellulosic Ethanol Moves Forward." Auto Observer
Retrieved January 1st, 2009, from
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/11/in-the-background-cellulosic-ethanol-moves-forward.html.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

66
State of Oregon Support
Governor Ted Kulongoski has set the tone for the state when it comes to biofuel produc-
tion and retail sales. David Belyea, with Oregons DEQ office, has been instrumental in
providing information for this report. He has been given the ability and resources to
give support to any city, county, company, or organization that is interested in getting
an alternative-fuel site in Oregon.

To help local jurisdictions with locating biofuel sites that do not fall under the Energy
Facility Siting Rules, the Oregon Department of Energy has a Model Siting Ordinance
that may be used to assist counties. The plan is a great resource for planning, permit-
ting, and constructing small biofuel refineries. It includes guides for developers that
help with planning, acquisition of permits, constructing, and operating the facility. In
addition, a cellulosic ethanol plant that produces less than 28.8-million gallons a year is
able to use one-stop permitting for the construction of the facility.120

120 State of Oregon. (2008). "Producing Biodiesel or Ethanol in Oregon." Retrieved December 10th, 2008, from
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/Producing.shtml.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

67
Yamhill County Support
After the idea of bringing an alternative source of fuel to our county was shared with a
couple of people a few months ago, the enthusiasm for the idea spread like wild fire.
Emails and phone calls started pouring in, and local citizens asked how they could
learn about this new concept and become involved. Several meetings have been hosted,
since then, at homes, businesses, and through local organizations. Among the enthusi-
asts are: business executives, engineers, plant operators, government officials, home-
makers, general contractors, accountants, physicians, social workers, and teachers.
People seem to be craving a new and better plan from which to ultimately obtain
needed fuelone that will cost them less and, more importantly, stimulate the economy
while reducing our dependency on foreign oil and preserving our environment.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

68
How to Attract Alternative Fuel Companies
First and foremost, establishing a task force to ensure success for a project of this size is
vital to the process of attracting alternative fuel companies to our county. The task force
is important in performing the following duties:

Inform county officials and citizens about the dynamics of the project, and create an
on-going plan for community awareness.

Research the alternatives that would best serve our countycellulosic ethanol, bu-
tanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, battery, etc., and establish a plan for on-going research.

Locate land for development. Brown land, not suitable for construction, is a per-
fect site for alternative fuel plants. Work with the cities in the county that have this
land available for development. Significantly less space is required for a plant than
is needed for a landfill operation.

Work with local businesses, such as logging companies and farms, that would bene-
fit from a cellulosic ethanol plant. Have them help recruit an alternative fuel com-
pany to build a plant in our county.

Recruit and work with alternative fuel providers, like SeQuential Biofuels in Eugene,
to build alternative fuel stations in Yamhill County.

Encourage local gasoline retailers to offer alternative solutions.

Ensure a quality sales plan that connects the plant with local retailers, such as fuel
stations throughout Oregon.

Another way to attract alternative fuel companies would include awarding county tax
incentives to both the plants and the local fueling stations that promote the use of alter-
native fuels. These could come from grant monies available through the state and fed-
eral government. A portion of the new stimulus package approved by Congress will be
allocated to green projects of this nature. To gain access to these federal funds, timing
is of essence for this project to move forward.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

69
Our county vehicles could also pave the way for attracting alternative fuel sources. As-
suring that they are all flexfuel vehicles would not only set an example for our citizens
but would secure the future of alternative fuel in our county.

Finally, a step that could prove most beneficial to Yamhill Countys future for alterna-
tive energy sources is encouraging Waste Management to invest an interest in this pro-
ject. Just as Waste Management has ownership with BlueFire in California, the com-
pany could also lead the way for cleaner fuel in our county. Waste Management could
be instrumental in converting municipal waste into cellulosic ethanol rather than build-
ing an even larger mountain of trash, while enjoying increased profits. Citizens would
benefit from lower fuel costs, the same or possibly decreased garbage rates, and a
cleaner waste disposal system. Yamhill County would profit financially, as well, and
become a leader in clean-energy technology throughout our state and country.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

70
Conclusion
Lets take one final look at the benefits of establishing an alternative fuel plant in Yam-
hill County.

Our farmland would be preserved since trash-to-fuel plants can be constructed on


brown or useless land.

The wood waste in our county accounts for 66-100 tons per day from April to No-
vember, and this comes from just one of the more than ten logging companies in
Yamhill County.

The Logging Industry sees an immediate advantage to locating a cellulosic ethanol


plant near their mills. Just in employment alone, a plant that produces 25-million
gallons of fuel per year would bring in approximately 40 new Yamhill County jobs
to the industry.

The reduction in wood waste will prevent forest fires and decrease slash piling and
burning, therefore reducing the amount of harmful gases released into our atmos-
phere.

The Riverbend Landfill is a great source for municipal waste to feed a cellulosic
ethanol plant. According to 2007 figures, our landfill takes in more than 240,000 tons
of waste per year from our county alone and an additional 360,000 tons per year
from surrounding counties.

A cellulosic ethanol plant would utilize municipal waste from the county for well
over 50 years. Riverbends proposal will be at capacity in 20-30 years.

Many experts from the Ethanol Industry suggest that tipping fees will decrease with
competition from a cellulosic plant.

With an expected operational income of $25 million from a cellulosic ethanol plant
versus the current amount of $1.1 million from Riverbend Landfill, Yamhill County
can expect a huge tax-base increase. Even considering Waste Managements per-

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

71
sonal income from the creation of new jobs, along with that currently generated by
the Riverbend Landfill, which totals $22 million, the ethanol plant still exceeds in to-
tal income.

Air emissions from hauling waste would be reduced, as the new site would focus on
rail transportation in place of trucks driving through the county.

Real estate values would increase as we would enjoy a healthier environment by


having an alternative fuel plant that utilizes trash, creates no pollutants or odors,
and encompasses a smaller area than what would be taken up by the proposed
landfill.

As it takes 4-5 years from conception to production for a cellulosic ethanol plant to
generate income, acting now to ensure this change would replace our current waste
site before it reaches capacity within seven years.

America will be concentrating on green-energy production in the years ahead, and


money will be available for this industry.

The technology is not new. There are proven production sites throughout the world,
and many large commercially viable sites currently under construction.

The Renewable Fuels Association states in their September, 2008 Ethanol Production
and Demand Report that ethanol demand continues to outpace production.

There are over 7-million flexfuel vehicles on the road today that are fueling this de-
mand, and U.S. automakers expect to produce another million+ flexfuel vehicles this
year. By 2012, their goal is to make half of their products flexfuel capable.

Clearly, the benefits of establishing a cellulosic ethanol plant in Yamhill County are well
worth the investment, especially when our federal and state governments will be allo-
cating funds and awarding incentives for projects as this.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

72
B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

73
Attachments
A) Email from Wes Bolsen to Joshua Ferguson, with the BumperFuel Group, regarding slag and available feed-
stock.

From: "Wes Bolsen" <WBolsen@coskata.com>


Subject: RE: Thank you
Date: January 16, 2009 8:03:38 AM PST
To: "Joshua Ferguson" <dsuupr@gmail.com>

When using MSW, the slag percent really depends on the material. Straight trash "as received"
could be as high as 30% . For comparison, wood biomass from trees is about 2%. So "sorted"
MSW down to construction and demo waste could be much lower cost and low on slag. Long
answer to "we can take in just about anything" including paint, toxins, etc. There are just different
capital cost assumptions to the process for handling.

The process works well on high BTU feedstocks. So what we really want is carbon in the
process. Tires, plastic bottles, and construction waste are possibly 3 of the best materials. We
need to reach 30 billion gallons though, and those things are only a piece.

Hope this helps.


Wes

Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Ferguson [mailto:dsuupr@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 08:11 AM Central Standard Time
To: Wes Bolsen
Subject: RE: Thank you

Wes,

Thank you for sending me the process video, it helped tremendously.

When giving the presentation I was asked a few questions that I could
not answer and had hoped you could help me. The questions are:
1. When using municipal waste as a feedstock, what is the estimated %
of "slag" that is left over using Coskata's process?
2. Can the Coskata system take in 100% of the waste, which often
includes batteries, paint and other hazardous materials or does it
need to be presorted?
3. Does the process work well with items that are low in cellulose?

The report and teaching that I have been doing around our county has
created great interest and has gotten our logging companies to ask me
about getting a plant in our county. Who at Coskata should I contact,
or who's name could I give these companies, that would allow them to
further investigate building a plant near their mills?

Sincerely,
Joshua Ferguson
Dundee, Oregon

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

74
B) Letter to the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County from the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Man-
agement Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force for the support of the BlueFire Cellulosic
plants.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY


SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE/
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331
P.O. BOX 1460, ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460
www.lacountyiswmtf.org

DEAN D. EFSTATHIOU
CHAIRMAN

October 21, 2008

The Honorable Board of Supervisors


County of Los Angeles
869 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Supervisors:

SUPPORT FOR BLUEFIRE ETHANOL PROJECT


CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 2007-00137

On behalf of the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated


Waste Management Task Force (Task Force), I would like to express our support for
the proposed BlueFire Ethanol Project in the unincorporated area of the Antelope Valley
near Lancaster. On October 16, 2008, the Task Force unanimously voted to support
the Project contingent upon the facilitys compliance with all rules and regulations
established by federal, state, regional and local governmental agencies as well as
receiving all necessary/applicable permits from these agencies.

On July 23, 2008, the County Regional Planning Commission issued a conditional use
permit for the proposed Project; subsequently, the Commissions decision was
appealed to your Board. It is anticipated that your Board will consider the appeal at
your October 28, 2008 meeting. Your Boards decision to uphold the Regional Planning
Commissions approval of the BlueFire Ethanol Project is important to maintaining the
growing momentum for the development of safe, clean and renewable technology
projects in California, which are vital to redeveloping our economy and meeting the new
environmental challenges of the 21st century.

Pursuant to Chapter 3.67 of the Los Angeles County Code and the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939, as amended), the Task Force is
responsible for coordinating the development of all major solid waste planning
documents prepared for the County of Los Angeles and the 88 cities in Los Angeles
County. Consistent with these responsibilities, and to ensure a coordinated and cost-
effective and environmentally-sound solid waste management system in Los Angeles
County, the Task Force also addresses issues impacting the system on a Countywide

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

75
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
October 21, 2008
Page 2

basis. The Task Force membership includes representatives from your Board, as well
as the League of California Cities-Los Angeles County Division, the City of Los Angeles,
the waste management industry, environmental groups, the public, and a number of
other governmental agencies.

Conversion technologies, such as the BlueFire Ethanol Project, are state-of-the-art


processes that have the ability to convert source-separated or post-recycled residual
waste and turn it into marketable products, biofuels, and renewable energy. In addition,
conversion technologies have the capacity to reduce the need for landfills, decrease net
air pollutant emissions (including greenhouse gas emissions), move us towards energy
independence, and produce high level "green collar jobs. Currently, there are over
140 conversion technology facilities successfully operating in Europe, Japan and
elsewhere, utilizing a variety of processes (thermal, chemical, and biological).

The Task Force, along with your Board, has been a consistent supporter of conversion
technologies for nearly a decade, working to increase local support and awareness, as
well as promoting scientific research and development of conversion technologies
through a variety of means. For example, the Task Force in concert with your Board,
has advocated and supported legislation to spur the development of these technologies,
formed the Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittee (a panel of experts from
around the State with special knowledge and interest in this field), and is currently
working with the County of Los Angeles to develop one or more conversion technology
demonstration facilities in Southern California.

The BlueFire Ethanol Project utilizes a proprietary chemical and biological process to
convert local source separated and/or post-recycled solid waste residuals such as
green waste and wood waste into ethanol. BlueFire is attempting to capitalize on the
growing demand for ethanol in California since the state uses approximately one billion
gallons of ethanol per year, which is primarily blended into gasoline to reduce smog. In
comparison, ethanol that is imported from the Midwest is formulated from large
quantities of corn, consuming a valuable food resource rather than utilizing waste
materials that would otherwise be disposed. Because the BlueFire Ethanol Project has
the potential to revolutionize the way we manage solid waste (turning a liability into a
resource with its operation subject to full compliance with all strict air, water and
environmental regulations and standards), the Task Force supports the Project.

If additional review of the BlueFire Ethanol Project is needed as the project develops,
the Task Force would be available to work with the local community while volunteering
the Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittees expertise to assist all regulatory
agencies having direct oversight of the Project.

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

76
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
October 21, 2008
Page 3

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mike Mohajer of the Task Force at
(909) 592-1147, or you may contact me at (626) 288-7308.

Sincerely,

Margaret Clark, Vice-Chair


Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/
Integrated Waste Management Task Force and
Council Member, City of Rosemead

CS:pa

cc: Each Member of the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission
Each City Mayor in the County of Los Angeles
Southern California Association of Governments
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Gateway Cities Council of Governments
Association of Rural Town Councils
Los Angeles County Chief Executive Officer
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning
Each Member of the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Each Member of the Task Forces Alternative Technology Advisory Subcommittee
Each City Recycling Coordinator in Los Angeles County

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

77
C) Email from Matthew Glass to Joshua Ferguson, with the BumperFuel Group, regarding the description of the
emissions from the PEM process.

From: "Matthew B. Glass" <mglass@inentecms.com>


Subject: RE: Emission from production process
Date: January 29, 2009 12:40:06 PM PST
To: "Joshua Ferguson" <dsuupr@gmail.com>

Hi Joshua;

The PEM TM process is very clean with respect to pollution and depending
upon the use of the syngas produced, can have very low overall
emissions. Prior to any such use, the gas is put through a gas cleaning
system to scrub out and remove virtually all items of concern. These
emissions have been demonstrated in numerous tests to meet or exceed
standards. You can find a number of links to the reports from these tests
on our website, using the link:

http://www.inentec.com/certifications.html

Regarding mercury, there are mercury capture filters in the gas cleaning
system. Plastics and other organic chemicals are broken down into their
elemental components, due to the high heat in the PEM TM process
chamber. The organic fraction of the waste is reformed into the syngas,
while the inorganic portion is incorporated into the glass material, which has
been demonstrated to be leach-resistant in testing; thus no materials in the
glass will migrate out of the glass into local water supplies or elsewhere.

I hope that helps.


!
Regards,
Matt Glass
!

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Ferguson [mailto:dsuupr@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:49 AM
To: Matthew B. Glass
Subject: RE: Emission from production process

Matthew,

There is a citizen group (Citizens Against Toxins) located in an

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

78
adjacent county (Marion) that have deep concerns about pollution from
the production process so I am going to have a separate section in the
report, I am writing for our county, and was hoping for your help in
the matter.

What pollutants does the PEM process produce? How does it deal with
mercury, medical plastics and other harmful chemicals?

Sincerely,
Joshua Ferguson
The Bumper Crop Group
(503) 537-2131

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

79
D) Email from Mike McKenzie-Bahr to Joshua Ferguson, with the BumperFuel Group, regarding the Lane
County alternative fuel project.

Monday, February 23, 2009 4:46 PM

!"#$%&'()*+(),-.)/"#$%&'0)
12'%()!"#$%&'()%#*%+&(,-'(,../(0.1,2(3!(
34.5()!4567896(:3;<(!=>?%@A(;(B!=>?%@AC!4567896:3;<D>"CA%#@C"+C*EF(
6.()G@+H*E"#()"E?*%(B$E**I+D?"JK%=AC>"KF(
(
Hello Joshua(
My answers are in blue. I hope this helps.(
((
1.How many acres is the site dedicated to alternative fuel production? 3 acres of 10
acre project site

2. What was the site previously? - vacant land !

3. Where is it located in Lane County? inside the UGB of Junction City

4. What has the county done to create interest from alternative fuel producers? 2 years
of outreach via private meetings and public meetings

5. Are there any prospective clients? Yes

6. What issues have come up when designating the land for an alternative fuel site?
Local and state permits. Not yet resolved

7. Is the county charging the alternative fuel companies for the land or are they offering
the site at no charge to encourage building of a plant? - We are still negotiating with the
municipal owner. We think it will be low cost, rather than no cost

8. Did you get or do you anticipate getting any federal or state financial assistance for
this project? Yes for the studies. We also anticipate funding for construction
((
Mike(

(
From: Ferguson Joshua [mailto:dsuupr@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:24 AM
To: MCKENZIE BAHR Michael H
Subject: <no subject>
(
Mike!
!
Thank you for you help as we try to get our County Commissioners to follow Lane County's lead in
opening up land for an alternative fuel site. You are one of the last pieces we need to finish the
report.!

Page 1 of 2

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

80
My first round of questions to you are:
1. How many acres is the site dedicated to alternative fuel production?

2. What was the site previously?!

3. Where is it located in Lane County?

4. What has the county done to create interest from alternative fuel producers?

5. Are there any prospective clients?

6. What issues have come up when designating the land for an alternative fuel site?

7. Is the county charging the alternative fuel companies for the land or are they offering the site at no
charge to encourage building of a plant?

8. Did you get or do you anticipate getting any federal or state financial assistance for this project?

Sincerely,
Joshua Ferguson
770 SW Scotsman Ct
Dundee, Oregon 97115
(503) 537-2131!!

Page 2 of 2

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

81
E) Email from Scott Robinson to Joshua Ferguson, with the BumperFuel Group, about alternative waste project
for Portland, Oregon.

From: Scott Robinson <Scott.Robinson@oregonmetro.gov>


Subject: RE: Alternative waste project for Portland
Date: January 8, 2009 11:09:39 AM PST
To: Joshua Ferguson <dsuupr@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Ehinger <Paul.Ehinger@oregonmetro.gov>
1 Attachment, 3.2 MB

Joshua,

We are just beginning to research and update our information set regarding waste
to energy. Recently our regional Council members have been inspired by policies
and practices in Sweden and Denmark. As such, we are just beginning to look at
long range options that would allow us to consider moving toward long run goal of
0% landfill. We have not adopted this as a policy goal at this time, and are only
exploring the state of the technology to gain a sense of the feasibility. As you may
be aware, the technological advance in the industry has not been as significant in
the US as elsewhere. There appear to be two basic models that work in the US.
Old style waste to energy based upon burning garbage. The Covanta plant in
Brooks, Oregon is a representative type of plant for this style.

http://www.covantaholding.com/ (general info)

http://www.covantaholding.com/site/marion/covanta-marion.html (Brooks Oregon


Facility).

Alternatively, there are various waste to fuel technologies, all of which require a
specialized waste stream. For example, there are various technologies which seek
to convert waste to either a gas (methane) or liquid (petroleum) product. The later
requires specific plastic wastes to be separated from the stream. Plas2fuel
represents one of several technologies seeking entry to this market. They have a
pilot plant in Brooks, Oregon as well. I've attached an overview of their business
model.

http://www.plas2fuel.com/

I have included Paul Ehinger, SW Operations Manager in this correspondence,


since he will be able to steer you towards previous study work that has been
conducted by Metro.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Ferguson [mailto:dsuupr@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:44 PM
To: Scott Robinson
Subject: RE: Alternative waste project for Portland

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

82
Scott,

Currently I am building a report for the Yamhill County Commissioners


about the need to set aside land for an alternative fuel company with
the hope that we will attract a trash to energy company. I understand
that you are someone who is active in trying to find an alternative
for waste in Portland and was wondering if I could ask you some
questions regarding it?

My questions include:
1. At what stage is the city of Portland on this project?
2. What are the general goals?

Thank you,
Joshua Ferguson
(503) 537-2131

Plas2Fuel Pr.ppt (3.2 MB)

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

83
F) Email from Bill Davis to Joshua Ferguson, with the BumperFuel Group, about pollution from a BlueFire facil-
ity.

From: "William Davis" <wdavis@bluefireethanol.com>


Subject: Pollution from production
Date: January 29, 2009 8:34:51 AM PST
To: <dsuupr@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Rigel Stone'" <rstone@bluefireethanol.com>, "'Necy Sumait'"
<nsumait@bluefireethanol.com>
2 Attachments, 5.8 KB

!"#$%&$'%("$)*+,-
%
&$'%./)"0%12,-"%#+3"4%5"%2,%$"+6,-4%2,%7,*$%"5#/0%2,%8/5%,9%:#-*#$7
;< 28'
%
=8#-3%7,*%9,$%7,*$%"5#/0'%%>"%+8#$"%7,*$%?,-?"$-%9,$%28"%"-@/$,-5"-2
#-4%#+%#%4"+/)-%A#+/+%9,$%,*$%60#-2+%6$,6,+"%28"%0,B"+2%"-@/$,-5"-2#0
9,,26$/-2%28#2%B"%A"0/"@"%/+%6$#?2/?#A0"'%
%
>"%8#@"%?,560"2"4%#%?,56$"8"-+/@"%"-@/$,-5"-2#0%$"@/"B%/-%C,+
D-)"0"+%E,*-27%*-4"$%EFGD'%%=8/+%6$,?"++%/-@/2"4%#00%12#2"%#-4%("4"$#0
#)"-?/"+%B/28%/-2"$"+2%/-%28"%,*$%6$,6,+#0%2,%6#$2/?/6#2"'%%>"%"-)#)"
"@"$7%5#H,$%"-@/$,-5"-2#0%,$)#-/I#2/,-%J1/"$$#%E0*AK%L.!EK%L1(%#-4
,28"$+M%2,%?,55"-2%#-4%N*"+2/,-%,*$%6$,?"++'
%
O*$%6$,?"++%*+"+%B/00%-,2%J#-4%9$#-307%?#--,2M%/-?0*4"%28/-)+%0/3"%5"4/?#0
B#+2"%A"?#*+"%,9%28"/$%0,B%?"00*0,+/?%?,-2"-2'%P2"5+%+*?8%#+%%$#/0$,#4
2/"+K%2/$"+%"2?'%%#$"%+6"?/9/?#007%6$,8/A/2"4%9$,5%,*$%6$,H"?2%Q+"%#-4%D/$
R"$5/2+'%%>"%"560,7%R,+2%1,$2"4%&*-/?/6#0%1,0/4%>#+2"K%$"9"$$"4%2,%#+
)$""-%B#+2"%JB8/?8%7,*%8#@"%/-%O$"),-M'%%S7%+2#2"%0#B%#00%?,-2#5/-#2"+
#$"%$"5,@"4%#-4%B8#2%B"%#$"%0"92%B/28%/+%?"00*0,+"'%%D-7%+5#00%6/"?"+%,9
5#2"$/#0%28#2%#$"%-,2%?"00*0,+"%+*?8%#+%$#-4,5%60#+2/?+K%5"2#0K%+5#00
A#22"$/"+%#-4%28"%0/3"%#$"%$"5,@"4%B/28%#%?,5A/-#2/,-%,9%TD/$%U-/@"+V
5#)-"2+%#-4%6/?3/-)%+2#2/,-+'%%>8/0"%,*$%6$,?"++%*+"+%#%A,/0"$%/2%4,"+
-,2%?,5A*+2%28"%?"00*0,*+K%$#28"$%#92"$%28"%?"00*0,*+%/+%?,-@"$2"4%2,
+*)#$%28"%$"5#/-/-)%5#2"$/#0%JC/)-/-M%/+%?,5A*+2"4%/-%#%90*/4/I"4%A,/0"$
2,%6$,@/4"%28"%+2"#5%-""4+%,9%28"%60#-2'%%=8/+%0/)-/-%/+%28"%$"5#/-/-)
+2$*?2*$#0%"0"5"-2+%,9%28"%?"00*0,+"J+""

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

84
!""#$%%&'()*+*#&,*-(./0%)*+*%1*0'*'23
2
4552"!/&6!.5,627./2!-8-/,.96:2;-/;*'.0&'*;2./20-6&.962&<*66*.'62!-=&
>&&'2,&"&/<*'&,2".2>&26*0'*7*;-'"5?2>&5.)2!&-5"!2"!/&6!.5,25*<*"62>?2"!&
/&6#&;"*=&2&'7./;&<&'"2-0&';*&6(22@AAB2.72"!&27-;*5*"?2#/.;&662)-"&/
'&&,62*62<&"2"!/.90!2"!&296&2.72"&/"*-/?2"/&-"&,2)-"&/27/.<2-2)-6"&
)-"&/2"/&-"<&'"2#5-'"2*'2"!&2-/&-(22C!&27-;*5*"?2,*6;!-/0&628&/.2DA3
-E9&.962#/.;&662,*6;!-/0&6:2"!&6&2-/&2;.55&;"&,2-',2"/&-"&,2.'6*"&:2)*"!
/&;?;5&2)-"&/2>&*'0296&,2-0-*'(22C!&2F/.G&;"2!-62-2H&/.2I*6;!-/0&2J-;*5*"?
#&/<*"27/.<2"!&2KF42-',2L"-"&2.72M-5*7./'*-(22C!&2.'5?2#5-'"2&<*66*.'6
;.<&27/.<2"!&2>.*5&/2)!*;!2*62/&095-"&,2>?2"!&24N4OPI2"!-"296&62"!&
M-5*7./'*-2L.9"!2M.-6"24*/2O9-5*"?2I*6"/*;"2;/*"&/*-2D"!&26"/.'0&6"2-',
-,=-';&,2/&095-"*.'62*'2"!&2M.9'"/?3(22C!&2#5-'"2)*552'."2'&&,2-*/2E9-5*"?
.776&"6(22Q'6*"&2=&!*;5&62)*552&*"!&/296&2MRS2./2K"!-'.52-62"!&*/279&5
6.9/;&(
2
462,&"&/<*'&,2>?2"!&2M-5*7./'*-24*/2O9-5*"?2T.-/,2D*'2-2/&#./"2"!-"2*6
->.9"2".2>&2/&5&-6&,32.9/21-';-6"&/27-;*5*"?2)*552>&2"!&2;5&-'&6"2&"!-'.5
#5-'"2*'2"!&2'-"*.':2!-=&2"!&25-/0&6"2'&0-"*=&20/&&'!.96&20-627.."#/*'"
-',2;.'69<&2'.2'-"9/-520-62D,9/*'026"-/"9#3296&2'.2#."->5&2)-"&/2*'2*"6
#/.;&662-',2)*552#/.,9;&2"!/&&2>?#/.,9;"62*'2-,,*"*.'2".2"!&2&"!-'.527./
6-5&2".2."!&/2*',96"/*&6(
2
U!*5&2'."2CVK26.59"*.'2".2"!&2'-"*.'W62&'&/0?2'&&,62)&2!-=&2-
"&;!'.5.0?2"!-"2*62-<.'02"!&2&77&;"*=&:2-',2)&2>&5*&=&:2"!&2;5&-'&6"(
2
C!-'+2?.927./2?.9/2*'"&/&6"(
2
X&0-/,6
2
T*552I-=*6
2
2
2
!"##"$%&'&($)"*
+,-,&./&-0.1234&5$6$72%264

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

85
!"#$%&'$()*+,-."/(0-12
34456(748(79:;(3<.&1$6
34456(748(:4=:(3>,?6
38986(;7;(=447(31$""6
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use
of the organization or individual to whom they are addressed. It is expressly forbidden to
retransmit or copy email and/or this attached files without our permission . If you are not
the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to
such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you
should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of
this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate
to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
!
!

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

86
G) Email from Carryl Dazey at A1 Logging.

From: "Carryl Dazey" <a1log@viclink.com>


Subject: For you
Date: February 3, 2009 1:40:23 PM PST
To: "Bumpercrop" <joshua.bumpercrop@gmail.com>

Here are some answers for you:

1. What would be considered logging waste?


Any wood that does not or can not make a saw log.
Wood that is: Under 5
Over 22 in some cases
Has defect or rot
Is split or shattered from the falling
Crooked, or in need of a clean butt cut

2. How is this waste made?


In the falling or logging process some wood is not of desirable quality to
make lumber and is left behind as unused or wanted waste.
There are tops and bottoms of trees, limbs and broken parts. Log mills
want only the highest of quality from the timber (wood) sent to them.

3. How many tons of this waste does Yamhill County have per day?
As a single company we produced 66 to 100 tons per day from April to
November. There are as many as 10 to 12 companies our size in this
area.

4. How many tons of this waste does the state of Oregon produce?
An astounding amount. Currently wood remains in the woods.

5. What are the fiscal advantages for logging companies to send waste out
via a CE plant vs what they currently do?
Jobs, Income, fire fuel reduction, less burning is allowed each year, less
slash piling, possible fuel tax credits towards biofuel to run log trucks,
home heating oils production, electrical production, use of closed and
unused lumber mills. The list goes on, most of it benefiting the counties
income levels.

6. Is there a website or document I can find this data along with what you
can provide through this email?
Oregon State University has a wonderful program linked to the forestry
industry. I recently found an article in the Oregon Small Woodlands
Owners publication regarding a portable, take to the woods CE (home
heating oil) project in Douglas county. www.oswa.org./update I bet you

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

87
know more of the places to find this info than I do.

7. Is there a time I can come out to A1 Logging to get a picture of the


waste? I would love to show you the report, minus the logging info, at
that time.
Larry said yes, please give him until Thursday and then give him a call
early in the morning to check his schedule. 503-434-3136

A1 Logging Inc
503-852-7733
503-852-7913 Fax

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

88
H) Email from Jeffrey Surma to Ramsey McPhillips about InEnTec's PEM process.

InEnTec LLC Voice


Fax
(541) 749-2114
(866) 393-0231
Email jesurma@inentec.com
Web www.inentec.com

December 18, 2008

By Email

Mr. Ramsey McPhillips


Protect Agricultural Lands (PAL)
McMinnville, OR

Dear Mr. Ramsey:

On behalf of InEnTec, it is our pleasure to respond to your questions on our technology.


First let me provide you with some background on InEnTec. InEnTec LLC was formerly known
as Integrated Environmental Technologies LLC. InEnTecs unique technology has grown out of
research conducted at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland,
Washington and the Plasma Fusion Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

That research resulted in the development and commercialization of a unique patented


gasification system that converts almost any type of biomass or waste material into clean energy
and other usable products (including ethanol, methanol, synthetic diesel, hydrogen, and electric
power) with minimum environmental impact. InEnTecs branded gasification system is called
the Plasma Enhanced Melter or PEM. The PEM process addresses two of the most
significant global trends which affect industry and society: (1) the push for a reduction in global
environmental impacts (including hazardous and greenhouse gas emissions), and (2) the drive for
a sustainable global energy future.

* * *

Following are answers to your questions:

Question: How big is the footprint of your operation? Can it be placed on industrial
land or does it need a large agricultural (EFU) footprint?

Answer: A facility handling 150,000 to 600,000 tons/year would ideally need


approximately 20 to 30 acres of land, but less land may be needed if the PEM plant were to be
co-located with existing facilities. We would prefer to locate on industrial land or to co-locate at
an existing landfill or transfer station rather than on agricultural land.

Question: What is the minimum tonnage that is required to make your facility viable?

5 9 5 S W B L U F F D R., S U I T E B, B E N D, O R 97702

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

89
December 18, 2008
InEnTec LLC

Answer: 250 tons/day of municipal solid waste (MSW) or larger.

Question: Has your PEM ever replaced a landfill? Is the intent of this proven and fully
operational system to replace the landfill model?

Answer: Not yet. We recently announced a facility that is going to be operational in


2010 to be located near Reno, Nevada and that facility will require 18 to 24 months to construct.
InEnTec has deployed smaller plants that have been used for processing special waste materials
such as chemical and medical waste.

Question: Does your facility cause nuisance to nearby land? How big of a land buffer
would be required?

Answer: There will be no nuisance to nearby land, and no particular buffer is required.

Question: Is there any detectable smell, noise or sight pollution associated with the PEM
process?

Answer: The facility does not have any equipment that will produce loud noise, odors or
cause other nuisance that would be any different from an operating landfill. In fact, it will likely
dramatically reduce odors.

Question: Does your operation produce Green House gas? Are there leaks of Methane
associated with the PEM process?

Answer: The PEM process will greatly mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by
converting waste into useful products rather than allowing that waste to degrade into landfill
gases (i.e. methane and carbon dioxide) which are emitted to the atmosphere from a landfill even
with the best landfill gas recovery systems in place. A PEM unit itself has no direct air
emissions. It produces a clean synthesis gas (syngas) as the primary product. That clean
syngas can be used to produce products such as ethanol, methanol or synthetic diesel. Although
the PEM unit has no direct emissions, the downstream conversion processes and other utilities
at a PEM facility would have air emissions consistent with any other cellulosic ethanol
facility, which are very low.

Question: Could the PEM system help supply 25% of Yamhill Countys green energy
that is mandated by our current Governor by the year 2025?

Answer: Yes.

Question: How long does it take to go from ground breaking to melting and producing
fuel? Could your facility be up and running by 2014?

Answer: 18 months. A facility could be built by 2014.

Page 2 of 3

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

90
December 18, 2008
InEnTec LLC

Question: Would the InEnTec system cause our garbage rates to go up substantially?
Would the resulting tipping fees be equal or less than the state average?

Answer: We would expect tipping fees to be similar to or less than those currently
charged in the state.

Question: Are there state or Federal incentives in place to help finance the PEM system?

Answer: There are a number of incentives, but their availability would depend on a
number of factors related to the project. In addition, depending on the final project parameters,
InEnTec would typically be willing to build (with available incentives), own and operate the
facility itself, so your community would not necessarily be required to pay for the entire system.

Question: Are there direct financial gains to be had by the PEM system?

Answer: As stated in the prior response, we would initially propose that InEnTec would
build, own, and operate the PEM system, so your community would not need to worry about the
financial aspects of operation, other than the payment of tipping fees and any other agreed upon
arrangements.

Question: Is InEnTec willing to propose an alternative system to Yamhill County to


replace our solid waste disposal system that will last longer than 20 to 30 years?

Answer: Yes.

* * *

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Best regards,

Jeffrey E. Surma

Page 3 of 3

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

91
I) A letter from David Wu regarding the alternative fuel industry.

DAVIDWU

CMnMAN, r{fl o@oY^No hrovaro!


WASHNGroN,OC 20515-3702
TELEPHoNE:
1202)225 0355

620 SolrHwEsr MaN SrnEEr

PoRTLAND, OF 97205
@ongredd
of tUo@nits!States
TF!ePHoNE:(503)326-2901
(300)422 4003 bonst of l&epogontetibes
@adtinqton,
@@205t5*3701

November21, 2008

Mr. JoshuaFerguson
770 SW ScotsmanCt
Dundee,OR 97115-9542

DearMr. Ferguson:

Thankyou for contactingme regardingyour supportfor altemativeenergysowces,


includingtrashto fuel technologies,
andfor yourideato bringa cellulosicethanolplantto
Oregon.I appreciateknowingyourthoughtson this importantissue.

Overa third ofeverythingtheaveragepersonthrowsawayis wastepapermadeup of


cellulose,a materialwhichcanbe converted into cellulosicethanol.Theenvironmental impact
ofconvertingsimpletash into ethanolwouldbe a boonto energy,landfillandenvironmental
issues.Thepossibilitiesin thistypeofresearchanddevelopment arean importantpartof
ensudngthatAmericamovescloserto its imageofa greeneconomy.

CoskataandBluefirearebothexamples ofethanolendeavors to helpwith our energyand


environmentalcrises;being a safeand environmentallyfriendly way to turn tash (alongwith
woodandagricultualresiduesandbiomasscrops)into fuelthathaslessofan adverseimpacton
the environmentthanfossilfuels. It worksby convertingthe residues, celluloseandbiomassto a
s).nthesisgas,whichis fementedinto ethanol,andthensepaxated into useablefuel. processes
like thesehavenascentindust esthatshouldbe cultivatedwith EnergyProductionTax Credits
(PTCs)like thoseconriruedin H.R. 1424,theEmergency EconomicStabilization Act of2008.
This actwassignedinto law on October3rd,2008andservesto extendPTC'Sin areaslike wind,
solar,biomass,andthe investment in creatingnewtechnologies like fuel cellsa.ndsmallturbine
wind generation.

H.R. 1424alsoprovidesa tax creditto businesses (e.g.,gasstations)thatinstall


altemativefuel pumps,suchasfuel pumpsthatdispense E85fuel in orderto makeit easierfor
theconsumer to locatea retailerofaltemativefuels.Thebill wouldcreatetax creditsfor the
productionofcellulosicethanol,makingit moreaffordableto createoptionsfor custome$to
puchasebio-fuelsfor cars,trucks,homeheating,andevenaviationjetfuel. This incentiveis
importantfor powercompanies thatwish to investin renewable energygeneration,but cannot
alIordit.

ln additionto havingvotedfor thePTC'Scontained in H.R. 1424,I havealsosponsored


legislationon focusingresearchtowardsa greentransportation inftastructue.H.R. 5161would
createcentersfocusingon greentanspoiationinfrastructure in regionsaroundtheU.S.These
centerswould developinnovativetansportation infrastructuretechnologiesthat mitigate

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

92
Mr. JoshuaFerguson
November21. 2008
Page2

environmental impact.Theywouldalsoencouagegove!runents to adoptthesetechnologiesand


integratethem into existing inftastructue though technologytansfer programs. Unfortunately,
Congress wasnot ableto voteon this legislationbeforetheendofthe yeax,but I will continueto
pushfor this programandotherslike it in thenextsession.

Tax incentivesand inftastructureprogmmsfor greeneconomyinitiatives are


commonsense andwill directly benefit this country'smovementtoward an economyfocusedon
producingnewtechnologies andrenewable energyproduction.
Thankyou againfor contacting
me on this importantissue,andif I canbe ofany additionalassistance,pleasecall me at 503-
326-2901.ot 800- 422-4003.

Memberof Congress
DW: NT

B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

93
B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

94
B u m p e r F u e l G r o u p Proposal for an Alternative Fuel Production Site

95
T H E B U M P E R F U E L G R O U P

7 7 0 S W S c o t s m a n C o u r t D u n d e e , O R 9 7 11 5 Te l e p h o n e : 5 0 3 . 5 3 7 . 2 1 3 1 w w w. B u m p e r F u e l . o r g