Biomass Energy Data Book

USEFUL WEB SITES GOVERNMENT LINKS U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Forest Service National Agricultural Library National Agricultural Statistics Service U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework Alternative Fuels Data Center Clean Cities Fuel Economy Biomass Energy Data Book Buildings Energy Data Book Power Technologies Data Book Transportation Energy Data Book Energy Information Administration IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Bioenergy Feedstock Information Center for Transportation Analysis PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY USA.GOV FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FEDSTATS U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NON GOVERNMENT LINKS American Corn Growers Association American Soybean Association National Biodiesel Board National Oilseed Processors Association National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition Pellet Fuels Institute Short Rotation Woody Crops Operations Working Group www.usda.gov www.ars.usda.gov www.fs.fed.us www.nal.usda.gov www.nass.usda.gov www.energy.gov www.eere.energy.gov www.eere.energy.gov/biomass bioenergykdf.net www.eere.energy.gov/afdc www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities www.fueleconomy.gov cta.ornl.gov/bedb www.btscoredatabook.net www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook cta.ornl.gov/data www.eia.doe.gov www.inl.gov www.nrel.gov www.ornl.gov bioenergy.ornl.gov cta.ornl.gov www.pnl.gov www.usa.gov www.fedstats.gov www.bls.gov www.census.gov www.commerce.gov www.bea.gov www.epa.gov www.acga.org www.soygrowers.com www.biodiesel.org www.nopa.org www.e85fuel.com pelletheat.org www.woodycrops.org
Cover Image: Courtesy of the Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb
ORNL/TM-2011/446
BIOMASS ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 4
Bob Boundy Roltek, Inc. Clinton, Tennessee Susan W. Diegel Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee Lynn Wright WrightLink Consulting Ten Mile, Tennessee Stacy C. Davis Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee
September 2011
Prepared for the Office of the Biomass Program Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy Prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 37831-6073 managed by UT-BATTELLE, LLC for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Users of the Biomass Energy Data B ook are encouraged to send comments on errors, omissions, emphases, and organization of this report to Ms. Stacy Davis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The DOE sponsor for this project is also listed below. Stacy C. Davis Oak Ridge National Laboratory National Transportation Research Center 2360 Cherahala Boulevard Knoxville, Tennessee 37932 Telephone: (865) 946-1256 FAX: (865) 946-1314 E-mail: [email protected] Web Site Location: cta.ornl.gov Zia Haq Office of the Biomass Program Department of Energy, EE-2E Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20585 Telephone: (202) 586-2869 FAX: (202) 586-1640 E-mail: [email protected] Web Site Location: http://www.eere.energy.gov/
The Biomass Energy Data Book can be found on the Web at: cta.ornl.gov/bedb
ACRONYMS
AEO ARS ASABE ASTM Btu CES CO2 CRP d.b.h. DOE EERE EIA EPA EPAct ERS Etoh FTE FY GAO GHG GPRA GW IEA iLUC LCA LFG MC MGY MJ MMBtu MPG MW MSW NASS NEMS NOAA NREL NRCS ORNL PNNL PPA REC RPS SEO SRIC SRWC SSEB TBD TVA USDA USFS Annual Energy Outlook Agricultural Research Service, USDA American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials British thermal unit Cooperative Extension Service Carbon Dioxide Conservation Reserve Program Diameter at Breast Height Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Information Administration Environmental Protection Agency Energy Policy Act Economic Research Service Ethanol Fuel Treatment Evaluator Fiscal Year United States Government Accountability Office Greenhouse Gas Government Performance Results Act Gigawatt International Energy Agency Indirect Land-Use Change Life-Cycle Analysis Landfill Gas Moisture Content Million Gallons per Year Megajoule One Million British thermal units Miles per Gallon Megawatt Municipal Solid Waste National Agricultural Statistics Service National Energy Modeling System National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration National Renewable Energy Laboratory Natural Resources Conservation Service Oak Ridge National Laboratory Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Power Purchase Agreement Renewable Energy Certificate Renewable Portfolio Standard State Energy Office Short Rotation Intensive Culture Short Rotation Woody Crops Southern States Energy Board To Be Determined Tennessee Valley Authority United States Department of Agriculture United States Forest Service
PREFACE
The Department of Energy, through the Biomass Program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has contracted with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to prepare this Biomass Energy Data Book. The purpose of this data book is to draw together, under one cover, biomass data from diverse sources to produce a comprehensive document that supports anyone with an interest or stake in the biomass industry. Given the increasing demand for energy, policymakers and analysts need to be well-informed about current biomass energy production activity and the potential contribution biomass resources and technologies can make toward meeting the nation's energy demands. This is the fourth edition of the Biomass Energy Data Book and it is only available online in electronic format. Because there are many diverse online sources of biomass information, the Data Book provides links to many of those valuable information sources. Biomass energy technologies used in the United States include an extremely diverse array of technologies - from wood or pellet stoves used in homes to large, sophisticated biorefineries producing multiple products. For some types of biomass energy production, there are no annual inventories or surveys on which to base statistical data. For some technology areas there are industry advocacy groups that track and publish annual statistics on energy production capacity, though not necessarily actual production or utilization. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces annual estimates of biomass energy utilization and those estimates are included in this data book. Information from industry groups are also provided to give additional detail. An effort has been made to identify the best sources of information on capacity, production and utilization of most of the types of biomass energy currently being produced in this country. It is certain, however, that not all biomass energy contributions have been identified. With the rapid expansion in biomass technologies that is occurring, bioenergy production information may not yet be available, or may be proprietary. It is even more difficult to track the diverse array of biomass resources being used as feedstocks for biomass energy production. Since most of the biomass resources currently being used for energy or bioproducts are residuals from industrial, agricultural or forestry activities, there is no way to systematically inventory biomass feedstock collection and use and report it in standard units. All biomass resource availability and utilization information available in the literature are estimates, not inventories of actual collection and utilization. Biomass utilization information is derived from biomass energy production data, but relies on assumptions about energy content and conversion efficiencies for each biomass type and conversion technology. Biomass availability data relies on understanding how much of a given biomass type (e.g., corn grain) is produced, alternate demands for that biomass type, economic profitability associated with each of those alternate demands, environmental impacts of collection of the biomass, and other factors such as incentives. This book presents some of the information needed for deriving those estimates, as well as providing biomass resource estimates that have been estimated by either ORNL staff or other scientists. In all cases it should be recognized that estimates are not precise and different assumptions will change the results.
ABSTRACT
The Biomass Energy Data Book is a statistical compendium prepared and published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) under contract with the Biomass Program in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) program of the Department of Energy (DOE). Designed for use as a convenient reference, the book represents an assembly and display of statistics and information that characterize the biomass industry, from the production of biomass feedstocks to their end use, including discussions on sustainability. This is the fourth edition of the Biomass Energy Data Book which is only available online in electronic format. There are five main sections to this book. The first section is an introduction which provides an overview of biomass resources and consumption. Following the introduction to biomass, is a section on biofuels which covers ethanol, biodiesel and bio-oil. The biopower section focuses on the use of biomass for electrical power generation and heating. The fourth section is on the developing area of biorefineries, and the fifth section covers feedstocks that are produced and used in the biomass industry. The sources used represent the latest available data. There are also two appendices which include frequently needed conversion factors, a table of selected biomass feedstock characteristics, and discussions on sustainability. A glossary of terms and a list of acronyms are also included for the reader's convenience.
INTRODUCTION TO BIOMASS Contents

Biomass Energy Overview Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Biomass Energy Production and Consumption by Source and Sector Primary Energy Consumption by Major Fuel Source, 1974-2010 Energy Production by Source, 1973-2010 Energy Consumption by Source, 1973-2010 Renewable Energy Consumption by Source, 1973-2010 Renewable Energy Consumption for Industrial and Transportation Sectors, 1973-2010 Renewable Energy Consumption for Residential and Commercial Sectors, 1973-2010 Industrial Biomass Energy Consumption and Electricity Net Generation by Industry and Energy Source, 2008 Summary of Biomass Energy Consumption, 2010 Biomass Energy Sustainability Indirect Land Use Change A Comparison of Climate Impacts of Various Bioenergy Systems Biomass Resources Overview Biomass Definitions in Legislation Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007 Geographic Locations of Major Crops, 2010 Geographic Distribution of Timberland by County, 2007 Projected Consumption of Currently Used Biomass Feedstocks by Source Summary of Currently Used and Potential Biomass Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Figure Text Text Figure Text Text Figure Figure Figure Table Table 08/30/2011 08/29/2011 08/29/2011 10/02/2012 08/29/2011 08/29/2011 10/02/2012 08/29/2011 09/29/2011 09/29/2011 10/02/2012 10/02/2012 08/26/2011 08/29/2011 08/04/2011 10/02/2012 09/07/2011 08/30/2011
Data Type
Text Text
Updated
08/26/2011 10/02/2012
Biomass Energy Overview

In 2010, biomass energy production contributed 4.3 quadrillion Btu (British thermal units) of energy to the 75 quadrillion Btu of energy produced in the United States or about 5.7% of total energy production. Since a substantial portion of U.S. energy is imported, the more commonly quoted figure is that biomass consumption amounted to 4.3 quadrillion Btu of energy of the 98 quadrillion Btu of energy consumed in the United States in 2010 or about 4.4%. At present, wood resources contribute most to the biomass resources consumed in the United States and most of that is used in the generation of electricity and industrial process heat and steam. However, the contribution of biofuels has nearly tripled since 2005 and now accounts for about 43% of all biomass consumed. While most biofuels feedstocks are currently starches, oils and fats derived from the agricultural sector, whole plants and plant residues will soon be an important feedstock for cellulosic biofuels. Algae are being developed as a source of both oil and cellulosic feedstocks. The industrial sector (primarily the wood products industry) used about 2.2 quadrillion Btu in 2010. The residential and commercial sectors consume 0.05 quadrillion Btu of biomass; however, this figure may understate consumption in these sectors due to unreported consumption, such as home heating by wood collected on private property. The use of biomass fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel by the transportation sector is now at about 1 quadrillion Btu. This is less than the total amount of biofuels produced because some liquid biofuels are used by other sources. The tables in the introduction showing the accounting of energy production and consumption are all derived from Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports. Information on assumed Btu content of most fuels and the assumptions used in estimating the total Btus consumed in the US can be found in the EIA Monthly Energy Review at: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec13.pdf. A key point is that gross heat contents (higher heating values) of fuels and biomass feedstocks are used rather than the net heat contents (lower heating values) commonly used in Europe. Differences may range from 2 to 10%. The assumptions for the gross heat content of wood and consumption estimation were found under a discussion of wood conversion to Btu in the EIA glossary that can be accessed at http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/. The EIA glossary explains that many factors can affect wood heat content but EIA calculations always assume 20 million Btu per cord of wood. This is actually slightly higher than the heat content values for wood found from multiple other sources. A table, showing both higher and lower heating values for many biomass fuels, is included in appendix A of the Biomass Energy Data Book. Factors for translating cords to other units of wood are also found in the appendix A. The EIA glossary also notes that EIA biomass waste data includes energy crops grown specifically for energy production. This is likely due to the fact that insufficient amounts of dedicated energy crops are currently being used to warrant separate tracking. The Renewable Fuels Association characterized 2007 as a year that ushered in a new energy era for America. The enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) coupled increased vehicle efficiency with greater renewable fuel use. The law increased the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to 36 billion gallons of annual renewable fuel use by 2022 and required that 60 percent of the new RFS be met by advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol. The recent increase in the percentage of biomass consumed in the U.S. is largely due to the increased production and consumption of biofuels. Biomass energy production involves the use of a wide range of technologies to produce heat, steam, electricity and transportation fuels from renewable biomass feedstocks. Descriptions of many of the biomass technologies currently in commercial use or being tested are included in the Biomass Energy Data Book. Information on the characteristics and availability of utilized or potential biomass feedstocks as well as information on relevant policies are also included. Information on economics and sustainability is included to a limited extent since the limited information publically available is generally based on estimates rather than factual data.
Legislation passed in December 2007 created a large incentive to increase the total amount of renewable biofuels available in the U.S. with nearly half to be derived from lignocellulosic biomass, but excluded the use of biomass from some sources. Section: INTRODUCTION Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) 2007 EISA legislation was signed into law on December 19, 2007. The law contains a number of provisions to increase energy efficiency and the availability and use of renewable energy. One key provision of EISA is the setting of a revised Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). The revised RFS mandates the use of 36 billion gallons per year (BGY) of renewable fuels by 2022. The revised RFS has specific fuel allocations for 2022 that include use of:

16 BGY of cellulosic biofuels 14 BGY of advanced biofuels 1 BGY of biomass-based biodiesel 15 BGY of conventional biofuels (e.g., corn starch-based ethanol).
(See, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(2)) EISA legislation also established new definitions and criteria for both renewable fuels (e.g., greenhouse gas reduction thresholds) and the renewable biomass used to produce the fuels. Renewable biomass includes, generally:

Crops from previously cleared non-forested land Trees from actively managed plantations on non-federal land Residues from non-federal forestland that is deemed not to be critically imperiled or rare Biomass from the immediate vicinity of buildings or public infrastructure at risk from wildfires Algae Separated yard or food waste.
(See, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1)(I)) Excluded from the qualifying renewable biomass are resources from ecologically sensitive or protected lands, biomass from federal forestlands, biomass from newly cleared or cultivated land, and
merchantable biomass from naturally regenerated forestlands.
Above write-up extracted from: Perlack, R. D., and B. J. Stokes (leads), U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and BiproductsIndustry , ORNL/TM-2010/224, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 2011, p. 227.
A variety of biomass feedstocks are currently used to generate electricity, produce heat, and liquid transportation fuels. According to EIA, biomass contributes nearly 4.3 quadrillion Btu (British thermal unit) and accounts for more than 4% of total U.S. primary energy consumption. In 2009, the share of biomass in total U.S. energy consumption exceeded 4% for the first time. Over the last 30 years, the share of biomass in total primary energy consumption has averaged less that 3.5%. However, as shown in the figure below there has been a gradual increase in biomass consumption that started in the early 2000s. This increase is due to ethanol production. The EIA estimates include the energy content of the biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) feedstock minus the energy content of liquid fuel produced.
Section: INTRODUCTION Primary Energy Consumption by Major Fuel Source, 1974 - 2010
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , July 2011, Washington, D.C., Table 1.3. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/
In 2010 biomass accounted for just over half of the renewable energy production in the United States. Section: INTRODUCTION Energy Production by Source, 1973-2010 (Quadrillion Btu) Fossil Fuels Natural Gas Plant Natural Crude Liquids Gas (Dry) Oilb 22.187 19.493 2.569 21.210 18.575 2.471 19.640 17.729 2.374 19.480 17.262 2.327 19.565 17.454 2.327 19.485 18.434 2.245 20.076 18.104 2.286 19.908 18.249 2.254 19.699 18.146 2.307 18.319 18.309 2.191 16.593 18.392 2.184 18.008 18.848 2.274 16.980 18.992 2.241 16.541 18.376 2.149 17.136 17.675 2.215 17.599 17.279 2.260 17.847 16.117 2.158 18.326 15.571 2.175 18.229 15.701 2.306 18.375 15.223 2.363 18.584 14.494 2.408 19.348 14.103 2.391 19.082 13.887 2.442 19.344 13.723 2.530 19.394 13.658 2.495 19.613 13.235 2.420 19.341 12.451 2.528 19.662 12.358 2.611 20.166 12.282 2.547 19.439 12.163 2.559 19.691 12.026 2.346 19.093 11.503 2.466 18.574 10.963 2.334 19.022 10.801 2.356 19.825 10.721 2.409 20.703 10.509 2.419 21.095 11.348 2.574 22.095 11.669 2.686 Renewable Energy Nuclear Electric Power 0.910 1.272 1.900 2.111 2.702 3.024 2.776 2.739 3.008 3.131 3.203 3.553 4.076 4.380 4.754 5.587 5.602 6.104 6.422 6.479 6.410 6.694 7.075 7.087 6.597 7.068 7.610 7.862 8.033 8.143 7.959 8.222 8.160 8.215 8.455 8.427 8.356 8.441 Hydroelectric Powerc 2.861 3.177 3.155 2.976 2.333 2.937 2.931 2.900 2.758 3.266 3.527 3.386 2.970 3.071 2.635 2.334 2.837 3.046 3.016 2.617 2.892 2.683 3.205 3.590 3.640 3.297 3.268 2.811 2.242 2.689 2.825 2.690 2.703 2.869 2.446 2.511 2.669 2.509 Geothermal 0.020 0.026 0.034 0.038 0.037 0.031 0.040 0.053 0.059 0.051 0.064 0.081 0.097 0.108 0.112 0.106 0.162 0.171 0.178 0.179 0.186 0.173 0.152 0.163 0.167 0.168 0.171 0.164 0.164 0.171 0.175 0.178 0.181 0.181 0.186 0.192 0.200 0.212
a
Year 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Coal 13.992 14.074 14.989 15.654 15.755 14.910 17.540 18.598 18.377 18.639 17.247 19.719 19.325 19.509 20.141 20.738 21.360 22.488 21.636 21.694 20.336 22.202 22.130 22.790 23.310 24.045 23.295 22.735 23.547 22.732 22.094 22.852 23.185 23.790 23.493 23.851 21.627 22.077
Total 58.241 56.331 54.733 54.723 55.101 55.074 58.006 59.008 58.529 57.458 54.416 58.849 57.539 56.575 57.167 57.875 57.483 58.560 57.872 57.655 55.822 58.044 57.540 58.387 58.857 59.314 57.614 57.366 58.541 56.894 56.157 55.914 55.056 55.968 56.447 57.482 56.644 58.527
Biomass 1.529 1.540 1.499 1.713 1.838 2.038 2.152 2.476 2.596 2.664 2.904 2.971 3.016 2.932 2.875 3.016 3.160 2.735 2.782 2.933 2.910 3.030 3.102 3.157 3.111 2.933 2.969 3.010 2.629 2.712 2.815 3.011 3.141 3.226 3.489 3.867 3.915 4.310
Solar NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.060 0.063 0.064 0.066 0.069 0.070 0.071 0.070 0.070 0.069 0.066 0.065 0.064 0.064 0.065 0.066 0.068 0.076 0.089 0.098 0.109
Wind NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.029 0.031 0.030 0.031 0.036 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.031 0.046 0.057 0.070 0.105 0.115 0.142 0.178 0.264 0.341 0.546 0.721 0.924
Total 4.433 4.769 4.723 4.768 4.249 5.039 5.166 5.485 5.477 6.034 6.561 6.522 6.185 6.223 5.739 5.568 6.391 6.206 6.238 5.993 6.263 6.155 6.703 7.167 7.180 6.659 6.683 6.262 5.318 5.899 6.149 6.248 6.431 6.608 6.537 7.205 7.603 8.064
Total 63.585 62.372 61.357 61.602 62.052 63.137 65.948 67.232 67.014 66.623 64.180 68.924 67.799 67.178 67.659 69.030 69.476 70.870 70.532 70.127 68.495 70.893 71.319 72.641 72.634 73.041 71.907 71.490 71.892 70.936 70.264 70.384 69.647 70.792 71.440 73.114 72.603 75.031
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, June 2011. Table 1.2, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html Note: NA = Not available.
a b
Most data are estimates. Includes lease condensate. c Conventional hydroelectric power.
Section: INTRODUCTION Energy Consumption by Source, 1973-2010 (Quadrillion Btu) Fossil Fuels Natural b Gas 22.512 21.732 19.948 20.345 19.931 20.000 20.666 20.235 19.747 18.356 17.221 18.394 17.703 16.591 17.640 18.448 19.602 19.603 20.033 20.714 21.229 21.728 22.671 23.085 23.223 22.830 22.909 23.824 22.773 23.558 22.831 22.909 22.561 22.224 23.702 23.834 23.344 24.643 Petroc,d leum 34.837 33.454 32.732 35.178 37.124 37.963 37.122 34.205 31.932 30.232 30.052 31.053 30.925 32.198 32.864 34.223 34.209 33.552 32.846 33.525 33.745 34.561 34.438 35.675 36.159 36.816 37.838 38.262 38.186 38.224 38.811 40.292 40.388 39.955 39.774 37.280 35.403 35.970 Renewable Energy Geothermal 0.020 0.026 0.034 0.038 0.037 0.031 0.040 0.053 0.059 0.051 0.064 0.081 0.097 0.108 0.112 0.106 0.162 0.171 0.178 0.179 0.186 0.173 0.152 0.163 0.167 0.168 0.171 0.164 0.164 0.171 0.175 0.178 0.181 0.181 0.186 0.192 0.200 0.212
a
Year 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Coal 12.971 12.663 12.663 13.584 13.922 13.766 15.040 15.423 15.908 15.322 15.894 17.071 17.478 17.260 18.008 18.846 19.070 19.173 18.992 19.122 19.835 19.909 20.089 21.002 21.445 21.656 21.623 22.580 21.914 21.904 22.321 22.466 22.797 22.447 22.749 22.385 19.692 20.817
Total 70.314 67.905 65.357 69.107 70.991 71.854 72.891 69.828 67.571 63.888 63.152 66.506 66.093 66.033 68.521 71.557 72.911 72.332 71.880 73.396 74.836 76.256 77.259 79.785 80.873 81.369 82.427 84.731 82.902 83.747 84.014 85.805 85.790 84.687 86.251 83.540 78.415 81.425
Nuclear HydroElectric electric f Power Power 0.910 2.861 1.272 3.177 1.900 3.155 2.111 2.976 2.702 2.333 3.024 2.937 2.776 2.931 2.739 2.900 3.008 2.758 3.131 3.266 3.203 3.527 3.553 3.386 4.076 2.970 4.380 3.071 4.754 2.635 5.587 2.334 5.602 2.837 6.104 3.046 6.422 3.016 6.479 2.617 6.410 2.892 6.694 2.683 7.075 3.205 7.087 3.590 6.597 3.640 7.068 3.297 7.610 3.268 7.862 2.811 8.029 2.242 8.145 2.689 7.959 2.825 8.222 2.690 8.161 2.703 8.215 2.869 8.455 2.446 8.427 2.511 8.356 2.669 8.441 2.509
Biomass 1.529 1.540 1.499 1.713 1.838 2.038 2.152 2.476 2.596 2.663 2.904 2.971 3.016 2.932 2.875 3.016 3.159 2.735 2.782 2.932 2.908 3.028 3.101 3.157 3.105 2.927 2.963 3.008 2.622 2.701 2.807 3.010 3.116 3.276 3.502 3.852 3.899 4.295
d,g
Solar NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.059 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.069 0.070 0.070 0.069 0.068 0.065 0.064 0.063 0.062 0.063 0.063 0.068 0.076 0.089 0.098 0.109
Wind NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.029 0.031 0.030 0.031 0.036 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.031 0.046 0.057 0.070 0.105 0.115 0.142 0.178 0.264 0.341 0.546 0.721 0.924
Total 4.411 4.742 4.687 4.727 4.209 5.005 5.123 5.428 5.414 5.980 6.496 6.438 6.084 6.111 5.622 5.457 6.235 6.041 6.069 5.821 6.083 5.988 6.560 7.014 7.016 6.493 6.516 6.106 5.163 5.729 5.983 6.082 6.242 6.659 6.551 7.190 7.587 8.049
Total 75.684 73.962 71.965 75.975 77.961 79.950 80.859 78.067 76.106 73.099 72.971 76.632 76.392 76.647 79.054 82.709 84.786 84.485 84.438 85.783 87.424 89.091 91.029 94.022 94.602 95.018 96.652 98.814 96.168 97.693 97.978 100.148 100.277 99.624 101.363 99.268 94.475 98.003
d,h
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, June 2011. Table 1.3, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/overview.html Note: NA = Not available.
a b
End-use consumption and electricity net generation. Natural gas, plus a small amount of supplemental gaseous fuels that cannot be identified separately. c Petroleum products supplied, including natural gas plant liquids and crude oil burned as fuel. Beginning in 1993, also includes ethanol blended into gasoline. d Beginning in 1993, ethanol blended into motor gasoline is included in both "petroleum and "biomass," but is counted only once in total consumption. e Includes coal coke net imports. f Conventional hydroelectric power. g Wood, waste, and alcohol fuels (ethanol blended into motor gasoline). h Includes coal coke net imports and electricity net imports, which are not separately displayed.
Biofuels, which are produced mainly from corn and soybeans, made up 43% of all biomass consumed in the U.S. in 2010. The other 57% comes mainly from waste -- wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, etc. Section: INTRODUCTION Renewable Energy Consumption by Source, 1973-2010 (Trillion Btu) Hydro-electric Powera 2,861 3,177 3,155 2,976 2,333 2,937 2,931 2,900 2,758 3,266 3,527 3,386 2,970 3,071 2,635 2,334 2,837 3,046 3,016 2,617 2,892 2,683 3,205 3,590 3,640 3,297 3,268 2,811 2,242 2,689 2,825 2,690 2,703 2,869 2,446 2,511 2,669 2,509 Biomass Wastec Biofuelsd 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA 1 NA 2 NA 2 NA 88 13 119 34 157 63 208 77 236 93 263 107 289 123 315 124 354 125 408 111 440 128 473 145 479 169 515 188 531 198 577 141 551 186 542 202 540 211 511 233 364 254 402 308 401 402 389 487 403 564 397 720 413 978 436 1,387 452 1,583 454 1,870 Geothermale 20 26 34 38 37 31 40 53 59 51 64 81 97 108 112 106 162 171 178 179 186 173 152 163 167 168 171 164 164 171 175 178 181 181 186 192 200 212
Year 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Woodb 1,527 1,538 1,497 1,711 1,837 2,036 2,150 2,474 2,496 2,510 2,684 2,686 2,687 2,562 2,463 2,577 2,680 2,216 2,214 2,313 2,260 2,324 2,370 2,437 2,371 2,184 2,214 2,262 2,006 1,995 2,002 2,121 2,136 2,109 2,098 2,044 1,881 1,986
Total 1,529 1,540 1,499 1,713 1,838 2,038 2,152 2,476 2,596 2,663 2,904 2,971 3,016 2,932 2,875 3,016 3,159 2,735 2,782 2,932 2,908 3,028 3,099 3,155 3,108 2,929 2,965 3,006 2,624 2,705 2,805 2,998 3,104 3,226 3,489 3,867 3,915 4,310
Solarf NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 55 59 62 64 66 68 69 70 70 69 68 65 64 63 62 63 63 68 76 89 98 109
Windg NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 29 31 30 31 36 33 33 34 31 46 57 70 105 115 142 178 264 341 546 721 924
Total 4,411 4,742 4,687 4,727 4,209 5,005 5,123 5,428 5,414 5,980 6,496 6,438 6,084 6,111 5,622 5,457 6,235 6,041 6,069 5,821 6,083 5,988 6,560 7,014 7,016 6,493 6,516 6,106 5,163 5,729 5,983 6,082 6,242 6,659 6,551 7,190 7,587 8,049
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, June 2011, Table 10.1, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/renew.html Note: NA = Not available.
a b
Conventional hydroelectric power. Wood, black liquor, and other wood waste. c Municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agricultural byproducts, and other biomass. d Fuel ethanol and biodiesel consumption, plus losses and co-products from the production of ethanol and biodiesel. e Geothermal electricity net generation, heat pump, and direct use energy. f Solar thermal and photovoltaic electricity net generation, and solar thermal direct use energy. g Wind electricity net generation.
Ethanol provided 97% of the renewable transportation fuels consumed in the United States in 2010 while biodiesel accounted for less than 3%. In the industrial sector, biomass accounted for nearly all of the renewable energy consumed. Section: INTRODUCTION Renewable Energy Consumption for Industrial and Transportation Sectors, 1973-2010 (Trillion Btu) Industrial Sector Biomass Losses Fuel and CoEthanole productsf NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 6 0 16 0 29 1 35 1 42 1 48 1 55 1 55 1 56 1 49 1 56 1 64 1 74 1 82 2 86 1 61 1 80 1 86 1 90 1 99 3 108 3 130 4 169 6 203 7 230 10 285 10 377 12 532 13 617 16 738
a
Transportation Sector Biomass Geog thermal NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 Fuel h Ethanol NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 18 34 41 50 57 66 67 68 60 70 80 94 105 112 81 102 113 118 135 141 168 228 286 327 442 557 786 894 1,070
Year 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Hydroelectric Power b 35 33 32 33 33 32 34 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 28 31 30 31 30 62 55 61 58 55 49 42 33 39 43 33 32 29 16 17 18 16
Wood 1,165 1,159 1,063 1,220 1,281 1,400 1,405 1,600 1,602 1,516 1,690 1,679 1,645 1,610 1,576 1,625 1,584 1,442 1,410 1,461 1,484 1,580 1,652 1,683 1,731 1,603 1,620 1,636 1,443 1,396 1,363 1,476 1,452 1,472 1,413 1,344 1,198 1,307
Waste NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 87 118 155 204 230 256 282 308 200 192 185 179 181 199 195 224 184 180 171 145 129 146 142 132 148 130 144 144 154 168
Total 1,165 1,159 1,063 1,220 1,281 1,400 1,405 1,600 1,695 1,650 1,874 1,918 1,918 1,915 1,914 1,989 1,841 1,684 1,652 1,705 1,741 1,862 1,934 1,969 1,996 1,872 1,882 1,881 1,681 1,676 1,679 1,817 1,837 1,897 1,944 2,031 1,982 2,229
Total 1,200 1,192 1,096 1,253 1,314 1,432 1,439 1,633 1,728 1,683 1,908 1,951 1,951 1,948 1,947 2,022 1,871 1,717 1,684 1,737 1,773 1,927 1,992 2,033 2,057 1,929 1,934 1,928 1,719 1,720 1,726 1,853 1,873 1,930 1,964 2,053 2,005 2,249
Biodiesel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2 2 3 12 33 46 40 40 28
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 18 34 41 50 57 66 67 68 60 70 80 94 105 112 81 102 113 118 135 142 170 230 290 339 475 602 826 934 1,098
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , June 2011, Table 10.2b, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/renew.html Note: NA = Not available.
a b
Industrial sector fuel use, including that at industrial combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and industrial electricity plants. Conventional hydroelectric power. c Wood, black liquor, and other wood waste. d Municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agricultural byproducts, and other biomass. e Ethanol blended into motor gasoline. f Losses and co-products from the production of fuel ethanol and biodiesel. Does not include natural gas, electricity, and other non-biomass energy used in the production of fuel ethanol and biodieselthese are included in the industrial sector consumption statistics for the appropriate energy source. g Geothermal heat pump and direct use energy. h The ethanol portion of motor fuels (such as E10 and E85) consumed by the transportation sector.
In 2010, biomass accounted for about 76% of the renewable energy used in the residential sector and about 85% of the renewable energy used in the commercial sector. Section: INTRODUCTION Renewable Energy Consumption for Residential and Commercial Sectors, 1973-2010 (Trillion Btu) Residential Sector Biomass Year 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Wood 354 371 425 482 542 622 728 850 870 970 970 980 1010 920 850 910 920 580 610 640 550 520 520 540 430 380 390 420 370 380 400 410 430 390 430 450 430 420
b
Geothermalc NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 6 6 6 7 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 13 14 16 18 22 26 33 37
Solar NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 52 56 57 59 61 63 64 65 64 64 63 60 59 57 57 57 58 63 70 80 89 97
Total 354 371 425 482 542 622 728 850 870 970 970 980 1010 920 850 910 977 641 673 706 618 589 591 612 502 452 461 489 438 448 470 481 504 472 522 556 552 554
Hydroelectric Wood b NA 7 NA 7 NA 8 NA 9 NA 10 NA 12 NA 14 NA 21 NA 21 NA 22 NA 22 NA 22 NA 24 NA 27 NA 29 NA 32 1 76 1 66 1 68 1 72 1 76 1 72 1 72 1 76 1 73 1 64 1 67 1 71 1 67 0 69 1 71 1 70 1 70 1 65 1 69 1 73 1 72 1 70
Commercial Sectora Biomass Fuel e Waste Ethanol Total NA NA 7 NA NA 7 NA NA 8 NA NA 9 NA NA 10 NA NA 12 NA NA 14 NA NA 21 NA 0 21 NA 0 22 NA 0 22 NA 0 22 NA 0 24 NA 0 27 NA 1 30 NA 1 33 22 1 99 28 0 94 26 0 95 32 0 105 33 0 109 35 0 106 40 0 113 53 0 129 58 0 131 54 0 118 54 0 121 47 0 119 25 0 92 26 0 95 29 1 101 34 1 105 34 1 105 36 1 102 31 2 102 34 2 109 36 3 112 34 3 108
Geothermalc NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 8 9 11 12 14 14 14 15 17 19
Total 7 7 8 9 10 12 14 21 21 22 22 22 24 27 30 33 102 98 100 109 114 112 118 135 138 127 129 128 101 104 113 118 119 117 118 125 129 127
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , June 2011, Table 10.2a, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/renew.html Note: NA = Not available.
a Commercial sector fuel use, including that at commercial combined-heat-and-power (CHP) and commercial electricityonly plants. b Wood, black liquor, and other wood waste. c Geothermal heat pump and direct use energy. d Solar thermal direct use energy and photovoltaic electricity generation. Small amounts of commercial sector are included in the residential sector. e Municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agricultural byproducts, and other biomass.
Total industrial biomass energy consumption was approximately 2,031 trillion Btu in 2008. The bulk of industrial biomass energy consumption is derived from forestlands (lumber, paper and allied products); more than one-half of this total is black liquor a pulping mill byproduct containing unutilized wood fiber and chemicals. Black liquor is combusted in recovery boilers to recover valuable chemicals and to produce heat and power. Wood and wood wastes generated in primary wood processing mills account for another third of total industrial biomass energy consumption. The data contained in this table are from a survey of manufacturers that is conducted every four years by the EIA. Section: INTRODUCTION Industrial Biomass Energy Consumption and Electricity Net Generation by Industry and Energy Source, 2008 Biomass Energy Consumption (Trillon Btus) For Useful Net Generation For Thermal (Million Total Electricity Output Kilowatthours) 2,031.193 183.953 1,847.240 27,462 16.159 1.231 14.928 229 16.159 1.231 14.928 229 1,908.531 182.721 1,725.810 27,233 21.328 0.631 20.697 107 15.819 0.160 15.659 33 0.289 0.095 0.194 7 0.044 0.044 5 0.243 0.055 0.188 8 4.933 0.277 4.657 54 225.729 10.682 215.047 1,287 0.052 0.006 0.046 1 225.676 10.676 215.001 1,286 1,116.304 170.909 945.396 25,774 1.335 0.036 1.300 5 787.380 112.361 675.019 17,152 0.034 0.004 0.029 1 0.183 0.015 0.168 3 0.122 0.015 0.107 3 9.477 1.762 7.715 326 4.083 0.937 3.147 160 2.510 0.383 2.127 73 311.180 55.395 255.785 8,050 4.319 0.152 4.167 28 0.061 0.005 0.056 1 0.305 0.043 0.261 9 3.953 0.104 3.849 18 532.042 532.042 532.042 532.042 1.195 1.195 530.847 530.847 8.810 0.349 8.461 37 106.502 106.502 11.652 11.652 92.233 92.233 2.617 2.617 -
Industry Total Agriculture, Forestry, and Mining Manufacturing Food and Kindred Industry Products
Lumber
Paper and Allied Products
Chemicals and Allied Products
Biorefineries
Othera Nonspecifiedb
Energy Source Total Total Agricultural Byproducts/Crops Total Total Agricultural Byproducts/Crops Other Biomass Gases Other Biomass Liquids Sludge Waste Wood/Wood Waste Solids Total Sludge Waste Wood/Wood Waste Solids Total Agricultural Byproducts/Crops Black Liquor Landfill Gas Other Biomass Gases Other Biomass Liquids Other Biomass Solids Sludge Waste Wood/Wood Waste Liquids Wood/Wood Waste Solids Total Other Biomass Liquids Sludge Waste Wood/Wood Waste Solids Total Biofuels Losses and Coproductsc Biodiesel Feedstock Ethanol Feedstock Total Total Ethanold Landfill Gas Municipal Solid Waste Biogenice
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Annual , 2008, Washington, D.C., Table 1.8, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/table1_8.html Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. = Not Applicable.
a
Other includes Apparel; Petroleum Refining; Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products; Transportation Equipment; Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products; Furniture and Fixtures; and related industries. b Primary purpose of business is not specified. c Losses and coproducts from production of biodiesel and ethanol. d Ethanol primarily derived from corn minus denaturant. e Includes paper and paper board, wood, food, leather, textiles and yard trimmings.
Biomass is the single largest source of renewable energy in the United States. Biomass, which includes biofuels, waste and woody materials, surpassed hydroelectric power in 2005 and by 2010 accounted for over half of all renewable energy consumption. In 2010, biomass contributed about 4.4% of the total U.S. energy consumption of 98 quadrillion Btu. Wood, wood waste, and black liquor from pulp mills is the single largest source, accounting for almost one-half of total biomass energy consumption. Wastes (which include municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, straw, agricultural by-products, and other secondary and tertiary sources of biomass) accounts for 11% of total biomass consumption. The remaining share is alcohol fuel derived principally from corn grain.
Section: INTRODUCTION Summary of Biomass Energy Consumption, 2010
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , July 2011, Table 1.3, Primary Energy Consumption by Source, and Table 10.1, Renewable Energy Production and Consumption by Source . http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/contents.html
Sustainability
Sustainability can be defined as the ability of an activity to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Bruntland, 1987). The potential for bioenergy to be a more sustainable source of liquid fuel, electric power, and heat than current dominant sources is the major driver behind policies that support bioenergy research and development. Sustainability comprises overlapping environmental, economic, and social aspects. Tools to assess sustainability include indicators and life-cycle analyses. Sustainability of bioenergy can be assessed at scales ranging from individual operations (e.g., a farm or biorefinery) to industries (e.g., soybean biodiesel or mixed-feedstock cellulosic ethanol) of regional, national, or global extent. Assessments of sustainability must consider effects throughout the supply chain, even when focusing on a single operation within that chain. (For example, the concept of spatial footprints can be used to incorporate aspects of land-use efficiency in feedstock production when assessing the sustainability of biorefineries.) Although usage of the term varies, the ability of a particular system to persist over time can be called viability and is one aspect of sustainability. Long-term profitability is the most obvious aspect of viability. However, viability has environmental and social as well as economic components. For example, viability of plant-based feedstock production requires the maintenance of soil quality, and bioenergy systems in general require acceptance from the public. In addition to viability, sustainability encompasses the extent to which a particular system contributes to the ability of a broader system a region, a country, or the globe to meet its present and future needs. Environmental considerations for the sustainability of a bioenergy system include effects on soil quality, water quality and quantity, greenhouse gas (GHG) balance, air quality, biodiversity, and productivity. Social and economic considerations overlap and include employment, welfare, international trade, energy security, and natural resource accounts, in addition to profitability and social acceptability. Indicators can be used to assess the sustainability of bioenergy systems. Sustainability indicators can be defined as any measurable quantity that provides information about potential or realized effects of human activities on environmental, social, or economic phenomena of concern. Indicators can relate to management practices (e.g., amount of fertilizer applied) or to their effects (e.g., nutrients in soil or in waterways). Indicators based on management practices can be useful in certification systems, such as those under development by the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels and the Council on Sustainable Biomass Production. Indicators that measure effects can be used to provide an empirical grounding for the interpretation of management-based indicators or to assess the overall sustainability of a bioenergy industry or pathway. To the extent possible, indicators should reflect the entire supply chain. Such indicators can provide guidance for decisions such as choosing a specific conversion technology or choosing locations that are both suitable for low-cost feedstock production as well as close to markets.
Life-cycle analyses (LCAs) are another tool used to assess bioenergy sustainability. An LCA typically considers one or more quantities of environmental significance (e.g., energy consumption, Ceq emissions, consumptive water use) and sums the contribution to that quantity (negative as well as positive) from each step of the entire supply chain (cradle to grave). LCAs can seem straightforward on the surface, but LCAs measuring similar quantities can give disparate results depending on how system boundaries, baseline conditions, and co-products are defined and dealt with. More generally, different approaches to system boundaries, baseline conditions, and co-products pose challenges to any effort to assess the sustainability of bioenergy systems. The treatment of baseline conditions is particularly problematic. The term baseline can describe conditions that exist prior to the implementation of bioenergy production, or it can describe the most likely alternative uses of the land and resources. The former type of baselines can potentially be measured. In some cases, the latter type of baselines can be approximated by carefully selecting and monitoring land resources that are similar except lacking bioenergy systems. In other cases, especially when assessing effects that may be geographically dispersed (e.g., air pollution or energy security), suitable proxy sites may not exist for those latter baselines, and alternate scenarios must be projected through simulation modeling. A full understanding of the relative sustainability of a bioenergy system requires comparing the effects of that system to the effects of displaced or alternative sources of energy. This comparison may or may not be considered an issue of baselines. Typically, bioenergy systems are compared against fossil fuel systems (such as production of electricity from coal or liquid fuels from petroleum). The sustainability of fossil fuel systems should be considered in sustainability assessments, including advantages such as pre-existing infrastructure and disadvantages such as nonrenewability, high GHG emissions, adverse health impacts, and (in the case of oil) frequent location of resources in politically unstable regions. Comparisons between bioenergy and other renewable energy technologies are also appropriate in some situations, particularly when the desired end product is electricity. A central controversy regarding the sustainability of bioenergy concerns the idea of indirect land-use change (iLUC). Given certain assumptions, economic models predict that bioenergy production could raise global agricultural commodity prices, inducing the conversion of forests and grasslands to bioenergy production. Researchers disagree about whether these models are sufficiently realistic, valid, and/or based on accurate input data for use in policymaking. This topic is explored more fully in Indirect Land-Use Change The Issues found in the feedstock section. Although researchers disagree about whether and to what extent current bioenergy systems are sustainable, there is relatively broad agreement that bioenergy has at least the potential to be more sustainable than currently dominant energy systems. For example, many researchers believe that the most pressing concerns about current bioenergy sustainability could be addressed by growing lignocellulosic biomass crops
such as switchgrass, Miscanthus, or hybrid poplar on land that is degraded, abandoned, or ill-suited to growing traditional crops. Such a plan will require advances both in technology (e.g., to overcome the recalcitrance of lignocellulose) and in policy (e.g., the widespread adoption of sound standards for sustainability). Despite daunting challenges, research progresses on both fronts. Works cited: Bruntland, G.H. (ed.) 1987. Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Online at: http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm Further reading: Bringezu, S., Schtz, H., O Brien, M., Kauppi, L., Howarth, R.W., McNeely, J., 2009. Towards sustainable production and use of resources: assessing biofuels. United Nations Envrionment Programme. Online at: http://www.unep.org/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels-full_report-Web.pdf Dale, V., Fargione, J., Kline, K., Weins, J., 2010. Biofuels: implications for land use and biodiversity. Biofuels and Sustainability Reports, Ecological Society of America. Online at: http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports/files/ESA Biofuels Report_VH Dale et al.pdf Pickett, J., Anderson, D., Bowles, D., Bridgwater, T., Jarvis, P., Mortimer, N., Poliakoff, M., Woods, J., 2008. Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. The Royal Society. Online at: http://royalsociety.org/Sustainable-biofuels-prospects-andchallenges/ Written by: Allen McBride, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, September 2011.
Indirect Land-Use Change The Issues A central controversy regarding the sustainability of bioenergy concerns the idea of indirect land-use change (iLUC). With respect to bioenergy, we can define iLUC as any land-use change caused by bioenergy production, excluding the conversion of land used directly for that production. The central hypothesis behind iLUC concerns is that when land used for a given purpose is converted to bioenergy feedstock production, then land used for the original purpose will be more scarce, increasing the value of such land and inducing people to convert other land to that purpose. For example, if an acre of land used to grow corn for livestock feed is converted to growing corn for ethanol, then it would be assumed that the price of feed corn would increase by approximately the amount required to induce someone else to convert an acre of land from some other purpose to producing corn for feed. Furthermore, if this land to be converted to feed corn production has high carbon stocks (e.g., old-growth forest), then the conversion will release CO2 to the atmosphere, creating a carbon debt that could take decades to pay off via offset fossil fuel combustion. Under certain simple assumptions, scenarios such as this must occur. For example, attempts to quantify GHG emissions from bioenergy iLUC are guaranteed to produce positive results if researchers use models that assume that: all agricultural land available for conversion is fully utilized, all non-agricultural land available for conversion is relatively undisturbed and has high carbon stores, all land available for conversion is privately held, all landowners seek to maximize profit, and increases in bioenergy production occur suddenly (i.e., act as economic shocks). However, these assumptions do not hold in many areas of the world. Because modeling requires generalizations, assumptions will inevitably be violated to some degree. These violations are acceptable only when correcting them would not greatly affect results. In the case of iLUC, conceptual models suggest that correcting some of these assumptions in simulation models could fundamentally change conclusions about iLUC. For example, at the margins of rainforests, land-use change may be driven by multiyear cycles of shifting cultivation, including low-profit and GHG-intensive slash-and-burn techniques. In addition, new deforestation may be driven in part by the desire to claim effectively ungoverned land. Increased commodity prices could plausibly provide incentives for farmers in these areas to more sustainably and intensively manage already-cleared land instead of abandoning it to clear secondary or primary forest. Unfortunately, data may not currently exist to allow iLUC simulations that would take such potentially crucial mechanisms into account. More research is needed to collect such data, including better resolution land-use and land-cover data throughout the world, and surveys of land managers to better understand motivations for management decisions. In addition to better data, more work is needed to integrate existing but difficult-to-reconcile data sets, such as those with high spatial but low temporal resolution and vice-versa. Techniques of causal analysis pioneered in epidemiology
hold promise for the challenge of determining whether bioenergy plays a significant market-mediated role in deforestation and other land-use change. Researchers disagree about whether potential iLUC effects should be considered in policymaking. Because some models predict large GHG emissions from iLUC, some researchers argue that not considering iLUC effects would be an unacceptable risk. Other researchers argue that the uncertainty surrounding current estimates of iLUC, both in terms of differing estimates from current models as well as the lack of empirical validation of those models, is too large to consider their results in policymaking. In addition, some researchers argue that considering iLUC effects of bioenergy systems in policymaking is inappropriate because analogous indirect land-use change effects of fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and use are poorly understood and are not taken into account in estimates of environmental and socioeconomic effects of fossil fuels. Finally, there is philosophical debate about how to apportion blame (e.g., carbon penalties) among multiple causal factors leading to a given outcome. For example, if certain indirect deforestation would not have occurred in the absence of a biofuel system, then the same could also be said of the individuals or groups actually burning or cutting that forest. Further reading: Fritsche, U. R., Sims, R. E. H. and Monti, A., 2010. Direct and indirect land-use competition issues for energy crops and their sustainable production an overview. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4: 692704. Online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.258/full Kline, K., Dale, V.H., Lee, R., Leiby, P., 2009. In defense of biofuels, done right. Issues Sci. Technol. 25, 75-84. Online at: http://www.issues.org/25.3/kline.html
Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the many factors used in comparing the sustainability level of various energy sources. Greenhouse emissions from fossil fuels are generally greater than emissions from biomass derived fuels. However biomass fuels can also vary greatly with respect to levels of greenhouse gas emissions depending on the biomass resource used, how those resources were produced or collected, and the biomass to energy conversion technology pathway. One way of obtaining a sense of the difference in emissions between fossil fuels and various biomass energy technology pathways is to evaluate net greenhouse gas savings based on which fossil fuel source is being displaced. Such an evaluation has been recently performed comparing corn grain and switchgrass as the biomass feedstock for production of liquid transportation fuels, electric transportation, and electricity for other uses.
Section: INTRODUCTION A Comparison of Climate Impacts of Various Bioenergy Systems
This figure (from Lemoine et al 2010) shows that net GHG savings per area of cropland are sensitive to assumptions about which fossil fuel technology is being displaced. The X marker shows ethanol displacing gasoline. The blue asterik follows a study by Campbell et al (2009) in assuming that bioelectricity is used to power electrified vehicles and displaces gasoline. The diamond, square, and triangle (coal, natural gas combined cycle, and wind electricity) show the GHG benefit (or cost) when bioelectricity displaces each of these types of power. Corn grain production is assumed to have an indirect land use effect of 30g CO2e (MJ ethanol)-1 while switchgrass is assumed to be planted on Conservation Reserve Land with no indirect land use effect but also no soil carbon sequestration. Sources: Lemoine, D.M. et al. The Climate Impacts of Bioenergy Systems Depend on Market and Regulatory Policy Contexts. Environmental Science & Technology 44:7347-7350 Campbell, J.E.; Lobel, D.B.; Field, C.B. Greater transportation energy and GHG offsets from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science 2009, 324, 1055-1057. Supplementary material including a complete description of the Energy Displacement Model is available free of charge at http://pubs.acs.org.
Biomass Resources Overview

Biomass Resources include all plant and plant-derived (organic) materials that are available on a renewable or recurring basis. Plant biomass is a complex mixture of organic materials, primarily carbohydrates (~75% dry weight) and lignin (~25% dry weight) with the proportions varying by plant type, but also containing fats, proteins and minerals. The carbohydrates consist mainly of cellulose or hemicellulose fibers which give strength to plant structures with a small portion of carbohydrates in the form of starches and simple sugars. Lignin is the glue that holds the fibers together. Thus the stems, stalks, branches, and leaves of plants are the lignocellulosic components of plants which are eaten by forage animals for food, processed mechanically for bioproducts (such as wood used in buildings or furniture), or processed thermally or biochemically in many different ways to produce heat, electricity, chemicals, and biofuels. Both the primary lignocellulosic resources (trees, grasses, and stalks of food crops) and all by-products of processing (from pulping black liquor to sawdust to food waste and manure) compose the biomass resource base that can be utilized for producing various types of bioenergy. For production of liquid biofuels, some processes involve separating the lignin from the cellulose and hemicellulose in order to gain access to the carbohydrates that can be broken down into sugars. Reduction of lignocellulosic materials to sugars and other compounds is anticipated to be the major source of liquid biofuels and chemicals in the future. Examples of biomass resources that are currently used for liquid biofuels include: starches from the grain of corn (maize), wheat and other grains; sugars squeezed from the stalks of sugarcane; and oils derived from soybeans and other oilseed crops. All biomass resources available for producing bioenergy and biofuels are expected to be produced and harvested in a sustainable manner. A recent analysis of biomass resources (US Department of Energy, 2011), includes a more rigorous treatment and modeling of resource sustainability than was done in a previous evaluation (Perlack et al. 2005). The 2011 update evaluates two scenariosbaseline and high yield. Overall, results of this update are consistent with the 2005 study in terms of the magnitude of the resource potential previously estimated to be over one billion dry tons on an annual basis. In the 2011 baseline scenario, forest resource quantities are estimated to vary from about 33 to 119 million dry tons currently to about 35 to 129 million dry tons in 2030 over a price range of ($20-$80 per dry ton). Primary forest biomass (derived from logging, thinnings, and land clearing) is the single largest source of forest resource. The agricultural resources show considerably more supply, with the quantity increasing significantly over time. This increase is due to yield growth (assumed to be about 1% per year) and assumptions of more land managed with no-till or reduced cultivation, all of which makes more crop residue available. The increase can also be attributed to the deployment of energy crops, which are assumed to be first planted in 2014 and have yield growth of 1% per year that is due to breeding and selection and experience gained). In 2012, biomass supplies are estimated to range from about 59 million dry tons at a *farmgate price of $40 per dry ton or less to 162 million dry tons at $60 per dry ton. The composition of this biomass is about two-thirds crop residue and one-third various agricultural processing residues and wastes. By 2030, quantities increase to 160 million dry tons at the lowest simulated price to 664 million dry tons at the highest simulated price ($60 per dry ton). At prices above $50 per dry ton, energy crops become the dominant resource after 2022. No high-yield scenario was evaluated for forest resources except for the woody crops. Forest residues come from existing timberlands, and there is no obvious way to increase volumes other than reducing the amounts of residues retained onsite for environmental sustainability or decreasing the merchantable utilization requirementsneither option was considered. Forest residues and wastes total to 100 million dry tons by 2022. The high-yield agriculture scenario assumes a greater proportion of corn in reduced and no-till cultivation and increased corn yields (averaging 2% per year) to about double the current rate of annual increase, all factors which increase residue levels. Agricultural residues and wastes are about 244 million dry tons currently and increase to 404 million dry tons by 2030 at a farmgate price of $60 per dry ton. For energy crops, the high-yield scenario increased the annual rate of crop productivity growth from the 1% baseline to 2%, 3%, and 4% annually. Energy crops are the largest potential source of biomass feedstock, with
potential energy crop supplies varying considerably depending on what is assumed about productivity. At a 2% annual growth rate, energy crop potential is 540 million dry tons by 2030 and 658 million dry tons if an annual increase in productivity of 3% is assumed. Both of these estimates assume a farmgate price of $60 per dry ton. Increasing yield growth to 4% pushes the energy crop potential to nearly 800 million dry tons. Energy crops become very significant in the high-yield scenarioproviding over half of the potential biomass. In total, potential supplies at a forest roadside or farmgate priceof $60 per dry ton range from 855 to 1009 million dry tons by 2022 and from about 1046 to 1305 million dry tons by 2030, depending on what is assumed about energy crop productivity (2% to 4% annual increase over current yields). This estimate does not include resources that are currently being used, such as corn grain and forest products industry residues. By including the currently used resources, the total biomass estimate jumps to well over one billion dry tons and to over 1.6 billion dry tons with more aggressive assumptions about energy crop productivity. The above results, along with estimates of currently used resources are summarized in the Data Book table entitled Summary of Currently Used and Potential Biomass. One important year highlighted in this table is 2022the year in which the revised Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandates the use of 36 billion gallons per year (BGY) of renewable fuels (with 20 billion gallons coming from cellulosic biofuels). The feedstock shown in the baseline scenario accounts for conventional biofuels (corn grain, ethanol, and biodiesel) and shows 602 million dry tons of potential lignocellulosic biomass resource. This potential resource is more than sufficient to provide feedstock to produce the required 20 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. The high-yield scenario demonstrates a potential that far exceeds the RFS mandate. _____________________________ * The farmgate price is a basic feedstock price that includes cultivation (or acquisition), harvest, and delivery of biomass to the field edge or roadside. It excludes on-road transport, storage, and delivery to an end user. For grasses and residues this price includes baling. For forest residues and woody crops this includes minimal comminution (e.g. chipping). Sources: Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC. 2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. DOE/GO102995-2135 or ORNL/TM-2005/66. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 60 pp. www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/publications.html U.S. Department of Energy. 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2010/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN p.227. (accessed 8-15-2011 at https://bioenergykdf.net/content/billiontonupdate)
BiomassDefinitionsinLegislation
Biomasshasbeenreferencedinlegislationforover30years.Definitionsofbiomasshaveevolvedovertime, mostlysince2004.ArecentreportbytheCongressionalResearchServiceprovidesacomprehensivereviewof fourteenbiomassdefinitionsfoundinrecentenactedlegislation.Sevendefinitionsinpendinglegislationarealso reviewed.Commentsonsimilaritiesanddifferencesamongthedefinitionsareprovidedandissuesforbiomass feedstockdevelopmentrelatedtodifferencesindefinitionsarediscussed.Definitionsfromthetwomostrecent piecesofenactedlegislationwereextractedfromthereport.Akeydifferenceregardstheinclusionornon inclusionofbiomassharvestedfromfederalland.Itishighlyrecommendedthatthefullreportbeaccessedto understandtheimplicationsofthevariousbiomassdefinitionsfoundinlegislation. IntheFood,Conservation,andEnergyActof2008(2008farmbill,P.L.110246)TitleIX,Sec.9001(12)theterm renewablebiomassmeans
A)materials,precommercialthinnings,orinvasivespeciesfromNationalForestSystemlandandpubliclands(asdefinedin section103oftheFederalLandPolicyandManagementActof1976(43U.S.C.1702))that(i)arebyproductsofpreventive treatmentsthatareremoved(I)toreducehazardousfuels;(II)toreduceorcontaindiseaseorinsectinfestation;or(III)to restoreecosystemhealth;(ii)wouldnototherwisebeusedforhighervalueproducts;and(iii)areharvestedinaccordance with(I)applicablelawandlandmanagementplans;and(II)therequirementsfor(aa)oldgrowthmaintenance, restoration,andmanagementdirectionofparagraphs(2),(3),and(4)ofsubsection(e)ofsection102oftheHealthyForests RestorationActof2003(16U.S.C.6512);and(bb)largetreeretentionofsubsection(f)ofthatsection;or (B)anyorganicmatterthatisavailableonarenewableorrecurringbasisfromnonFederallandorlandbelongingtoanIndian orIndiantribethatisheldintrustbytheUnitedStatesorsubjecttoarestrictionagainstalienationimposedbytheUnited States,including(i)renewableplantmaterial,including(I)feedgrains;(II)otheragriculturalcommodities;(III)otherplants andtrees;and(IV)algae;and(ii)wastematerial,including(I)cropresidue;(II)othervegetativewastematerial(including woodwasteandwoodresidues);(III)animalwasteandbyproducts(includingfats,oils,greases,andmanure);and(IV)food wasteandyardwaste.
IntheEnergyIndependenceandSecurityActof2007(EISA,P.L.110140)TitleII,Sec.201(1)(I)theterm renewablebiomassmeanseachofthefollowing:
(i)Plantedcropsandcropresidueharvestedfromagriculturallandclearedorcultivatedatanytimepriortotheenactmentof thissentencethatiseitheractivelymanagedorfallow,andnonforested. (ii)Plantedtreesandtreeresiduefromactivelymanagedtreeplantationsonnonfederallandclearedatanytimepriorto enactment of this sentence, including land belonging to an Indian tribe or an Indian individual, that is held in trust by the UnitedStatesorsubjecttoarestrictionagainstalienationimposedbytheUnitedStates. (iii)Animalwastematerialandanimalbyproducts. (iv) Slash and precommercial thinnings that are from nonfederal forestlands, including forestlands belonging to an Indian tribeoranIndianindividual,thatareheldintrustbytheUnitedStatesorsubjecttoarestrictionagainstalienationimposed bytheUnitedStates,butnotforestsorforestlandsthatareecologicalcommunitieswithaglobalorStaterankingofcritically imperiled,imperiled,orrarepursuanttoaStateNaturalHeritageProgram,oldgrowthforest,orlatesuccessionalforest. (v) Biomass obtained from the immediate vicinity of buildings and other areas regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure,atriskfromwildfire. (vi)Algae. (vii)Separatedyardwasteorfoodwaste,includingrecycledcookingandtrapgrease.
Source:BracmortK.andGorte,RossW.Biomass:ComparisonofDefinitionsinLegislationThroughthe111th Congress.CongressionalResearchService.October8,2010.21p.
In 2007, the United States had a total surface area of 1,938 million acres. Based on the 2007 Natural Resources Inventory, 20% is classified as crop land and 21% was classified as forest land which shows that nearly half of the land area in the U.S. is well suited for either biomass crops or biomass residuals. Pasture land and Range land is for the most part, too dry to provide large quantities of biomass material. Developed land is a potential source for post-consumer biomass residuals like those found in municipal solid waste landfills. Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009. Summary Report: 2007 National Resources Inventory , Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 123 pages. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1041379.pdf Note: Cropland includes CRP Land, which is reported separately in the source document. CRP = Conservation Reserve Program
Location of commodity crop production shows where agricultural residues are potentially available for collection and energy crops potentially available for production. Section: INTRODUCTION Geographic Locations of Major Crops, 2010 (production acreage by county)
Section: INTRODUCTION Geographic Locations of Major Crops, 2010 (production acreage by county)
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/A_to_Z/index.asp#h
This map shows the spatial distribution of the nations timberland in 2007 by county. Nationwide, there are 514 million acres of forest land classified as timberland. This land is the source of a wide variety of forest products and forest residue feedstocks, such as logging residue and fuel treatment thinnings to reduce the risk of fire. In this map, timberland is defined as forest land capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year and not legally withdrawn from timber production, with a minimum area classification of 1 acre. Section: INTRODUCTION Geographic Distribution of Timberland by County, 2007
Source: USDA Forest Service, 2007 RPA data, available at: http://fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/maps/2007/descr/ytim_land.asp USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis. 2007 RPA data and the National Atlas of the United States.
Currently used biomass feedstocks are largely derived from agriculture and the forestry sector, with the majority of that being used by the forestry sector to generate energy for industrial processes. Fuelwood, another substantial category includes the residential and commercial sector as well as biomass consumed by the electric utility industry in dedicated biomass plants and co-firing applications. Municipal solid waste (MSW) sources are allocated to forestry (65%) and cropland (35%) sectors. Ethanol and biodiesel projections are based on federal mandates of 15 billion gallons per year of biofuels and 1 billion gallons per year of biodiesel. The ethanol numbers assume corn grain at 56 pounds per bushel, 15.5% moisture content, and 2.8 gallons per bushel. Section: INTRODUCTION Projected Consumption of Currently Used Biomass Feedstocks by Source (Million Dry Tons per Year) Source Forest Fuelwood Mill Residue Pulping liquors MSW sources Total Forest Agriculture Ethanola Biodieselb MSW sources Total agricultural Total Currently Used Resources Current 38 32 45 14 129 2017 72 38 52 20 182 2022 96 39 54 20 210 2030 106 42 58 20 226
76(109) 2 7 85(118)
88(127) 4 11 103(142)
88(127) 4 11 103(142)
88(127) 4 11 103(143)
214 (247)
284(342)
312(351)
328(368)
Sources: Perlack, R. D., and B. J. Stokes. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry , ORNL/TM-2010/224, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 2011. Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Website, https://bioenergykdf.net
a
The first number is the portion of corn consumed to make ethanol. The number in parenthesis is the amount of corn required. For example, it takes 127.5 million dry tons to make 15 billion gallon per year of ethanol. However, only 88.3 million dry tons are consumed in making the ethanol. The remainder (39.2 million dry tons) is distillers grain and is excluded from the total.
Includedallsourcesofbiodiesel.Currentconsumptionis43%fromsoybeansand
57% from other sources, including animal fats and waste oils. The proportion of sources of future feedstocks will vary and are assumed to have an average conversion rate of 7.5 pounds of oil/fats per gallon of diesel.
In 2022 the revised Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandates the use of 36 billion gallons per year (BGY) of renewable fuels (with 20 billion gallons coming from cellulosic biofuels). The feedstock shown in the baseline scenario accounts for conventional biofuels (corn grain, ethanol, and biodiesel) and shows 602 million dry tons of potential lignocellulosic biomass resource. This potential resource is more than sufficient to provide feedstock to produce the required 20 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels. The high-yield scenario demonstrates a potential that far exceeds the RFS mandate. Section: INTRODUCTION Summary of Currently Used and Potential Biomass (Million Dry Tons) Feedstock Forest resources currently used Forest biomass & waste resource potential Agricultural resources currently used Agricultural biomass & waste resource potential Energy crops[1] Total currently used Total potential resources Total baseline Forest resources currently used Forest biomass & waste resource potential Agricultural resources currently used Agricultural biomass & waste resource potential[2] Energy crops Total currently used Total potential Total high-yield (2-4%) 2012 2017 2022 Baseline scenario 129 182 210 97 98 100 85 103 103 162 192 221 0 101 282 214 284 312 258 392 602 473 676 914 High-yield scenario (2%-4%) 129 182 210 97 98 100 85 103 103 244 310 346 0 139-180 410-564 214 284 312 340 547-588 855-1009 555 831-872 1168-1322 2030 226 102 103 265 400 328 767 1094 226 102 103 404 540-799 328 1046-1305 1374-1633
Sources: Perlack R. D., L. L. Wright, A. F. Turhollow, R. L. Graham, B. J. Stokes, and D. C. Erbach, Biomass as Feedstock Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-ton Annual Supply, ORNL/TM-2005/66. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 2005. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/publications.html Perlack, R. D., and B. J. Stokes (Leads), U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry , ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 2011. Note: Under the high-yield scenario, energy crops are shown for 2% to 4% annual increase in yield. Numbers may not add due to rounding. The summary assumes price paid is $60 per dry ton or less at the farm gate or forest edge and thus does not include additional costs to preprocess, handle or transport the feedstock . Scenario descriptions are discussed in the Biomass Resource Overview text and in the 2011 reference below.
BIOFUELS Contents
Biofuels Overview Green Hydrocarbon Biofuels Diagram of Routes to Make Biofuels Biological and Chemical Catalysts for Biofuels Ethanol Ethanol Overview Specifications Contained in ASTM D 4806 Standard Specification from Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline Fuel Property Comparison for Ethanol, Gasoline and No.2 Diesel Ethanol Production World Fuel Ethanol Production by Country or Region, 2010 Fuel Ethanol Production and Imports, 1981-2010 Ethanol Plant Statistics, 1999-2011 Ethanol Production Capacity by Feedstock, 2011 Ethanol Production Capacity by Plant Energy Source, 2009 Active and Under Construction Ethanol Biorefineries and Capacity, by State, 2011 The Ethanol Production Process - Wet Milling The Ethanol Production Process - Dry Milling The Production of Ethanol from Cellulosic Biomass Water Consumption for Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline Production Ethanol Consumption Ethanol Consumption in E85 and Gasohol, 1995-2009 Economics Economic Contribution of the Ethanol Industry, 2009 Sustainability Ethanol Net Energy Balances and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparisons of Energy Inputs for Three Ethanol Scenarios and Gasoline Comparative Results Between Ethanol and Gasoline Based on an Evaluation by the GREET Model Comparison of Ethanol Energy Balance With and Without Inclusion of Coproduct Energy Credits Figure Figure Figure Table 09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/09/2011 09/09/2011 Table 09/12/2011 Table 09/23/2011 Table Table Table Table Table Table Figure Figure Figure Table 09/12/2011 09/27/2011 09/12/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 06/21/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011 09/30/2011 Text Table Table 09/27/2011 09/12/2011 09/12/2011
Data Type
Text Text Figure Table
Updated
09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/09/2011 09/09/2011
Biodiesel Biodiesel Overview Biodiesel Production World Biodiesel Production by Region and Selected Countries, 2005-2009 Biodiesel Production Capacity by State Biodiesel Production, Imports and Exports, 2001 - 2010 Biodiesel Production Capacity by Feedstock Composition of Various Oils and Fats used for Biodiesel Typical Proportions of Chemicals Used to Make Biodiesel Specification for Biodiesel (B100) Specification for Biodiesel Blends B6 to B20 Commercial Biodiesel Production Methods Sustainability Average Biodiesel (B100 and B20) Emissions Compared to Conventional Diesel Bio-oil Bio-oil Overview Output Products by Method of Pyrolysis A Fast Pyrolysis Process for Making Bio-oil Bio-oil Characteristics Bio-oil Fuel Comparisons Taxes and Incentives Annotated Summary of Biofuel and Biomass Electric Incentives: Online Information Resources Federal and State Alternative Fuel Incentives, 2011 Table Table 09/27/2011 04/18/2011 Text Table Figure Table Table 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 Table 09/27/2011 Table Table Table Table Table Figure Table Table Figure 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 09/27/2011 Text 09/27/2011
Biofuels Overview
A variety of fuels can be produced from biomass resources including liquid fuels, such as, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, Fischer-Tropsch diesel and gasoline, and gaseous fuels, such as hydrogen and methane. Biofuels are primarily used to fuel vehicles, but can also fuel engines or fuel cells for electricity generation.
Ethanol Ethanol is most commonly made by converting the starch from corn into sugar, which is then converted into ethanol in a fermentation process similar to brewing beer. Ethanol is the most widely used biofuel today with 2010 production and consumption at over 13 billion gallons based primarily on corn. Ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass is currently the subject of extensive research, development and demonstration efforts. Biodiesel Biodiesel is produced through a process in which organically derived oils are combined with alcohol (ethanol or methanol) in the presence of a catalyst to form ethyl or methyl ester. The biomass-derived ethyl or methyl esters can be blended with conventional diesel fuel or used as a neat fuel (100% biodiesel). Biodiesel can be made from any vegetable oil, animal fats, waste vegetable oils, or microalgae oils. Soybeans and Canola (rapeseed) oils are the most common vegetable oils used today. Bio-oil A totally different process than that used for biodiesel production can be used to convert biomass into a type of fuel similar to diesel which is known as bio-oil. The process, called fast or flash pyrolysis, occurs when heating compact solid fuels at temperatures between 350 and 500 degrees Celsius for a very short period of time (less than 2 seconds). While there are several fast pyrolysis technologies under development, there are only two commercial fast pyrolysis technologies as of 2009. The bio-oils currently produced are suitable for use in boilers for electricity generation. There is currently ongoing research and development to produce bioOil of sufficient quality for transportation applications. Other Hydrocarbon Biofuels Biomass can be gasified to produce a synthesis gas composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, also called syngas or biosyngas. Syngas produced today is used directly to generate heat and power but several types of biofuels may be derived from syngas. Hydrogen can be recovered from this syngas, or it can be catalytically converted to methanol or ethanol. The gas can also be run through a biological reactor to produce ethanol or can also be converted using Fischer-Tropsch catalyst into a liquid stream with properties similar to diesel fuel, called Fischer-Tropsch diesel. However, all of these fuels can also be produced from natural gas using a similar process. A wide range of single molecule biofuels or fuel additives can be made from lignocellulosic biomass. Such production has the advantage of being chemically essentially the same as petroleum-based fuels. Thus modifications to existing engines and fuel distribution infrastructure are not required. Additional information on green hydrocarbon fuels can be found on the Green Hydrocarbon Biofuels page. Sources: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/
Fuels
Green Hydrocarbon Biofuels

A biofuel is a liquid transportation fuel made from biomass. A wide range of single molecule biofuels or fuel additives can be made from lignocellulosic biomass including: Ethanol or ethyl alcohol Butanol or butyl alcohol Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) or furfural Gamma valerolactone (GVL) Ethyl levulinate (ELV) The production of hydrocarbon biofuels from biomass has many advantages:
Green hydrocarbon fuels are chemically essentially the same as petroleum-based fuels. Thus modifications to existing engines and fuel distribution infrastructure are not required. Green hydrocarbon fuels are energy equivalent to petroleum-based fuels, thus no mileage penalty is encountered from their use. Green hydrocarbon fuels are immiscible in water. This allows the biofuels to self-separate from water which eliminates the high cost associated with water separation by distillation. Green hydrocarbon fuels are produced at high temperatures, which translates into faster reactions and smaller reactors. This allows for the fabrication and use of portable processing units that allow the conversion of biomass closer to the biomass source. The amount of water required for processing Green hydrocarbon fuels from biomass, if any, is minimal. The heterogeneous catalysts used for the production of Green hydrocarbon biofuels are inherently recyclable, allowing them to be used for months or years.
Additionally, Green gasoline or diesel biofuels, which are a mixture of compounds, can be synthesized from lignocellulosic biomass by catalytic deoxygenation. Green diesel can also be made via the catalytic deoxygenation of fatty acids derived from virgin or waste vegetable oils or animal fats. Biofuels can be produced using either biological (e.g., yeast) or chemical catalysts with each having advantages and disadvantages. Chemical catalysts range from solid heterogeneous catalysts to homogeneous acids. Most biofuel production pathways use chemical catalysts. Source: National Science Foundation. 2008. Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels: Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries, Ed. George Huber. University of Massachusetts Amherst. National Science Foundation. Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Division. Washington D.C.
Section: BIOFUELS Diagram of Routes to Make Biofuels
Source: NSF. 2008. Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels: Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries , Ed. George Huber. University of Massachusetts Amherst. National Science Foundation. Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Division. Washington D.C.
Section: BIOFUELS Catalyst Types and Conditions for Use in Producing Biofuels Biological Catalysts Alcohols Less than 70C, 1 atm 2-5 days Can be tuned to be very selective (greater than 95%) $0.50/gallon ethanol (cost for cellulase enzymes, and they require sugars to grow) $0.04/gallon of corn ethanol Sterilize all Feeds (enzymes are being developed that do not require sterilization of feed) Not possible 2,000-5,000 tons/day Chemical Catalysts A Wide Range of Hydrocarbon Fuels 10-1200C, 1-250 atm 0.01 second to 1 hour Depends on reaction. New catalysts need to be developed that are greater than 95% selective. $0.01/gallon gasoline (cost in mature petroleum industry) No sterilizaton needed
Products Reaction Conditions Residence Time Selectivity
Catalyst Cost
Sterilization
Recyclability Size of Cellulosic Plant
Yes with Solid Catalysts 100-2,000 tons/day
Source: NSF. 2008. Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels: Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries, Ed. George Huber. University of Massachusetts Amherst. National Science Foundation. Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Division. Washington D.C.
Ethanol Overview
There are two types of ethanol produced in the United States fermentation ethanol and synthetic ethanol. Fermentation ethanol (or bioethanol) is produced from corn or other biomass feedstocks and is by far the most common type of ethanol produced, accounting for more than 90% of all ethanol production. Fermentation ethanol is mainly produced for fuel, though a small share is used by the beverage industry and the industrial industry. Synthetic ethanol is produced from ethylene, a petroleum by-product, and is used mainly in industrial applications. A small amount of synthetic ethanol is exported to other countries. Ethanol is the most widely used biofuel today. In 2009, more than 7.3 billion gasoline-equivalent gallons were added to gasoline in the United States to meet biofuel requirements and reduce air pollution. Ethanol is currently produced using a process similar to brewing beer where starch crops are converted into sugars, the sugars are fermented into ethanol, and the ethanol is then distilled into its final form. Ethanol is used to increase octane and improve the emissions quality of gasoline. In many areas of the United States today, ethanol is blended with gasoline to form an E10 blend (10% ethanol and 90% gasoline), but it can be used in higher concentrations, such as E85, or in its pure form E100. All automobile manufacturers that do business in the United States approve the use of E10 in gasoline engines; however, only flex fuel vehicles (FFVs) are designed to use E85. October 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency granted a partial waiver to allow E15 to be sold in the U.S., subject to several conditions. Pure ethanol or E100 is used in Brazil but is not currently compatible with vehicles manufactured for the U.S. market. Manufacturer approval of ethanol blends is found in vehicle owners' manuals under references to refueling or gasoline. Bioethanol from cellulosic biomass materials (such as agricultural residues, trees, and grasses) is made by first using pretreatment and hydrolysis processes to extract sugars, followed by fermentation of the sugars. Although producing bioethanol from cellulosic biomass is currently more costly than producing bioethanol from starch crops, the U.S. Government has launched a Biofuels Initiative with the objective of quickly reducing the cost of cellulosic bioethanol. Researchers are working to improve the efficiency and economics of the cellulosic bioethanol production process. When cellulosic bioethanol becomes commercially available, it will be used exactly as the bioethanol currently made from corn grain.
Source: DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biofuels.html
Below are the primary quality specifications for denatured fuel ethanol for blending with gasoline meeting Federal requirements. The state of California has additional restrictions that apply in addition to the performance requirements in ASTM D 4806. Section: BIOFUELS Specifications Contained in ASTM D 4806 Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline Property Ethanol volume %, min Methanol, volume %. max Solvent-washed gum, mg/100 ml max Water content, volume %, max Denaturant content, volume %, min volume %, max Inorganic Chloride content, mass ppm (mg/L) max Copper content, mg/kg, max Acidity (as acetic acid CH3COOH), mass percent (mg/L), max pHe Appearance Specification ASTM Test Method D 5501 92.100 0.500 D 381 5.000 E 203 1.000 1.960 4.760 D 512 40.000 D1688 0.100 D1613 0.007 6.5-9.0 D 6423 precipitated contaminants (clear & bright)
Source: Renewable Fuels Association, Industry Guidelines, Specifications, and Procedures. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/industry-resources-guidelines Note: ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials
Section: BIOFUELS Fuel Property Comparison for Ethanol, Gasoline and No. 2 Diesel Property Chemical Formula Molecular Weight Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Specific gravity, 60 F/60 F Density, lb/gal @ 60 F Boiling temperature, F Reid vapor pressure, psi Research octane no. Motor octane no. (R + M)/2 Cetane no.(1) Fuel in water, volume % Water in fuel, volume % Freezing point, F Centipoise @ 60 F Flash point, closed cup, F Autoignition temperature, F Lower Higher Btu/gal @ 60 F Btu/lb @ 60 F Btu/lb air for stoichiometric mixture @ 60 F Higher (liquid fuel-liquid water) Btu/lb Lower (liquid fuel-water vapor) Btu/lb Higher (liquid fuel-liquid water) Btu/gal Lower (liquid fuel-water vapor) Btu/gal @ 60 F Mixture in vapor state, Btu/cubic foot @ 68 F Fuel in liquid state, Btu/lb or air Specific heat, Btu/lb F Stoichiometric air/fuel, weight Volume % fuel in vaporized stoichiometric mixture Ethanol C2H5OH 46.07 52.2 13.1 34.7 0.796 6.61 172 2.3 108 92 100 -100 100 -173.2 1.19 55 793 4.3 19 2,378 396 44 12,800 11,500 84,100 b 76,000 92.9 1,280 0.57 9 6.5 Gasoline C4 to C12 100105 8588 1215 0 0.720.78 6.06.5 80437 815 90100 8190 8694 520 Negligible Negligible -40 0.370.44b -45 495 1.4 7.6 900 150 10 18,80020,400 18,00019,000 124,800 115,000 95.2 1,290 0.48 b 14.7 2 No. 2 Diesel C3 to C25 200 8487 3316 0 0.810.89 6.77.4 370650 0.2 --N/A 4055 Negligible Negligible -4030a 2.64.1 165 600 1 6 700 100 8 19,20020000 18,00019,000 138,700 128,400 96.9c 0.43 14.7
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/properties.html
a b
Pour Point, ASTM D 97. Calculated. c Based on Cetane.
The U.S. produces more fuel ethanol than any other country; Brazil produces the second most. Together, the U.S. and Brazil produced a little over 86% of the world's fuel ethanol in 2010. Section: BIOFUELS World Fuel Ethanol Production by Country or Region, 2010 (Millions of gallons, all grades) Region North & Central America Europe South America Asia Oceania Africa Total 2010 13,720.99 1,208.58 7,121.76 785.91 66.04 43.59 22,946.87
Individual Countries United States Brazil European Union China Canada
2010 13,230.00 6,577.89 1,039.52 541.55 290.59
Source: Renewable Fuels Association, Industry Statistics, Ethanol Industry Overview: World Fuel Ethanol Production. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics#F Note: Some countries listed in the table titled: "U.S. Fuel Ethanol Imports by Country" do not appear in this table because they process ethanol (dehydration) rather than produce it from feedstock.
Fuel ethanol production has been on the rise in the U.S. since 1980, though production has increased dramatically in recent years. Fuel ethanol production increased by 22% between 2009 and 2010. Section: BIOFUELS Fuel Ethanol Production and Imports, 1981-2010 (million gallons) Year 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Production 83 225 415 510 617 712 819 831 843 748 866 985 1,154 1,289 1,358 973 1,288 1,405 1,465 1,622 1,765 2,140 2,804 3,404 3,904 4,884 6,521 9,309 10,938 13,298 Net Imports N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,248 11,718 16,254 13,146 3,570 2,772 3,654 4,872 13,230 12,852 12,264 148,764 135,828 731,136 439,194 529,620 198,240 (382,843)
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , August 2011, Washington, D.C., Table 10.3. Additional resources: www.eia.doe.gov
a
Data for 1981-2009 are only imports. Beginning in 2010, data are for fuel ethanol imports minus exports.
Between 1999 and 2011, the number of ethanol plants in the U.S. quadrupled, accompanied by a rapid rise in production capacity. Additional information on specific plant locations and up-to-date statistics can be obtained at the Renewable Fuels Association, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics. Section: BIOFUELS Ethanol Plant Statistics, 1999-2011 Capacity Under Construction/ Expanding (million gallons per year) 77.0 91.5 64.7 390.7 483.0 598.0 754.0 1,778.0 5,635.5 5,536.0 2,066.0 1,432.0 522.0
Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Ethanol Plants 50 54 56 61 68 72 81 95 110 139 170a 189 204
Ethanol Production Capacity (million gallons per year) 1,701.7 1,748.7 1,921.9 2,347.3 2,706.8 3,100.8 3,643.7 4,336.4 5,493.4 7,888.4 10,569.4a 11,877.4 13,507.9
Plants Under Construction/ Expanding 5 6 6 13 11 15 16 31 76 61 24 15 10
States with Ethanol Plants 17 17 18 19 20 19 18 20 21 21 26 26 29
Source: Renewable Fuels Association, Ethanol Industry Statistics: Ethanol Industry Overview . http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics Note: As of January each year. May not match other sources.
a
Operating plants
Although ethanol can be made from a wide variety of feedstocks, the vast majority of ethanol is made from corn. Future cellulosic production methods using grasses and woody plant material may eventually account for a sizeable share, but in the near term, corn remains the dominant feedstock. Section: BIOFUELS Ethanol Production Capacity by Feedstock, 2011 Capacity (million gallons/year) 14,226.0 422.0 65.0 48.0 7.6 5.4 4.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.4 0.0 14,786.9
Plant Feedstock Corn Corn/Milo Corn/Barley Milo/Wheat Starch Cheese Whey Beverage Waste Potato Waste Waste Beer Seed Corn Sugar Cane Bagasse Wood Waste Waste Sugars/Starches Brewery Waste Woody Biomass Total
% of Capacity No. of Plants 96.2% 193 2.9% 6 0.4% 2 0.3% 1 0.1% 3 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 1 100.0% 214
% of Plants 90.2% 2.8% 0.9% 0.5% 1.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 100.0%
Source: Renewable Fuels Association, August 8, 2011. http://www.ethanolrfa.org/bio-refinery-locations/ Note: Totals were estimated when individual plant data were not available.
The great majority of ethanol production facilities operating in the United States use natural gas as their energy source. Section: BIOFUELS Ethanol Production Capacity by Plant Energy Source, 2009 Combined Heat and Power Technology (CHP) 8 0 13 1 1 0 0 1 3 27
Energy Source Coal Coal, Biomass Natural Gasb Natural Gas, Biomassc Natural Gas, Coal Natural Gas, Landfill Biogas, Wood Natural Gas, Syrup Waste Heat d Waste Heat d, Natural Gas Total
a
Capacity (Million Gallons per Year) % of Capacity No. of Plants 1,758 50 9,627 115 35 110 101 50 175 12,020 14.6% 0.4% 80.1% 1.0% 0.3% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% 1.5% 100.0% 17 1 151 3 1 1 2 1 3 180
% of Plants 9.4% 0.6% 83.9% 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6% 1.7% 100.0%
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Assesment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis , EPA-420-R-10-006, February 2010. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf
a
Includes four plants that are permitted to burn biomass, tires, petroleum coke, and wood waste in addition to coal and one facility that intends to transition to biomass in the future. b Includes two facilities that might switch to biomass, one facility that intends to burn thin stillage biogas, and two facilities that were once considering switching to coal in the future. c Includes one facility processing bran in addition to natural gas. d Waste heat from utility partnerships.
With increased blending of ethanol in gasoline, demand for ethanol has continued to rise, requiring greater production capacity. As of August 8, 2011, there were 214 biorefineries producing 14,786.9 million gallons of ethanol per year and another seven biorefineries under construction. The Renewable Fuels Association tracks the statistics found in the table below and provides plant names, locations and feedstocks used. To see the most current information and greater detail, click on the link in the source listed below. Section: BIOFUELS Active and Under Construction Ethanol Biorefineries and Capacity, by State, 2011 Under Construction Expansion Capacity (mgy) 10.0 5.0 110.0 115.0 20.0 60.0 3.0 323.0
State Arizona California Colorado Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming TOTAL
Number of Capacity (mgy) Biorefineries 1.0 55.0 6.0 271.5 4.0 125.0 3.0 100.4 2.0 54.0 14.0 1,417.0 14.0 1,039.0 40.0 3,775.0 13.0 492.5 2.0 38.4 1.0 1.5 5.0 268.0 22.0 1,150.1 1.0 54.0 5.0 251.0 26.0 2,135.0 1.0 25.0 2.0 164.0 1.0 6.0 391.0 538.0 7.0 3.0 149.0 1.0 110.0 15.0 1,022.0 2.0 225.0 4.0 355.0 1.0 65.0 10.0 504.0 2.0 11.5 214.0 14,786.9
Biorefineries Under Production (mgy) Construction 55.0 266.5 125.0 100.4 1.0 54.0 1,417.0 1.0 1,039.0 1.0 3,775.0 1.0 492.5 1.0 38.4 1.5 268.0 1,150.1 54.0 251.0 2,135.0 25.0 164.0 1.0 389.5 538.0 149.0 110.0 1,022.0 225.0 355.0 65.0 504.0 1.0 11.5 14,780.4 7.0
Source: Renewable Fuels Association: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/bio-refinery-locations/ Note: mgy = million gallons per year Totals were estimated when individual plant data were not available.
The production of ethanol or ethyl alcohol from starch or sugar-based feedstocks is among man's earliest ventures into value-added processing. While the basic steps remain the same, the process has been considerably refined in recent years, leading to a very efficient process. There are two production processes: wet milling and dry milling. The main difference between the two is in the initial treatment of the grain. Section: BIOFUELS The Ethanol Production Process - Wet Milling
In wet milling the grain is soaked or "steeped" in water and dilute sulfurous acid for 24 to 48 hours This steeping milling, hours. facilitates the separation of the grain into its many component parts. After steeping, the corn slurry is processed through a series of grinders to separate the corn germ. The corn oil from the germ is either extracted on-site or sold to crushers who extract the corn oil. The remaining fiber, gluten and starch components are further segregated using centrifugal, screen and hydroclonic separators. The steeping liquor is concentrated in an evaporator. This concentrated product, heavy steep water, is co-dried with the fiber component and is then sold as corn gluten feed to the livestock industry. Heavy steep water is also sold by itself as a feed ingredient and is used as a component in Ice Ban, an environmentally friendly alternative to salt for removing ice from roads. The gluten component (protein) is filtered and dried to produce the corn gluten meal co-product. This product is highly sought after as a feed ingredient in poultry broiler operations. The starch and any remaining water from the mash can then be processed in one of three ways: fermented into ethanol, dried and sold as dried or modified corn starch, or processed into corn syrup. The fermentation process for ethanol is very similar to the dry mill process. Source: Renewable Fuels Association, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/how-ethanol-is-made
Section: BIOFUELS The Ethanol Production Process - Dry Milling
In dry milling, the entire corn kernel or other starchy grain is first ground into flour, which is referred to in the industry as "meal" and processed without separating out the various component parts of the grain. The meal is slurried with water to form a "mash." Enzymes are added to the mash to convert the starch to dextrose, a simple sugar. Ammonia is added for pH control and as a nutrient to the yeast. The mash is processed in a high-temperature cooker to reduce bacteria levels ahead of fermentation. The mash is cooled and transferred to fermenters where yeast is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2) begins. The fermentation process generally takes about 40 to 50 hours. During this part of the process, the mash is agitated and kept cool to facilitate the activity of the yeast. After fermentation, the resulting "beer" is transferred to distillation columns where the ethanol is separated from the remaining "stillage." The ethanol is concentrated to 190 proof using conventional distillation and is then dehydrated to approximately 200 proof in a molecular sieve system. The anhydrous ethanol is blended with about 5% denaturant (such as natural gasoline) to render it undrinkable and thus not subject to beverage alcohol tax. It is then ready for shipment to gasoline terminals or retailers. The stillage is sent through a centrifuge that separates the coarse grain from the solubles. The solubles are then concentrated to about 30% solids by evaporation, resulting in Condensed Distillers Solubles (CDS) or "syrup." The coarse grain and the syrup are dried together to produce dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), a high quality, nutritious livestock feed. The CO2 released during fermentation is captured and sold for use in carbonating soft drinks and the manufacture of dry ice. Source: Renewable Fuels Association, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/how-ethanol-is-made
This process flow diagram shows the basic steps in production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass. While cellulosic ethanol is not yet commercial in the U.S., it has been demonstrated by several groups, and commercial facilities are being planned in North America. Note that there are a variety of options for pretreatment and other steps in the process and that some specific technologies combine two or all three of the hydrolysis and fermentation steps within the shaded box. Chart courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Section: BIOFUELS The Production of Ethanol from Cellulosic Biomass
Hydrolysis is the chemical reaction that converts the complex polysaccharides in the raw feedstock to simple sugars. In the biomass-to-bioethanol process, acids and enzymes are used to catalyze this reaction. Fermentation is a series of chemical reactions that convert sugars to ethanol. The fermentation reaction is caused by yeast or bacteria, which feed on the sugars. Ethanol and carbon dioxide are produced as the sugar is consumed. Process Description. The basic processes for converting sugar and starch crops are well-known and used commercially today. While these types of plants generally have a greater value as food sources than as fuel sources there are some exceptions to this. For example, Brazil uses its huge crops of sugar cane to produce fuel for its transportation needs. The current U.S. fuel ethanol industry is based primarily on the starch in the kernels of feed corn, America's largest agricultural crop. 1. Biomass Handling. Biomass goes through a size-reduction step to make it easier to handle and to make the ethanol production process more efficient. For example, agricultural residues go through a grinding process and wood goes through a chipping process to achieve a uniform particle size. 2. Biomass Pretreatment. In this step, the hemicellulose fraction of the biomass is broken down into simple sugars. A chemical reaction called hydrolysis occurs when dilute sulfuric acid is mixed with the biomass feedstock. In this hydrolysis reaction, the complex chains of sugars that make up the hemicellulose are broken, releasing simple sugars. The complex hemicellulose sugars are converted to a mix of soluble five-carbon sugars, xylose and arabinose, and soluble six-carbon sugars, mannose and galactose. A small portion of the cellulose is also converted to glucose in this step. 3. Enzyme Production. The cellulase enzymes that are used to hydrolyze the cellulose fraction of the biomass are grown in this step. Alternatively the enzymes might be purchased from commercial enzyme companies.
4. Cellulose Hydrolysis. In this step, the remaining cellulose is hydrolyzed to glucose. In this enzymatic hydrolysis reaction, cellulase enzymes are used to break the chains of sugars that make up the cellulose, releasing glucose. Cellulose hydrolysis is also called cellulose saccharification because it produces sugars. 5. Glucose Fermentation. The glucose is converted to ethanol, through a process called fermentation. Fermentation is a series of chemical reactions that convert sugars to ethanol. The fermentation reaction is caused by yeast or bacteria, which feed on the sugars. As the sugars are consumed, ethanol and carbon dioxide are produced. 6. Pentose Fermentation. The hemicellulose fraction of biomass is rich in five-carbon sugars, which are also called pentoses. Xylose is the most prevalent pentose released by the hemicellulose hydrolysis reaction. In this step, xylose is fermented using Zymomonas mobilis or other genetically engineered bacteria. 7. Ethanol Recovery. The fermentation product from the glucose and pentose fermentation is called ethanol broth. In this step the ethanol is separated from the other components in the broth. A final dehydration step removes any remaining water from the ethanol. 8. Lignin Utilization. Lignin and other byproducts of the biomass-to-ethanol process can be used to produce the electricity required for the ethanol production process. Burning lignin actually creates more energy than needed and selling electricity may help the process economics. Converting cellulosic biomass to ethanol is currently too expensive to be used on a commercial scale. Researchers are working to improve the efficiency and economics of the ethanol production process by focusing their efforts on the two most challenging steps: Cellulose hydrolysis. The crystalline structure of cellulose makes it difficult to hydrolyze to simple sugars, ready for fermentation. Researchers are developing enzymes that work together to efficiently break down cellulose. Pentose fermentation. While there are a variety of yeast and bacteria that will ferment six-carbon sugars, most cannot easily ferment five-carbon sugars, which limits ethanol production from cellulosic biomass. Researchers are using genetic engineering to design microorganisms that can efficiently ferment both five- and six-carbon sugars to ethanol at the same time. Source: Renewable Fuels Association, http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/how-ethanol-is-made and the Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biofuels.html Note: See Appendix B, "Characteristics of Selected Feedstocks and Fuels."
A recent study on the consumption of water in the production of ethanol and gasoline shows that there is variability by region, feedstock, soil and climate condition, and production technology for ethanol. There is also much variability in water use in the production of gasoline due to the age of oil well, recovery technology, and extent of produced-water re-injection and steam recycling. This table shows ranges for the amount of water consumed (net) for five different fuels/feedstocks. Section: BIOFUELS Water Consumption for Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline Production (Quadrillion Btu) Fuel (feedstock) Corn ethanol Switchgrass ethanol Gasoline (U.S. conventional crude) Net Water Consumed
a
17-239 gal/gal ethanol
Major Factors Affecting Water Use Regional variation caused by irrigation requirements due to climate and soil types Production technology Age of oil well, production technology, and degree of produced water recycle Age of oil well, production technology, and degree of produced water recycle Geologic formation, production technology
1.9-9.8 gal/gal ethanolb 3.4-6.6 gal/gal gasoline
Gasoline (Saudi conventional crude)
2.8-5.8 gal/gal gasoline
Gasoline (Canadian oli sands)
2.6-6.2 gal/gal gasoline
Source: Argonne National Laboratory, Consumptive Water Use in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline - 2011 Update , ANL/ESD/09-1-Update, July 2011.
a b
In gallons of water per gallon of fuel specified. All water used in ethanol conversion is allocated to the ethanol product. Wather consumption for corn and switchgrass farming includes irrigation. c Including thremal recovery, upgrading and refining.
Ethanol is used as an oxygenate, blended with gasoline to be used as gasohol in conventional vehicles. The amount of ethanol used in gasohol dwarfs the amount used in E85. Section: BIOFUELS Ethanol Consumption in E85 and Gasohol, 1995-2009 (Thousands of gasoline-equivalent gallons) Percent of Total 0.02% 0.94% 1.08% 1.06% 1.15% 1.10% 1.36% 1.17% 1.14% 0.96% 0.96% Ethanol in Gasohol 934,615 1,114,313 1,173,323 1,450,721 1,919,572 2,414,167 2,756,663 3,729,168 4,694,304 6,442,781 7,343,133 Percent of Total 99.98% 99.06% 98.92% 98.94% 98.85% 98.90% 98.64% 98.83% 98.86% 99.04% 99.04%
E85 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 166 10,530 12,756 15,513 22,420 26,844 38,074 44,041 54,091 62,464 71,213
Total 934,781 1,124,843 1,186,079 1,466,234 1,941,992 2,441,011 2,794,737 3,773,209 4,748,395 6,505,245 7,414,346
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels , 2009, Table C1. Washington DC, April 2011, Website: http://www.eia.gov/fuelrenewable.html Note: Gallons of E85 and gasohol do not include the gasoline portion of the blended fuel.
The ethanol industry spent $16 billion in 2009 on raw materials, other inputs, goods and services to produce more than nine billion gallons of ethanol. Most of this spending was for corn and other grains used as raw material to make ethanol. An additional $1.7 billion was spent on tranportation of grain and other inputs to production facilities; ethanol from the plant to terminals where it is blended with gasoline; and co-products to end-users. All expenditures for operations, transportation and spending for new plants under construction added an estimated $53.3 billion in additional gross output in the U.S. economy, increased household earnings by nearly $16 billion, and created over 399,283 jobs. Section: BIOFUELS Economic Contribution of the Ethanol Industry, 2009 Impact Earnings (Mil 2009$) $5,353.0 $755.0 $241.0 $239.0 $751.0 $93.0 $262.0 $1,736.0 $214.0 $145.0 $1,389.0 $218.0 $0.0 $11,397.0 $1,287.0 $1,133.0 $2,420.0 $2,162.0 $15,978.0
Expenditures (Mil 2009$) Annual Operations Feedstock (Corn) Enzymes and chemicals Denaturants Electricity Natural gas Water Maintenance Wholesale Trade Management and Administration Earnings to households Transportation Value of Ethanol Production Value of co-products Total Annual Operations New Capacity Construction (labor and other) Equipment and machinery Total R&D Spending on new technology Grand Total $10,041.0 $1,052.0 $443.0 $398.0 $1,144.0 $130.0 $276.0 $2,127.0 $212.0 $218.0 $1,654.0 $0.0 $0.0 $17,695.0 $1,215.5 $1,423.4 $2,639.0 $2,000.0 $22,334.0
GDP (Mil 2009$) $13,507.0 $1,477.0 $450.0 $571.0 $1,623.0 $200.0 $482.0 $3,440.0 $380.0 $291.0 $2,650.0 $17,490.0 $2,761.0 $45,323.0 $2,169.0 $2,176.0 $4,345.0 $3,651.0 $53,319.0
Employment (Jobs) 180,111 14,564 4,220 4,358 13,413 1,959 6,809 36,677 4,573 3,786 31,247 0 0 301,718 31,828 24,895 56,724 40,842 399,283
Source: Urbanchuk, John M., Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States , Prepared for The Renewable Fuels Association, February 12, 2010, http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/2009_ethanol_economic_contribution.pdf
The net energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions associated with ethanol production have been analyzed by multiple groups. Some analysts have shown negative energy input to output balances while others have shown neutral to positive balances. Greenhouse gas emission estimates have also varied accordingly. Some differences can be explained by use of older versus new data, by inclusion or exclusion of co-products and by use of different system boundaries. Alexander Farrell and others in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley, recently developed the Biofuel Analysis MetaModel (EBAMM) to investigate these issues. The group first replicated the results of six published studies with EBAMM then adjusted all six analyses to (a) add coproduct credit where needed, (b) apply a consistent system boundary, (c) account for different energy types, and (d) calculate policy relevant metrics. The results shown below in figures A & B show the original and adjusted values for the six studies, EBAMM generated values for 3 cases including CO2 intensive ethanol, ethanol today, and cellulosic ethanol, and a gasoline comparison. Equalizing system boundaries among studies reduces scatter in the results. All studies show that ethanol made from conventionally grown corn can have greenhouse gas emissions that are slightly more or less than gasoline per unit of energy but that conventional corn ethanol requires much less petroleum inputs. The model suggests that ethanol produced from cellulosic materials reduces both GHGs and petroleum inputs substantially. Section: BIOFUELS Ethanol Net Energy Balances and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source: A.E. Farrell, R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. OHare, D.M. Kammen, 2006. Ethanol Can Contribute To Energy and Environmental Goals. Science, Vol 311, January 27, 2006. Additional references: T. Patzek. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci . 23, 519 (2004). D. Pimentel, T. Patzek, Nat. Resourc. Res. 14, 65(2005). M.E.D. de Oliveira, B.E. Vaughn, E.J. Rykiel, Bioscience , 55, 593(2005). H. Shapouri, A. McAloon, The 2001 net energy balance of corn ethanol (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 2004). The ethanol M. Graboski, Fossil energy use in the manufacture of corn ethanol (National Corn Growers Association, Washington, DC. 2002). http://www.ncga.com/ M. Wang, Development and use of GREET 1.6 fuel-cycle model for transportation fuels and vehicle technologies (Tech. Rep. ANL/ESD/TM-163, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 2001). http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153.pdf Note: gCO2e (as shown in figure A above) is grams of CO2 equivalent.
This graphic was developed by the Energy and Resources group at the University of California, Berkeley using their Biofuel Analysis MetaModel. It is comparing the intensity of primary energy inputs (MJ) per MJ of fuel produced (ethanol or gasoline) and of net greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2 equivalent) per MJ. For gasoline both petroleum feedstock and petroleum energy inputs are included. Other includes nuclear and hydroelectric generation. The Ethanol Today case includes typical values for the current U.S. corn ethanol industry. The CO2 intensive case assumes the ethanol is produced in a lignite-fired biorefinery located far from where the corn is grown. The Cellulosic case assumes ethanol is produced from switchgrass grown locally. Cellulosic ethanol is expected to have an extremely low intensity for all fossil fuels and a very slightly negative coal intensity due to electricity sales that would displace coal. Section: BIOFUELS Comparisons of Energy Inputs and GHG Emissions for Three Ethanol Scenarios and Gasoline
Source: A.E. Farrell, R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. OHare, and D.M. Kammen. Ethanol Can Contribute To Energy and Environmental Goals. Science, Vol 311, January 27, 2006. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5760/506.full
This figure shows the fossil energy inputs used to produce and deliver a million Btu of ethanol and gasoline to a refueling station. This figure is based on GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model. The GREET model is in the public domain and is available at: http://greet.es.anl.gov/ Section: BIOFUELS Comparative Results between Ethanol and Gasoline Based on an Evaluation by the GREET Model
The GREET model was developed by Argonne National Laboratory under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Energys Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in order to fully evaluate energy and emission impacts of advanced vehicle technologies and new transportation fuels. The first version of this public domain model was released in 1996. Since then, Argonne has continued to update and expand the model with GREET 1.8d.1 version now available. The model allows researchers and analysts to evaluate various vehicle and fuel combinations on a full fuel-cycle basis that includes wells to wheels and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal. For a given vehicle and fuel system, GREET separately calculates the following: Consumption of total energy (energy in non-renewable and renewable sources) and fossil fuels petroleum, natural gas, and coal). Emissions of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Emissions of six criteria pollutants: volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter with size smaller than 10 micron (PM10), particulate matter with size smaller than 2.5 micron, and sulfur oxides. GREET includes more than 100 fuel pathways including petroleum fuels, natural gas fuels, biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity produced from various feedstocks. GREET includes more than 80 vehicle/fuel systems: Conventional spark-ignition engine vehicles Spark-Ignition, Direct-Injection Engine Vehicles Compresson-Ignition, Direct-Injection Engine Vehicles Hybrid electric vehicles o Spark-ignition engines o Compression-ignition engines Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles o Spark-ignition engines o Compression-ignition engines Battery-powered electric vehicles Fuel-cell vehicles Source: Figures: Ethanol: The Complete Energy Life-Cycle Picture. Second revised edition, March 2007 http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/345.pdf Text: Argonne National Laboratory, Transportation Technology R&D Center, http://greet.es.anl.gov/
Section: BIOFUELS Comparison of Ethanol Energy Balance With and Without Inclusion of Coproduct Energy Credits Tables A and B, from a paper by H. Shapouri and A. McAloon, show the effects of partitioning the energy inputs to coproducts as well as to the ethanol produced at wet and dry mills. Table A summarizes the input energy requirements, by phase of ethanol production on a Btu per gallon basis (LHV) for 2001, without byproduct credits. Energy estimates are provided for both dry- and wet-milling as well as an industry average. In each case, corn ethanol has a positive energy balance, even before subtracting the energy allocated to byproducts. Table B presents the final net energy balance of corn ethanol adjusted for byproducts. The net energy balance estimate for corn ethanol produced from wet-milling is 27,729 Btu per gallon, the net energy balance estimate for dry-milling is 33,196 Btu per gallon, and the weighted average is 30,528 Btu per gallon. The energy ratio is 1.57 and 1.77 for wet- and drymilling, respectively, and the weighted average energy ratio is 1.67. Table A Energy Use and Net Energy Value Per Gallon Without Coproduct Energy Credits, 2001 Production Process Corn production Corn transport Ethanol conversion ethanol distribution Total energy used Net energy value Energy ratio Source: H. Shappouri, A. McAloon, The 2001 Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 2004. http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/net_energy_balance.pdf Milling Process Weighted Dry Wet average Btu per gallon 18,875 18,551 18,713 2,138 2,101 2,120 47,116 52,349 49,733 1,487 1,487 1,487 69,616 74,488 72,052 6,714 1,842 4,278 1.10 1.02 1.06 Table B Energy Use and Net Energy Value Per Gallon with Coproduct Energy Credits, 2001 Production Process Corn production Corn transport Ethanol conversion ethanol distribution Total energy used Net energy value Energy ratio Milling process Weighted Dry Wet average Btu per gallon 12,457 12,244 12,350 1,411 1,387 1,399 27,799 33,503 30,586 1,467 1,467 1,467 43,134 48,601 45,802 33,196 27,729 30,528 1.77 1.57 1.67
Biodiesel Overview
Biodiesel is a clean burning alternative fuel produced from domestic, renewable resources. The fuel is a mixture of fatty acid alkyl esters made from vegetable oils, animal fats or recycled greases. Where available, biodiesel can be used in compression-ignition (diesel) engines in its pure form with little or no modifications. Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and aromatics. It is usually used as a petroleum diesel additive to reduce levels of particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and air toxics from diesel-powered vehicles. When used as an additive, the resulting diesel fuel may be called B5, B10 or B20, representing the percentage of the biodiesel that is blended with petroleum diesel. In the United States, most biodiesel is made from soybean oil or recycled cooking oils. Animal fats, other vegetable oils, and other recycled oils can also be used to produce biodiesel, depending on their costs and availability. In the future, blends of all kinds of fats and oils may be used to produce biodiesel. Biodiesel is made through a chemical process called transesterification whereby the glycerin is separated from the fat or vegetable oil. The process leaves behind two products -- methyl esters (the chemical name for biodiesel) and glycerin (a valuable byproduct usually sold to be used in soaps and other products). Fuel-grade biodiesel must be produced to strict industry specifications (ASTM D6751) in order to insure proper performance. Biodiesel is the only alternative fuel to have fully completed the health effects testing requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Biodiesel that meets ASTM D6751 and is legally registered with the Environmental Protection Agency is a legal motor fuel for sale and distribution. Raw vegetable oil cannot meet biodiesel fuel specifications; therefore, it is not registered with the EPA and it is not a legal motor fuel.
Sources: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, www.eere.energy.gov/RE/bio_fuels.html National Biodiesel Board, www.biodiesel.org/resources/biodiesel_basics/default.shtm
Biomass Energy Data Book -- 2011 -- http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Europe has been the dominant region for biodiesel production with increased production each year since 2005. North America has been a distant second led by the United States until 2009. In 2009, U.S. biodiesel production fell by over 10 thousand barrels per day while continued growth in Central & South America and Asia & Oceania surpassed North America in production of biodiesel for the first time. The economic downturn, changes in Federal Incentives for biodiesel and foreign trade policies have contributed to the decrease in U.S. biodiesel production in 2009. Section: BIOFUELS World Biodiesel Production by Region and Selected Countries, 2005-2009 (Thousand barrels per day) Region/Country North America United States Central & South America Brazil Europe France Germany Italy Eurasia Lithuania Asia & Oceania China Korea, South Malaysia Thailand World 2005 6.1 5.9 0.5 0.0 68.1 8.4 39.0 7.7 0.3 0.1 2.2 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.4 77.2 2006 17.1 16.3 2.2 1.2 113.2 11.6 70.4 11.6 0.3 0.2 9.1 4.0 0.9 1.1 0.4 142.0 2007 33.7 32.0 15.2 7.0 137.5 18.7 78.3 9.2 0.7 0.5 15.8 6.0 1.7 2.5 1.2 202.9 2008 45.9 44.1 38.6 20.1 155.0 34.4 61.7 13.1 2.5 1.3 28.8 8.0 3.2 4.5 7.7 270.9 2009 35.2 32.9 57.9 27.7 172.6 41.1 51.2 13.1 3.8 1.9 38.5 8.0 5.0 5.7 10.5 308.2
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, Biofuels Production. The above table was derived from an interactive table generated on December 9, 2010. http://tonto.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=79&pid=79&aid=1
SECTION: BIOFUELS Biodiesel Production Capacity by State Number of Plants 3 3 2 16 1 3 1 6 5 1 4 5 8 3 3 2 1 1 4 3 3 1 10 1 2 1 1 3 6 1 7 2 8 2 3 1 3 14 1 5 6 1 4 161 Total Production Capacity 45,000,000 34,000,000 50,000,000 74,500,000 15,000,000 5,000,000 11,000,000 23,900,000 45,000,000 1,500,000 158,000,000 101,300,000 173,530,000 63,800,000 60,750,000 72,000,000 500,000 4,000,000 16,000,000 37,000,000 36,000,000 20,000,000 225,400,000 250,000 2,000,000 5,500,000 1,000,000 20,250,000 44,500,000 85,000,000 106,000,000 35,000,000 144,500,000 1,000,000 101,000,000 7,000,000 5,880,000 374,500,000 10,000,000 22,800,000 130,000,000 3,000,000 30,600,000 2,402,960,000
State Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Total
Source: National Biodiesel Board. http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/(X(1)S(gzbha rfm1xdya3bh4eqv2aeo))/plants/showall.aspx?AspxAu toDetectCookieSupport=1 Note: Includes 14 plants for which no capacity was listed.
Production of biodiesel in the U.S. peaked in 2008 with 678 million gallons. Likely due to the economic recession, biodiesel production fell in 2009 and 2010, but is expected to rise again in 2011.
SECTION: BIOFUELS Biodiesel Production, Imports and Exports, 2001-2010 (million gallons) Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Production 9 10 14 28 91 250 490 678 506 309 Imports 3 8 4 4 9 45 140 315 77 23 Exports 2 2 5 5 9 35 272 677 266 105
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , August 2011, Washington, DC, Table 10.4. (Additional resources: www.eia.doe.gov)
Biomass Energy Data Book -- 2011 -- http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb
SECTION: BIOFUELS Biodiesel Production Capacity by Feedstock Annual Production Capacity 93,000,000 250,000 36,000,000 3,000,000 1,664,700,000 15,000,000 6,430,000 1,500,000 496,900,000 3,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 11,030,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 63,900,000 2,402,960,000
Feedstock Canola Canola, Camelina, Safflower, Sunflower Crude or Refined Vegetable Oils Full Spectrum, including but not limited to Yellow Grease, Jatropha & Algae Multi Feedstock Palm Recycled Cooking Oil Recycled Cooking Oil, Tallow Soy Sunflower, Canola Tallow Used Cooking Oil Waste Oil Waste Vegetable Oil Yellow Grease Unknown Total Source: National Biodiesel Board.
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/plants/showall.aspx?Aspx
It is extremely important to realize that vegetable oils are mixtures of tryglycerides from various fatty acids. The composition of vegetable oils varies with the plant source. The table below indicates the percentages of each type of fatty acid that is in common vegetable oils or animal fats. The two numbers at the top of each column represents the number of carbon atoms and double bonds (e.g. 16:0 refers to the 16 carbon atoms and 0 double bonds found in the long chain of Palmitic acid). See text on Typical Proportions of Chemicals Used to Make Biodiesel (Commercial Biodiesel Production Methods) for a description of several types of tryglycerides that are found in vegetable oils. Section: BIOFUELS Composition of Various Oils and Fats Used for Biodiesel (percentage of each type of fatty acid common to each type of feedstock)
Oil or fat Soybean Corn Peanut Olive Cottonseed Hi Linoleic Safflower Hi Oleic Safflower Hi Oleic Rapeseed Hi Erucic Rapeseed Butter Lard Tallow Linseed Oil Yellow grease (typical)
14:0 1-2 0-2
16:0 6-10 8-12 8-9 9-10 20-25 5.9 4.8 4.3 3.0
18:0 2-5 2-5 2-3 2-3 1-2 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.8 10-13 12-18 20-25 2-4 12.96
18:1 20-30 19-49 50-60 73-84 23-35 8.8 74.1 59.9 13.1 28-31 40-50 37-43 25-40 44.32
18:2 50-60 34-52 20-30 10-12 40-50 83.8 19.7 21.1 14.1 1-2.5 7-13 2-3 35-40 6.97
18:3 5-11 trace trace trace
20:0
22:1
13.2 9.7 .2-.5 0-1 25-60 0.67 7.4 50.7
7-10 1-2 3-6 2.43
24-26 28-30 24-32 4-7 23.24 16:1=3.97
Source: J. Van Gerpen, B. Shanks, R. Pruszko, D. Clements, and G. Knothe, 2004, Biodiesel Production Technology, National Renewable Energy Laboratory subcontractor report NREL/SR-510-36244, chapter 1, page 1. Please see this document for a full discussion. Available on-line at: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36244.pdf
Section: BIOFUELS Typical Proportions of Chemicals Used to Make Biodiesel The most cursory look at the literature relating to biodiesel reveals the following relationship for production of biodiesel from fats and oils: 100 lbs of oil + 10 lbs of methanol 100 lbs of biodiesel + 10 lbs of glycerol - This equation is a simplified form of the following transesterficiation reaction:
R1, R2, and R3 in the above equation are long chains of carbons and hydrogen atoms, sometimes called fatty acid chains. There are five types of chains that are common in soybean oil and animal fats shown below (others are present in small amounts).
As indicated, a short-hand designation for these chains is two numbers separated by a colon. The first number designates the number of carbon atoms in the chain and the second number designates the number of double bonds. Note that the number of carbon atoms includes the carbon that is double bonded to the oxygen atom at one end of the fatty acid (called the carboxylic carbon). This is the end that the methanol attaches to when methyl ester is produced. Source: J. Van Gerpen, B. Shanks, R. Pruszko, D. Clements, and G. Knothe, Biodiesel Production Technology , National Renewable Energy Laboratory subcontractor report NREL/SR-510-36244, chapter 1, page 1, 2004. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36244.pdf
The parameters for B100 fuel are specified through the biodiesel standard, ASTM D6751. This standard identifies the parameters that pure biodiesel (B100) must meet before being used as a pure fuel or being blended with petrodiesel. Section: BIOFUELS Specification for Biodiesel (B100) Property Calcium and Magnesium, combined Flash Point Alcohol Control (one of the following must be met) 1. Methanol Content 2. Flash Point Water & Sediment Kinematic Viscosity, 40C Sulfated Ash Sulfur S15 Grade Sulfur S500 Grade Copper Strip Corrosion Cetane Number Cloud Point Carbon Residue 100% samplea Acid Number Free Glycerin Total Glycerin Phosphorus Content Distillation, T90 AET Sodium/Potassium, combined Oxidation Stability Cold Soak Filterability For use in temperatures below -12 C ASTM Method EN 14538 D93 EN 14110 D93 D2709 D445 D874 D5453 D5453 D130 D613 D2500 D4530 D664 D6584 D6584 D 4951 D 1160 EN 14538 EN 14112 Annex to D6751 Annex to D6751 Limits 5 max. 93.0 0.2 max 130 min 0.050 max 1.9 - 6.0 0.020 max 0.0015 max 0.05 max No. 3 max 47 min Report to customer 0.050 max 0.50 max 0.020 max 0.240 max 0.001 max 360 max 5 max 3 min 360 max 200 max Units ppm Degrees C % mass Degrees C % vol mm2/sec % mass % mass (ppm) % mass (ppm) Degrees C % mass mg KOH/gm % mass % mass % mass Degrees C ppm hours seconds seconds
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition, NREL/TP-540-43672, January 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/43672.pdf Note: T90=Temperature 90% recovered; AET=Atmospheric equivalent temperature.
a
The carbon residue shall be run on the 100% sample.
SECTION: BIOFUELS Specification for Biodiesel Blends B6 to B20 B6 to B20 S500a 0.3 1.9-4.1c 52d -0.05 -343 0.35 40f 40 35 0.01 0.05 No. 3 6-20 6 520h Grade B6 to B20 S5000b Units 0.3 mg KOH/g, max 1.9-4.1c mm2/s at 40C d 52 C, min -g/g -mass %, max 0.5 mass %, max 343 C, 90% evaporated, max 0.35 40f 40 -0.01 0.05 No. 3 6-20 6 520h mass %, max min min vol %, max mass %, max vol %, max 3h @ 50C % (V/V) hours, min micron, max
Property Acid Number Viscosity Flash Point Sulfur Contente Distillation Temperature Ramsbottom carbon residue on 10% bottoms Cetane Number One of the following must be met: (1) Cetane index (2) Aromaticity Ash Content Water and Sediment Copper Corrosion Biodiesel Content Oxidation Stability Lubricity, HFRR @ 60C
Test Method B6 to B20 S15 D664 0.3 1.9-4.1c D445 52d D93 D5453 15 D2622 -D129 -D86 343 D524 D613 D976-80 D1319-88 D482 D709 D130 DXXXXg EN14112 D6079 0.35 40f 40 35 0.01 0.05 No. 3 6-20 6 520h
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/43672.pdf Under U.S. regulations, if Grades B20 S500 are sold for tax-exempt purposes, then, at or beyond terminal storage tanks, it is required to contain the dye Solvent Red 164. b Under U.S. regulations, Grades B20 S5000 are required to contain a sufficient amount of the dye solvent Red 164 so its presence is visually apparent. c If Grade No.1-D or blends of Grade No.1-D and Grade No.2-D diesel fuel are used, the minimum viscosity shall be 1.3 mm2/s. d If Grade No.1-D or blends of Grade No. 1-D and Grade No. 2-D diesel fuel are used, or a cloud point of less than -12C is specified, the minimum flash point shall be 38C. e Other sulfur limits can apply in selected areas in the United States and in other countries. f Low ambient temperatures as well as engine operation at high altitudes may require the use of fuels with higher cetane ratings. g Where specified, the blend level shall be +/- 2% volume unless a different tolerance is agreed to by the purchaser and supplier. h If the diesel fuel is qualified under Table 1 of D 975 for lubricity, it is not necessary to measure the lubricity of the blend.
a
Section: BIOFUELS Commercial Biodiesel Production Methods The production processes for biodiesel are well known. There are three basic routes to biodiesel production from oils and fats: 1. Base catalyzed transesterification of the oil. 2. Direct acid catalyzed transesterification of the oil. 3. Conversion of the oil to its fatty acids and then to biodiesel. Most of the biodiesel produced today uses the base catalyzed reaction for several reasons: * It is low temperature and pressure. * It yields high conversion (98%) with minimal side reactions and reaction time. * It is a direct conversion to biodiesel with no intermediate compounds. * No exotic materials of construction are needed. The chemical reaction for base catalyzed biodiesel production is depicted below. One hundred pounds of fat or oil (such as soybean oil) are reacted with 10 pounds of a short chain alcohol in the presence of a catalyst to produce 10 pounds of glycerin and 100 pounds of biodiesel. The short chain alcohol, signified by ROH (usually methanol, but sometimes ethanol) is charged in excess to assist in quick conversion. The catalyst is usually sodium or potassium hydroxide that has already been mixed with the methanol. R', R'', and R''' indicate the fatty acid chains associated with the oil or fat which are largely palmitic, stearic, oleic, and linoleic acids for naturally occurring oils and fats.
Source: National Biodiesel Board, Fact Sheet "Biodiesel Production and Quality," http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/prod_quality.pdf Note: The term glycerin may include glycerol and related co-products of the glycerol production process.
The results of a study conducted by the EPA on the emissions produced by biodiesel show that except for nitrogen oxides (NOx), regulated and non regulated emissions from both B100 (100% biodiesel) and B20 (20% biodiesel) are significantly lower than for conventional petroleum based diesel. Section: BIOFUELS Average Biodiesel (B100 and B20) Emissions Compared to Conventional Diesel
Emission Type Regulated Total Unburned Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Particulate Matter NOx Non-Regulated Sulfates PAH (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)b nPAH (nitrated PAHs)b Ozone potential of speciated HC
Source: National Biodiesel Board, Biodiesel Fact Sheets, Emissions http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/ http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf
B100 -67% -48% -47% +10% -100% -80% -90% -50%
B20 -20% -12% -12% +2% to -2% -20%a -13% -50%c -10%
Emissions in relation to conventional diesel
Note: Testing was performed by the EPA. The full report titled "A comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions" can be found at: www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf B100 is 100% Biodiesel while B20 is a blend of 20% Biodiesel and 80% conventional petroleum based diesel
a b
Estimated from B100 result. Average reduction across all compounds measured. c 2-nitroflourine results were within test method variability.
Bio-oil Overview
A totally different process than that used to produce biodiesel can be used to convert biomass into a renewable diesel fuel known as bio-oil. The process, called fast or flash pyrolysis, occurs by heating compact solid fuels in the absence of air at temperatures between 450 and 500 degrees Celsius for a very short period of time (less than 2 seconds) and then condensing the resulting vapors within 2 seconds. The bio-oils currently produced are suitable for use in boilers or in turbines designed to burn heavy oils for electricity generation. There is currently ongoing research and development to upgrade biooil into transportation fuels. There are many companies in the bio-oil business, including DynaMotive Energy Systems; Esyn Group; BTG Technology Group; ABRI TECH, Inc.; Renewable Oil International; and Renewable Fuel Technologies. Additional information about DynaMotive and Ensyn Group, both with commercial fast pyrolysis bio-oil facilities, follows. DynaMotive Energy Systems is commercializing a proprietary fast pyrolysis process that converts forest and agricultural residue (non-food crops) into liquid bio-oil and char. The company opened their first biooil cogeneration facility in West Lorne, Ontario, in collaboration with Erie Flooring and Wood Products Company. The flooring company provides the wood residue and Dynamotives 2.5-megawatt plant uses its fast pyrolysis technology and a gas turbine to supply power to the wood product companys mills and lumber kilns. A 200 ton-per-day plant in Guelph, Ontario was completed in 2007, along with a new pilot plant and test plant nearby. Ensyn Group Inc. has commercialized a fast pyrolysis technology under the name of Rapid Thermal Processing RTP[tm]. This technology is based on the biomass refining concept, where value added chemicals are produced in addition to a consistent quality bio-oil. Ensyn has RTP[tm] facilities in commercial operation. Four of the commercial facilities are in Wisconsin and one is near Ottawa, Canada. The largest of these facilities processes about 75 green tons per day of mixed hardwood wastes. Commercial demonstration facilities in Belridge, California, and a Feedstock Test Facility in San Antonio, Texas, help the company continue research for future renewable fuels. Ensyn has several international projects as well using pine residues in Italy and palm residues in Malaysia. A recent alliance with UOP (a Honeywell Company) is also expected to further the technologies to produce renewable liquid fuels for heat, power, and transport fuels. Sources: DynaMotive Energy Systems Corporation, http://www.dynamotive.com/ Ensyn Group Inc., http://www.ensyn.com/
BTGGroup,http://www.btgworld.com/ RenewableOilTechnologies,http://www.renewableoil.com/ RenewableFuelTechnologies,http://www.renewablefueltech.com/
Pyrolysis is thermal decomposition occurring in the absence of oxygen. Slow pyrolysis, or carbonization, is a proven technology using low temperatures and long residence times. Charcoal is the main ouput from carbonization. Fast pyrolysis is an emerging technology that uses moderate temperatures and short residence times. This type of pyrolysis produces much more liquid than the other types of pyrolysis; thus, fast pyrolysis is currently being used to produce liquid bio-oils that replace petroleum-based liquid fuels. Section: BIOFUELS Output Products by Method of Pyrolysis Process Fast Pyrolysis Carbonization Gasification Liquid 75% 30% 5% Char 12% 35% 10% Gas 13% 35% 85%
Source: Czernik, Stefan. Review of Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass . National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2002.
Bio-oil has many of the advantages of petroleum fuels since it can be stored, pumped and transported. It is currently being combusted directly in boilers, gas turbines, and slow and medium speed diesels for heat and power applications. Section: BIOFUELS A Fast Pyrolysis Process for Making Bio-oil
Source: http://www.dynamotive.com/technology/fast-pyrolysis/ Notes: Information from Dynamotives website describes the process as follows. Prepared feedstocks with less than 10% moisture content and a 1-2 mm particle size are fed into the bubbling fluid-bed reactor. The fluidized bed is heated to 450-500 degrees Celsius in the absence of oxygen. The feedstock flashes and vaporizes and the resulting gases pass into a cyclone where solid particles, char, are extracted. The gases enter a quench tower where they are quickly cooled using bio-oil already made in the process. The bio-oil condenses and falls into the product tank, while the noncondensable gases are recycled back to the reactor and burned to provide process heat. The entire reaction from injection to quenching takes only two seconds. One hundred percent of the feedstock is utilized in the process to produce bio-oil and char. The characteristics of the bio-oil are described in tables found under bio-oil in the Biofuels section of this book and can also be found at the source listed above. The char that is collected is a high Btu value solid fuel that can be used in kilns, boilers and by the briquette industry, among other things including blending back into the bio-oil to make a fuel slurry. The non-condensed gases are recirculated to fuel approximately 75% of the energy needed by the pyrolysis process. The relative yields of bio-oil, char, and non-condensable gases vary depending on feedstock composition.
Bio-oil is a liquid fuel made from biomass, such as sawdust and bagasse. It is environmentally friendly and sustainable. Section: BIOFUELS Bio-oil Characteristics Tests Water Content pH Density @ 15oC High Heating Value Low Heating Value Solids Content Ash Content Pour Point Flash Point Conradson Carbon Kinematic Viscosity @ 20oC @ 50oC Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen Sulphur Chlorine Alkali Metals Methods Karl Fisher Phmeter ASTM D4052 DIN51900 DIN51900 Insolubles in Ethanol ASTM D482 ASTM D97 STM D93 ASTM D189 ASTM D445 ASTM D445 ASTM D5291 ASTM D5291 ASTM D5291 ASTM ASTM ICP Results 2.0 2.2 1.207 17.57 (7,554 BTU/lb) 15.83 (6,806 BTU/lb) 0.06 0.0034 -30 48.0 16.6 47.18 9.726 42.64 5.83 0.10 0.01 0.012 <0.003 Units %wt Kg/L MJ/Kg MJ/Kg %wt %wt %wt mm 2/s mm 2/s %wt %wt %wt %wt %wt %wt
Source: http://www.dynamotive.com/assets/resources/PDF/PIB-BioOil.pdf Note: %wt = percent by weight; Kg = kilogram; L = liter; MJ = megajoule mm 2/s = square milimeter per second; BTU/lb = British thermal unit per pound.
"Bio-oil fuels have unique characteristics that distinguish them from petroleum-based (hydro-carbon) products. The table below illustrates the primary differences between bio-oil and other fuels including light and heavy fuel oil." -DynaMotive Section: BIOFUELS Bio-oil Fuel Comparisons Units MJ/kg C C Kg/L pH %wt %wt %wt cSt cSt cSt cSt BioTherm Bio-oil 16-19 48-55 -15 1.2 2-3 0.01-0.2 20-25 <0.02 70 19 8 4 Light Fuel Oil 46 38 -6 0.865 N/A N/A N/A Trace 3-6 1.8-3.5 1.4-2.5 1.1-1.8 Heavy Fuel Oil 43 60 N/A 0.986 N/A N/A <0.5 0.08 2,000-9,000 500-1,000 100-200 40-70
High Heating Value Flash Point Pour Point Density (15C) Acidity Solids (Char) Moisture Ash Kinematic Viscosity @ 20C @ 40C @ 60C @ 80C
Source: DynaMotive, http://www.dynamotive.com/assets/resources/PDF/PIB-BioOil.pdf Notes: N/A = not applicable; MJ/kg = megajoule per kilogram; C = Celsius; Kg/L = kilogram per liter; %wt = percent by weight; cSt = centistokes.
Section: BIOFUELS Annotated Summary of Biofuel and Biomass Electric Incentives: Online Information Resources Yacobucci B D. Biofuels Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs - Updated September 15, 2010 http://environmental-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/09/biofuels-incentives-summary-of-federal.html This 18 page document is easily readable and well-organized. It first describes Federal programs supporting research, development and deployment of biofuels and biomass electric, then has tables showing the legislative incentives that were updated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) and added by the 2008 Farm Bill - The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008 Farm Bill Side-By-Side. Title IX: Energy http://www.ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Titles/TitleIXEnergy.htm This is an extremely useful document providing brief descriptions of 2008 Farm Bill provisions and authorizations relevant to energy with comparisons to similar provisions in the previous farm bill where they existed. The document also links to energy provisions in other sections of the 2008 Farm Bill. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy State Activities and Partnerships http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm A Department of Energy site that contains a map linking to descriptions of state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) as of May 2009 (created by DSIRE - Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency). The site also contains a list summarizing state RPS levels with links to the administrative offices. DSIRE - Database for State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency http://www.dsireusa.org/ The DSIRE website, which is kept up-to date claims to be a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility, and federal incentives that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. The site contains many summary maps and tables that can be downloaded as PowerPoint files. American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/factsheets/factsheets_federal.cfm
This website contains fact sheets that address the National Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) and U.S. Energy Incentives. Renewable Fuels Association. Renewable Fuels Standard http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/RFS-2-EMTS-Information The Renewable Fuels Standard webpage on the Renewable Fuels Association site describes the 2010 Renewable Fuels Standard, and summarizes pertainent sections of EISA. Cantwell M. Comprehensive Guide to Federal Biofuel Incentives. 2006 http://cantwell.senate.gov/services/Biofuels/index.cfm This 25 page document is a very comprehensive and easily readable guide to federal legislation resulting from EPACT 2005 (of which several incentives are still in effect). It also contains information on Federal agency program authorizations for supporting the research, development and deployment of biofuels, and biomass electric technologies. It is valuable for comparison with them more recent EISA 2007 bill and the 2008 Farm Bill.
These states have laws and incentives for alternative fuels production and/or use. Section: BIOFUELS Federal and State Alternative Fuel Incentives, 2011
Jurisdiction Federal Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Totals
Biodiesel 34 7 2 7 4 13 8 5 3 1 12 6 8 4 20 10 13 9 7 6 7 2 5 9 9 4 8 8 5 6 7 2 12 9 13 12 8 11 11 6 2 11 10 11 9 1 5 15 18 5 15 0 435
Ethanol 30 5 3 6 3 10 9 4 3 2 13 6 10 2 18 15 18 14 7 10 7 3 4 9 11 4 6 7 6 5 3 2 9 10 11 9 9 12 11 5 1 9 11 10 9 1 5 10 14 5 12 1 419
Natural Gas 27 4 4 13 6 25 11 8 3 4 3 7 5 3 10 9 6 5 6 12 4 1 4 4 3 8 7 4 4 7 3 4 7 13 6 3 4 13 6 5 2 3 1 5 14 12 6 13 9 7 9 1 363
Propane (LPG) 27 4 2 13 3 16 8 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 9 6 5 4 4 5 4 1 2 4 2 5 6 4 3 7 3 4 6 8 6 2 4 9 5 3 1 4 2 4 10 7 4 9 8 7 9 0 286
Hydrogen Fuel Cells 27 3 2 11 2 22 7 7 2 3 7 3 6 2 9 5 5 1 1 1 3 0 2 5 4 2 5 2 2 6 3 2 8 9 5 3 4 8 5 3 2 7 0 2 6 4 4 10 6 7 8 0 263
EVs 22 3 2 13 2 30 6 7 3 5 7 5 9 0 10 5 7 1 1 4 4 4 3 6 5 2 4 2 2 6 3 4 7 9 6 0 3 9 9 3 2 2 0 4 8 7 4 12 19 7 7 0 305
HEVs or PHEVs 8 1 0 1 0 23 2 6 2 3 3 0 1 1 6 4 0 0 1 2 1 3 2 7 2 1 0 0 0 5 2 3 2 4 3 0 0 3 3 1 1 3 0 4 6 2 3 4 6 4 5 0 144
NEVs 2 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 43
Aftermarket Fuel Economy Idle Conversions or Efficiency Reduction 6 13 6 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 5 5 4 3 1 3 3 2 3 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 0 1 2 3 4 1 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 62 68 90
Other 9 0 0 2 0 8 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 49
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. April 14, 2011. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/matrix/tech Notes: Because an incentive may apply to more than one alternative fuel, adding the totals for each row will result in counting one incentive multiple times. EV - Electric Vehicle, HEV - Hybrid Electric Vehicle, PHEV - Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle, NEV - Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (maximum speed of 25 mph)
BIOPOWER Contents
Biomass Power Overview Biomass Power Technology in Commercial/Demonstration Phase During 2000-2006 Alkali Content and Slagging Potential of Various Biofuels Reburning with Wood Fuels for NOx Mitigation Carbon Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors Nitrogen Oxides Uncontrolled Emission Factors Sulfur Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors Range in Elemental Composition of Industrial Wood Ash Samples and Ground Limestone Biomass Power Technology Fuel Specifications and Capacity Range Renewable Energy Generation and Capacity Supplying Green Pricing Programs, 2009 Renewable Energy Sources Supplying Competitive and REC Markets, 2009 Utility Green Pricing Programs Using Biomass and Biomass Based Resources Competitive Electricity Markets Retail Green Power Product Offerings, August 2010 National Retail Renewable Energy Certificate Product Offerings, August 2010 New Biomass Power Plants by Year Biomass Power Plant Capacity by Year Current Biomass Power Plants New Landfill Gas Power Plants by Year Landfill Gas Power Plant Capacity by Year Current Landfill Gas Power Plants New Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants by Year Municipal Solid Waste Power Plant Capacity by year Current Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants Green Pricing and Net Metering Customers, 2002 - 2009 Capacity Additions and Retirements by Energy Source, 2009 Fossil Fuel Displacement by Biopower Coal Displacement Calculation, 2010 Renewable Energy Impacts Calculation, 2010 Number of Home Electricity Needs Met Calculation, 2010 Table Table Table 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011
Data Type Updated

Text Table Table Text Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Figure Figure Table Figure Figure Table Figure Figure Table Table Table 04/05/2011 09/20/2011 09/20/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011
Biomass Power Overview

Biomass power technologies convert renewable biomass fuels to heat and electricity using processes similar to that used with fossil fuels. Next to hydropower, more electricity is generated from biomass than any other renewable energy resource in the United States. A key attribute of biomass is its availability upon demand - the energy is stored within the biomass until it is needed. Other forms of renewable energy are dependent on variable environmental conditions such as wind speed or sunlight intensity. Today in parts of the developing world, biomass is primarily used to provide heat for cooking and comfort. Technologies have now been developed which can generate electricity from the energy in biomass fuels. Biomass technologies are highly scaleable - small enough to be used on a farm or in remote villages, or large enough to provide power for a small city. There are four primary classes of biopower systems: direct-fired, co-fired, gasification, and modular systems. Most of today's biopower plants are direct-fired systems that are similar to most fossil-fuel fired power plants. The biomass fuel is burned in a boiler to produce high-pressure steam. This steam is introduced into a steam turbine, where it flows over a series of aerodynamic turbine blades, causing the turbine to rotate. The turbine is connected to an electric generator, so as the steam flow causes the turbine to rotate, the electric generator turns and electricity is produced. Biomass power boilers are typically in the 20-50 MW range, compared to coal-fired plants in the 100-1500 MW range. The small capacity plants tend to be lower in efficiency because of economic trade-offs; efficiency-enhancing equipment cannot pay for itself in small plants. Although techniques exist to push biomass steam generation efficiency over 40%, actual plant efficiencies are often in the low 20% range. Co-firing involves substituting biomass for a portion of coal in an existing power plant furnace. It is the most economic near-term option for introducing new biomass power generation. Because much of the existing power plant equipment can be used without major modifications, cofiring is far less expensive than building a new biopower plant. Compared to the coal it replaces, biomass reduces sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and other air emissions. After "tuning" the boiler for peak performance, there is little or no loss in efficiency from adding biomass. This allows the energy in biomass to be converted to electricity with the high efficiency (in the 33-37% range) of a modern coal-fired power plant. Biomass gasifiers operate by heating biomass in an oxygen-limited environment where the solid biomass breaks down to form a flammable gas. The producer gas can be cleaned and filtered to remove problem chemical compounds. The producer gas can be used in more efficient power generation systems called combined-cycles, which combine gas turbines and steam turbines to produce electricity. The efficiency of these systems can reach 60 percent. Additionally, gasifiers are sometimes located next to existing coal or natural gas boilers and used to fire or supplement the fuels to these boilers. Modular systems employ some of the same technologies mentioned above, but on a smaller scale that is more applicable to villages, farms, and small industry. These systems are now under development and could be most useful in remote areas where biomass is abundant and electricity is scarce. There are many opportunities for these systems in developing countries.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biopower.html
Section: BIOPOWER Biomass Power Technology in Commercial/Demonstration Phase during 2000-2006 Technology Category Direct combustion Direct combustion Direct combustion Direct combustion Biomass Conversion Technology Stove/Furnace Pile burners Stoker grate boilers Primary Energy Form Produced Heat Heat, steam Heat, steam Primary Energy Conversion and RecoveryTechnology Heat exchanger Steam turbine Steam turbine Steam turbine Final Energy Products Hot air, hot water Electricity Electricity Electricity
Suspension boilers: Air Heat, steam spreader stoker or cyclonic Fluidized-bed combustor FB bubbling CFBcirculating Co-firing in coal-fired boilers (several types) updraft, counter current fixed bed Downdraft, moving bed Heat, steam
Direct combustion
Steam turbine
Electricity
Direct combustion Gasification (atmospheric) Gasification (atmospheric) Gasification (atmospheric) Gasification (atmospheric) Slow pyrolysis Fast (flash) pyrolysis
Heat, steam Low Btu producer gas Low Btu producer gas
Steam turbine Combustion boiler + steam generator and turbine Spark engine (internal combustion) Burn gas in boiler w/ Steam Turbine Combustion turbine or boiler and steam turbine Stoves and furnaces Combustion turbines, boilers, diesel engines, furnaces, catalytic reactors Spark ignition engines, combustion turbines, furnaces
Electricity Process heat or heat plus electricity Power, electricity Electricity Electricity Heat Heat, electricity, synthetic liquid fuels, (BTL) Heat, electricity
Circulating Fluidized Bed medium Btu producer (CFB) dual vessel gas Co-fueling in CFB gasifiers Low or medium Btu producer gas Kilns or retorts Charcoal Reactors Pyrolysis oil (bio-oil), charcoal Digesters, landfills Biogas (medium Btu gas)
Anerobic digestion
Source: Compiled by Lynn Wright, Oak Ridge, TN. Note: See Glossary for definitions of terms found under the "Technology Category" column. The following references are suggested for further reading: * Overend, Ralph. 2003. Heat, power and combined heat and power. Chapter 3 in: Sims, R. Bioenergy Options for a Cleaner Environment: In Developed and Developing Countries, Elsiver, ISBN: 0-08-044351-6. 193 pages * Broek, R. van den, Faaij, A., and van Wijk, J. 1995, Biomass Combustion Power Generation Technologies, Study performed within the framework of the extended JOULE-IIA programme of CECDGXII, project Energy from biomass: an assessment of two promising systems for energy production, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrech University, Utrecht (Report no. 95029). Available at website: http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/Publicaties%201995/95029.htm
Many biomass fuels cause slagging and other forms of deposit formation during combustion. These deposits can reduce heat transfer, reduce combustion efficiency, and damage combustion chambers when large particles break off. Research has focused on two alkali metals, potassium and sodium, and silica, all elements commonly found in living plants. In general, it appears that faster growing plants (or faster growing plant components such as seeds) tend to have higher concentrations of alkali metal and silica. Thus materials such as straw, nut hulls, fruit pits, weeds, and grasses tend to create more problems when burned than wood from a slow growing tree. Potassium and sodium metals, whether in the form of oxides, hydroxides, or metallo-organic compounds tend to lower the melting point of ash mixtures containing various other minerals such as silica (SiO2). The high alkali content (up to 35%) in the ash from burning annual crop residues lowers the fusion or 'sticky temperature' of these ashes from 2200' F for wood ash to as low as 1300' F. This results in serious slagging on the boiler grate or in the bed and fouling of convection heat transfer surfaces. Even small percentages (10%) of some of these high alkali residues burned with wood in conventional boilers will cause serious slagging and fouling in a day or two, necessitating combustion system shutdown. A method to predict slagging and fouling from combustion of biomass fuels has been adapted from the coal industry. The method involves calculating the weight in pounds of alkali (K20 + Na20) per million Btu in the fuel as follows: 1 x 106 ------------ X Btu/lb lb Alkali % Ash X % Alkali of the Ash = ------------MM Btu
This method combines all the pertinent data into one Index Number. A value below 0.4Ib/MM Btu is considered a fairly low slagging risk. Values between 0.4 and 0.8 lb/MM Btu will probably slag with increasing certainty of slagging as 0.8 lb/MM Btu is approached. Above 0.8 lb/MM Btu, the fuel is virtually certain to slag and foul. Section: BIOPOWER Alkali Content and Slagging Potential of Various Biofuels
Total Alkali lb/ton lb/MMBtu 0.4 2.3 7.5 7.4 11.9 0.07 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.73 Minimal Slagging .4 lb/MMBtu
Fuel WOOD Pine Chips White Oak Hybrid Poplar Urban Wood Waste "Clean" Tree Trimmings PITS, NUTS, SHELLS Almond Shells Refuse Derived Fuel GRASSES Switch Grass Wheat Straw-average Wheat Straw-hi alkali Rice Straw Bagasse - washed
Btu/lb (dry) 8,550 8,165 8,178 8,174 8,144
Ash % 0.70% 0.40% 1.90% 6.00% 3.60%
% in Ash 3.00% 31.80% 19.80% 6.20% 16.50%
Probable Slagging
7,580 5,473
3.50% 9.50%
21.10% 9.20%
14.8 17.5
0.97 1.60
Certain Slagging
7,741 7,978 7,167 6,486 8,229
10.10% 5.10% 11.00% 18.70% 1.70%
15.10% 31.50% 36.40% 13.30% 12.30%
30.5 32.1 80.0 49.7 4.2
1.97 2.00 5.59 3.80 0.25
Source: Thomas R. Miles, Thomas R. Miles Jr., Larry L. Baxter, Bryan M. Jenkins, Laurance L. Oden. Alkali Slagging Problems with Biomass Fuels, First Biomass Conference of the Americas: Energy, Environment, Agriculture, and Industry, Volume 1, 1993.
Reburning with Wood Fuels for NOx Mitigation

Reburning is a combustion modification technology based on the principle that hydrocarbon fragments (CH) can react with Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Reburning is accomplished by secondary fuel injection downstream of the fuel-lean primary combustion zone or a furnace. The second stage or reburning zone is usually operated at an overall fuel-rich condition, allowing a significant fraction of the primary NOx to be reduced to N2 and other nitrogenous species. In the third zone, additional air is introduced to establish overall fuel-lean conditions and allow for the burnout of remaining fuel fragments. Reburning studies with coal and natural gas have shown NOx emission reductions of 50-60% with about 15% of the heat input coming from the reburn fuel. In contrast, experimental results have shown NOx reductions as high as 70% using approximately 10-15% wood heat input. The stoichiometric ratio in the reburn zone was the single most important variable affecting NOx reduction. The highest reductions were found at a reburn stoichiometric ratio of 0.85. One additional benefit of using wood instead of natural gas for reburningit is difficult to mix natural gas into the products of the primary combustion zone since the gas must be injected from the wall, at relatively low flows. Wood particles, which must be transported to the furnace by a carrier medium (likely candidates are air or flue gas), would have a ballistic effect upon entering the furnace that would enhance cross-stream mixing compared to natural gas.
Source: Brouwer, J., N.S. Harding, M.P. Heap, J.S. Lighty, and D.W. Pershing, 1997, An Evaluation of Wood Reburning for NOx Reduction from Stationary Sources, final report to the DOE/TVA Southeastern Regional Biomass Energy Program, Muscle Shoals, AL, Contract No. TV-92271 (available at www.bioenergyupdate.com).
Section: BIOPOWER Carbon Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors (Pounds of CO2 per Million Btu) Fuel And EIA Fuel Code Bituminous Coal Distillate Fuel Oil Geothermal Jet Fuel Kerosene Lignite Coal Municipal Solid Waste Natural Gas Petroleum Coke Propane Gas Residual Fuel Oil Synthetic Coal Subbituminous Coal Tire-Derived Fuel Waste Coal Waste Oil Factora 205.573 161.386 16.600 156.258 159.535 215.070 91.900 117.080 225.130 139.178 173.906 205.573 214.212 189.538 205.573 210.000
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009 , Washington, D.C., Revised January, 2011. Web site: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epata3.html CO2 factors do not vary by combustion system type or boiler firing configuration.
a
Section: BIOPOWER Nitrogen Oxides Uncontrolled Emission Factors Combustion System Type/Firing Configuration Opposed Spreader All Other Internal Tangential Combustion Combustion Firing Stoker Boiler Boiler Turbine Boiler Boiler Types Engine 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 NA NA 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 30.4 256.55 12 [31] 11 10.0 [14.0] 12.0 [31.0] NA NA 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 NA NA 24 24 24 24 122 443.8 24 24 24 24 118 432 24 24 24 24 118 432 72.44 72.44 72.44 72.44 144 1215.22 6.3 5.8 7.1 6.3 NA NA 5 5 5 5 NA NA 280 280 170 280 328 2768 112.83 112.83 112.83 112.83 313.6 2646.48 19 19 19 19 NA NA 2 2 2 2 NA NA 152.82 152.82 152.82 152.82 263.82 2226.41 280 280 170 280 328 2768 21 21 21 21 NA NA 215 215 215 215 330.75 2791.22 47 47 32 47 NA NA 12 [31] 11 10.0 [14.0] 12.0 [31.0] NA NA 5 5 5 5 NA NA 7.4 [24] 8.8 7.2 7.4 [24.0] NA NA 12 [31] 11 10.0 [14.0] 12.0 [31.0] NA NA 6.3 5.8 7.1 6.3 NA NA 5.43 5.43 5.43 5.43 NA NA 2.51 1.5 2.51 2.51 NA NA 19 19 19 19 NA NA
Fuel And EIA Fuel Code Agricultural Byproducts Blast Furnace Gas Bituminous Coal Black Liquor Distillate Fuel Oil Jet Fuel Kerosene Landfill Gas Lignite Coal Municipal Solid Waste Natural Gas Other Biomass Gas Other Biomass Liquids Other Biomass Solids Other Gases Other Petroleum Coke Propane Gas Residual Fuel Oil Synthetic Coal Sludge Waste Subbituminous Coal Tire-Derived Fuel Waste Coal Wood Waste Liquids Wood Waste Solids Waste Oil
Emissions Units Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per tona Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per tona Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MG
Cyclone Boiler 1.2 15.4 33 1.5 24 24 24 72.44 15 5 280 112.83 19 2 152.82 280 21 215 47 33 5 17 33 15 5.43 2.51 19
Fluidized Bed Boiler 1.2 15.4 5 1.5 24 24 24 72.44 3.6 5 280 112.83 19 2 152.82 280 5 215 47 5 5 5 5 3.6 5.43 2 19
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009, Washington, D.C., November 2010. Web site: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epata2.html Note: Factors for Wet-Bottom Boilers are in Brackets; All Other Boiler Factors are for Dry-Bottom Units: Lbs = pounds; MMCF = million cubic feet; MG = thousand gallons a Although Sludge Waste and Black Liquor consist substantially of liquids, these fuels are measured and reported to EIA in tons.
Section: BIOPOWER Sulfur Dioxide Uncontrolled Emission Factors Combustion System Type/Firing Configuration Internal Opposed Spreader All Other Combustion Combustion Firing Stoker Tangential Boiler Turbine Engine Boiler Boiler Boiler Types 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 NA NA 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 NA NA 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 NA NA 157.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 140.00 140.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 140.00 140.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 140.00 140.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 NA NA 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 NA NA 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 157.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 140.00 140.00 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 NA NA 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 39.00 39.00 39.00 39.00 NA NA 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 157.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 NA NA 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 NA NA 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 NA NA 35.00 38.00 35.00 35.00 NA NA 38.00 38.00 38.00 38.00 NA NA 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 NA NA 157.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 140.00 140.00 0.29 0.08 0.29 0.29 NA NA 147.00 147.00 147.00 147.00 NA NA
Fuel And EIA Fuel Code Agricultural Byproducts Blast Furnace Gas Bituminous Coala Black Liquor Distillate Fuel Oila Jet Fuela Kerosenea Landfill Gas Lignite Coala Municipal Solid Waste Natural Gas Other Biomass Gas Other Biomass Liquids a Other Biomass Solids Other Gases Other Petroleum Cokea Propane Gas Residual Fuel Oila Synthetic Coala Sludge Waste Subbituminous Coala Tire-Derived Fuela Waste Coal a Wood Waste Liquids a Wood Waste Solids Waste Oil a
Emissions Units Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per tonb Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MG Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MMCF Lbs per ton Lbs per MMCF Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per tonb Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per ton Lbs per MG Lbs per ton Lbs per MG
Cyclone Boiler 0.08 0.60 38.00 7.00 157.00 157.00 157.00 0.60 30.00 1.70 0.60 0.60 157.00 0.23 0.60 0.60 39.00 0.60 157.00 38.00 2.80 35.00 38.00 30.00 157.00 0.29 147.00
Fluidized Bed Boiler 0.01 0.06 3.80 0.70 15.70 15.70 15.70 0.06 3.00 0.17 0.06 0.06 15.70 0.02 0.06 0.06 3.90 0.06 15.70 3.80 0.28 3.50 3.80 3.00 15.70 0.08 14.70
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009, Washington, D.C., Revised: January 2011. Web site: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epata1.html Note: Units: Lbs = pounds; MMCF = million cubic feet; MG = thousand gallons. a For these fuels, emissions are estimated by multiplying the emissions factor by the physical volume of fuel and the sulfur percentage of the fuel (other fuels do not require the sulfur percentage in the calculation). b Although Sludge Waste and Black Liquor consist substantially of liquids, these fuels are measured and reported to EIA in tons.
For the purpose of agricultural soil amendment, wood ash application is similar to lime application. Both materials can benefit crop productivity but wood ash has an added advantage of supplying additional nutrients. Both materials are also alkaline and could cause crop damage if over applied or misused. Section: BIOPOWER Range in Elemental Composition of Industrial Wood Ash Samples and Ground Limestone Element Macroelements Calcium Potassium Aluminum Magnesium Iron Phosphorus Manganese Sodium Nitrogen Microelements Arsenic Boron Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Zinc CaCO3 Equivalent pH % Total solids Wood Asha Concentration in % 15 (2.5-33) 2.6 (0.1-13) 1.6 (0.5-3.2) 1.0 (0.1-2.5) 0.84 (0.2-2.1) 0.53 (0.1-1.4) 0.41 (0-1.3) 0.19 (0-0.54) 0.15 (0.02-0.77) Concentration in mg/kg 6 (3-10) 123 (14-290) 3 (0.2-26) 57 (7-368) 70 (37-207) 65 (16-137) 1.9 (0-5) 19 (0-123) 20 (0-63) 0.9 (0-11) 233 (35-1250) Other Chemical Properties 43% (22-92%) 10.4 (9-13.5) 75 (31-100) 31.00 0.13 0.25 5.10 0.29 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.01 . . 0.7 6.0 10.0 55.0 . . 20.0 . 113.0 100% 9.9 100.0 Limestone
Source: Risse, Mark, and Glen Harris. Soil Acidity and Liming Internet Inservice Training Website: "Best Management Practices for Wood Ash Used as an Agricultural Soil Amendment." Website accessed 09/20/11. http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~blpprt/bestwoodash.html
a
Mean and (Range) taken from analysis of 37 ash samples.
Section: BIOPOWER Biomass Power Technology Fuel Specifications and Capacity Range Biomass Conversion Technology Stove/Furnace Pile burners Particle Size Requirements Limited by stove size and opening Limited by grate size and feed opening 0.25-2 in (6-38 mm) Moisture Content Requirements (wet Average capacity range / link to basis)b examples 10 30% 15 kWt to ? < 65% 4 to 110 MWe
Pile burner fed with underfire stoker (biomass fed by auger below bed) Stoker grate boilers
Commonly used fuel typesa Solid wood, pressed logs, wood chips and pellets Virtually any kind of wood residuesc or agricultural residuesd except wood flour Sawdust, non-stringy bark, shavings, chips, hog fuel Sawdust, non-stringy bark, shavings, end cuts, chips, chip rejects, hog fuel Sawdust. Non-stringy bark, shavings, flour, sander dust Wood flour, sander dust, and processed sawdust, shavings Low alkali content fuels, mostly wood residues or peat no flour or stringy materials Sawdust, non-stringy bark, shavings, flour, sander dust Sawdust, non-stringy bark, shavings, flour, sander dust Sawdust, non-stringy bark, shavings, flour, hog fuel Chipped wood or hog fuel, rice hulls, dried sewage sludge Wood chips, pellets, wood scrapes, nut shells
10-30%
4 to 110 MWe
0.25 2 in (6 -50 mm) 10-50% (keep 20 to 300 MWe many in 20 to 50 within 10% of design MWe range rate) 0.25 in (6 mm) max 0.04 in -0.06 in (1-1.6 mm) < 2 in (<50 mm) < 15% < 20% < 60% many < 30 MWe 1.5 MWe to 30 MWe Many at 20 to 25 MWe, up to 300 Example Up to 1500 MWee Example 40 to 1150 MWee Example MWee Example 5 to 90 MWt, + up to 12 Mwe ~ 25-100 kWe Example ~ 5 to 10 Mwe
Suspension boilers Cyclonic Suspension boilers, Air spreader-stoker Fluidized-bed combustor (FB- bubbling or CFBcirculating) Co-firing: pulverized coal boiler Co-firing: cyclones Co-firing: stokers, fluidized bed Counter current, fixed bed (updraft) atmospheric Downdraft, moving bed atmospheric gasifier
<0.25 in (<6 mm) <0.5 in (<12 mm) < 3 in (<72 mm) 0.25 4 in (6 100 mm) < 2 in (<50 mm)
< 25% 10 50% 10 50% < 20% <15%
Circulating fluidized bed Most wood and chipped agricultural 0.25 2 in (6 -50 mm) 15-50% (CFB), dual vessel, gasifier residues but no flour or stringy materials Fast pyrolysis Variety of wood and agricultural 0.04-0.25 in (1-6 mm ) < 10% resources Anerobic digesters Animal manures & bedding, food processing residues, brewery byproducts, other industry organic residues NA 65 to 99.9% liquid depending on type, i.e., 0.1 to 35% solids
~ 2.5 MWe Example 1 Example 2 145 to 1700 x 103 kWhr/yr Example
Source: Compiled by Lynn Wright, Oak Ridge, TN.

a
Primary source for fuel types is: Badger, Phillip C. 2002. Processing Cost Analysis for Biomass Feedstocks. ORNL/TM-2002/199. Available at http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/main.aspx (search by title or author) b Most primary biomass, as harvested, has a moisture content (MC) of 50 to 60% (by wet weight) while secondary or tertiary sources of biomass may be delivered at between 10 and 30%. A lower MC always improves efficiency and some technologies require low MC biomass to operate properly while others can handle a range of MC. c Wood residues may include forest logging residues and storm damaged trees (hog fuel), primary mill residues (e.g., chipped bark and chip rejects), secondary mill residues (e.g., dry sawdust), urban wood residues such as construction and demolition debris, pallets and packaging materials, tree trimmings, urban land clearing debris, and other wood residue components of municipal solid waste (as wood chips).
d
Agricultural residues may include straws and dried grasses, nut hulls, orchard trimmings, fruit pits, etc. Slagging may be more of a problem in some types of combustion units with high alkali straws and grasses, unless the boilers have been specially designed to handle these type fuels. e The biomass component of a co-firing facility will usually be less than the equivalent of 50MWe.
There are three distinct markets for green power in the United States. In regulated markets, a single utility may provide a green power option to its customers through green pricing, which is an optional service or tariff offered to customers. These utilities include investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and other publicly-owned utilities. In restructured (or competitive) electricity markets, retail electricity customers can choose from among multiple electricity suppliers, some of which may offer green power. Electricity markets are now open to full competition in a number of states, while others are phasing in competition. Finally, consumers can purchase green power through renewable energy certificates. These certificates represent the environmental attributes of renewable energy generation and can be sold to customers in either type of market, whether or not they already have access to a green power product from their existing retail power provider. Utility market research shows that a majority of customer respondents is likely to state that they would pay at least $5 more per month for renewable energy. And business and other nonresidential customers, including colleges and universities, and government entities, are increasingly interested in green power. Section: BIOPOWER Renewable Energy Generation and Capacity Supplying Green Pricing Programs, 2009 Source Wind Landfill gas Other biomass Solar Geothermal Hydro Unknown Total Sales MWh 4,434,400 353,400 248,600 18,875 45,000 63,100 1,700 5,165,075 Percentage of Total Sales 85.9% 6.8% 4.8% 0.4% 0.9% 1.2% 0.0% 100.0% Total MW 1,534 45 35 14 5 18 1 1,652 MW New Renewable 1,472 42 35 13 5 17 1,584
Source: Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report (2009 Data) Table 11 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49403.pdf Notes: MW=megawatt MWh=megawatt-hour
An estimated 24.8 billion kWh of renewable energy was sold to retail customers by competitive green power and REC marketers in 2009. This figure includes renewable energy from both pre-existing and new sources. In 2009, about 83% of the REC and green power competitive-market retail kilowatt-hour sales were supplied from new renewable energy sources. Section: BIOPOWER Renewable Energy Sources Supplying Competitive and REC Markets, 2009 Source Wind Biomass/Landfill gas Solar Geothermal Hydro Unknown Total MWh Sales 17,683,000 2,391,000 28,000 48,000 2,912,000 1,783,000 24,845,000 Percentage of Total Sales 71.2% 9.6% 0.1% 0.2% 11.7% 7.2% 100.0% Total MW 6,120 320 20 10 830 410 7,710 MW New Renewable 5,680 260 20 10 420 6,390
Source: Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report (2009 Data) Table 16. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49403.pdf Notes: REC=Renewable Energy Certificate MW=megawatt MWh=megawatt-hour
There are a growing number of utilities offering green pricing programs that utilize biomass resources. Section: BIOPOWER Utility Green Pricing Programs Using Biomass and Biomass Based Resources (Updated August 2011) Program Name Type Start Date Premium Renewable Energy Rate biomass co-firing (wood) 2003/2000 4.5/kWh Green Power Choice landfill gas 2006 2.0/kWh Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, wind 2000 2.67/kWh Sustainable Natural various local projects 2005 Contribution Alternative Power (SNAP) Green Choice wind and geothermal 2007 0.4/kWh EarthWise Energy central PV, wind, landfill gas, small 1998/2001 3.0/kWh hydro, geothermal Renewable Resource Power wind, hydro 2001 0.8/kWh Service GreenWatts landfill gas, PV 2000 10/kWh GreenWatts PV 2004 10/kWh ECA Green Power hydro 2008 5.0/kWh Sun Power for the Schools PV 2002 Contribution Green Power for the Grid wind, landfill gas 2002 1.5/kWh Green Energy Champion various 2007 2.0/kWh Green Power for a Green LA wind, landfill gas 1999 3.0/kWh Light Green 25% renewable 2008 0.0/kWh Deep Green 100% renewable 2010 1.0/kWh Blue Sky Block wind 2000 1.95/kWh Palo Alto Green wind, PV 2003 / 2000 1.5/kWh Green Power wind 2003 2.5/kWh Green Roseville wind, PV 2005 1.5/kWh Greenergy wind, landfill gas, hydro, PV 1997 1.0/kWh or $6/month SolarShares PV 2007 5.0kWh or $30/month Santa Clara Green Power wind, PV 2004 1.5/kWh Voluntary Renewable Energy wind 2008 2.0/kWh Certificates Program Green Power wind 1999 3.0/kWh Renewable Energy wind and geothermal 2008 0.34/kWh Certificates Program Wind Power Pioneers wind 1998 1.5/kWh Local Renewable Energy Pool small hydro, PV 2002 2.33/kWh National Wind National Solar Wind Energy Premium Renewable Resource Power Service Renewable Energy Trust WindSource Wind Energy Program Renewable Energy Rider Green for You Green for You GRUgreen Energy GO GREEN: USA Green GO GREEN: Florida Ever Green Green Power Choice Renewable Energy wind solar wind wind, hydro PV wind wind landfill gas biomass, PV PV only landfill gas, wind, PV wind, biomass,PV solar hot water, PV, biomass landfill gas PV, landfill, biomass co-firing (wood) Continued on next page 2006 2006 1999 1998 1993 1997 1999 2006 2002 2002 2003 2004 2004 2006 2001 1.0/kWh 5.5/kWh 1.0/kWh-2.5/kWh 0.8/kWh Contribution -0.67/kWh 0.6/kWh 0.2/kWh 1.6/kWh 11.6/kWh 2.0/kWh 1.60/kWh 2.75/kWh 2.0/kWh 2.5/kWh
AL AL AL AK AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO DE FL FL FL FL FL FL FL
State
State FL GA GA GA HI HI ID ID ID ID IL IL IL IL IN IN IN IN IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA KY KY KY KY LA MA MA MA MA MI MI MI MI MI
Utility Green Pricing Programs Using Biomass and Biomass Based Resources (Continued) Program Name Type Start Date Premium local PV projects Green Fund 1999 Contribution landfill gas, PV in schools Green Power EMC 2001 2.0/kWh-3.3/kWh landfill gas, solar Green Energy 2006 3.5/kWh landfill gas, PV, wind Green Power Switch 2000 2.67/kWh PV in schools Sun Power for Schools 1997 Contribution distributed renewable energy Green Rate TBD TBD systems wind Buck-A-Block 2002 0.33/kWh various Green Power Program 2001 0.98/kWh wind Blue Sky 2003 0.71/kWh-1.94/kWh Alternative Renewable Energy 2003 1.1/kWh Program wind wind, small hydro, PV Renewable Energy Option 2005 2.5/kWh wind, landfill gas Green Power Program 2003 1.2/kWh Evergreen Renewable Energy landfill gas, biogas, hydro, 1997 1.5/kWh wind Program wind, landfill gas EnviroWatts 2000 0.9/kWh-1.0/kWh wind, PV, landfill gas, 2001 2.5/kWh GoGreen Power digester gas landfill gas EnviroWatts 2001 2.0/kWh-4.0/kWh wind Green Power Option 1998 0.35/kWh wind, landfill gas EnviroWatts 2000 0.9/kWh-1.0/kWh landfill gas, wind Second Nature 2001 2.0/kWh biomass, wind varies by utility 2003 2.0/kWh-3.5/kWh wind Prairie Winds 2000 0.5/kWh wind Harvest the Wind 2000 2.5/kWh wind Wind Power 2006 1.5/kWh-2.5/kWh wind Energy Wise Renewables 2003 1.5/kWh Evergreen Renewable Energy hydro, wind, landfill gas, 1998 3.0/kWh Program biogas biodiesel, wind Green Power Project 2004 Contribution wind, biomass, PV Green City Energy 2003 Varies by utility wind Renewable Advantage 2004 Contribution wind RiverWinds 2003 2.0/kWh-2.5/kWh PV Solar Muscatine 2004 Contribution wind Green Power Choice 2003 Contribution wind Iowa Energy Tags 2001 2.0/kWh Renewable Resources 2007 3.65/kWh Energy (EnviroWatts) 100% biomass 100% KY Low Impact Hydro Green Energy 2007 1.3/kWh-1.67/kWh Institute-Certified hydro landfill gas EnviroWatts 2002 2.75/kWh landfill gas, PV, wind Green Power Switch 2000 2.67/kWh biomass Green Pricing Program 2007 2.5/kWh solar and wind BGreen 2009 2.0/kWh hydro Green Power 2004 3.0/kWh wind NSTAR Green 2008 0.8/kWh-1.45/kWh wind SELCO GreenLight 2007 6.67/kWh 68% wind, 32% landfill gas Green Generation 2005 1.67/kWh wind, biomass GreenCurrents 2007 2.0/kWh-2.5/kWh GreenWise Electric Power landfill gas, small hydro 2001 3.0/kWh NatureWise wind, landfill gas and animal 2004 1.4/kWh waste methane EnviroWatts wind, landfill gas 2000 0.9/kWh-1.0/kWh Continued on next page
State MI MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MS MO MO MO MO MT MT MT MT MT MT NC NC ND ND ND NE NE NV NV NM NM NM NM NM NM OH OH OH OH
Utility Green Pricing Programs Using Biomass and Biomass Based Resources (Continued) Program Name Type Start Date Premium Energy for Tomorrow wind, landfill gas, hydro 2000 2.04/kWh Second Nature landfill gas, wind 2002 2.0/kWh Prairie Winds wind 2002 0.5/kWh Green Energy Program wind, landfill gas 2000 1.5/kWh-2.5/kWh Evergreen Renewable Energy hydro, wind, landfill gas, 1998 1.5/kWh Program biogas Wellspring Renewable Wind wind 1998 1.55/kWh-2.0/kWh Energy Program WindSense wind 2002 2.5/kWh Infinity Wind Energy wind 1999 0.5/kWh RiverWinds wind 2002 2.0/kWh-2.5/kWh Capture the Wind wind 1998 1.5/kWh TailWinds wind 2002 1.6/kWh WindSource wind 2003 2.0/kWh Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, wind 2000 2.67/kWh Pure Power 75% wind, 25% other 2007 1.5/kWh renewables varies by utility biomass, wind 2003 2.0/kWh-3.5/kWh WindCurrent wind 2000 5.0/kWh EnviroWatts wind, landfill gas 2000 0.9/kWh-1.0/kWh Prairie Winds wind 2000 0.5/kWh E+ Green wind, PV 2003 2.0/kWh Green Power Program various renewables 2002 1.02/kWh Environmentally Preferred wind, hydro 2002 1.05/kWh Power Renewable Resource Power wind, hydro 2001 0.8/kWh Service Alternative Renewable Energy wind 2003 1.1/kWh Program NC GreenPower biomass, hydro, landfill gas, 2003 2.5/kWh-4.0/kWh PV, wind Green Power Switch landfill gas, PV, wind 2000 2.67/kWh PrairieWinds wind 2000 0.5/kWh Infinity Wind Energy wind 1999 0.5/kWh 2002 2.0/kWh-2.5/kWh RiverWinds wind Green Power Program landfill gas, wind 2002 3.0/kWh Renewable Resource Power wind, hydro 2001 0.8/kWh Service GreenWay various 2005 1.95/kWh Desert Research Institute's PV on schools Unknown Contribution GreenPower Program Renewable Energy Tariff wind 2003 2.28/kWh Green Power wind 2005 1.8/kWh Voluntary Renewable Energy TBD 2008 4.0/kWh Program PNM Sky Blue wind 2003 1.1/kWh Renewable Resource Power wind, hydro 2001 0.4/kWh-2.5/kWh Service WindSource wind 1999 3.0/kWh 2003 1.3/kWh-1.5/kWh Nature's Energy small hydro, landfill gas, wind 2006 2.0/kWh EnviroWatts landfill gas 2008 1.0/kWh Green Connect various GoGreen Power wind, PV, landfill gas, 2001 2.5/kWh digester gas Continued on next page
Utility Green Pricing Programs Using Biomass and Biomass Based Resources State OH OH OK OK OK OK OK OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SC SC SD SD SD TN TX TX TX TX TX TX UT UT UT UT UT Program Name Green Resource Program EnviroWatts varies by utility OG&E Wind Power Pure & Simple WindChoice WindWorks Renewable Pioneers Choice Energy Choose Renewable Electricity EWEB Greenpower EWEB Wind Power Green Power Program Environmentally-Preferred Power Green Power Blue Sky QS (Commercial Only) Blue Sky Block Blue Sky Habitat Blue Sky Usage Green Power Clean Wind for Medium to Large Commercial & Industrial Accounts Clean Wind Power Green Source Renewable Future ECOchoice Palmetto Clean Energy (PaCE) Green Power Program Prairie Winds RiverWinds Renewable Resource Power Service Green Power Switch GreenChoice Choose-To-Renew Windtricity Wind Watts (10%/50%/100%) Renewable Energy Tariff Renewable Power Clean Green Power GreenWay Blue Sky Blue Sky Renewable Resource Power Service (Continued) Type various wind, landfill gas biomass, wind wind wind 100% wind wind PV, wind wind wind, geothermal various renewables wind various wind wind wind wind wind, biomass, PV wind, biomass, PV landfill gas wind wind existing geothermal, hydro, new wind wind various wind, solar, landfill gas landfill gas wind wind wind, hydro landfill gas, PV, wind wind, landfill gas wind, hydro wind new wind wind wind, hydro wind, small hydro various wind wind wind, hydro Continued on next page Start Date 2007 2000 2003 2003 2004 2011 2004 2003 2005 2003 2007 1999 2001 1999 2002 2004 2000 2002 2002 1998 2003 2002 2002 2007 2007 2008 2001 2000 2002 2001 2000 2000/1997 2005 2000 2009 2001 2006 2005 2004 2003 2000 2001 Premium 0.5/kWh 0.9/kWh-1.0/kWh 2.0/kWh-3.5/kWh -0.246/kWh 1.8/kWh (-0.45/kWh Edmond) 1.72/kWh 0.5/kWh 2.0/kWh 1.5/kWh 1.2/kWh 1.0/kWh-1.5/kWh 0.91/kWh 0.98/kWh 2.5/kWh 1.5/kWh Sliding scale depending on size 1.95/kWh 0.78/kWh + $2.50/mo. donation 0.78/kWh 1.8/kWh-2.0/kWh 1.7/kWh 1.75/kWh 0.8/kWh 1.5/kWh 1.0/kWh 4.0s;/kWh 3.0/kWh 0.5/kWh 2.0/kWh-2.5/kWh 0.8/kWh 2.67/kWh 1.85/kWh -0.114/kWh 3.0/kWh TBD 1.92/kWh 0.5/kWh 2.95/kWh 1.95/kWh 0.71/kWh-1.94/kWh 1.95/kWh 0.8/kWh
Utility Green Pricing Programs Using Biomass and Biomass Based Resources (Continued) State Program Name Type Start Date Premium CVPS Cow Power VT biogas 2004 4.0/kWh CoolHome / CoolBusiness VT wind, biomass 2002 Contribution Greener GMP VT various renewables 2006 3.0/kWh Green Pricing Option VA low impact hydro 2009 1.5/kWh VA biomass, low-impact hydro, 2009 1.5/kWh Dominion Green Power solar, wind Buck-A-Block WA wind 2002 0.33/kWh WA Green Power Program landfill gas, wind, hydro 1999 Contribution Sustainable Natural Alternative WA PV, wind, micro hydro 2001 Contribution Power (SNAP) Clallam County PUD Green Power landfill gas WA 2001 0.69/kWh Program Green Lights WA PV, wind 2002 1.5/kWh Renewable Resource Energy WA wind, PV 2002 2.0/kWh Alternative Energy Resources wind 2002 2.0/kWh WA Program Green Power WA wind 2002 3.0/kWh Green Power Energy Rate WA wind 2003 2.0/kWh Mason Evergreen Power WA wind 2003 1.0/kWh Pure Power WA wind 2007 2.5/kWh Go Green WA wind, hydro 1999 3.5/kWh Green Power WA landfill gas 2002 1.05/kWh Blue Sky Block WA wind 2000 1.95/kWh Green by Choice WA wind, hydro, biogas 2002 2.0/kWh Green Power Program WA wind, PV, biogas 2002 1.25/kWh Seattle Green Power WA PV, biogas 2002 Contribution Green Up WA wind 2005 1.5/kWh Planet Power WA wind 2002 2.0/kWh EverGreen Options WA wind 2000 1.2/kWh Green Pricing Option WV wind and hydro 2008 1.5/kWh Second Nature WI wind, landfill gas 2000 2.0/kWh Evergreen Renewable Energy WI hydro, wind, landfill gas, 1998 1.5/kWh Program biogas Wellspring Renewable Wind WI wind 1997 1.45/kWh-2.0/kWh Energy Program Green Power Tomorrow WI wind 1999 1.0/kWh Renewable Energy Program WI small hydro, wind, biogas 2001 1.0/kWh Energy for Tomorrow WI landfill gas, PV, hydro, wind 1996 1.37/kWh Solar Wise for Schools WI PV in schools 1996 Contribution NatureWise WI wind, landfill gas, biogas 2002 1.25/kWh Prairie Winds WY wind 2000 0.5/kWh Renewable Premium Program WY 99% new wind, 1% new solar 2006 3.5/kWh Green Power WY wind 2003 1.167/kWh Blue Sky WY wind 2000 1.95/kWh Renewable Resource Power WY wind, hydro 2001 0.8/kWh Service Wind Energy Program WY wind 1999 0.6/kWh Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/pricing.shtml?page=1 Note: Utility green pricing programs may only be available to customers located in the utility's service territory.
A growing number of states have companies that offer a range of green power products that allow consumers to purchase electricity generated in part or entirely from biomass resources. Section: BIOPOWER Competitive Electricity Markets Retail Green Power Product Offeringsa, August 2010 State Connecticut Company CL&P/United Illuminating/Community Energy (CT Clean Energy Options Program) CL&P/United Illuminating/Sterling Planet (CT Clean Energy Options Program) Kennebunk Light and Power District PEPCO Energy Services Product Name Resource Mixb New Wind 50% new wind, 50% Energy/Landfill Gas 50% or landfill gas 100% of usage Sterling Select 50% or 100% of usage Village Green 33% new wind, 33% small hydro, 34% landfill gas hydro, landfill gas Certification
Maine Maryland Massachusetts
Green Electricity 100% of landfill gas usage Cape Light Compact Cape Light Compact Green 75% small hydro, 24% new wind or landfill gas, 50% or 100%* 1% new solar 100% biomass Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket Clear Sky Home* Electric/Clear Sky Powerd Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket New England GreenStart Electric/Mass Energy Consumers 50% or 100% of usage* Alliance Massachusetts Electric/Nantucket MA Clean Choice* Electric/Sterling Planetd 75% small hydro, 25% new biomass, wind and solar 33% new wind, 33% new landfill gas, 33% small hydro 33% wind, 33% small hydro, 34% landfill gas
Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust Environmental Resources Trust
New Jersey
New York
biomass, small and lowimpact hydro 25% new wind, 75% landfill gas Long Island Power Authority / Green Power Program 75% landfill gas, 25% EnviroGen small hydro Long Island Power Authority / New York Clean 55% small hydro, 35% Sterling Planet bioenergy, 10% wind Long Island Power Authority / Sterling Green 40% new wind, 30% small Sterling Planet hydro, 30% bioenergy National Grid / EnviroGen Think Green! 75% landfill gas, 25% low impact hydro Sterling Planet NY Clean Choice 40% new wind, 30% small hydro, 30% bioenergy Suburban Energy Services Sterling Green Renewable 40% new wind, 30% small /Sterling Planet Electricity hydro, 30% bioenergy Continued on next page
PSE&G/JCP&L/Atlantic City NJ Clean Power Choice Electric/Rockland Electric/Sterling Sterling Select Planet BlueRock Energy Green Power (10%/50%/100%) Energy Cooperative of New Yorke Renewable Electricity
Competitive Electricity Markets Retail Green Power Product Offerings as of August 2010 (continued) Pennsylvania Energy Cooperative of Pennsylvania UGI Utilities 89% landfill gas, 10% wind, 1% solar Renewable Residential 100% MSW, waste coal, Service - Alternative Energy wood pulp (50% or 100% of usage) Clear Sky Home 100% new bioenergy EcoChoice 100
Rhode Island
Narragansett Electric / Clear Sky Power Narragansett Electric / People's Power and Light Narragansett Electric / Sterling Planet
Environmental Resources Trust
New England GreenStart RI 70% small hydro, 17% 50% or 100% of usage bioenergy, 13% wind and solar Sterling Supreme 100% 40% small hydro, 25% biomass, 25% new solar, 10% new wind
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, The Green Power Network http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/marketing.shtml?page=1
a b c d e
As product prices fluctuate, please contact the listed marketers to get accurate price quote for products. New is defined as operating or repowered after January 1, 1997 based on the Green-e standard. Offered in PEPCO service territory.
Products are only available in the National Grid service territory. Offered in Niagra Mohawk and NYSEG service territories. * The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative's Clean Energy Choice (CEC) program provides local matching grants for clean energy projects for residents who make a voluntary offering.
Renewable energy certificates (RECs)also known as green tags, renewable energy credits, or tradable renewable certificatesrepresent the environmental attributes of power generated from renewable electric plants. A number of organizations offer green energy certificates separate from electricity service (i.e., customers do not need to switch from their current electricity supplier to purchase these certificates). Organizations that offer green certificate products using biomass resources are listed below. Section: BIOPOWER National Retail Renewable Energy Certificate Product Offerings, August 2010 Location of Renewable Resources Nationwide
Certificate Marketer
Product Name
Renewable Resources 100% biomass, geothermal, hydro, solar, wind
Residential Price Premium* 1.2/kWh
Certification
3 Phases Renewables
Green Certificates
Green-e
3Degrees
National Renewable Energy Certificates
100% wind, solar, geothermal, lowNationwide impact hydro, biogas, biomass 100% new biogas Pennsylvania
0.5/kWh-1.5/kWh
Green-e
NativeEnergy
Remooable Energy
0.8/kWh-1.0/kWh
**
Carbon Solutions Group
CSG CleanBuild
biomass, biogas, wind, solar, hydro
Nationwide
0.9/kWh
Green-e
GP Renewables & Trading GP-REC Structured LLC Product
solar, hydro, Localized by state biomass, landfill gas, and region energy efficiency wind, solar, biomass Nationwide
0.2/kWh
Green Mountain Energy
BeGreen RECs
1.4/kWh
Santee Cooper Village Green Energy
SC Green Power Village Green Power
landfill gas, solar solar, wind, biogas
South Carolina California, Nationwide
3.0/kWh 2.0/kWh-2.5/kWh
Green-e Green-e
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, The Green Power Network http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/certificates.shtml?page=1 Notes: Information not available. * Product prices are updated as of August 2010. Premium may also apply to small commercial customers. Large users may be able to negotiate price premiums. ** Product is sourced from Green-e and ERT-certified RECs. ERT also certifies the entire product portfolio.
Section: BIOPOWER New Biomass Power Plants by Year 16
14
Number of New Biomass Plants
12
10
0 1938 1952 1954 1960 1962 1963 1965 1966 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 New Biomass Power Plant Capacity by Year 300 250 200 Megawatts 150 100 50 0 1938 1952 1954 1960 1962 1963 1965 1966 1978 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 Source: National Electric Energy System (NEEDS) Database for IPM 2006 http://epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html Notes: 1. Only years in which new plants were brought online are shown. 2. Power plant capacity based on NEEDS 2010 Data
Section: BIOPOWER Current Biomass Power Plants Plant Name Kettle Falls Generating Station J C McNeil Mitchell M L Hibbard M L Hibbard Hibbing Virginia Schiller Bay Front Bay Front Bay Front E J Stoneman Station E J Stoneman Station Boralex Fort Fairfield Everett Cogen Fairhaven Power Sierra Pacific Lincoln Facility White Pine Electric Power White Pine Electric Power Worcester Energy Worcester Energy Worcester Energy Alabama River Pulp Leaf River Cellulose LLC Bridgewater Power LP Mecca Plant Mecca Plant Hillman Power LLC SI Group Energy LLC Boralex Beaver Livermore Falls Green Power Kenansville Green Power Kenansville Tracy Biomass Craven County Wood Energy LP Agrilectric Power Partners Ltd Agrilectric Power Partners Ltd Domtar - Woodland Mill Burney Forest Products Burney Forest Products Collins Pine Project Rapids Energy Center Rapids Energy Center Indeck Jonesboro Energy Center Indeck West Enfield Energy Center Rio Bravo Fresno Rio Bravo Rocklin HL Power Ogdensburg Power Ogdensburg Power Ogdensburg Power Grayling Generating Station Woodland Biomass Power Ltd AES Mendota Hemphill Power & Light Whitefield Power & Light Delano Energy Delano Energy Biomass One LP Biomass One LP Pacific Lumber Pacific Lumber Pacific Lumber Sierra Power Tillotson Rubber Tamarack Energy Partnership Sierra Pacific Burney Facility Boiler/Generator/ Committed Unit B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B G B B B B B B B B B B B G B B B B B G B B B B B B B B B B B B G G G B B B B B B B B B B B B G B G B State Name County Washington Stevens Vermont Chittenden Georgia Dougherty St. Louis Minnesota St. Louis Minnesota St. Louis Minnesota St. Louis Minnesota New Hampshire Rockingham Wisconsin Ashland Wisconsin Ashland Wisconsin Ashland Wisconsin Grant Wisconsin Grant Maine Aroostook Washington Snohomish California Humboldt California Placer Michigan Ontonagon Michigan Ontonagon Maine Washington Maine Washington Maine Washington Alabama Monroe Mississippi Perry New Hampshire Grafton California Riverside California Riverside Michigan Montmorency Florida Jefferson Maine Androscoggin North Carolina Duplin North Carolina Duplin California San Joaquin North Carolina Craven Louisiana Calcasieu Louisiana Calcasieu Maine Washington California Shasta California Shasta California Plumas Minnesota Itasca Minnesota Itasca Maine Washington Maine Penobscot California Fresno California Placer California Lassen New York St. Lawrence New York St. Lawrence New York St. Lawrence Michigan Crawford California Yolo California Fresno New Hampshire Sullivan New Hampshire Coos California Kern California Kern Oregon Jackson Oregon Jackson California Humboldt California Humboldt California Humboldt California Tulare New Hampshire Coos Idaho Adams California Shasta Continued on next page Heat Rate Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 50.00 13,809 No 1983 52.00 14,736 No 1984 96.00 8,911 No 2012 15.30 14,500 Yes 1988 33.30 14,500 Yes 1988 20.00 14,500 Yes 2007 15.00 14,500 Yes 2007 36.97 9,540 No 2006 22.00 18,720 No 1954 30.00 12,513 No 1960 22.00 16,190 No 1952 25.00 8,911 No 2009 25.00 8,911 No 2009 31.00 15,517 No 1987 36.00 15,517 Yes 1996 17.30 15,517 No 1986 17.22 15,517 Yes 2004 18.00 15,517 No 1954 18.00 15,517 No 1954 4.33 15,517 No 1989 4.33 15,517 No 1989 4.33 15,517 No 1989 22.32 15,517 Yes 1978 37.50 15,517 Yes 1984 16.00 15,517 No 1987 23.50 15,517 No 1991 23.50 15,517 No 1991 17.80 15,517 No 1987 7.50 24,943 No 1990 35.88 15,517 No 1992 16.20 15,517 Yes 1986 16.20 11,564 Yes 1986 18.75 15,517 No 1990 48.00 15,517 No 1990 1.30 16,136 No 1995 10.90 15,517 No 1984 23.00 15,517 Yes 1966 15.50 15,517 Yes 1989 15.50 15,517 Yes 1989 12.00 15,517 Yes 1985 11.25 15,517 Yes 1980 11.25 20,328 Yes 1980 26.80 15,517 No 1987 25.60 15,517 No 1987 24.30 15,517 No 1988 24.40 15,517 No 1989 30.00 15,517 No 1989 8.34 8,911 Yes 2009 8.34 8,911 Yes 2009 8.34 8,911 Yes 2009 36.20 15,517 No 1992 25.00 15,517 No 1989 25.00 15,517 No 1989 14.13 15,517 No 1987 14.50 15,517 No 1987 27.00 15,517 No 1990 22.00 15,517 No 1993 8.50 15,517 Yes 1985 14.00 15,517 Yes 1985 8.67 15,517 Yes 1989 8.67 15,517 Yes 1989 16.17 15,517 Yes 1938 7.00 15,517 Yes 1985 0.70 14,594 Yes 1978 5.80 15,943 Yes 1983 16.33 15,517 Yes 1986
Current Biomass Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name Sierra Pacific Loyalton Facility Sierra Pacific Quincy Facility Sierra Pacific Quincy Facility Susanville Susanville Snider Industries Pinetree Power Bethlehem Bucksport Mill Boralex Chateaugay Power Station Wadham Energy LP Mobile Energy Services LLC S D Warren Westbrook S D Warren Westbrook American Ref-Fuel of Niagara Bryant Sugar House Bryant Sugar House Bryant Sugar House Bryant Sugar House Bryant Sugar House Bryant Sugar House Pacific-Ultrapower Chinese Station Potlatch Idaho Pulp Paper Potlatch Southern Wood Products Boralex Stratton Energy Pinetree Power Tamworth Viking Energy of McBain Viking Energy of Northumberland Viking Energy of Lincoln Telogia Power Stone Container Florence Mill Stone Container Hopewell Mill Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Wheelabrator Shasta Wheelabrator Shasta Wheelabrator Shasta Wheelabrator Shasta Co-Gen LLC Co-Gen II LLC Ryegate Power Station Multitrade of Pittsylvania LP Multitrade of Pittsylvania LP Multitrade of Pittsylvania LP Burney Mountain Power Cadillac Renewable Energy Alabama Pine Pulp Mt Lassen Power Pacific Oroville Power Inc Pacific Oroville Power Inc Sierra Pacific Sonora Lyonsdale Biomass LLC Ridge Generating Station Pinetree Power Fitchburg Okeelanta Cogeneration Okeelanta Cogeneration Okeelanta Cogeneration Okeelanta Cogeneration Genesee Power Station LP Cox Waste to Energy Cox Waste to Energy Greenville Steam Sauder Power Plant Sauder Power Plant J & L Electric J & L Electric Sierra Pacific Anderson Facility Plummer Forest Products Fibrominn Biomass Power Plant Sierra Pacific Aberdeen McMinnville STEC-S LLC Boiler/Generator/C ommitted Unit B B B G G G B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B G B B B G G B B B B B B B B B B G B B B G B B B B G G B G G G G G G G B G B State Name County California Sierra California Plumas California Plumas California Lassen California Lassen Texas Harrison New Hampshire Grafton Maine Hancock New York Franklin California Colusa Alabama Mobile Maine Cumberland Maine Cumberland New York Niagara Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach California Tuolumne Idaho Nez Perce Arkansas Bradley Maine Franklin New Hampshire Carroll Michigan Missaukee Pennsylvania Northumberland Michigan Alcona Florida Liberty South Carolina Florence Virginia Hopewell (city) Maine Penobscot California Shasta California Shasta California Shasta California Shasta Oregon Grant Oregon Douglas Vermont Caledonia Virginia Pittsylvania Virginia Pittsylvania Virginia Pittsylvania California Shasta Michigan Wexford Alabama Monroe California Lassen California Butte California Butte California Tuolumne New York Lewis Florida Polk Massachusetts Worcester Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach Florida Palm Beach Michigan Genesee Kentucky Taylor Kentucky Taylor Maine Piscataquis Ohio Fulton Ohio Fulton Maine Franklin Maine Franklin California Shasta Idaho Benewah Minnesota Swift Washington Grays Harbor Tennessee Warren Arkansas Arkansas Continued on next page Heat Rate Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 13.08 15,517 No 1989 14.42 15,517 Yes 1986 14.42 15,517 Yes 1986 11.00 16,506 No 1985 2.00 16,506 No 1985 5.00 15,517 Yes 1983 15.00 15,517 No 1987 23.25 15,517 Yes 1965 18.00 15,517 No 1993 25.50 15,517 No 1989 14.35 15,517 Yes 1985 11.88 15,517 Yes 1982 26.88 15,517 Yes 1982 9.00 15,517 Yes 1980 4.42 15,517 Yes 1962 4.42 15,517 Yes 1962 4.42 15,517 Yes 1962 4.42 15,517 Yes 1962 4.42 15,517 Yes 1962 4.42 15,517 Yes 1962 19.80 15,517 No 1985 27.20 15,517 Yes 1981 10.00 15,517 Yes 1991 45.70 15,517 No 1989 20.00 15,517 No 1987 16.00 15,517 No 1988 16.00 15,517 Yes 1988 16.00 15,517 No 1989 12.50 15,517 No 1986 7.63 15,517 Yes 1963 20.35 15,517 Yes 1980 21.00 15,517 No 1986 3.50 19,538 No 2000 17.30 15,517 No 1987 17.30 15,517 No 1987 17.30 15,517 No 1987 6.98 17,974 Yes 1986 6.98 17,139 Yes 1987 20.00 21,020 No 1992 26.55 15,517 No 1994 26.55 15,517 No 1994 26.55 15,517 No 1994 9.75 15,517 No 1985 36.80 15,517 No 1993 32.09 15,517 Yes 1991 10.50 15,517 No 1985 8.25 15,517 No 1985 8.25 15,517 No 1985 5.45 15,517 Yes 2001 19.00 15,517 Yes 1992 47.10 15,517 No 1994 17.00 15,517 No 1992 74.90 15,517 Yes 2006 24.97 15,517 Yes 1996 24.97 15,517 Yes 1996 24.97 15,517 Yes 1996 35.00 15,517 No 1995 3.00 15,517 Yes 1995 0.30 15,517 Yes 2002 19.00 14,192 No 1988 3.60 18,060 Yes 1993 3.60 18,060 Yes 1993 0.35 15,517 Yes 1980 0.50 15,517 Yes 2004 5.00 15,517 Yes 1999 5.77 16,912 Yes 1982 55.00 15,517 No 2007 16.50 15,517 Yes 2003 1.80 12,397 No 2005 2.00 15,517 Yes 1997
Current Biomass Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name Boiler/Generator/ Committed Unit B G G G G C G G G G G G G G C C C C C C C C C C C State Name Arkansas Arizona Washington Arizona Arizona Minnesota Massachusetts Georgia Oregon Maine Vermont Vermont Vermont Vermont California Texas Texas Pennsylvania Minnesota Maine New Hampshire Nevada Oregon Washington Alabama County Arkansas Apache Skagit Navajo Eagar NA Hampshire Franklin Josephine Penobscot Franklin Franklin Franklin Addison NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Heat Rate Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 2.00 15,517 Yes 1997 2.50 9,650 No 2004 25.00 15,517 Yes 2006 24.00 10,500 No 2008 2.85 15,517 No 2006 0.95 15,517 No 2006 4.09 15,517 Yes 2006 20.00 10,625 No 2007 1.70 10,500 No 2007 10.00 10,500 No 2007 0.30 15,517 No 2007 0.30 15,517 No 2007 0.30 15,517 No 2007 0.30 15,517 No 2005 2.20 8,911 No 2011 14.20 8,911 No 2011 50.09 8,911 No 2011 30.00 8,911 No 2011 16.50 8,911 No 2011 16.00 8,911 No 2011 17.50 8,911 No 2011 1.00 8,911 No 2011 13.20 8,911 No 2011 16.25 8,911 No 2011 0.03 8,911 No 2011
STEC-S LLC Western Renewable Sierra Pacific Burlington Facility Snowflake White Moun APS Biomass I Central Minn. Ethano Ware Cogeneration Plant Carl Project Rough and Ready Lumb Lincoln Paper & Tissue Montagne Farms Green Mtn Dairy Berkshire Cow Power Blue Spruce Farm Ana CA-S_CA_Biomass ENTG_TX_Biomass ERCT_TX_Biomass MACW_PA_Biomass MRO_MN_Biomass NENG_ME_Biomass NENG_NH_Biomass NWPE_NV_Biomass PNW_OR_Biomass PNW_WA_Biomass SOU_AL_Biomass
Source: (National Electric Energy System (NEEDS) Database for IPM 2010. http://epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html
a
Data are not available
Section: BIOPOWER New Landfill Gas Power Plants by Year

100
90 80 70
New Plants 60 50
40 30 20 10 1952 1959 1969 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2011
1982 1983 1984 1990 1991 1992 1999 2000 2001 2007 2008 2009 0
New Landfill Gas Power Plant Capacity by Year

250
200
Megawatts
150
100
50
Source: National Electric Energy System (NEEDS) Database for IPM 2010 http://epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html Notes: 1. Only years in which new plants were brought online are shown. 2. Power plant capacity based on NEEDS 2010 Data.
1952 1959 1969 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011
Section: BIOPOWER Current Landfill Gas Power Plants Boiler/Generator/ Committed Unit B G G B B G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G B B B B G G G G B B G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G Heat Rate Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 42.00 13,698 No 1959 2.67 19,621 No 1987 2.67 19,621 No 1987 30.00 13,682 Yes 1952 30.00 13,682 Yes 1952 3.00 13,595 No 1997 0.75 12,758 No 1995 0.75 12,758 No 1995 0.75 12,758 No 1995 2.10 11,900 No 1999 2.10 11,900 No 1999 2.10 11,900 No 1999 2.10 11,900 No 1999 2.10 11,900 No 2000 0.80 13,648 No 2009 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2002 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2002 0.80 13,682 No 2002 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2002 1.10 10,504 No 2003 1.10 10,504 No 2001 1.10 10,504 No 2001 1.10 13,682 No 2007 0.65 12,498 No 2003 0.65 12,498 No 2003 0.65 12,498 No 2003 0.80 12,081 No 2001 0.80 12,081 No 2001 0.80 12,081 No 2001 0.80 12,081 No 2001 0.80 12,081 No 2001 0.70 16,716 No 1990 0.70 16,716 No 1990 0.70 17,446 No 1989 0.70 17,446 No 1989 2.80 13,000 No 2004 0.50 13,655 No 1984 0.50 13,655 No 1984 0.50 13,655 No 1984 0.50 13,655 No 1984 1.00 13,016 No 1989 1.00 13,016 No 1989 1.00 13,016 No 1989 0.50 13,577 No 1983 1.00 13,577 No 1987 0.50 13,577 No 1983 0.50 13,577 No 1983 0.50 15,903 No 1982 0.50 15,903 No 1982 0.50 15,903 No 1982 0.50 15,903 No 1982 0.70 11,881 No 1985 0.70 11,881 No 1985 17.00 13,682 No 1989 7.00 13,682 No 1990 22.50 13,682 No 1986 22.50 13,682 No 1986 2.70 13,682 No 2006 1.10 35,987 No 1984 2.70 13,682 No 2006 2.70 13,682 No 2006 2.00 13,682 No 1988 2.00 13,682 No 1988 0.80 13,682 No 1996 0.80 13,682 No 1991 0.80 13,682 No 1991 0.80 13,682 No 1997 0.80 13,682 No 1991 0.80 16,730 No 1998 0.70 16,730 No 1988 0.70 16,730 No 1988 0.70 16,730 No 1989 0.70 16,730 No 1995 0.60 13,970 No 1985 0.60 13,970 No 1985 1.70 12,319 No 1985 1.70 12,319 No 1985 1.70 12,319 No 1985 0.90 13,682 No 1997 0.90 13,682 No 2002 0.70 13,682 No 1994 0.90 13,682 No 1998
Plant Name Grayson Pennsbury Pennsbury Fairless Hills Fairless Hills Girvin Landfill Coffin Butte Coffin Butte Coffin Butte Roosevelt Biogas 1 Roosevelt Biogas 1 Roosevelt Biogas 1 Roosevelt Biogas 1 Roosevelt Biogas 1 Elk City Station Elk City Station Elk City Station Elk City Station Elk City Station Elk City Station Elk City Station Elk City Station Horry Land Fill Gas Site Horry Land Fill Gas Site Horry Land Fill Gas Site Horry Land Fill Gas Site South West Landfill South West Landfill South West Landfill Tri Cities Tri Cities Tri Cities Tri Cities Tri Cities San Marcos San Marcos Sycamore San Diego Sycamore San Diego Sycamore San Diego Newby Island I Newby Island I Newby Island I Newby Island I Newby Island II Newby Island II Newby Island II Guadalupe Power Plant Guadalupe Power Plant Guadalupe Power Plant Guadalupe Power Plant Marsh Road Power Plant Marsh Road Power Plant Marsh Road Power Plant Marsh Road Power Plant American Canyon Power Plant American Canyon Power Plant Coyote Canyon Steam Plant Spadra Landfill Gas to Energy Puente Hills Energy Recovery Puente Hills Energy Recovery Puente Hills Energy Recovery Puente Hills Energy Recovery Puente Hills Energy Recovery Puente Hills Energy Recovery Palos Verdes Gas to Energy Palos Verdes Gas to Energy Granger Electric Generating Station #2 Granger Electric Generating Station #2 Granger Electric Generating Station #2 Granger Electric Generating Station #2 Granger Electric Generating Station #2 Al Turi Al Turi Al Turi Al Turi Al Turi Lebanon Methane Recovery Lebanon Methane Recovery Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Marina Landfill Gas Marina Landfill Gas Marina Landfill Gas Marina Landfill Gas
State Name County California Los Angeles Pennsylvania Bucks Pennsylvania Bucks Pennsylvania Bucks Pennsylvania Bucks Florida Duval Oregon Benton Oregon Benton Oregon Benton Washington Klickitat Washington Klickitat Washington Klickitat Washington Klickitat Washington Klickitat Nebraska Douglas Nebraska Douglas Nebraska Douglas Nebraska Douglas Nebraska Douglas Nebraska Douglas Nebraska Douglas Nebraska Douglas South Carolina Horry South Carolina Horry South Carolina Horry South Carolina Horry Florida Alachua Florida Alachua Florida Alachua Arizona Maricopa Arizona Maricopa Arizona Maricopa Arizona Maricopa Arizona Maricopa California San Diego California San Diego California San Diego California San Diego California San Diego California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California Santa Clara California San Mateo California San Mateo California San Mateo California San Mateo California Napa California Napa California Orange California Los Angeles California Los Angeles California Los Angeles California Los Angeles California Los Angeles California Los Angeles California Los Angeles California Los Angeles California Los Angeles Michigan Clinton Michigan Clinton Michigan Clinton Michigan Clinton Michigan Clinton New York Orange New York Orange New York Orange New York Orange New York Orange Pennsylvania Lebanon Pennsylvania Lebanon California Orange California Orange California Orange California Monterey California Monterey California Monterey California Monterey Continued on next page
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Boiler/Generator/ Committed Unit Plant Name Prince Georges County Brown Station G Prince Georges County Brown Station G Prince Georges County Brown Station G EQ Waste Energy Services G EQ Waste Energy Services G EQ Waste Energy Services G EQ Waste Energy Services G Archbald Power Station B Smithtown Energy Partners LP G G Smithtown Energy Partners LP Onondaga Energy Partners LP G G Onondaga Energy Partners LP Oceanside Energy G G Oceanside Energy Oceanside Energy G G Ridgewood Providence Power Ridgewood Providence Power G G Ridgewood Providence Power G Ridgewood Providence Power Ridgewood Providence Power G G Ridgewood Providence Power G Ridgewood Providence Power Ridgewood Providence Power G G Ridgewood Providence Power Ridgewood Providence Power G G Ridgewood Providence Power Ridgewood Providence Power G G Ridgewood Providence Power Ridgewood Providence Power G G Ridgewood Providence Power G Settlers Hill Gas Recovery G Settlers Hill Gas Recovery New Milford Gas Recovery G G Monroe Livingston Gas Recovery Monroe Livingston Gas Recovery G G Monroe Livingston Gas Recovery G Milam Gas Recovery Milam Gas Recovery G G Milam Gas Recovery G High Acres Gas Recovery High Acres Gas Recovery G G High Acres Gas Recovery High Acres Gas Recovery G DFW Gas Recovery G DFW Gas Recovery G Chestnut Ridge Gas Recovery G G Chestnut Ridge Gas Recovery Chestnut Ridge Gas Recovery G Chestnut Ridge Gas Recovery G Altamont Gas Recovery G Altamont Gas Recovery G Altamont Gas Recovery G Altamont Gas Recovery G CSL Gas Recovery G G CSL Gas Recovery CSL Gas Recovery G CSL Gas Recovery G CID Gas Recovery G G CID Gas Recovery Lake Gas Recovery G Lake Gas Recovery G Lake Gas Recovery G G Metro Gas Recovery G Metro Gas Recovery Metro Gas Recovery G Metro Gas Recovery G Metro Gas Recovery G G Metro Gas Recovery Omega Hills Gas Recovery G Omega Hills Gas Recovery G Omega Hills Gas Recovery G Stowe Power Production Plant G Stowe Power Production Plant G Tazewell Gas Recovery G Tazewell Gas Recovery G Tazewell Gas Recovery G Taylor Energy Partners LP G Taylor Energy Partners LP G G Taylor Energy Partners LP Taylor Energy Partners LP G Lafayette Energy Partners LP G Lafayette Energy Partners LP G G Nove Power Plant Nove Power Plant G Nove Power Plant G Heat Rate State Name County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year Maryland Prince 0.74 13,682 No 1987 Maryland Prince 0.74 13,682 No 1987 Prince 0.74 13,682 No 1987 Maryland Wayne 0.30 13,388 Yes 1986 Michigan Michigan Wayne 0.30 13,388 Yes 1986 Wayne 0.50 13,388 Yes 1986 Michigan Michigan Wayne 0.30 13,388 Yes 1986 Pennsylvania Lackawanna 20.00 13,682 Yes 1988 New York Suffolk 0.60 13,001 No 1988 New York Suffolk 0.60 13,001 No 1988 New York Onondaga 0.60 13,940 No 1988 New York Onondaga 0.60 13,940 No 1988 New York Nassau 0.60 13,428 No 1990 New York Nassau 0.60 13,428 No 1990 New York Nassau 0.60 13,428 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.50 13,682 No 2005 Rhode Island Providence 1.20 13,682 No 2004 Rhode Island Providence 1.20 13,682 No 2004 Rhode Island Providence 1.50 13,682 No 2005 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.50 13,682 No 2005 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.50 13,682 No 2005 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1990 Rhode Island Providence 1.70 12,049 No 1997 Illinois Kane 2.90 18,229 No 1988 Illinois Kane 2.90 18,229 No 1998 Connecticut Litchfield 1.60 17,053 No 1991 New York Monroe 0.80 13,303 No 1988 New York Monroe 0.80 13,303 No 1988 New York Monroe 0.80 13,303 No 1988 Illinois St. Clair 0.80 12,168 No 1991 Illinois St. Clair 0.80 12,168 No 1991 Illinois St. Clair 0.80 12,168 No 1993 New York Monroe 0.80 11,773 No 1991 New York Monroe 0.80 11,773 No 1991 New York Monroe 0.80 11,773 No 1991 New York Monroe 0.80 11,773 No 1991 2.90 20,551 No 1988 Texas Denton Texas Denton 2.90 20,551 No 1988 Tennessee Anderson 0.80 12,912 No 1992 Tennessee Anderson 0.80 12,912 No 1992 Tennessee Anderson 0.80 12,912 No 1992 Tennessee Anderson 0.80 12,912 No 1992 California Alameda 1.30 13,825 No 2002 California Alameda 2.90 17,435 No 1969 California Alameda 1.30 13,825 No 2002 California Alameda 2.90 17,435 No 1989 Florida Broward 2.90 11,860 No 1989 Florida Broward 2.90 11,860 No 1989 Florida Broward 2.90 11,860 No 1989 Florida Broward 2.20 11,860 No 2000 Illinois Cook 2.90 19,778 No 1989 Illinois Cook 2.90 19,778 No 1989 Illinois Cook 2.90 19,330 No 1988 Illinois Cook 2.90 19,330 No 1993 Illinois Cook 2.90 19,330 No 1993 Wisconsin Milwaukee 0.80 14,317 No 2000 Wisconsin Milwaukee 0.80 14,317 No 2000 Wisconsin Milwaukee 0.80 14,317 No 2000 Wisconsin Milwaukee 0.80 14,317 No 2000 Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.90 18,504 No 1985 Wisconsin Milwaukee 2.90 18,504 No 1985 Wisconsin Washington 2.90 19,141 No 1985 Wisconsin Washington 2.90 19,141 No 1985 Wisconsin Washington 3.00 19,141 No 2001 Pennsylvania Montgomery 2.90 19,113 No 1989 Pennsylvania Montgomery 2.90 19,113 No 1991 Illinois Tazewell 0.80 12,246 No 1989 Illinois Tazewell 0.80 12,246 No 1989 Illinois Tazewell 0.80 12,246 No 1999 Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.60 13,982 No 1987 Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.40 13,982 No 1987 Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.40 13,982 No 1987 Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.40 13,982 No 1987 New Jersey Sussex 0.50 15,927 No 1990 New Jersey Sussex 0.50 15,927 No 1990 California Contra Costa 1.00 11,414 No 1985 California Contra Costa 1.00 11,414 No 1985 California Contra Costa 1.00 11,414 No 1987 Continued on next page
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name Winnebago County Landfill Gas Winnebago County Landfill Gas Winnebago County Landfill Gas I 95 Municipal Landfill Phase I I 95 Municipal Landfill Phase I I 95 Municipal Landfill Phase I I 95 Municipal Landfill Phase I Otay Otay Salinas Oxnard Oxnard Oxnard BKK Landfill BKK Landfill Riverview Energy Systems Riverview Energy Systems Penrose Power Station Penrose Power Station Penrose Power Station Penrose Power Station Penrose Power Station Toyon Power Station Toyon Power Station Toyon Power Station Toyon Power Station BJ Gas Recovery BJ Gas Recovery Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Sumpter Energy Associates Venice Resources Gas Recovery Venice Resources Gas Recovery Granger Electric Generating Station #1 Granger Electric Generating Station #1 Granger Electric Generating Station #1 Granger Electric Generating Station #1 MM Yolo Power LLC Facility MM Yolo Power LLC Facility MM Yolo Power LLC Facility MM Yolo Power LLC Facility Kankakee Gas Recovery Kankakee Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Pheasant Run Landfill Gas Recovery Woodland Landfill Gas Recovery Woodland Landfill Gas Recovery Turnkey Landfill Gas Recovery Turnkey Landfill Gas Recovery Turnkey Landfill Gas Recovery Turnkey Landfill Gas Recovery Turnkey Landfill Gas Recovery Turnkey Landfill Gas Recovery Metro Methane Recovery Facility Metro Methane Recovery Facility Metro Methane Recovery Facility Metro Methane Recovery Facility Metro Methane Recovery Facility Metro Methane Recovery Facility Metro Methane Recovery Facility Metro Methane Recovery Facility Boiler/Generator/C ommitted Unit G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G Heat Rate State Name County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year Wisconsin Winnebago 0.90 11,900 No 2000 Wisconsin Winnebago 0.90 11,900 No 2000 Wisconsin Winnebago 0.90 11,900 No 2000 Virginia Fairfax 0.80 11,123 No 1992 Virginia Fairfax 0.80 11,123 No 1992 Virginia Fairfax 0.80 11,123 No 1992 Virginia Fairfax 0.80 11,123 No 1992 California San Diego 1.70 10,135 No 1986 California San Diego 1.70 10,135 No 1991 California Monterey 1.30 10,374 No 1986 California Ventura 1.70 12,254 No 1985 California Ventura 1.70 12,254 No 1991 California Ventura 1.70 12,254 No 1985 California Los Angeles 4.40 11,518 No 1999 California Los Angeles 4.40 22,519 No 1993 Michigan Wayne 2.81 16,466 No 1988 Michigan Wayne 2.81 16,466 No 1988 California Los Angeles 1.70 12,426 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 12,426 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 12,426 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 12,426 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 12,426 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 17,198 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 17,198 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 17,198 No 1986 California Los Angeles 1.70 17,198 No 1986 Georgia Gwinnett 0.80 12,577 No 1993 Georgia Gwinnett 0.80 12,577 No 1993 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1992 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1998 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1998 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1998 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1998 Michigan Wayne 0.80 13,682 No 1998 Michigan Shiawassee 0.80 15,045 No 1992 Michigan Shiawassee 0.80 15,045 No 1992 Michigan Clinton 0.80 13,682 No 1993 Michigan Clinton 0.80 13,682 No 1997 Michigan Clinton 0.80 13,682 No 1993 Michigan Clinton 0.80 13,682 No 1994 California Yolo 0.45 20,277 No 1990 California Yolo 0.45 20,277 No 1990 California Yolo 0.60 20,277 No 1993 California Yolo 0.45 20,277 No 1990 Illinois Kankakee 0.80 12,214 No 1992 Illinois Kankakee 0.80 12,214 No 1992 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2000 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 1992 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2002 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2002 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2002 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2002 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 1996 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 1992 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2000 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2000 Wisconsin Kenosha 0.80 13,103 No 2000 Illinois Kane 0.80 12,961 No 1992 Illinois Kane 0.80 12,961 No 1992 New Hampshire Strafford 2.90 17,180 No 1997 New Hampshire Strafford 0.80 13,952 No 1992 New Hampshire Strafford 0.80 13,952 No 1992 New Hampshire Strafford 0.80 13,952 No 1992 New Hampshire Strafford 2.90 17,180 No 1997 New Hampshire Strafford 0.80 13,952 No 1993 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Iowa Polk 0.80 12,425 No 1998 Continued on next page
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name I 95 Landfill Phase II I 95 Landfill Phase II I 95 Landfill Phase II I 95 Landfill Phase II Ottawa Generating Station Ottawa Generating Station Ottawa Generating Station Ottawa Generating Station Ottawa Generating Station Ottawa Generating Station Grand Blanc Generating Station Grand Blanc Generating Station Grand Blanc Generating Station Grand Blanc Generating Station Grand Blanc Generating Station Suffolk Energy Partners LP Suffolk Energy Partners LP Suffolk Energy Partners LP Suffolk Energy Partners LP Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Seneca Energy Outagamie County Co-Generation Facility Outagamie County Co-Generation Facility Outagamie County Co-Generation Facility Peoples Generating Station Adrian Energy Associates LLC Adrian Energy Associates LLC Adrian Energy Associates LLC Brent Run Generating Station Brent Run Generating Station Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Twin Bridges Gas Recovery Prairie View Gas Recovery Prairie View Gas Recovery Prairie View Gas Recovery Prairie View Gas Recovery Keystone Landfill Keystone Landfill Keystone Landfill Keystone Landfill Keystone Landfill Keystone Landfill Keystone Landfill EKS Landfill EKS Landfill EKS Landfill Deercroft Gas Recovery Deercroft Gas Recovery Deercroft Gas Recovery Deercroft Gas Recovery Ocean County Landfill Ocean County Landfill Ocean County Landfill Ocean County Landfill Ocean County Landfill Ocean County Landfill Ocean County Landfill Salem Energy Systems LLC Pine Tree Acres Pine Tree Acres Pine Tree Acres Pine Tree Acres Heat Rate Boiler/Generator/C ommitted Unit State Name County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year Fairfax 0.80 10,907 No 1993 G Virginia G Virginia Fairfax 0.80 10,907 No 1993 G Virginia Fairfax 0.80 10,907 No 1993 G Virginia Fairfax 0.80 10,907 No 1993 G Michigan Ottawa 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Ottawa 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Ottawa 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Ottawa 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Ottawa 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Ottawa 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Genesee 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Genesee 0.80 13,682 No 2003 G Michigan Genesee 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Genesee 0.80 13,682 No 1994 G Michigan Genesee 0.80 13,682 No 2000 G Virginia Suffolk 0.70 13,030 No 1994 G Virginia Suffolk 0.70 13,030 No 1994 G Virginia Suffolk 0.70 13,030 No 1994 G Virginia Suffolk 0.70 13,030 No 1994 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1996 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1996 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1998 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1996 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1996 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1998 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1996 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1998 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1997 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1997 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1998 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1998 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1998 G New York Seneca 0.77 11,036 No 1998 G New York Seneca 1.60 13,682 No 2006 G New York Seneca 1.60 13,682 No 2006 G New York Seneca 1.60 13,682 No 2006 G New York Seneca 1.60 13,682 No 2006 G Wisconsin Outagamie 0.80 13,682 Yes 1991 G Wisconsin Outagamie 0.80 13,682 No 1991 G Wisconsin Outagamie 0.80 13,682 No 1991 G Michigan Genesee 2.20 11,900 No 1995 G Michigan Lenawee 0.80 12,942 No 1994 G Michigan Lenawee 0.80 12,942 No 1994 G Michigan Lenawee 0.80 12,942 No 1994 G Michigan Genesee 0.80 13,682 No 1998 G Michigan Genesee 0.80 13,682 No 1998 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 13,682 No 2002 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 12,070 No 1994 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 12,070 No 1994 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 13,682 No 2002 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 13,682 No 2002 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 12,070 No 1994 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 13,682 No 2002 G Indiana Hendricks 0.80 12,070 No 1994 G Indiana St. Joseph 0.80 11,428 No 1994 G Indiana St. Joseph 0.80 11,428 No 1994 G Indiana St. Joseph 0.80 11,428 No 1994 G Indiana St. Joseph 0.80 11,428 No 1994 G Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.70 12,162 No 1994 G Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.70 12,162 No 1994 G Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.70 12,162 No 1994 G Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.70 12,162 No 1994 G Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.70 12,162 No 1994 G Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.70 12,162 No 1994 G Pennsylvania Lackawanna 0.70 12,162 No 1994 G Minnesota Dakota 1.50 12,157 No 1994 G Minnesota Dakota 1.50 12,157 No 1994 G Minnesota Dakota 0.80 12,157 No 1994 G Indiana La Porte 0.80 12,063 No 1999 G Indiana La Porte 0.80 12,063 No 1999 G Indiana La Porte 0.80 12,063 No 1999 G Indiana La Porte 0.80 12,063 No 1999 G New Jersey Ocean 9.60 11,900 No 2007 G New Jersey Ocean 0.80 11,900 No 1997 G New Jersey Ocean 0.80 11,900 No 1997 G New Jersey Ocean 0.80 11,900 No 1997 G New Jersey Ocean 0.80 11,900 No 1997 G New Jersey Ocean 0.80 11,900 No 1997 G New Jersey Ocean 0.80 11,900 No 1997 G North Carolina Forsyth 3.30 15,751 No 1996 G Michigan Macomb 0.80 11,900 No 1998 G Michigan Macomb 0.80 11,900 No 1998 G Michigan Macomb 0.80 11,900 No 1998 G Michigan Macomb 0.80 11,900 No 2003 Continued on next page
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name Pine Tree Acres Pine Tree Acres Pine Tree Acres Four Hills Nashua Landfill Four Hills Nashua Landfill Mallard Ridge Gas Recovery Mallard Ridge Gas Recovery Mallard Ridge Gas Recovery Greene Valley Gas Recovery Greene Valley Gas Recovery Greene Valley Gas Recovery Biodyne Pontiac Biodyne Pontiac Biodyne Pontiac Biodyne Peoria Biodyne Peoria Biodyne Peoria Biodyne Peoria Biodyne Peoria Biodyne Springfield Biodyne Springfield Biodyne Springfield Biodyne Springfield Biodyne Lyons Biodyne Lyons Biodyne Lyons Lakeview Gas Recovery Lakeview Gas Recovery O'Brien Biogas IV LLC Taunton Landfill Taunton Landfill Miramar Landfill Metro Biosolids Center Miramar Landfill Metro Biosolids Center Miramar Landfill Metro Biosolids Center Miramar Landfill Metro Biosolids Center Lowell Landfill Lowell Landfill Modern Landfill Production Plant Modern Landfill Production Plant Modern Landfill Production Plant Albany Landfill Gas Utilization Project Albany Landfill Gas Utilization Project Prince William County Landfill Prince William County Landfill Balefill Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Balefill Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Visalia Landfill Gas Utilization Project Visalia Landfill Gas Utilization Project Lopez Landfill Gas Utilization Project Lopez Landfill Gas Utilization Project Volusia Landfill Gas Utilization Project Volusia Landfill Gas Utilization Project Hartford Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Hartford Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Hartford Landfill Gas Utilization Proj Blackburn Landfill Co-Generation Blackburn Landfill Co-Generation Blackburn Landfill Co-Generation Atascosita Atascosita Atascosita Atascosita Atascosita Atascosita Baytown Baytown Baytown Baytown Bluebonnet Bluebonnet Bluebonnet Bluebonnet Coastal Plains Coastal Plains Coastal Plains Coastal Plains Conroe Conroe Conroe Security Security East Bridgewater East Bridgewater East Bridgewater Boiler/Generator/C ommitted Unit G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G State Name County Michigan Macomb Michigan Macomb Michigan Macomb New Hillsborough New Hillsborough Wisconsin Walworth Wisconsin Walworth Wisconsin Walworth Illinois DuPage Illinois DuPage Illinois DuPage Illinois Livingston Illinois Livingston Illinois Livingston Illinois Peoria Illinois Peoria Illinois Peoria Illinois Peoria Illinois Peoria Illinois Sangamon Illinois Sangamon Illinois Sangamon Illinois Sangamon Illinois Cook Illinois Cook Illinois Cook Pennsylvania Erie Pennsylvania Erie New Jersey Middlesex Massachusetts Bristo Massachusetts Bristo California San Diego California San Diego California San Diego California San Diego Massachusetts Middlesex Massachusetts Middlesex Pennsylvania York Pennsylvania York Pennsylvania York New York Albany New York Albany Virginia Prince William Virginia Prince William New Jersey Bergen New Jersey Bergen California Tulare California Tulare California Los Angeles California Los Angeles Florida Volusia Florida Volusia Connecticut Hartford Connecticut Hartford Connecticut Hartford North Carolina Catawba North Carolina Catawba North Carolina Catawba Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Chambers Texas Chambers Texas Chambers Texas Chambers Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Harris Texas Galveston Texas Galveston Texas Galveston Texas Galveston Texas Montgomery Texas Montgomery Texas Montgomery Texas Liberty Texas Liberty Massachusetts Plymouth Massachusetts Plymouth Massachusetts Plymouth Continued on next page Heat Rate Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 0.80 11,900 No 2003 0.80 11,900 No 1998 0.80 11,900 No 1998 0.70 15,844 No 1996 0.46 15,844 No 1996 0.80 11,607 No 1996 0.80 11,607 No 1996 0.80 11,607 No 1997 2.90 18,396 No 1998 2.90 18,396 No 1996 2.90 18,396 No 1996 4.20 17,835 No 2001 4.20 17,835 No 1999 4.20 10,000 No 2000 0.80 13,682 No 1997 0.80 13,682 No 1997 0.80 13,682 No 1997 0.80 13,682 No 1997 0.80 13,682 No 1997 0.60 13,682 No 1997 0.60 13,682 No 1997 0.60 13,682 No 1997 0.60 13,682 No 1997 0.90 13,682 No 1997 0.90 13,682 No 1997 0.90 13,682 No 1997 3.00 12,399 No 1997 3.00 12,399 No 1997 9.50 18,797 No 1997 0.88 11,445 No 1997 0.88 11,445 No 1997 1.56 11,855 Yes 1997 1.56 11,855 Yes 1997 1.56 11,855 Yes 1997 1.56 11,855 Yes 1997 0.78 10,726 No 1997 0.78 10,726 No 1997 3.00 11,900 No 1998 3.00 11,900 No 1998 3.00 11,900 No 1998 0.90 11,306 No 1998 0.90 11,306 No 1998 0.89 10,740 No 1998 0.89 10,740 No 1998 1.80 11,640 No 1998 1.80 11,640 No 1998 0.78 14,756 No 1998 0.78 14,756 No 1998 2.73 12,256 No 1998 2.73 12,256 No 1998 1.85 10,712 No 1998 1.85 10,712 No 1998 0.63 12,127 No 1998 0.63 12,127 No 1998 0.63 12,127 No 1998 1.00 12,328 Yes 1999 1.00 12,328 Yes 1999 0.90 12,328 Yes 2002 1.70 11,048 No 2003 1.70 11,048 No 2003 1.70 11,048 No 2003 1.70 13,682 No 2004 1.70 11,048 No 2003 1.70 11,048 No 2003 1.00 11,270 No 2003 1.00 11,270 No 2003 1.00 11,270 No 2003 1.00 11,270 No 2003 1.00 11,718 No 2003 1.00 11,718 No 2003 1.00 11,718 No 2003 1.00 11,718 No 2003 1.70 11,045 No 2003 1.70 11,045 No 2003 1.70 11,045 No 2003 1.70 11,045 No 2003 1.00 11,830 No 2003 1.00 11,830 No 2003 1.00 11,830 No 2003 1.70 10,637 No 2003 1.70 10,637 No 2003 0.90 14,237 No 1997 0.90 14,237 No 1997 0.90 14,237 No 1997
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name East Bridgewater East Bridgewater East Bridgewater Randolph Electric Randolph Electric Randolph Electric Halifax Electric Halifax Electric Halifax Electric Richmond Electric Richmond Electric Sunset Farms Sunset Farms Sunset Farms Sunset Farms Fall River Electric Fall River Electric Fall River Electric Chicopee Electric Chicopee Electric Rockford Electric Rockford Electric Mallard Lake Electric Mallard Lake Electric Mallard Lake Electric Quad Cities Quad Cities South Barrington Electric South Barrington Electric Lyon Development Lyon Development Lyon Development Lyon Development Lyon Development Arbor Hills Arbor Hills Arbor Hills C & C Electric C & C Electric C & C Electric C & C Electric Pine Bend Pine Bend Pine Bend Charlotte Motor Speedway Prima Desheha Landfill Prima Desheha Landfill North City Cogen Facility North City Cogen Facility North City Cogen Facility North City Cogen Facility Tajiguas Landfill HMDC Kingsland Landfill HMDC Kingsland Landfill HMDC Kingsland Landfill Cuyahoga Regional Landfill Cuyahoga Regional Landfill Monmouth Landfill Gas to Energy MM Nashville MM Nashville Sonoma Central Landfill Phase I Sonoma Central Landfill Phase I Sonoma Central Landfill Phase I Sonoma Central Landfill Phase I Sonoma Central Landfill Phase II Sonoma Central Landfill Phase II Sonoma Central Landfill Phase II Sonoma Central Landfill Phase II Model City Energy Facility Model City Energy Facility Model City Energy Facility Model City Energy Facility Model City Energy Facility Model City Energy Facility Model City Energy Facility Roxana Resource Recovery Roxana Resource Recovery Roxana Resource Recovery Roxana Resource Recovery Streator Energy Partners LLC Devonshire Power Partners LLC Devonshire Power Partners LLC Devonshire Power Partners LLC Devonshire Power Partners LLC Devonshire Power Partners LLC Boiler/Generator/ Committed Unit G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G Heat Rate State Name County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 0.90 14,237 No 1997 Massachusetts Plymouth 0.90 14,237 No 1997 Massachusetts Plymouth 0.90 14,237 No 1997 Massachusetts Plymouth 0.90 13,798 No 2000 Massachusetts Norfolk 0.90 13,798 No 2000 Massachusetts Norfolk 0.90 13,798 No 2000 Massachusetts Norfolk 0.90 13,498 No 1997 Massachusetts Plymouth 0.90 13,498 No 1997 Massachusetts Plymouth 0.90 13,498 No 1997 Massachusetts Plymouth Virginia Henrico 0.90 13,182 No 1993 Virginia Henrico 0.90 13,182 No 1993 Texas Travis 0.90 13,072 No 1996 Texas Travis 0.90 13,682 No 2004 Texas Travis 0.90 13,072 No 1996 Texas Travis 0.90 13,072 No 1996 0.90 13,448 No 2000 Massachusetts Bristo 0.90 13,448 No 2000 Massachusetts Bristo 4.40 13,079 No 2000 Massachusetts Bristo 0.90 13,921 No 1993 Massachusetts Hampden 0.90 13,921 No 1993 Massachusetts Hampden Illinois Ogle 0.90 15,737 No 1996 Illinois Ogle 0.90 15,737 No 1996 Illinois DuPage 3.80 9,800 No 1997 Illinois DuPage 3.80 9,800 No 1997 Illinois DuPage 3.80 9,800 No 1997 Illinois Rock Island 0.90 16,940 No 1998 Illinois Rock Island 1.00 16,940 No 2002 Illinois DuPage 0.80 12,910 No 1997 Illinois DuPage 0.80 12,910 No 1997 Michigan Oakland 0.90 16,859 No 1993 Michigan Oakland 0.90 16,859 No 1993 Michigan Oakland 0.90 16,859 No 1993 Michigan Oakland 0.90 16,859 No 1993 Michigan Oakland 0.90 16,859 No 1993 Michigan Washtenaw 3.80 13,682 No 1996 Michigan Washtenaw 3.80 13,682 No 1996 Michigan Washtenaw 3.80 13,682 No 1996 Michigan Calhoun 0.90 13,078 No 1995 Michigan Calhoun 0.90 13,078 No 1995 Michigan Calhoun 0.90 13,078 No 1995 Michigan Calhoun 2.30 13,078 No 2007 Minnesota Dakota 3.80 11,860 No 1996 Minnesota Dakota 3.80 11,860 No 1996 Minnesota Dakota 6.00 11,860 No 1996 North Carolina Cabarrus 4.30 15,603 No 1999 California Orange 2.70 13,849 No 1999 California Orange 2.70 13,849 No 1999 California San Diego 0.88 14,554 No 1999 California San Diego 0.88 14,554 No 1999 California San Diego 0.88 14,554 No 1999 California San Diego 0.88 14,554 No 1999 California Santa Barbara 2.70 11,359 No 2000 New Jersey Bergen 0.97 11,668 No 1998 New Jersey Bergen 0.97 11,668 No 1998 New Jersey Bergen 0.97 11,668 No 1998 Ohio Cuyahoga 1.80 11,088 No 1999 Ohio Cuyahoga 1.80 11,088 No 1999 New Jersey Monmouth 7.40 19,760 No 1998 Tennessee Davidson 0.80 11,549 No 2000 Tennessee Davidson 0.80 11,549 No 2000 California Sonoma 0.70 13,634 No 1993 California Sonoma 0.70 13,634 No 1993 California Sonoma 0.70 13,634 No 1993 California Sonoma 0.70 13,634 No 1993 California Sonoma 0.70 13,643 No 1996 California Sonoma 0.70 13,643 No 1996 California Sonoma 0.70 13,643 No 1996 California Sonoma 0.70 13,643 No 1996 Niagara 0.77 14,280 No 2001 New York Niagara 0.77 14,280 No 2001 New York Niagara 0.77 14,280 No 2001 New York Niagara 0.77 14,280 No 2001 New York Niagara 0.77 14,280 No 2001 New York Niagara 0.77 14,280 No 2001 New York Niagara 0.77 14,280 No 2001 New York Illinois Madison 0.90 10,870 No 1999 Illinois Madison 0.90 10,870 No 1999 Illinois Madison 0.90 10,870 No 1999 Illinois Madison 0.90 10,870 No 1999 Illinois La Salle 0.90 10,686 No 1999 Illinois Cook 1.00 11,273 No 1997 Illinois Cook 1.00 11,273 No 1997 Illinois Cook 1.00 11,273 No 1997 Illinois Cook 1.00 11,273 No 1997 Illinois Cook 1.00 11,273 No 1997 Continued on next page
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name Brickyard Energy Partners LLC Brickyard Energy Partners LLC Brickyard Energy Partners LLC Dixon/Lee Energy Partners LLC Dixon/Lee Energy Partners LLC Dixon/Lee Energy Partners LLC Dixon/Lee Energy Partners LLC Upper Rock Energy Partners LLC Upper Rock Energy Partners LLC Upper Rock Energy Partners LLC Green Knight Energy Center Green Knight Energy Center Green Knight Energy Center Kiefer Landfill Kiefer Landfill Kiefer Landfill Riveside Resource Recovery LLC Avon Energy Partners LLC Avon Energy Partners LLC Dane County Landfill #2 Rodefeld Dane County Landfill #2 Rodefeld Dane County Landfill #2 Rodefeld Dane County Landfill #2 Rodefeld P.E.R.C. P.E.R.C. P.E.R.C. Countyside Genco LLC Countyside Genco LLC Countyside Genco LLC Countyside Genco LLC Countyside Genco LLC Countyside Genco LLC Morris Genco LLC Morris Genco LLC Morris Genco LLC Barre Barre Brookhaven Facility Brookhaven Facility Brookhaven Facility Brookhaven Facility Dunbarton Energy Partners LP Dunbarton Energy Partners LP Veolia Glacier Ridge Landfill Veolia Glacier Ridge Landfill RCWMD Badlands Landfill Gas Project Sonoma Central Landfill Phase III Sonoma Central Landfill Phase III Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview Ridgeview PG Cnty Brown Station Road II PG Cnty Brown Station Road II PG Cnty Brown Station Road II PG Cnty Brown Station Road II Berlin Berlin Berlin BFI Tessman Rd Landfill Lee County Landfill Lee County Landfill Lee County Landfill Lee County Landfill Anderson Regional Landfill Richland County Landfill Seven Mile Creek LFG Seven Mile Creek LFG Seven Mile Creek LFG Seven Mile Creek LFG Colton Landfill Mid Valley Landfill Mid Valley Landfill Milliken Landfill Milliken Landfill Ontario LFGTE Ontario LFGTE Ontario LFGTE Ontario LFGTE Ontario LFGTE Ontario LFGTE Ontario LFGTE Boiler/Generator/ Committed Unit G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G State Name Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania California California California Illinois Illinois Illinois Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Washington Washington Washington Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Massachusetts Massachusetts New York New York New York New York New New Wisconsin Wisconsin California California California Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Texas South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin California California California California California New York New York New York New York New York New York New York County Vermilion Vermilion Vermilion Lee Lee Lee Lee Rock Island Rock Island Rock Island Northhampton Northhampton Northhampton Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Will Cook Cook Dane Dane Dane Dane Pierce Pierce Pierce Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Lake Grundy Grundy Grundy Worcester Worcester Suffolk Suffolk Suffolk Suffolk Hillsborough Hillsborough Dodge Dodge Riverside Sonoma Sonoma Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc Prince George's Prince George's Prince George's Prince George's Green Lake Green Lake Green Lake Bexar Lee Lee Lee Lee Anderson Richland Eau Claire Eau Claire Eau Claire Eau Claire San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Heat Rate Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 0.90 11,267 No 1999 0.90 11,267 No 1999 0.90 11,267 No 1999 0.90 10,414 No 1999 0.90 10,414 No 1999 0.90 10,414 No 1999 0.90 10,414 No 1999 0.90 11,216 No 2000 0.90 11,216 No 2000 0.90 11,216 No 2000 2.40 18,344 No 2001 2.40 18,344 No 2001 2.40 18,344 No 2001 2.80 13,682 No 1999 2.80 13,682 No 1999 2.80 13,682 No 1999 0.90 10,960 No 1997 0.90 10,378 No 1997 0.90 10,378 No 1997 0.80 10,822 No 2004 1.60 13,682 No 2004 0.80 10,822 No 1997 0.80 10,822 No 1997 0.75 15,885 No 1999 0.75 15,885 No 1999 0.75 15,885 No 1999 1.30 13,682 No 2000 1.30 13,682 No 2000 1.30 13,682 No 2000 1.30 13,682 No 2000 1.30 13,682 No 2000 1.30 13,682 No 2000 1.30 13,682 No 2001 1.30 13,682 No 2001 1.30 13,682 No 2001 0.40 12,310 No 1996 0.40 12,310 No 1996 1.20 10,485 No 1997 1.20 10,485 No 1997 1.20 10,485 No 1998 1.20 10,485 No 1998 0.60 11,751 No 1996 0.60 11,751 No 2001 0.90 13,682 No 2001 0.90 13,682 No 2001 1.00 13,682 No 2001 0.70 13,643 No 2004 0.70 13,643 No 2004 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 11,087 No 2002 0.80 11,087 No 2002 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 11,087 No 2003 0.80 11,087 No 2002 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.98 13,682 No 2003 0.98 13,682 No 2003 0.98 13,682 No 2003 0.98 13,682 No 2003 0.82 11,900 No 2001 0.82 11,900 No 2001 0.80 11,900 No 2001 1.40 13,682 No 2003 1.90 10,123 No 2005 1.90 10,123 No 2005 1.90 10,123 No 2005 1.90 13,682 No 2007 5.30 13,682 No 2006 5.30 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.83 10,123 No 2004 0.83 10,123 No 2004 0.83 10,123 No 2004 1.27 12,143 No 2003 1.27 12,178 No 2003 1.27 12,178 No 2003 1.07 12,157 No 2003 1.07 12,157 No 2003 0.80 11,148 No 2003 0.80 11,148 No 2003 0.80 10,500 No 2005 0.80 10,500 No 2005 0.80 10,500 No 2005 0.80 11,148 No 2003 0.80 11,148 No 2003
Continued on next page
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name Bavarian LFGTE Bavarian LFGTE Bavarian LFGTE Bavarian LFGTE Green Valley LFGTE Green Valley LFGTE Green Valley LFGTE Laurel Ridge LFGTE Laurel Ridge LFGTE Laurel Ridge LFGTE Laurel Ridge LFGTE Laurel Ridge LFGTE Hardin County LFGTE Hardin County LFGTE Hardin County LFGTE Fauquier Landfill Gas Fauquier Landfill Gas Modern Innovative Energy LLC Modern Innovative Energy LLC Modern Innovative Energy LLC Modern Innovative Energy LLC Colonie LFGTE Facility Colonie LFGTE Facility Colonie LFGTE Facility Pendleton County LFGTE Pendleton County LFGTE Pendleton County LFGTE Pendleton County LFGTE Noble Hill Landfill AMERESCO Chicopee Energy AMERESCO Chicopee Energy AMERESCO Chicopee Energy AMERESCO Janesville AMERESCO Janesville AMERESCO Janesville AMERESCO Santa Cruz Energy AMERESCO Santa Cruz Energy AMERESCO Santa Cruz Energy AMERESCO Delaware South AMERESCO Delaware South AMERESCO Delaware South AMERESCO Delaware South AMERESCO Delaware South AMERESCO Delaware Central AMERESCO Delaware Central AMERESCO Delaware Central Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Oak Ridge Jay County Jay County Jay County Jay County Liberty Liberty Liberty Liberty Deertrack Park Gas Recovery Deertrack Park Gas Recovery Deertrack Park Gas Recovery Deertrack Park Gas Recovery Lake Mills Gas Recovery Lake Mills Gas Recovery Lake Mills Gas Recovery Lake Mills Gas Recovery Lake Mills Gas Recovery Lake Mills Gas Recovery Springhill Gas Recovery Springhill Gas Recovery Springhill Gas Recovery Springhill Gas Recovery Springhill Gas Recovery Springhill Gas Recovery Two Pine Gas Recovery Two Pine Gas Recovery Two Pine Gas Recovery Two Pine Gas Recovery Two Pine Gas Recovery Two Pine Gas Recovery Timberline Trails Gas Recovery Timberline Trails Gas Recovery Timberline Trails Gas Recovery Timberline Trails Gas Recovery Boiler/Generator/C ommitted Unit G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G State Name County Kentucky Boone Kentucky Boone Kentucky Boone Kentucky Boone Kentucky Greenup Kentucky Greenup Kentucky Greenup Kentucky Laurel Kentucky Laurel Kentucky Laurel Kentucky Laurel Kentucky Laurel Kentucky Hardin Kentucky Hardin Kentucky Hardin Virginia Fauquier Virginia Fauquier New York Niagara New York Niagara New York Niagara New York Niagara New York Albany New York Albany New York Albany Kentucky Pendleton Kentucky Pendleton Kentucky Pendleton Kentucky Pendleton Missouri Greene Massachusetts Hampden Massachusetts Hampden Massachusetts Hampden Wisconsin Rock Wisconsin Rock Wisconsin Rock California Santa Cruz California Santa Cruz California Santa Cruz Delaware Sussex Delaware Sussex Delaware Sussex Delaware Sussex Delaware Sussex Delaware Kent Delaware Kent Delaware Kent Indiana Cass Indiana Cass Indiana Cass Indiana Cass Indiana Jay Indiana Jay Indiana Jay Indiana Jay Indiana White Indiana White Indiana White Indiana White Wisconsin Jefferson Wisconsin Jefferson Wisconsin Jefferson Wisconsin Jefferson Iowa Winnebago Iowa Winnebago Iowa Winnebago Iowa Winnebago Iowa Winnebago Iowa Winnebago Florida Jackson Florida Jackson Florida Jackson Florida Jackson Florida Jackson Florida Jackson Arkansas Pulaski Arkansas Pulaski Arkansas Pulaski Arkansas Pulaski Arkansas Pulaski Arkansas Pulaski Wisconsin Rusk Wisconsin Rusk Wisconsin Rusk Wisconsin Rusk Continued on next page Heat Rate Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year 0.80 13,343 No 2003 0.80 13,343 No 2003 0.80 13,343 No 2003 0.80 13,343 No 2003 0.80 13,556 No 2003 0.80 13,556 No 2003 0.80 13,556 No 2003 0.80 13,231 No 2003 0.80 13,231 No 2003 0.80 13,231 No 2003 0.80 11,021 No 2006 0.80 13,231 No 2003 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2004 1.00 13,682 No 2004 1.60 13,682 No 2006 1.60 13,682 No 2006 1.60 13,682 No 2006 1.60 13,682 No 2006 1.60 13,682 No 2006 1.60 13,682 No 2006 1.60 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2007 0.80 13,682 No 2007 0.80 13,682 No 2007 0.80 13,682 No 2007 3.00 13,682 No 2006 1.90 13,648 No 2004 1.90 13,648 No 2004 1.90 13,648 No 2004 1.00 13,682 No 2004 1.00 13,682 No 2004 1.00 13,682 No 2004 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 11,430 No 2008 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 1.00 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2003 0.80 13,682 No 2003 0.80 13,682 No 2003 0.80 13,682 No 2003 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2005 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006 0.80 13,682 No 2006
Current Landfill Gas Power Plants (Continued) Plant Name Bradley Gas Recovery Bradley Gas Recovery Bradley Gas Recovery Bradley Gas Recovery Bradley Gas Recovery El Sobrante Gas Recovery El Sobrante Gas Recovery El Sobrante Gas Recovery Simi Valley Simi Valley Salt Lake Energy Systems Salt Lake Energy Systems Salt Lake Energy Systems Eastern Landfill Gas LLC Eastern Landfill Gas LLC Eastern Landfill Gas LLC American Canyon SLF Burlington County SL Cedar Hills LF Chittenden County LF Clinton LF #2 Fort Worth Regional Frey Farm Landfill Glendale Road LF Kiefer LF Los Angeles Landfill Los Reales LFG Expan Orange County LF Seminole Road MSW La Warren County LF Waste Disposal Engin Texas Mandate Landfill Gas Texas Mandate Landfill Gas Tullytown LF Coventry LFG GROWS LF Seccra LF Sauk County LF Cape May County SLF Newland Park SLF Dry Creek Landfill East Windsor NORCAP CA-N_CA_Landfill Gas CA-S_CA_Landfill Gas COMD_IL_Landfill Gas ERCT_TX_Landfill Gas GWAY_MO_Landfill Gas MACS_MD_Landfill Gas MACW_PA_Landfill Gas MECS_MI_Landfill Gas MRO_MN_Landfill Gas MRO_WI_Landfill Gas NENG_ME_Landfill Gas NENG_MA_Landfill Gas PNW_ID_Landfill Gas PNW_OR_Landfill Gas RFCO_IN_Landfill Gas RFCO_OH_Landfill Gas RFCP_OH_Landfill Gas RMPA_CO_Landfill Gas TVAK_KY_Landfill Gas UPNY_NY_Landfill Gas VACA_NC_Landfill Gas VACA_SC_Landfill Gas VAPW_VA_Landfill Gas WUMS_WI_Landfill Gas MACE_NJ_Landfill Gas FRCC_FL_Landfill Gas MACE_MD_Landfill Gas MACE_PA_Landfill Gas Boiler/Generator/C ommitted Unit G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G C C G G G G G G G G G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C State Name California California California California California California California California California California Utah Utah Utah Maryland Maryland Maryland California New Jersey Washington Vermont Illinois Texas Pennsylvania Massachusett California New Mexico Arizona New York Georgia New Jersey Minnesota Texas Texas Pennsylvania Vermont Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Wisconsin New Jersey Maryland Oregon Connecticut California California Illinois Texas Missouri Maryland Pennsylvania Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin Maine Massachusett Idaho Oregon Indiana Ohio Ohio Colorado Kentucky New York North South Virginia Wisconsin New Jersey Florida Maryland Pennsylvania Heat Rate County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year Los 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Los 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Los 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Los 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Los 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Riversid 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Riversid 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Riversid 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Ventura 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Ventura 1.30 13,682 No 2004 Salt 1.50 13,682 No 2006 Salt 0.77 13,682 No 2006 Salt 0.77 13,682 No 2006 Baltimor 1.00 13,682 No 2006 Baltimor 1.00 13,682 No 2006 Baltimor 1.00 13,682 No 2006 Napa 0.21 13,682 No 2006 Burlingt 7.20 13,682 No 2006 King 26.00 13,682 No 2006 Chittend 0.09 13,682 No 2006 De Witt 3.20 13,682 No 2006 Tarrant 1.60 13,682 No 2006 Lancast 3.20 13,682 No 2006 Hampsh 0.80 13,682 No 2006 Sacram 3.00 13,682 No 2006 Bernalill 0.07 13,682 No 2006 Pima 1.90 13,682 No 2006 Orange 2.12 13,682 No 2006 Dekalb 3.20 13,682 No 2006 Warren 3.80 13,682 No 2006 Anoka 0.22 13,682 No 2006 NA 5.00 13,682 No 2007 NA 5.00 13,648 No 2008 Bucks 2.20 13,648 No 2007 Orleans 1.60 10,265 No 2007 Bucks 2.50 10,500 No 2007 Chester 0.84 10,500 No 2007 Sauk 0.36 10,500 No 2007 Cape 0.30 10,500 No 2007 Wicomi 3.10 10,500 No 2007 Jackson 3.20 10,500 No 2007 Hartford 3.00 13,682 No 2007 NA 16.80 13,648 No 2011 NA 8.00 13,648 No 2011 NA 6.40 13,648 No 2011 NA 6.40 13,648 No 2011 NA 5.27 13,648 No 2011 NA 4.50 13,648 No 2011 NA 21.70 13,648 No 2011 NA 8.00 13,648 No 2011 NA 3.20 13,648 No 2011 NA 3.15 13,648 No 2011 NA 3.00 13,648 No 2011 NA 3.80 13,648 No 2011 NA 3.20 13,648 No 2011 NA 4.00 13,648 No 2011 NA 12.52 13,648 No 2011 NA 13.42 13,648 No 2011 NA 4.80 13,648 No 2011 NA 6.20 13,648 No 2011 NA 1.60 13,648 No 2011 NA 14.40 13,648 No 2011 NA 8.40 13,648 No 2011 NA 6.40 13,648 No 2011 NA 30.94 13,648 No 2011 NA 7.55 13,648 No 2011 NA 3.80 13,648 No 2011 NA 20.75 13,648 No 2011 NA 2.00 13,648 No 2011 NA 1.60 13,648 No 2011
Source: National Electric Energy System (NEEDS) Database for IPM 2010. http://epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html
a
Data are not available
Section: BIOPOWER New Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants by Year 35
30
25
New Plants
20
15
10
0 1940 1948 1949 1951 1959 1980 1981 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 1995 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2009 2011 2011
Municipal Solid Waste Power Plant Capacity by Year (Megawatt Hours) 400
350 300
250 Megawatts
200
150 100
50
0 1940 1948 1949 1951 1959 1980 1981 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 1995 2002 2003 2005 2007
Source: National Electric Energy System (NEEDS) Database for IPM 2010. http://epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html Notes: 1. Only years in which new plants were brought online are shown. 2. Power plant capacity based on NEEDS 2010 Data.
Section: BIOPOWER Current Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants Plant Name Boiler/Generator/ Committed Unit B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B G B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B G B B B B B B G B B B B B B B B B B B B G G B B B G G B B B B B B B B G Heat Rate State Name County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year Wisconsin La Crosse 14.50 10,400 N 1940 Wisconsin La Crosse 14.50 10,400 N 1940 Minnesota Goodhue 10.00 20,114 N 1949 Minnesota Goodhue 10.00 19,817 N 1949 Minnesota Blue Earth 9.00 19,243 N 1948 Minnesota Blue Earth 8.00 19,266 N 1948 7.80 14,800 N 1951 Minnesota Sherburne 7.50 14,800 N 1951 Minnesota Sherburne 14.50 14,800 N 1959 Minnesota Sherburne New Jersey Warren 5.00 18,843 N 1988 New Jersey Warren 5.00 19,338 N 1988 Minnesota Hennepin 16.85 19,338 N 1989 Minnesota Hennepin 16.85 19,338 N 1989 Y 1988 Michigan Wayne 21.20 19,338 Y 1988 Michigan Wayne 21.20 19,338 Y 1988 Michigan Wayne 21.20 19,338 Florida Miami Dade 17.91 19,338 N 1981 Florida Miami Dade 17.91 19,338 N 1981 Florida Miami Dade 17.91 19,338 N 1981 Florida Miami Dade 17.91 19,338 N 1981 California Los Angeles 9.00 19,338 N 1986 Y 2009 Pennsylvania Dauphin 6.93 19,338 Y 2009 Pennsylvania Dauphin 6.93 19,338 Y 2005 Pennsylvania Dauphin 6.93 19,338 Florida Bay 5.00 19,338 N 1987 Florida Bay 5.00 19,338 N 1987 Dutchess 7.20 28,175 N 1987 New York Maine York 9.00 19,338 N 1987 Maine York 9.00 19,338 N 1987 Y 1989 South Carolina Charleston 4.75 19,338 Y 1989 South Carolina Charleston 4.75 19,338 New Jersey Camden 10.00 19,338 N 1991 New Jersey Camden 10.00 19,338 N 1991 New Jersey Camden 10.00 19,338 N 1991 Washington 5.75 19,338 N 1991 New York Washington 5.75 19,338 N 1991 New York Y 1984 Maryland City of Baltimore 20.43 19,338 Y 1984 Maryland City of Baltimore 20.43 19,338 Y 1984 Maryland City of Baltimore 20.43 19,338 Nassau 23.67 19,338 N 1989 New York Nassau 23.67 19,338 N 1989 New York Nassau 23.67 19,338 N 1989 New York New Jersey Essex 10.00 19,338 N 1990 New Jersey Essex 10.00 19,338 N 1990 New Jersey Essex 40.00 19,338 N 1990 Connecticut New London 8.00 19,338 N 1991 Connecticut New London 8.00 19,338 N 1991 Michigan Jackson 3.00 19,338 Y 1987 Pennsylvania Delaware 13.33 18,434 N 1991 Pennsylvania Delaware 13.33 18,434 N 1991 Pennsylvania Delaware 13.33 18,434 N 1991 Pennsylvania Delaware 13.33 18,434 N 1991 Pennsylvania Delaware 13.33 18,434 N 1991 Pennsylvania Delaware 13.33 18,434 N 1991 Androscoggin 2.70 19,338 N 1992 Maine Maine Penobscot 10.60 19,338 N 1987 Maine Penobscot 10.60 19,338 N 1987 Florida Palm Beach 23.75 19,338 N 1989 Florida Palm Beach 23.75 19,338 N 1989 Pennsylvania York 9.50 19,338 N 1989 Pennsylvania York 9.50 19,338 N 1989 Pennsylvania York 9.50 19,338 N 1989 Maine Cumberland 5.75 19,338 N 1988 Maine Cumberland 5.75 19,338 N 1988 0.57 19,338 N 1991 North Carolina New Hanover 0.57 19,338 N 1991 North Carolina New Hanover 0.57 19,338 N 1991 North Carolina New Hanover 1.90 29,317 N 2002 North Carolina New Hanover 7.50 22,403 N 1988 Massachusetts Hampden Massachusetts Plymouth 26.67 19,338 N 1988 Massachusetts Plymouth 26.67 19,338 N 1988 Massachusetts Plymouth 26.67 19,338 N 1988 Y 1987 Minnesota Olmsted 1.30 19,338 Y 1987 Minnesota Olmsted 1.40 19,338 New York Niagara 9.00 19,338 Y 1980 New York Niagara 9.00 19,338 Y 1980 Florida Lake 6.25 19,338 N 1990 Florida Lake 6.25 19,338 N 1990 Oregon Marion 5.75 19,338 Y 1986 Oregon Marion 5.75 19,338 Y 1986 California Stanislaus 9.00 19,338 N 1988 California Stanislaus 9.00 19,338 N 1988 Indiana Marion 5.00 19,338 Y 1988 Continued on next page
French Island French Island Red Wing Red Wing Wilmarth Wilmarth Elk River Elk River Elk River Covanta Warren Energy Covanta Warren Energy Covanta Hennepin Energy Covanta Hennepin Energy Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Miami Dade County Resource Recovery Miami Dade County Resource Recovery Miami Dade County Resource Recovery Miami Dade County Resource Recovery Commerce Refuse To Energy Harrisburg Facility Harrisburg Facility Harrisburg Facility Bay Resource Management Center Bay Resource Management Center Dutchess Cnty Resource Recovery Maine Energy Recovery Maine Energy Recovery Charleston Resource Recovery Facility Charleston Resource Recovery Facility Camden Resource Recovery Facility Camden Resource Recovery Facility Camden Resource Recovery Facility Wheelabrator Hudson Falls Wheelabrator Hudson Falls Wheelabrator Baltimore Refuse Wheelabrator Baltimore Refuse Wheelabrator Baltimore Refuse Covanta Hempstead Covanta Hempstead Covanta Hempstead American Ref-Fuel of Essex American Ref-Fuel of Essex American Ref-Fuel of Essex American Ref-Fuel of SE CT American Ref-Fuel of SE CT Jackson County Resource Recovery American Ref-Fuel of Delaware Valley American Ref-Fuel of Delaware Valley American Ref-Fuel of Delaware Valley American Ref-Fuel of Delaware Valley American Ref-Fuel of Delaware Valley American Ref-Fuel of Delaware Valley MMWAC Resource Recovery Facility Penobscot Energy Recovery Penobscot Energy Recovery North County Regional Resource North County Regional Resource York County Resource Recovery York County Resource Recovery York County Resource Recovery Regional Waste Systems Regional Waste Systems New Hanover County WASTEC New Hanover County WASTEC New Hanover County WASTEC New Hanover County WASTEC Pioneer Valley Resource Recovery SEMASS Resource Recovery SEMASS Resource Recovery SEMASS Resource Recovery Olmsted Waste Energy Olmsted Waste Energy American Ref-Fuel of Niagara American Ref-Fuel of Niagara Covanta Lake County Energy Covanta Lake County Energy Covanta Marion Inc Covanta Marion Inc Covanta Stanislaus Energy Covanta Stanislaus Energy Covanta Indianapolis Energy
Plant Name Covanta Bristol Energy Covanta Bristol Energy Covanta Babylon Energy Covanta Babylon Energy Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Montgomery County Resource Recovery Montgomery County Resource Recovery Montgomery County Resource Recovery Covanta Fairfax Energy Covanta Fairfax Energy Covanta Fairfax Energy Covanta Fairfax Energy Covanta Haverhill Covanta Haverhill Onondaga County Resource Recovery Onondaga County Resource Recovery Onondaga County Resource Recovery Covanta Alexandria/Arlington Energy Covanta Alexandria/Arlington Energy Covanta Alexandria/Arlington Energy Covanta Wallingford Energy Covanta Wallingford Energy Covanta Wallingford Energy Pasco Cnty Solid Waste Resource Pasco Cnty Solid Waste Resource Pasco Cnty Solid Waste Resource Southeast Resource Recovery Southeast Resource Recovery Southeast Resource Recovery Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Lancaster County Resource Recovery Lancaster County Resource Recovery Lancaster County Resource Recovery Kent County Waste to Energy Facility Kent County Waste to Energy Facility Wheelabrator Claremont Facility Wheelabrator Claremont Facility Wheelabrator Concord Facility Wheelabrator Concord Facility McKay Bay Facility McKay Bay Facility McKay Bay Facility McKay Bay Facility Wheelabrator North Andover Wheelabrator North Andover Wheelabrator Millbury Facility Wheelabrator Millbury Facility Wheelabrator Saugus Wheelabrator Saugus Wheelabrator Westchester Wheelabrator Westchester Wheelabrator Westchester Wheelabrator Bridgeport Wheelabrator Bridgeport Wheelabrator Bridgeport Pinellas County Resource Recovery Pinellas County Resource Recovery Pinellas County Resource Recovery Wheelabrator Gloucester LP Wheelabrator Gloucester LP Wheelabrator Spokane Wheelabrator Spokane Wheelabrator South Broward Wheelabrator South Broward Wheelabrator South Broward Oswego County Energy Recovery Oswego County Energy Recovery Union County Resource Recovery Union County Resource Recovery Union County Resource Recovery MacArthur Waste to Energy Facility MacArthur Waste to Energy Facility Lee County Solid Waste Energy Lee County Solid Waste Energy Lee County Solid Waste Energy Wheelabrator North Broward Wheelabrator North Broward Wheelabrator North Broward Montenay Montgomery LP Montenay Montgomery LP
Current Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants (Continued) Boiler/Generator/ Heat Rate Committed Unit State Name County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year B Connecticut Hartford 6.60 19,338 N 1987 B Connecticut Hartford 6.60 19,338 N 1987 B New York Suffolk 7.18 19,338 N 1989 B New York Suffolk 7.18 19,338 N 1989 B New York Suffolk 8.33 19,338 N 1991 B New York Suffolk 8.33 19,338 N 1991 B New York Suffolk 8.33 19,338 N 1991 B Maryland Montgomery 18.00 19,338 N 1995 B Maryland Montgomery 18.00 19,338 N 1995 B Maryland Montgomery 18.00 19,338 N 1995 B Virginia Fairfax 19.75 19,338 N 1990 B Virginia Fairfax 19.75 19,338 N 1990 B Virginia Fairfax 19.75 19,338 N 1990 B Virginia Fairfax 19.75 19,338 N 1990 B Massachusetts Essex 21.39 19,338 N 1989 B Massachusetts Essex 21.39 19,338 N 1989 B New York Onondaga 10.00 19,338 N 1994 B New York Onondaga 10.00 19,338 N 1994 B New York Onondaga 10.00 19,338 N 1994 B Virginia Alexandria (city) 9.67 19,338 N 1987 B Virginia Alexandria (city) 9.67 19,338 N 1987 B Virginia Alexandria (city) 9.67 19,338 N 1987 B Connecticut New Haven 2.12 19,338 N 1988 B Connecticut New Haven 2.12 19,338 N 1988 B Connecticut New Haven 2.12 19,338 N 1988 Pasco 8.67 19,338 N 1991 B Florida B Florida Pasco 8.67 19,338 N 1991 Pasco 8.67 19,338 N 1991 B Florida B California Los Angeles 9.32 19,338 Y 1988 B California Los Angeles 9.32 19,338 Y 1988 B California Los Angeles 9.32 19,338 Y 1988 B Florida Hillsborough 8.67 19,338 N 1987 B Florida Hillsborough 8.67 19,338 N 1987 B Florida Hillsborough 8.67 19,338 N 1987 B Pennsylvania Lancaster 10.80 19,338 N 1990 B Pennsylvania Lancaster 10.80 19,338 N 1990 B Pennsylvania Lancaster 10.80 19,338 N 1990 B Michigan Kent 7.85 19,338 Y 1989 B Michigan Kent 7.85 19,338 Y 1989 G New Hampshire Sullivan 2.25 22,443 N 1986 G New Hampshire Sullivan 2.25 21,020 N 1986 B New Hampshire Merrimack 7.00 19,338 N 1988 B New Hampshire Merrimack 7.00 19,338 N 1988 B Florida Hillsborough 4.50 19,338 N 1985 B Florida Hillsborough 4.50 19,338 N 1985 B Florida Hillsborough 4.50 19,338 N 1985 B Florida Hillsborough 4.50 19,338 N 1985 B Massachusetts Essex 15.00 19,338 N 1985 B Massachusetts Essex 15.00 19,338 N 1985 B Massachusetts Worcester 20.00 19,338 N 1987 B Massachusetts Worcester 20.00 19,338 N 1987 B Massachusetts Essex 16.00 19,338 N 1985 B Massachusetts Essex 16.00 19,338 N 1985 B New York Westchester 17.00 19,338 N 1984 B New York Westchester 17.00 19,338 N 1984 B New York Westchester 17.00 19,338 N 1984 B Connecticut Fairfield 19.40 19,338 N 1988 B Connecticut Fairfield 19.40 19,338 N 1988 B Connecticut Fairfield 19.40 19,338 N 1988 B Florida Pinellas 17.00 19,338 N 1986 B Florida Pinellas 20.55 19,338 N 1983 B Florida Pinellas 20.55 19,338 N 1983 B New Jersey Gloucester 6.00 19,338 N 1990 B New Jersey Gloucester 6.00 19,338 N 1990 B Washington Spokane 11.35 19,338 N 1991 B Washington Spokane 11.35 19,338 N 1991 B Florida Broward 19.30 19,338 N 1991 B Florida Broward 19.30 19,338 N 1991 B Florida Broward 19.30 19,338 N 1991 G New York Oswego 1.67 19,338 Y 1986 G New York Oswego 1.67 19,338 Y 1986 B New Jersey Union 12.50 19,338 N 1994 B New Jersey Union 12.50 19,338 N 1994 B New Jersey Union 12.50 19,338 N 1994 B New York Suffolk 5.50 19,338 N 1990 B New York Suffolk 5.50 19,338 N 1990 G Florida Lee 16.00 19,338 N 2007 B Florida Lee 19.50 19,338 N 1994 B Florida Lee 19.50 19,338 N 1994 B Florida Broward 18.67 19,338 N 1991 B Florida Broward 18.67 19,338 N 1991 B Florida Broward 18.67 19,338 N 1991 B Pennsylvania Montgomery 14.00 19,338 N 1991 B Pennsylvania Montgomery 14.00 19,338 N 1991 Continued on next page
Plant Name Wheelabrator Falls Wheelabrator Falls Wheelabrator Lisbon Wheelabrator Lisbon Covanta Mid-Connecticut Energy Covanta Mid-Connecticut Energy Covanta Mid-Connecticut Energy SPSA Waste To Energy Power Plant SPSA Waste To Energy Power Plant SPSA Waste To Energy Power Plant SPSA Waste To Energy Power Plant Perham Incinerator MRO_MN_Municipal Solid Waste
Current Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants (Continued) Boiler/Generator/C Heat Rate ommitted Unit State Name County Capacity MW (Btu/kWh) Cogeneration On-line Year B Pennsylvania Bucks 24.05 19,338 N 1994 B Pennsylvania Bucks 24.05 19,338 N 1994 B Connecticut New London 6.50 19,338 N 1995 B Connecticut New London 6.50 19,338 N 1995 B Connecticut Hartford 18.69 19,338 N 1987 B Connecticut Hartford 18.69 19,338 N 1987 B Connecticut Hartford 18.69 19,338 N 1987 B Virginia Portsmouth (city) 11.63 19,338 Y 1987 B Virginia Portsmouth (city) 11.63 19,338 Y 1987 B Virginia Portsmouth (city) 11.63 19,338 Y 1987 B Virginia Portsmouth (city) 11.63 19,338 Y 1987 G Minnesota Otter Tail 1.24 19,338 Y 2003 C Minnesota NA 5.00 19,338 N 2011
Source: National Electric Energy System (NEEDS) Database for IPM 2010. http://epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/BaseCasev410.html
Green Pricing Programs, which allow consumers to purchase electricity generated from renewable resources, had more than one million customers in 2009. Ninety-four percent of those were residential customers. Net metering allows customers to sell any excess power generated over their load requirement back to the distributor to offset consumption. As with green pricing, most of the net metering customers were residential (91%). Section: BIOPOWER Green Pricing and Net Metering Customers, 2002 - 2009 Green Pricing Net Metering Residential Non Residential Total Residential Non Residential 688,069 23,481 711,550 3,559 913 819,579 57,547 877,126 5,870 943 864,794 63,539 928,333 14,114 1,712 871,774 70,998 942,772 19,244 1,902 606,919 35,937 642,856 30,689 2,930 773,391 62,260 835,651 44,886 3,943 918,284 64,711 982,995 64,400 5,609 1,058,185 65,593 1,123,778 88,222 8,284
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total 4,472 6,813 15,826 21,146 33,619 48,829 70,009 96,506
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009 , Washington, D.C., 2009.
Section: BIOPOWER Capacity Additions and Retirements by Energy Source, 2009 Generator Addition Generator Retirements Number Generator Net Net Number Generator Net Net of Nameplate Summer Winter of Nameplate Summer Winter Generators Capacity Capacity Capacity Generators Capacity Capacity Capacity megawatts megawatts 13 2,021 1,793 1,793 12 537 529 528 25 93 48 83 41 623 540 567 76 10,760 9,403 10,170 79 5,940 5,634 5,657 ----3 51 46 46 8 120 20 3 13 104 382 26 9,581 88 99 199 278 23,144 26 9,410 82 89 164 264 21,279 26 9,443 80 89 193 261 22,138 5 1 -4 14 13 172 14 2 -22 21 39 7,249 3 2 -21 9 32 6,815 4 2 -21 14 32 6,870
Energy Source Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Other Gasesa Hydroelectric Conventional Wind Solar Thermal & Photovoltaic Wood and Wood Derived Fuelsb Geothermal Other Biomassc Total
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009 , Washington, D.C., 2009.
a b
Blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels. Wood/wood waste solids (including paper pellets, railroad ties, utility poles, wood chips, bark and wood waste solids), wood waste liquids (red liquor, sludge wood, spent sulfite liquor, and other wood-based liquids) and black liquor. c Municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agricultural byproducts, other biomass solids, other biomass liquids, and other biomass gases (including digester gases, methane, and other biomass gases). Note: Capacity by energy source is based on the capacity associated with the energy source reported as the most predominant (primary) one, where more than one energy source is associated with a generator.
Section: BIOPOWER Coal Displacement Calculation, 2010 Conversion Formula: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Capacity (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation (D) Annual Electricity Generation (D) x Conversion Efficiency (E) = Total Output (F) Total Output (F) / Fuel Heat Rate (G) = Quantity Fuel (H)
Technology (A) Capacity (kW) (B) Capacity Factor (%) (C) Annual Hours (D) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) (E) Conversion Efficiency (Btu/kWh) (F) Total Output (Million Btu) (G) Coal Heat Rate (Btu per short ton) (H) Coal (short tons)
Wind 37,870,000 36.0% 8,760 119,426,832,000 9,854 1,176,832,003 19,933,000 59,039,382
Geothermal Biomass Hydropower 2,410,000 7,560,000 77,570,000 90.0% 80.0% 44.2% 8,760 8,760 8,760 19,000,440,000 52,980,480,000 300,301,647,108 9,854 9,854 9,854 187,230,336 522,069,650 2,959,172,431 19,933,000 19,933,000 19,933,000 9,392,983 26,191,223 148,455,949
PV Solar Thermal 2,340,000 610,000 22.5% 24.4% 8,760 8,760 4,612,140,000 1,303,838,400 9,854 9,854 45,448,028 12,848,024 19,933,000 19,933,000 2,280,040 644,560
Sources: Capacity, EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA-0383 (2011) Washington, D.C., April 26, 2011, Summary Case Table 16. Capacity Factor: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Table 12.1, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/chapter12.html Annual Hours: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Table 12.1, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/chapter12.html Conversion Efficiency: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2009, DOE/EIA-0384 (2009), Washington, D.C., August 19, 2010, Table A6. Heat Rate: Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA-0383 (2011), Washington, D.C., April 2011, Table G1.
Section: BIOPOWER Renewable Energy Impacts Calculation, 2010 Conversion Formula: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Technology (A) Capacity (kW) (B) Capacity Factor (%) (C) Annual Hours (D) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) (E) Competing Heat Rate (Btu/kWh) (F) Annual Output (Trillion Btu) (G) Carbon Coefficient (MMTCB/Trillion Btu) (H) Annual Carbon Displaced (MMTC) Wind 37,870,000 36.0% 8,760 119,426,832,000 9,854 1,176.8 0.01783 20.983 Capacity (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation (D) Annual Electricity Generation (D) x Competing Heat Rate (E) = Annual Output (F) Annual Output (F) x Emissions Coefficient (G) = Annual Emissions Displaced (H) Geothermal 2,410,000 90.0% 8,760 19,000,440,000 9,854 187.2 0.01783 3.172 Biomass 7,560,000 80.0% 8,760 52,980,480,000 9,854 522.1 0.01783 8.328 Hydropower 77,570,000 44.2% 8,760 300,301,647,108 9,854 2,959.2 0.01783 54.635 PV 2,340,000 22.5% 8,760 4,612,140,000 9,854 45.4 0.01783 0.100 Solar Thermal 610,000 24.4% 8,760 1,303,838,400 9,854 12.8 0.01783 0.128
Sources: Capacity, EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA-0383 (2011) Washington, D.C., April 26, 2011, Summary Case Table 16. Capacity Factor: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Table 12.1, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/chapter12.html Annual Hours: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Table 12.1, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/chapter12.html Competing Heat Rate: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2009, DOE/EIA-0384 (2009), Washington, D.C., August 19, 2010, Table A6. Carbon Coefficient: DOE, GPRA2003 Data Call, Appendix B, page B-16, 2003.
Section: BIOPOWER Number of Home Electricity Needs Met Calculation, 2010 Conversion Formula: Step 1 Step 2 Wind 37,870,000 36.0% 8,760 119,426,832,000 12,696 9,406,857 Capacity (A) x Capacity Factor (B) x Annual Hours (C) = Annual Electricity Generation (D) Annual Electricity Generation (D) / Average Consumption (E) = Number of Households (F) Geothermal 2,410,000 90.0% 8,760 19,000,440,000 12,696 1,496,602 Biomass 7,560,000 80.0% 8,760 52,980,480,000 12,696 4,173,097 Hydropower 77,570,000 44.2% 8,760 PV 2,340,000 22.5% 8,760 Solar Thermal 610,000 24.4% 8,760 1,303,838,400 12,696 102,699
Technology (A) Capacity (kW) (B) Capacity Factor (%) (C) Annual Hours (D) Annual Electricity Generation (kWh) (E) Average Annual Household Electricity Consumption (kWh) (F) Number of Households
300,301,647,108 4,612,140,000 12,696 23,653,769 12,696 363,283
Source: Sources: Capacity, EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA-0383 (2011) Washington, D.C., April 26, 2011, Summary Case Table 16. Capacity Factor: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Table 12.1, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/chapter12.html Annual Hours: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Power Technologies Energy Data Book, Table 12.1, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/chapter12.html Household Electricity Consumption: Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA-0383 (2011) Washington, D.C., April 26, 2011, Summary/Reference Case Table 4.
BIOREFINERIES Contents
Biorefineries Overview Active U.S. Department of Energy Biorefinery Projects Active ARRA U.S. Department of Energy Biorefinery Projects Integrated Biorefinery Project Locations Fuels, Technologies and Feedstocks in Planned Biorefineries as of 2008 Integrated Biorefinery Projects Receiving DOE Funds Recently Completed U.S. Department of Energy Biorefinery Projects
Data Type Updated

Text Table Table Table Table Table 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/302011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011
Figure-Map 09/30/2011
Biorefineries Overview As a petroleum refinery uses petroleum as the major input and processes it into many different products, a biorefinery uses biomass as the major input and processes it into many different products. Wet-mill and dry-mill corn processing plants and pulp and paper mills can be categorized as biorefineries since they produce multiple products from biomass. Ethanol production facilities produce ethanol and other products from the sugar and starch components of biomass. As of August 2011, the Renewable Fuels Association listed 214 operating ethanol biorefineries with a total production capacity of 14,787 million gallon per year (MGY). Distillers grains, a high-value, protein rich product being used for livestock feed is the major co-product of the existing drymill ethanol biorefineries. Wet-mill ethanol biorefineries have the capacity to produce high fructose corn syrup, and a wide variety of chemical feedstocks such as citric acid, lactic acid, lysine and other products as well as ethanol. Research over the past several years has developed several technologies that have the capability of converting many types of lignocellulosic biomass resources into a wide range of products. The goal is for biorefineries to produce both high-volume liquid fuels and high-value chemicals or products in order to address national energy needs while enhancing operation economics. Pulp and paper mills are existing biorefineries that produce heat, and electricity as well as pulp or paper and some chemicals, but they also have the potential of producing very large amounts of biofuels and biomass power from processing residuals such as bark and black liquor. Two of the emerging biorefinery platforms are the sugar platform and the thermochemical platform (also known as the syngas platform) illustrated below. Sugar platform biorefineries would break biomass down into different types of component sugars for fermentation or other biological processing into various fuels and chemicals. Thermochemical biorefineries would convert biomass to synthesis gas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide) or pyrolysis oil, the various components of which could be directly used as fuel. New technologies are being explored for integrating the production of biomass-derived fuels and other products, such as 1,3 propandiol, polylactic acid, and isosorbide, in a single facility. Figure Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Biomass Program, September 2011. http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/biorefinery.html
Below are ten projects relevant to the development of biorefinery technologies that have been awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Section: BIOREFINERIES Active U.S. Department of Energy Biorefinery Projects as of September 2011 Lead Partner/ Project Period Project cost
Project name
Project Description and Status Construction of a 1,200 tons per day commercial biorefinery producing cellulosic ethanol and also power and heat to operate the facility. Agricultural residues would be converted via enzymatic hydrolysis to sugars and fermented into cellulosic ethanol. Agricultural residues along with ethanol plant residual solids and waste water treatment biogas, will be used to generate the necessary heat and power to make the facility energy self-sufficient. Current Status: Award Date: September 2007. Record of Decision was issued January 2011 and supplementary analysis issued July 2011. Demonstration of the benefits of integrating an innovative lignocellulose-to-ethanol biochemical process into an existing dry-grind corn processing infrastructure on a commercial scale. 700 dry metric tonnes per day of lignocellulose, primarily from corn cobs, will be processed to produce 25 million gallons of lignocellulosic ethanol per year. Up to 80% of the corn dry mill's existing natural gas use will be displaced through renewable, alternative energy. Current Status: Award Date: September 2008. Plant uses a thermo-chemical process to combine pressure, heat, steam and biomass to produce synthesis gas, or syngas, a mixture ofhydrogen and oxygen that can be converted to a wide range of products. Current Status: Award Date: November 2007. Construction and operation of a thermal gasification and gas-to-liquids plant ingegrated into the Park Falls Mill to produce green diesel for transportation fuel, waxes, and heat and power that replaces natural gas. The plant will produce 1,190 barrels per day of clean, zero sulfur renewable biofuels, waxes, and heat and power that replaces existing natural gas use from forest biomass. Current Status: Award Date: September 2008 Plant for the continuous production of cellulosic ethanol, high purity lignin and furfural from hardwoods. Plant will process 100 tpd of woody biomass, initially local hardwood which is plentiful, and in future test campaigns, softwood and agricultural residues. Current Status: Award Date: TBD Project would initially produce up to 40 million gallons per year of denatured enthanol from approximately 1,300 dry metric tonnes per day of cellulosic materials consisting primarily of wood wastes. Current Status: Award Date: February 2009 Construct & operate a thermal gasification and gas-to-liquids plant integrated into Wisconsic Rapids Mills to replace natural gas use and produce liquid biofuels that will be converted into renewable diesel. Current Status: Award 1 Sept. 2008; Award 2 TBD. Design, construct and operate a feedstock flexible demonstration facility producing cellulosic ethanol. Capacity of 2.7 mill gallons of ethanol per year. Current Status: Operational 2009 Construct integrated biorefinery that will extract hemicelluloses from wood chips to make biofuel and other specialty chemicals at existing pulp mill. Cellulose & lignin will be maintained in the pulp manufacturing process. Facility will produce 1.5 million gallons per year of Current Status: Award Date: January 2010 Project is operating the demonstration facility to validate findings from the pilot plant operation in the production of cellulosic ethanol from purpose-grown energy crops and agricultural residuals. This demonstration facility is fully integrated from feedstock pretreatment to recovery and distillation of the biofuel product. Current Status: Award Date: September 2008
Integrated Biorefinery for Conversion of Biomass to Ethanol, Power and Heat Design, construct, build and operate a commercial processing plant as part of an integrated biorefinery to produce lignocellulosic ethanol primarily from corn cobs. A commercial-scale biorefinery converting biomass into biofuels and power.
Abengoa Bioenergy
N/A
POET Project Liberty Range Fuels
N/A N/A
Demonstration Plant - Biomass to Fischer-Tropsch Green Flambeau River Diesel Biofuels Integrated Biorefinery Demonstration Plant producing Cellulosic Ethanol and Biochemicals from woody biomass. Lignol Innovations, Inc Mascoma Frontier Biorefinery Project NewPage: Project Independence Pacific Ethanol Mascoma Corp. NewPage Corp. Pacific Ethanol Inc.
N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Red Shield Acquisition Verenium: Jennings 1.4 MGY Demonstration Plant
Red Shield Acquisition
N/A
Verenium Corp.
N/A
Source: U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Biomass Program, September 2011, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/factsheets.html Websites of all companies serving as project leaders or key partners on the DOE funded projects.
Below are nineteen projects relevant to the development of biorefinery technologies that have been awarded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 by the U.S. Department of Energy. Section: BIOREFINERIES Active ARRA U.S. Department of Energy Biorefinery Projects as of September 2011 Lead Partner/ Project Period Project cost
Project name Integrated Pilot Plant to Convert Corn Stover to Fuel and Chemicals Integrated Pilot-Scale Biorefinery for Producing Ethanol from Hybrid Algae
Project Description and Status A process has been developed to pretreat and pelletize corn stover, increasing its density by a factor of three. A higher density allows use of ADM's existing agricultural transportation infrastructure for long term storage and reduced transportation costs. Current Status; Award Date: TBD An integrated pilot-scale biorefinery will be constructed that will convert carbon dioxide into ethanol. Algenol is targeting the development of hybrid algae that produce 6,000 galls of ethanol per acre, per year.The biorefinery will consume 2 dry tons of carbon dioxide per day and will produce more than 100,000 gallons of fuel ethanol per year. Process uses low-risk, yeast-based fermentation of traditional or lignocellulosic-derived sugar feedstocks. The fermentation intermediate is readily recovered as water-immiscible oil. Fermentation waste is treated by anaerobic digestion to reduce effluent and utilize residual sugars for biogas production. Biogas is then converted to hydrogen via steam-methane reformation for use in finishing reactions for a variety of products. Current Status: Award Date: November 2009. Commercial Production: Targeted for 2013. Alpena Prototype Biorefinery will be used to demonstrate a modular, technically successful, and financially viable process of making cellulosic ethanol from woody biomass extract in wood processing facilities. It will produce 894,200 USG per year of cellulosic ethanol and 696,000 gallons per year of aqueous potassium acetate. Current Status: Awarded April 2010.
Archer Daniels Midland
N/A
Algenol Biofuels, Inc.
N/A
Conversion of sweet sorghum biomass to hydrocarbon diesel and chemicals
Amyris Integrated Biorefinery Alpena Prototype Biorefinery
N/a
Alpena Prototype Biorefinery
N/A
BlueFire Fulton Renewable Energy Project Integrated Pilot Project for Fuel Production by Thermochemical Conversion of Woodwaste
BlueFire Renewables
ClearFuels-Rentech
The Project would produce in excess of 18 million gallons per year of denatured ethanol from approximately 700 metric dry tons per day of cellulosic materials consisting primarily of wood wastes. Current Status: Award dates: September 2007 and December 2009. Engineering, procurement and construction contract has been awarded to Mastec North America. A front-end $320 Million level 3 engineering design effort has been completed. ClearFuels has developed a process to thermochemically convert a variety of feedstock types that, when combined with Rentech's technology, are anticipated to provide direct replacements for diesel and jet fuel. Current Status: Awarded January 2011. Anticipated operational date: late 2015 N/A Process uses novel catalyst developed in the US to convert renewable natural oils into fuels and chemicals. Data will be generated specific for high potential U.S. feedstocks to assist in the design of key sections of a biorefinery which will convert natural oils into fuels and chemicals using the Grubbs olefin metathesis catalyst, develop a non site-specific process design and detailed angeineering, and perform an analysis of the sensitivity of the economics of the process using algae oil. Current Status: Award Date: December, 2009 Biorefinery will convert heterogeneous (mixed) sorted municipal solid waste into ethanol. By converting waste into transportation fuels, the project will increase U.S. energy security, create jobs, reduce greenhouse emissions, and extend the life of the landfill by diverting incoming volume. Current Status: Award Date: March 2010 GTI will conduct R&D on integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion for the economic conversion of wood, agricultural waste, and algae biomass into fungible gasoline and diesel. Current Status: Award Date: Early 2010 A new economical thermochemical process for the converstion of wood waste and woody biomass to gasoline will be demonstrated. Wood waste and non-merchantable wood product will be sourced from UPM-Kymmene, a pulp and paper company. Current Status: Award Date: Early 2010. Beginning operations by mid-year 2012. Operate the pilot cellulosic integrated biorefinery ujsing a biochemical platform pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis technology coupled with a robust C5/C6 co-fermenting organism to refine cellulosic biomass into fuel ethanol and co-products. Proposed process addresses pretreatment, hydroloysis, fermentation, and feed production which represent key technologies needed for the cost effective production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass. Current Status: Awarded January 2010. Utilizing a unique combination of gasification and fermentation processes, the facility will demonstrate key equipment at full commercial scale using vegetative, yard, and municipal solid waste as feedstock which will be heated to produce a synthesis gas that is cooled and cleaned before being fed to naturally occurring bacteria. These bacteria convert the synthesis gas into ethanol, which is purified for use as fuel in the transportation market. Current Status: Award Date: September 2010 Demonstrate advanced technologies and methods to convert non-food, cellulosic feedstocks into ethanol in an economically and environmentally compelling way. Current Status: Award Date: TBD Facility will validate the production of succinic acid using proprietary, integrated, biocatalytic processes to displace petroleum based production of this plantform chemical. Produce succinic acid, an industrial organic chemical building block that can be used in the production of plymers, solvents and pigments. Current Status: Award Date: March, 2010 Demonstrate a pilot, pre-commercial integrated biorefinery for the production of high-quality synthetic diesel fuels from agriculture and forest residues using advanced thermochemical and catalytic conversion technologies. Current Status: Award Date: TBD IABR will be built in Luna Country that will benefically reuse carbon dioxide to produce green crude oil from algae. The oil will be refined to produce jet fuel and diesel. Current Status: Award Date: TBD
Elevance Integrated Biorefinery
Elevance Renewable Sciences
N/A
Enerkem to Use Sorted Waste as Feedstock in Biorefinery Gasoline and Diesel from Wood, Agricultural Waste, and Algae R&D Green Gasoline from Wood Pilot Biorefinery Demonstration Project
Enerkem Gas Technology Institute
N/A N/A
Haldor Topsoe, Inc.
N/A
Pilot Integrated Cellulosic Biorefinery Operations to Fuel Ethanol
ICM, Inc.
N/A
INEOS Bio Commercializes bioenergy technolgy in Florida Logos Technologies, Inc. Pilot CCM Biorefinery Myriant Succinic Acid Biorefinery (MySAB) Demonstration Facility Demonstration of a Pilot, Fully Integrated Biorefinery for the Efficient Production of Clean, Synthetic Diesel Fuel from Biomass Sapphire Energy Integrated Algal Biorefinery (IABR)
INEOS New Plant BioEnergy Logos Technolgies, Inc., & EdiniQ, Inc. Myriant Technologies, Inc. Renewable Energy Institute International, Red Lion Bio-Energy, & Pacific Renewable Fuels Sapphire Energy Inc.
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Project name
Lead Partner/ Project Period Project cost
Project Description and Status Demonstrate integrated scale-up of heterotrophic algal oil biomanufacturing process, validate the projected commecial-scale economics of producing multiple advanced biofuels, and collect the data necessary to complete design of the first commercial-scale facility. Demonstrate production of algal oil derived entirely from lignocellulosic feedstocks, as well as other feedstocks. Biofuels derived from these feedstocks will reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by over 90%. Current Status: Award Date: TBD A fully integrated process to convert high impact gasoline, diesel and jet range hydrocarbon. Feeds will be converted to fuels via integrated pyrolysis and hydro-conversion. Team members will demonstrate fungibility of the fuels within the refinery, determine fuel properties and accelerate qualification and acceptance as liquid transportation fuels. Current Status: ward Date: Early 2010 Biorefinery will convert 10 bone-dry tons per day of cellulosic feedstock into ethanol. A 95% reduction in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for fuel production is anticipated in the commercial biorefineries as compared to conventional gasoline. Facility will use a hybrid of biochemical and thermochemical fractionation to separate the feedstock into a sugar-rich stream and a lignin-rich stream. The sugar stream is converted into acetic acid using naturally occurring bacteria, or acetogens, which produce no carbon dioxide during fermentation process and enabling 100% carbon conversion. Current Status: Award Date: TBD
Solazyme Integrated Biorefinery: Diesel Fuels from Heterotrophic Algae Sustainable Transport Fuels from Biomass and Algal Residues via Integrated Pyrolysis and Catalytic Hydroconversion
Solazyme, Inc.
NA
UOP, LLC
NA
High-Yield Hybrid Cellulosic Ethanol Process Using HighImpact Feedstock for Commercialization by 2013
ZeaChem, Inc.
N/A
Source: U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Biomass Program, September 2011, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/factsheets.html Websites of all companies serving as project leaders or key partners on the DOE funded projects.
Section: BIOREFINERIES
Integrated Biorefinery Project Locations
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Biomass Program, November 2010. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/ibr_portfolio_overview.pdf
Section: BIOREFINERIES Fuels, Technologies and Feedstocks in Planned Biorefineries as of 2008 Liquid Fuel Types Planned Propanol Biogasoline Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel Lignocellulosic biodiesel Renewable Crude Oil Jet Fuel Technologies Involved in Producton of Biofuels and Bioproducts Component of ethanol production, see BIOFUELS "The Ethanol Production Process - Dry Milling" Component of ethanol production, see BIOFUELS "The Ethanol Production Process - Dry Milling" Component of ethanol production, see BIOFUELS "The Ethanol Production Process - Dry Milling" Component of ethanol production, see BIOFUELS "The Ethanol Production Process - Dry Milling" Alternative to weak acid hydrolysis for feedstock pretreatment Alternative to weak acid hydrolysis for feedstock pretreatment One of several patent descriptions found at http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4661643 One of several patent descriptions found at http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/4470851.html See http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch for explanation A thermochemical process creating a synthesis gas that can be transformed by catalysts or microbes to biofuels/bioproducts Separation of biomass components prior to pretreatment for a wide variety of possible end-products Several proprietary technologies have been proposed
Ethanol Methanol Bio-butanol Weak Acid Hydrolysis Enzymatic hydrolysis Engineered microbes Specialty enzymes
Steam explosion hydrolysis Strong acid hydrolysis Hydrogenolysis process Organosolv process Fischer-Tropsch process Gasification* Biomass Fractionation* Proprietary technologies*
Feedstocks Planned for Production of New Biofuels and Bioproducts Agricultural Residues Industry and Municipal Residuals Citrus Waste Municipal solid waste Corn cobs, fiber and stover Yellow/trap grease Grain, rice and wheat straw Construction waste Leafy material Urban wood waste Energy Crops Other Woody Biomass Miscanthus Hazardous forest fuels (thinning & slash) Specially bred energy cane Switchgrass Poplar, willow, and pine trees Material from habitat restoration Logging and mill residues
Source: The information presented above is largely derived from the fact sheet on cellulosic biofuels developed in July 2008 by Justin Mattingly, Fahran Robb, and Jetta Wong of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (www.eesi.org). Oak Ridge National Laboratory staff added links for additional information. Note: More information can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/factsheets.html
SECTION: BIOREFINERIES Integrated Biorefinery Projects Receiving DOE Funds Project Abengoa Bluefire LLC Flambeau Mascoma POET Rangefuels Enerkem INEOS New Planet Bioenergy LLC Lignol New Page Pacific Ethanol RSA Sapphire Energy Inc. Verenium Myriant Algenol Biofuels Inc American Process Inc. Amyris Biotechnologies Inc. Archer Daniels Midland ClearFuels Technology Haldor Topsoe Inc. ICM Inc. Logos Technologies Renewable Energy Institute International Solazyme Inc. UOP LLC ZeaChem Inc. Location Hugoton, KS Fulton, MS Park Falls, WI Kinross, MI Emmetsburg, IA Soperton, GA Pontotoc, MS Vero Beach, FL Washington Wisconsin Rapids, WI Boardman, OR Old Town, ME Columbus, NM Jennings, LA Lake Providence, LA Fort Myers, FL Alpena, MI Emeryville, CA Decatur, IL Commerce City, CO Des Plaines, IL St. Joseph, MO Visalia, CA Toledo, OH Riverside, PA Kapolei, HI Boardman, OR Scale Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Demonstration Demonstration Demonstration Demonstration Demonstration Demonstration Demonstration Demonstration Demonstration Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Pilot Conversion Technology Biochemical Biochemical Thermo - Gasification Biochemical Biochemical Thermo - Gasification Thermo - Gasification Hybrid Biochemical Thermo - Gasification Biochemical Biochemical Algae/CO2 Biochemical Biochemical Algae/CO2 Biochemical Biochemical Biochemical Thermo - Gasification Thermo - Gasification Biochemical Biochemical Thermo - Gasification Algae/Sugar Thermo - Pyrolysis Hybrid
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Biomass Program, November 2010.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/ibr_portfolio_overview.pdf
Below are nine projects relevant to the development of biorefinery technologies that were initiated during the 2000 to 2003 time frame by the U.S. Department of Energy. All projects have ended, some of the project partners are now involved in new biorefinery projects, while others have abandoned their efforts in this area.
Section: BIOREFINERIES Recently Completed U.S. Department of Energy Biorefinery Projects Lead Partner/ Project Period Cargill-Dow LLC FY 2003-2007
Project name Making Industrial Biorefining Happen
Integrated Corn-Based Biorefinery
Project cost Project Description and Status $26 million Develop and build a pilot-scale biorefinery that produces sugars and chemicals such as lactic acid and ethanol from grain. Current Status: Cargill Dow LLC is now known as NatureWorks LLC following Cargill's acquisition of The Dow Chemical Companies interest in the venture. The NatureWorks LLC website suggests that all products are currently made from corn starch. $18.2 million Development of a biorefinery concept that converts both starch (such as corn) and E.I. du Pont de lignocellulose (such as corn stover) to fermentable sugars for production of value Nemours & Co., added chemicals (like 1,3 propanediol) and fuel ethanol. Current status. Du Pont is Inc. FY 2003-2007 making major investments in bioenergy technologies. The chemical 1,3 propanediol is now being commercial produced at DuPont Tate & Lyle Bio Products, LLC. in Loudon, Tennessee. DuPont and Genencor formed a joint venture company, DuPont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC, in May 2008 and this company is now the lead partner on the biorefinery project in Vonore, TN. Abengoa Bioenergy $17.7 million Develop a process for pretreating a blend of distillers' grain (animal feed co-product from corn ethanol production) and stover to allow ethanol production from both, while Corporation FY leaving a high-protein animal feed. A large-scale pilot facility will be built for 2003-2007 integration with High Plains' ethanol plant in York, Nebraska. Georgia Pacific FY 2000 - 2007 NA The project involved the design and operation of a black liquor gasifier that was to be integrated into Georgia-Pacific's Big Island facility in Virginia. This project anticipated helping pulp and paper mills with the replacement of recovery boilers that are reaching retirement. Current Status: The gasifier was built but the design did not function as anticipated and no current information can be located regarding any further work on the gasifier. Develop new technologies that assist in the harvesting, transport, storage, and separation of corn residues. Engineer a fermentation system that will meet the performance targets for the commercial manufacture of lactic acid and ethanol from corn stover. Current Status: See description above. The unit operations of the Masada OxyNolTM process were to be examined and research focused on improving conversion efficiencies, mitigating scale-up risks, and improving the co-product quality and marketability. Current Status: The company now called Pencor-Masada Oxynol signed an agreement in 2004 with the city of Middletown, New York to build a waste-to-ethanol plant with a projected completion date in 2008. As of December 2007 the company was still trying to attract investors. The companies website still indicates that the project is proceeding, though the city has taken the company to court for failing to meet deadlines. Develop fermentative organisms and processes to ferment carbohydrates to 3hydroxypropionic acid (3-HP) and then make a slate of products from the 3-HP. Current Status: Cargill does make ethanol from corn starch at multiple locations. Their website suggests that the only current involvement in cellulosic ethanol is the funding provided to Iowa State University that includes money for an economic analysis of corn stover production, harvest, handling and storage. Separate bran, germ, and endosperm from corn kernels prior to making ethanol from the remaining starch. Investigate making high-value products, as well as ethanol and animal feed from the separated fractions. Current Status: Broin and Associates, now called POET, is pursuing "Project Liberty", a project that is constructing a cellulosic ethanol production stream at their Scotland N.D. corn to ethanol facility. This project was awarded DOE funding in February 2007 and corn cobs were harvested in 2007 as feedstock for the facility. Under a previous DOE-funded project, a process was developed for separation of hemicellulose, protein, and oil from corn fiber. This project will pilot-scale test and validate this process for commercial use. Current Status: ADM a partner in the NCGA project announced in August 2008 that it was partnering with John Deere to harvest, t dt t id f f d df d d ti Th j t ill
Advancing Biorefining of Distillers' Grain and Corn Stover Blends: PreCommercialization of a Biomass-Derived Process Technology Big Island Demonstration project - Black Liquor
Collection, Commercial Processing, and Utilization of Corn Stover/Making Industrial Biorefining Enhancement of CoProducts from Bioconversion of Muncipal Solid Waste
Cargill-Dow LLC FY 2003-2007 Masada OxyNol, LLC FY 2001 - 2004
NA
NA
A New Biorefinery Platform Cargill, Inc. Intermediate FY 2003 - 2007
$6 million
A Second Generation Dry Mill Biorefinery
Broin and Associates FY 2003 - 2007
$5.4 million
Separation of Corn Fiber and Conversion to Fuels and Chemicals Phase II: Pilot-Scale Operation
National Corn Growers Association 2003 - 2007
$2.4 million FY
Sources: U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Biomass Program, October, 2011,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/factsheets.html
Websites of all companies serving as project leaders or key partners on the DOE funded projects.
FEEDSTOCKS Contents
Primary Biomass Feedstocks Grains Barley: Area, Yield, Production and Value, 1996-2009 Barley: Area, Yield and Production by State, 2007-2009 Barley Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Corn Baseline Projections, 2009-2020 Corn Used for Ethanol Production, 1985-2010 Corn Usage by Segment, 2010 Corn: Price per Bushel, 1975-2010 Corn: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Corn: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 Corn for Grain, Harvested Acres, 2007 Corn Acres, Planted and Harvested, 1975-2010 Corn Yield, 1975-2010 Corn: Supply and Dissappearance, 1996-2010 Corn for Grain: Marketing Year Average Price and Value by State, Crops of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Corn Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Oats: Area, Yield, Production and Value, 1996-2009 Oats: Area, Yield and Production by State, 2007-2009 Oats Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Rice: Area, Yield, Production and Value, 1996-2009 Rice: Area, Yield and Production by State, 2007-2009 Rice Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Sorghum for Grain, Harvested Acres, 2007 Sorghum: Price per Bushel, 1975-2009 Sorghum: Area, Yield, Production and Value, 1996-2009 Sorghum: Area, Yield and Production by State, 2006-2009 Sorghum Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Wheat Baseline Projections, 2009-2021 Wheat: Price per Bushel, 1975-2009 Wheat: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Table Table Table Table Figure Figure Figure Table Table Figure-Map Figure Figure Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Figure-Map Figure Table Table Table Table Figure Table 04/15/2011 04/15/2011 06/21/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/15/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 09/26/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 06/21/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 06/21/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 06/21/2011 09/26/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 06/21/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011
Data Type Updated

Text 09/30/2011
Wheat: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 Wheat: Supply and Dissappearance, 1996-2009 Wheat: Marketing Year Average Price and Value by State, Crop of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Wheat Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Oilseeds Oil per Acre Production for Various Crops Camelina: Area, Yield, and Value in Montana Cotton: Area, Yield, Production and Value, 1996-2009 Cotton: Area, Yield and Production by State, Crop of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Cotton Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Soybeans and Products Baseline Projections, 2009 - 2020 Soybeans: Price per Bushel, 1975-2009 Soybeans: Area, Yield, Production and Value, 1996-2009 Soybeans: Area, Yield, and Production by State, 2007-2009 Soybeans: Supply and Disappearance, 1995-2008 Soybeans for Beans: Marketing Year Average Price and Value by State, Crop of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Soybeans for Beans, Harvested Acres, 2007 Soybean Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 Algae Oil Content in Selected Algal Species Agricultural Resources Corn Stover Residue Yield for Reduced Tillage and No-till Production, 2012 Primary Forest Resources Spatial Distribution of Logging Residues at $20 and $40 per Dry Ton Spatial Availability of Other Removal Residues at $40 per Dry Ton Spatial Distribution of Simulated Forest Residue Thinnings at $30 and $60 per Dry Ton Secondary Biomass Feedstocks U.S. Forest Service - Woody Biomass Utilization Grantees, 2009 & 2010 Manure Feedlot Capacity and Distribution, 2004 Mill Wastes Primary Mill Residue Production and Use by State, 2007 Unused Mill Residues by County Pellet Fuels North American Pellet Capacity, 20032009
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Figure Table Table Table Table Figure-Map Table Table Figure-Map Figure-Map Figure-Map Figure-Map Text Table Figure-Map Table Figure-Map Figure
04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 06/21/2011 04/18/2011 09/30/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 06/21/2011 09/30/2011 04/18/2011 07/26/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011 09/302011 06/21/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011
Pellet and Cordwood Appliance Shipments from Manufacturers, 1998-2010 Tertiary Biomass Feedstocks Urban Residues Spatial Availability of Urban Wood Waste (Municipal Solid Waste) and Construction and Demolition Wood Residues Landfill Gas Landfill Gas Projects and Candidate Landfills by State, April 2011 Feedstock Characteristics (See Appendix B)
Table Text
4/18/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 6/21/2011
Figure-Map Table
Primary Biomass Feedstocks

Primary biomass is produced directly by photosynthesis and includes all terrestrial plants now used for food, feed, fiber and fuelwood. All plants in natural and conservation areas (as well as algae and other aquatic plants growing in ponds, lakes, oceans, or artificial ponds and bioreactors) are also considered primary biomass. However, only a small portion of the primary biomass produced will ever be harvested as feedstock material for the production of bioenergy and bioproducts. Primary biomass feedstocks are thus primary biomass that is harvested or collected from the field or forest where it is grown. Examples of primary biomass feedstocks currently being used for bioenergy include grains and oilseed crops used for transportation fuel production, plus some crop residues (such as orchard trimmings and nut hulls) and some residues from logging and forest operations that are currently used for heat and power production. In the future it is anticipated that a larger proportion of the residues inherently generated from food crop harvesting, as well as a larger proportion of the residues generated from ongoing logging and forest operations, will be used for bioenergy. Additionally, as the bioenergy industry develops, both woody and herbaceous perennial crops will be planted and harvested specifically for bioenergy and bioproducts end-uses. Because this version of the Data Book is focusing primarily on the bioenergy industry as it exists today, including the biomass feedstocks actually used, only information on the grain and oilseeds crops are included. It would be desirable to include information on the amount and types of crop residues and forest logging, or pulp fiber residues currently being used for energy on a state by state basis, but that information is not readily available. Clearly there is also no nationwide source of information on woody or herbaceous crops being used for energy since this is occurring only on a very small scale in a few isolated experimental situations. This Data Book covers only current usage of biomass and does not attempt to address the potential for biomass feedstock. Nonetheless, other sources of information do exist concerning the future potential of biomass. Tables, maps and explanations for assumptions behind the potential biomass resource calculations that have been performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory biomass economists can be found on the Bioenergy Feedstock Information Network (BFIN) website at www.bioenergy.ornl.gov. Source: Lynn Wright, Oak Ridge, TN.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Barley: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Area Yield per harvested acre Marketing year average price per bushel received by farmers Dollars 2.74 2.38 1.98 2.13 2.11 2.22 2.72 2.83 2.48 2.53 2.85 4.02 5.37 4.40
a Year Planted Harvested 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 1996 7,094 6,707 1997 6,706 6,198 1998 6,325 5,854 1999 4,983 4,573 2000 5,801 5,200 2001 4,951 4,273 2002 5,008 4,123 2003 5,348 4,727 2004 4,527 4,021 2005 3,875 3,269 2006 3,452 2,951 2007 4,018 3,502 2008 4,246 3,779 2009b 3,567 3,113
Production
Value of production 1,000 Dollars 1,080,940 861,620 685,734 578,425 647,966 535,110 605,635 755,140 698,184 527,633 498,691 834,954 1,259,357 917,500
Bushels 1,000 Bushels 58.5 392,433 58.1 359,878 60.1 351,569 59.5 271,996 61.1 317,804 58.1 248,329 55.0 226,906 58.9 278,283 69.6 279,743 64.8 211,896 61.1 180,165 60.0 210,110 63.6 240,193 73.0 227,323
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-53 and previous annual editions. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a b
Barley sown for all purposes, including barley sown in the preceding fall. Preliminary
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Barley: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 Area planteda b 2007 2008 2009 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres 33 42 48 85 95 90 60 80 78 21 25 28 570 600 530 20 17 14 10 8 *** 18 20 16 45 45 55 14 12 13 130 125 95 900 860 870 3 3 *** 3 3 *** 13 13 12 22 21 23 1,470 1,650 1210 4 6 *** 63 57 40 55 60 60 56 63 48 38 40 40 48 63 67 235 205 105 40 43 45 62 90 80 4,018 4,246 3567 Area harvested Yield per harvested acre b b 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres Bushels Bushels Bushels 31 40 45 110 120 115 40 60 55 64 55 54 58 72 77 120 120 135 19 22 26 78 80 70 550 580 510 78 86 95 13 10 9 52 37 51 3 7 *** 37 88 *** 17 19 15 65 55 55 30 35 48 82 90 70 13 10 11 51 46 51 110 110 80 54 65 61 720 740 720 44 51 57 1 1 *** 90 100 *** 2 2 *** 68 71 *** 11 9 10 49 52 53 14 14 19 49 71 60 1,390 1,540 1,130 56 56 70 3 5 *** 53 72 *** 53 42 32 53 50 60 42 55 45 73 75 75 29 43 22 40 41 54 22 27 30 81 85 85 30 36 43 71 85 74 225 195 97 62 57 64 23 30 25 57 54 59 53 75 64 85 92 105 3,502 3,779 3,113 60 63.6 73 Production 2008 1,000 Bushels 4,800 3,300 8,640 1,760 49,880 370 616 1045 3,150 460 7,150 37,740 100 142 468 994 86,240 360 2,100 4,125 1,763 2,295 3,060 11,115 1,620 6,900 210,110
Arizona California Colorado Delaware Idaho Kansas c Kentucky Maine Maryland Michigan Minnesota Montana c Nevada c New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota c Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania South Dakota Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming US
2007 1,000 Bushels 3,410 2,560 6,960 1,482 42,900 676 111 1105 2,460 663 5,940 31,680 90 136 539 686 77,840 159 2,809 3,066 1,160 1,782 2,130 13,950 1,311 4,505 210,110
2009 1,000 Bushels 5175 2970 10395 1820 48450 459 *** 825 3360 561 4,880 41,040 *** *** 530 1,140 79,100 *** 1,920 3,375 1,188 2,550 3,182 6,208 1,475 6,720 227,323
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-56, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a
Includes area planted in the preceding fall. Preliminary c Estimates discontinued in 2009
b
Section: FEEDSTOCKS a Barley Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 (dollars per planted acre) United States 2009 2010 294.58 11.94 306.52 14.09 52.57 15.26 9.36 19.58 18.41 3.07 0.19 132.53 4.06 26.41 95.74 80.64 10.35 10.47 227.67 360.20 -53.68 173.99 239.14 11.98 251.12 12.66 41.78 15.09 9.78 25.92 19.00 3.50 0.13 127.86 4.43 27.58 98.77 88.28 10.44 10.81 240.31 368.17 -117.05 123.26 Northern Great Plains 2009 2010 255.00 5.59 260.59 11.64 41.98 14.97 7.11 12.64 17.20 0.90 0.15 106.59 2.35 21.23 93.45 52.03 10.71 9.78 189.55 296.14 -35.55 154.00 192.55 5.12 197.67 10.14 32.23 14.74 7.11 15.69 17.53 0.91 0.10 98.45 2.37 21.45 95.97 53.58 10.86 9.97 194.20 292.65 -94.98 99.22 Basin and Range 2009 2010 270.92 11.56 282.48 15.32 63.11 15.05 8.32 18.79 18.67 4.60 0.21 144.07 3.31 33.17 95.99 101.98 10.33 10.34 255.12 399.19 -116.71 138.41 220.99 10.59 231.58 13.35 48.45 14.82 8.32 23.33 19.03 4.65 0.13 132.08 3.35 33.53 98.58 105.00 10.48 10.54 261.48 393.56 -161.98 99.50 Fruitful Rim Northern Crescent 2009 2010 2009 2010 440.08 16.53 456.61 18.38 70.01 19.19 13.79 39.20 23.16 7.60 0.28 191.61 9.48 32.12 110.59 135.42 10.61 12.66 310.88 502.49 -45.88 265.00 377.63 15.13 392.76 16.02 53.75 18.89 13.79 48.66 23.61 7.69 0.18 182.59 9.58 32.47 113.58 139.44 10.77 12.90 318.74 501.33 -108.58 210.17 265.21 75.62 340.83 18.47 56.44 3.53 18.50 16.64 11.75 2.69 0.19 128.21 2.58 35.70 62.97 77.30 5.91 9.73 194.19 322.40 18.43 212.62 190.50 69.24 259.74 16.09 43.33 3.48 18.50 20.66 11.98 2.72 0.12 116.88 2.61 36.08 64.67 79.59 6.00 9.92 198.87 315.75 -56.01 142.86 Heartland 2009 2010 206.58 18.57 225.15 15.31 50.49 6.18 15.14 12.51 11.64 0.74 0.16 112.17 2.57 26.62 62.16 84.37 6.86 8.84 191.42 303.59 -78.44 112.98 141.35 17.01 158.36 13.34 38.76 6.09 15.14 15.52 11.86 0.75 0.10 101.56 2.60 26.91 63.84 86.87 6.96 9.01 196.19 297.75 -139.39 56.80
Item Gross value of production Primary product: Barley grain Secondary product: Barley silage, straw, grazing Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed b Fertilizer Chemicals c Custom operations Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Purchased irrigation water Interest on operating inputs Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipment Opportunity cost of land (rental rate) Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total, costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Yield (bushels per planted acre) Price (dollars per bushel at harvest) a Enterprise size (planted acres) a Production practices: Feed barley (percent of acres) Malt barley (percent of acres) Spring barley (percent of acres) Winter barley (percent of acres) Dryland (percent of acres) Irrigated (percent of acres) Straw harvested (percent of acres)
62.41 4.72 219 23 77 97 80 20 23
61.16 3.91 219 23 77 97 80 20 23
60.00 4.25 342 8 92 100 0 94 6 12
56.30 3.42 342 8 92 100 0 94 6 12
52.10 5.20 194 49 51 99 70 30 29
54.70 4.04 194 49 51 99 70 30 29
81.80 5.38 266 41 59 91 9 38 62 45
79.50 4.75 266 41 59 91 9 38 62 45
51.10 5.19 33 96 52 47 98 87
50.80 3.75 33 96 52 47 98 87
39.20 5.27 87 34 66 100 0 100 0 28
38.10 3.71 87 34 66 100 0 100 0 28
Source: Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/testpick.htm

a b c
Developed from survey base year, 2003. Cost of commercial fertilizers, soil conditioners, and manure. 0.1 to less than 5 percent.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn Baseline Projections, 2009 - 2020 Item 2009/10 2010/11 Area (million acres): Planted acres 86.5 88.2 Harvested acres 79.6 81.3 Yields (bushels per acre): Yield/harvested acre 164.7 154.3 Supply and use (million bushels): Beginning stocks 1,673 1,708 Production 13,110 12,540 Imports 8 10 Supply 14,792 14,257 Feed & residual 5,159 5,300 Food, seed, & industrial 5,938 6,180 Ethanol for fuel 4,568 4,800 Domestic 11,097 11,480 Exports 1,987 1,950 Total use 13,084 13,430 Ending stocks 1,708 827 Stocks/use ratio, percent 13.1 6.2 Prices (dollars per bushel): Farm price 3.55 5.20 Variable costs of production (dollars): Per acre 299 287 Per bushel 1.82 1.86 Returns over variable costs (dollars per acre): Net returns 286 515 Source:
USDA Long-Term Agricultural, Projection Tables to 2020 , February 2011, Table 19 - U.S. corn projections,
2011/12 92.0 84.9 162.0 827 13,755 10 14,592 5,200 6,265 4,875 11,465 2,000 13,465 1,127 8.4 4.80 304 1.87 474
2012/13 91.5 84.4 164.0 1,127 13,840 10 14,977 5,300 6,320 4,925 11,620 2,025 13,645 1,332 9.8 4.30 310 1.89 395
2013/14 91.0 83.9 166.0 1,332 13,925 10 15,267 5,400 6,380 4,975 11,780 2,050 13,830 1,437 10.4 4.10 314 1.89 367
2014/15 90.5 83.4 168.0 1,437 14,010 10 15,457 5,500 6,435 5,025 11,935 2,075 14,010 1,447 10.3 4.10 318 1.90 370
2015/16 90.5 83.4 170.0 1,447 14,180 10 15,637 5,600 6,495 5,075 12,095 2,100 14,195 1,442 10.2 4.10 323 1.90 374
2016/17 90.5 83.4 172.0 1,442 14,345 10 15,797 5,700 6,605 5,175 12,305 2,150 14,455 1,342 9.3 4.15 329 1.91 384
2017/18 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 91.0 83.9 174.0 1,342 14,600 10 15,952 5,750 6,740 5,300 12,490 2,200 14,690 1,262 8.6 4.20 335 1.93 396 91.5 84.4 176.0 1,262 14,855 10 16,127 5,800 6,850 5,400 12,650 2,250 14,900 1,227 8.2 4.25 341 1.94 407 92.0 84.9 178.0 1,227 15,110 10 16,347 5,875 6,930 5,475 12,805 2,300 15,105 1,242 8.2 4.25 347 1.95 410 92.0 84.9 180.0 1,242 15,280 10 16,532 5,950 6,990 5,525 12,940 2,350 15,290 1,242 8.1 4.25 353 1.96 412
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1192
The figure below shows that corn use for ethanol production has increased by almost seven fold from 2001 to 2010. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn Used for Ethanol Production, 1985-2010
6,000
5,000
4,000 Million Bushels
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 1 1985 1 1987 1 1988 1 1989 1 1990 1 1991 1 1992 1 1993 1 1994 1 1995 1 1996 1 1997 1 1998 1 1999 2 2000 2 2001 2 2002 2 2003 2 2004 2 2005 2 2006 2 2007 2 2008 2 2009 20 010a
Source: National Corn Growers Association, The World of Corn, 2011 and previous annual editions, http://www.ncga.com Note: Based on Marketing Year September - August (i.e., 1985 data are from September 1985-August 1986)
a
Crop year ending 8/11. Includes approximately 102 billion bushels to be used as distillers grain for livestock feed.
In 2010, ethanol production accounted for about 36 percent of the overall corn consumption and more than double the amount used for export. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn Usage by Segment, 2010
Seed Beverage Alcohol Cereal/Other Sweeteners Starch HFCS Fuel Ethanol Export Feed/Residual
23 135 197 260 250 515 4,900 1,950 5,200 Million Bushels
Source: National Corn Growers Association, The World of Corn, 2011 http://www.ncga.com/ Note: Crop year ending August 31, 2011. HFCS - Hi h F High Fructose C Corn S Syrup
Overall, the price for corn has been declining due to improvements in farming techniques. Though there has always been variation in corn price from year to year due to factors such as weather, affecting yield, much of the increase beginning in 2005 is likely attributable to increased demand for corn by ethanol producers. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn: Price per Bushel, 1975-2010 (constant 2010 dollars)
12
10
Dollars/Bushel
0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/
In the baseline year of 2001, 7.5% of all corn grain produced was used for ethanol production and by 2009 it rose to about 35%. Largely due to increased demand for ethanol, the acres of corn planted rose sharply in 2007 to 93 million acres but declined somewhat over the next two years; acreage variation is related to feed and export demands, crop subsidy programs, previous year grain prices and animal demand for silage. Yield variation relates to climate variation and improved varieties of corn. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Corn for grain Area Planted for Yield per all Area harvested purposes harvested acre 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 79,229 72,644 79,537 72,671 80,165 72,589 77,386 70,487 79,551 72,440 75,702 68,768 78,894 69,330 78,603 70,944 80,929 73,631 81,779 75,117 78,327 70,638 93,527 86,520 85,982 78,570 86,482 79,590 Marketing year average price per bushel Dollars 2.71 2.43 1.94 1.82 1.85 1.97 2.32 2.42 2.06 2.00 3.04 4.20 4.06 3.70 Corn for silage
Year
Production
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 a 2009
Bushels 1,000 Bushels 127.1 9,232,557 126.7 9,206,832 134.4 9,758,685 133.8 9,430,612 136.9 9,915,051 138.2 9,502,580 129.3 8,966,787 142.2 10,087,292 160.3 11,805,581 147.9 11,112,187 149.1 10,531,123 150.7 13,073,875 153.9 12,091,648 164.7 13,110,062
Yield per Value of Area harvested production Harvested Production acre 1,000 1,000 Dollars Acres Tons 1,000 Tons 25,149,013 5,607 15.4 86,581 22,351,507 6,054 16.1 97,192 18,922,084 5,913 16.1 95,479 17,103,991 6,037 15.8 95,633 18,499,002 6,082 16.8 102,156 18,878,819 6,142 16.6 101,992 20,882,448 7,122 14.4 102,293 24,472,254 6,583 16.3 107,378 24,377,913 6,101 17.6 107,293 22,194,287 5,930 18.0 106,486 32,083,011 6,487 16.2 105,129 54,666,959 6,060 17.5 106,229 49,312,615 5,965 18.7 111,619 48,588,665 5,605 19.3 108,209
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-35 and previous annual editions. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a
Preliminary
Production of sufficient quantities of corn to support ethanol production facilities occurs primarily in the mid-western states. Yields vary considerably across the states. High yields in the western states occur under irrigation. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 Area planted for all purposes 2007 1,000 Acres 340 55 610 650 1,200 26 195 70 510 320 13,200 6,500 14,200 3,900 1,440 740 28 540 18 2,650 8,400 930 3,450 84 9,400 5 14 95 135 1060 1090 2,560 3,850 320 60 1,430 2 400 4,950 860 2,150 70 92 540 195 48 4,050 95 93,527 2008 1,000 Acres 260 50 440 670 1,250 27 160 70 370 300 12,100 5,700 13,300 3,850 1,210 520 29 460 19 2,400 7,700 720 2,800 78 8,800 5 15 85 140 1,090 900 2,550 3,300 370 60 1,350 2 355 4,750 690 2,300 70 94 470 165 43 3,800 95 85,982 2009 1,000 Acres 280 50 430 550 1,100 26 170 70 420 300 12,000 5,600 13,700 4,100 1,220 630 28 470 17 2,350 7,600 730 3,000 72 9,150 4 15 80 130 1,070 870 1,950 3,350 390 60 1,350 2 335 5,000 670 2,350 65 91 480 170 47 3,850 90 86,482
a
State
Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming US
Corn for grain Area harvested Yield per harvested acre a a 2009 2009 2007 2008 2007 2008 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres Bushels Bushels Bushels 280 235 250 78 104 108 22 15 20 185 165 175 590 430 410 169 155 148 190 170 160 182 195 180 1,060 1,010 990 140 137 153
b b b b b
2007 1,000 Bushels 21,840 4,070 99,710 34,580 148,400
Production 2008 1,000 Bushels 24,440 2,475 66,650 33,150 138,370
2009 1,000 Bushels 27,000 3,500 60,680 28,800 151,470
185 35 450 105 13,050 6,370 13,900 3,680 1,340 730 465 b 2,340 7,850 910 3,270 38 9,200
152 35 310 80 11,900 5,460 12,800 3,630 1,120 510 400
163 37 370 80 11,800 5,460 13,400 3,860 1,150 610 425
99 90 127 170 175 154 171 138 128 163 101
125 105 140 170 179 160 171 134 136 144 121
145 100 140 180 174 171 182 155 165 132 145
18,315 3,150 57,150 17,850 2,283,750 980,980 2,376,900 507,840 171,520 118,990 46,965
19,000 3,675 43,400 13,600 2,130,100 873,600 2,188,800 486,420 152,320 73,440 48,400
23,635 3,700 51,800 14,400 2,053,200 933,660 2,438,800 598,300 189,750 80,520 61,625
2,140 7,200 700 2,650 35 8,550
2,070 7,150 695 2,920 26 8,850
123 146 148 140 140 160
138 164 140 144 136 163
148 174 126 153 152 178
287,820 1,146,100 134,680 457,800 5,320 1,472,000
295,320 1,180,800 98,000 381,600 4,760 1,393,650
309,320 1,244,100 87,570 446,760 3,952 1,575,300
82 54 550 1,010 2,350 3,610 270 35 980 370 4,480 790 1,970 22
74 55 640 830 2,300 3,120 320 33 880 315 4,400 630 2,030 23
70 50 595 800 1,740 3,140 320 32 920 320 4,680 590 1,960 17
124 180 128 100 116 150 145 200 124
116 180 144 78 124 135 115 200 133 65 133 118 125 157
143 185 134 117 115 174 105 215 143 111 151 148 130 155
10,168 9,720 70,400 101,000 272,600 541,500 39,150 7,000 121,520 35,890 542,080 83,740 291,560 3,300
97 121 106 148 150
8,540 9,900 92,160 64,740 285,200 421,200 36,800 6,600 117,040 b 20,475 585,200 74,340 253,750 3,611
10,010 9,250 79,730 93,600 200,100 546,360 33,600 6,880 131,560 35,520 706,680 87,320 254,800 2,635 43,230 22,575 3,780 448,290 6,300 13,110,062
405 115 27 3,280 60 86,520
340 90 26 2,880 52 78,570
330 105 30 2,930 45 795,920
86 210 111 135 129 150.7
108 205 130 137 134 153.9
131 215 126 153 140 164.7
34,830 24,150 2,997 442,800 7,740 13,037,875
36,720 18,450 3,380 394,560 6,968 12,091,648
a b
Preliminary. Not estimated.
The large majority of U.S. corn grain is produced in just a few mid-western states. The highest concentration of corn production is found in central Illinois, northern Iowa/southern Minnesota, and eastern Nebraska. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn for Grain, Harvested Acres, 2007
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, The Census of Agriculture http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Crops_and_Plants/
Due largely to increased ethanol demand, there was a remarkable increase in the number of corn acres planted in 2007. Acres harvested for grain are always less than planted acres due to silage and crop failure. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn Acres Planted and Harvested, 1975-2010 100
90
Planted
80
Million Acres
70
Harvested
60
50
40 0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Doberman et. al., noted in 2002 that average corn yields have increased linearly at a rate of 1.7 bushels per acre (bu/ac) per year. At present that translates to a rate of 1.1% per year, but if the same average linear rate continues, the percentage rate will decline. Corn yields must continue to increase at a rate of at least 1% per year to meet the demands created by expected population growth. In 2002 average corn yields approached 140 bu/ac with progressive farmers routinely harvesting 160 to 220 bu/ac. Yields rose in the 60s and 70s largely due to increasing application of fertilizer to responsive corn hybrids; however, after 1980 yield increases were maintained without continued fertilizer increases due to significant increases in nutrient use efficiency. In the past 15 years, yields have continued to increase due to improved hybrids with greater stress resistance together with improved crop management techniques such as conservation tillage, higher plant densities and improved seed qualities. Yields at a given site fluctuate as much as 10-15% from year to year due to normal variations in solar radiation and temperature regimes assuming suitable moisture levels. Lack of sufficient moisture is the most important factor reducing yields in most of the U.S. corn belt where most corn is not irrigated. The yield potential of corn continues to be much greater than the average yields currently being obtained in most locations in the U.S. Genetic improvements (particularly in drought resistance) are expected to continue to contribute to yield increases, but continued improvements in crop management will be ever more important. Key references on yield potential follow. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn Yield, 1975-2010
180.0 170.0 160.0 150.0 140.0 130.0 120.0 110.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/ Additional References: Dobermann, A., T. Arkebauer, K. Cassman, J. Lindquist, J. Specht, D. Walters, and H. Yang. 2002. Understanding and Managing Corn Yield Potential. Proceedings of the Fertilizer Industry Round Table , Charleston, South Carolina. The Fertilizer Industry Round Table, Forest Hill, Maryland, October. Dobermann, A., T. Arkebauer, K.G. Cassman, R.A. Drijber, J.L. Lindquist, J.E. Specht, D.T. Walters, H. Yang, D. Miller, D.L. Binder, G. Teichmeier, R.B. Ferguson, and C.S. Wortmann. 2003. Understanding corn yield potential in different environments. p. 67-82. In L.S. Murphy (ed.) Fluid focus: the third decade. Proceedings of the 2003 Fluid Forum, Vol. 20. Fluid Fertilizer Foundation, Manhattan, KS. Both Doberman, et. al references can be obtained at the following url: http://soilfertility.unl.edu/Materials%20to%20include/Research%20Pubs/Ecological%20Intensification.htm Tollenaar, M. and E. A. Lee. Yield potential, yield stability, and stress tolerance in maize. Field Crops Research 75 (2002):161-169. Duvick, D.N. and K.G. Cassman. 1999. Post-green revolution trends in yield potential of temperature maize in the North-Central United States. Crop Science. 39:1622-1630.
Production of food for domestic livestock is the largest single use of corn grain, accounting for nearly half of all corn grain produced. Ethanol production is included in the food, seed and industrial category. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn: Supply and Disappearance, 1996-2010 (million bushels) Supply Disappearance Domestic use Food, Feed and seed, and residual industrial 5,277 1,714 5,482 1,805 5,471 1,846 5,664 1,913 5,842 1,957 5,864 2,046 5,563 2,340 5,795 2,537 6,155 2,687 6,152 2,982 5,591 3,490 5,858 4,442 5,182 5,025 5,525 5,900 5,250 6,090 Ending stocks August 31
Year (beginning Beginning September 1) Production Imports stocks 1996 426 9,233 13 1997 883 9,207 9 1998 1,308 9,759 19 1999 1,787 9,431 15 2000 1,718 9,915 7 2001 1,899 9,503 10 2002 1,596 8,967 14 2003 1,087 10,089 14 2004 958 11,806 11 2005 2,114 11,112 9 2006 1,967 10,531 12 2007 1,304 13,038 20 2008 1,624 12,092 14 2009 b 1,673 13,110 8 2010 c 1,386 13,160 10
Total 9,672 10,099 11,085 11,232 11,639 11,412 10,578 11,190 12,775 13,235 12,510 14,362 13,729 14,791 14,556
Total Exports 6,991 1,797 7,287 1,504 7,317 1,984 7,578 1,937 7,799 1,941 7,911 1,905 7,903 1,588 8,332 1,900 8,842 1,818 9,134 2,134 9,081 2,125 10,300 2,437 10,207 1,849 11,425 1,980 11,340 2,100
Total disappear- Privately Govern ment ance held a 8,789 881 2 8,791 1,304 4 9,298 1,775 12 9,515 1,704 14 9,740 1,891 8 9,815 1,590 6 9,491 1,083 4 10,232 958 0 10,661 2,113 1 11,268 1,967 0 11,207 1,304 0 12,737 1,624 0 12,056 1,673 0 13,405 1,386 0 13,440 1,116 0
Total 883 1,308 1,787 1,718 1,899 1,596 1,087 958 2,114 1,967 1,304 1,624 1,673 1,386 1,116
a b
Includes quantity under loan and farmer-owned reserve. Preliminary. c Projected as of January 11, 2010, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Prices of corn used for ethanol production may vary for each mill depending on whether the mills are owned by farmers' cooperatives or whether the corn is purchased on the open market. Prices vary across states considerably. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn for Grain: Marketing Year Average Price and Value, by State, Crops of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Marketing year average price per bushel State Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming US 2007 Dollars 4.54 5.03 3.80 4.28 3.96 4.76 4.00 4.50 4.96 4.09 4.39 4.29 4.13 4.14 3.80 4.64 4.37 4.13 3.68 4.17 4.76 4.14 4.65 5.20 5.05 4.00 4.06 4.29 4.07 4.36 4.56 3.88 4.17 3.80 4.35 4.18 4.39 4.50 4.60 4.11 3.12 4.20 2008 Dollars 5.26 5.80 4.42 4.77 4.14 4.57 4.50 4.50 4.32 4.01 4.10 4.10 4.12 4.36 4.45 4.42 3.84 3.92 4.63 4.11 3.80 4.05 4.15 5.30 4.32 4.91 3.74 4.21 4.46 4.15 4.16 4.59 3.78 4.53 4.82 4.40 4.51 4.56 4.34 3.89 4.25 4.06 2009 Dollars
a
Value of production 2007 1,000 Dollars 99,154 20,472 378,898 148,002 587,664 87,179 12,600 257,175 88,536 9,340,538 4,306,502 10,196,901 2,097,379 710,093 452,162 217,918 1,257,773 4,733,393 495,622 1,909,026 25,323 6,094,080 47,281 50,544 355,520 404,000 1,106,756 2,323,035 159,341 30,520 554,131 139,253 2,260,474 318,212 1,268,286 13,794 152,904 108,675 13,786 1,819,908 24,149 54,666,959 2008 1,000 Dollars 128,554 14,355 294,593 158,126 572,852 86,830 16,538 195,300 58,752 8,541,701 3,581,760 8,974,080 54,880 664,115 326,808 213,928 1,134,029 4,628,736 453,740 1,568,376 18,088 5,644,283 35,624 52,470 398,131 317,873 1,066,648 1,773,252 164,128 27,390 486,886 93,980 2,212,056 336,760 1,223,075 15,888 165,607 84,132 14,669 1,534,838 29,614 54,666,959 2009a 1,000 Dollars 112,050 14,000 227,550 125,280 583,160 89,813 14,800 186,480 61,200 7,537,250 3,501,225 9,145,500 2,153,880 711,563 285,846 246,500 1,118,880 4,629,625 324,009 1,630,674 16,401 5,828,610 34,034 37,000 314,934 360,360 708,050 2,021,532 127,680 28,208 506,506 136,752 2,444,940 318,718 1,031,940 11,462 162,113 101,588 13,419 1,658,673 26,460 48,588,665
4.15 4.00 3.75 4.35 3.85 3.80 4.00 3.60 4.25 3.65 3.75 3.75 3.60 3.75 3.55 4.00 3.60 3.70 3.70 3.65 4.15 3.70 3.40 4.00 3.95 3.85 3.40 3.70 3.80 4.10 3.85 3.85 3.40 3.65 4.05 4.35 3.75 4.50 3.55 3.70 4.20 3.70
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics, Table 1-40, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a
Preliminary
These data show that government subsidies are vital to ensuring a profit to farmers, when land and labor opportunity costs are considered. However, many farmers only factor operating costs into the calculation, making corn the most profitable commodity crop in most regions of the country. If the residue from corn production also had a market as a bioenergy feedstock, then farmers in areas of high corn yield may come closer to making a profit without subsidies. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010a (dollars per planted acre) United States 2009 2010 560.04 1.18 561.22 78.92 132.72 27.68 11.98 29.00 15.69 0.14 0.43 296.56 2.41 25.67 81.11 123.90 8.13 14.49 255.71 552.27 8.95 264.66 156 3.59 250 12 88 636.55 1.13 637.68 66.15 100.30 27.39 12.15 35.73 16.03 0.15 0.26 258.16 2.44 25.92 83.46 127.33 8.23 14.71 262.09 520.25 117.43 379.52 145 4.39 250 12 88 Heartland Northern Crescent Northern Great Planes 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 606.48 0.70 607.18 80.61 139.58 30.35 10.67 22.04 13.72 0.00 0.43 297.40 1.59 22.44 77.56 142.36 7.46 13.61 265.02 562.42 44.76 309.78 168 3.61 281 5 95 676.06 0.68 676.74 67.61 105.82 30.08 10.80 26.79 13.98 0.00 0.26 255.34 1.61 22.68 79.66 146.58 7.57 13.87 271.97 527.31 149.43 421.40 154 4.39 281 5 95 441.25 3.02 444.27 80.61 150.49 24.49 14.80 27.84 15.80 0.02 0.46 314.51 3.43 36.03 77.68 104.74 11.08 19.81 252.77 567.28 -123.01 129.76 125 3.53 128 5 95 561.96 2.59 564.55 67.61 114.09 24.27 14.99 34.62 16.10 0.02 0.27 271.97 3.47 36.42 79.78 107.85 11.24 20.19 258.95 530.92 33.63 292.58 126 4.46 128 5 95 474.02 4.58 478.60 76.91 88.83 19.42 10.88 28.10 17.10 1.79 0.35 243.38 3.74 24.12 88.63 81.17 5.00 10.32 212.98 456.36 22.24 235.22 137 3.46 341 21 79 569.9 3.92 573.82 64.51 67.35 19.25 11.02 35.01 17.43 1.81 0.22 216.60 3.78 24.38 91.03 83.58 5.07 10.52 218.36 434.96 138.86 357.22 139 4.10 341 21 79 Prairie Gateway 2009 2010 532.14 2.47 534.61 71.04 92.00 22.88 16.05 66.77 23.90 0.21 0.42 293.27 4.01 26.54 100.23 89.77 9.13 13.70 243.38 536.65 -2.04 241.34 147 3.62 322 48 52 598.69 2.18 600.87 59.58 69.75 22.67 16.25 81.47 24.36 0.21 0.27 274.56 4.05 26.82 102.94 92.43 9.26 13.96 249.46 524.02 76.85 326.31 137 4.37 322 48 52 Eastern Uplands 2009 2010 560.04 5.73 565.77 73.52 168.93 27.34 10.53 19.63 13.29 0.00 0.45 313.69 1.32 42.77 72.91 85.21 6.32 11.83 220.36 534.05 31.72 252.08 156 3.59 77 2 98 526.68 5.41 532.09 61.66 128.07 27.09 10.66 22.73 13.54 0.00 0.26 264.01 1.33 43.23 74.88 87.74 6.41 12.06 225.65 489.66 42.43 268.08 114 4.62 77 2 98 Southern Seaboard 2009 2010 433.92 0.00 433.92 71.43 141.26 26.38 7.68 24.13 22.72 0.00 0.43 294.03 6.92 27.99 81.64 74.25 9.69 18.89 219.38 513.41 -79.49 139.89 113 3.84 146 13 87 499.55 0.00 499.55 59.91 107.10 26.14 7.78 28.89 23.15 0.00 0.25 253.22 6.99 28.29 83.85 76.45 9.83 19.25 224.66 477.88 21.67 246.33 97 5.15 146 13 87
Item Gross value of production Primary product: Corn grain Secondary product: Corn silage Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed Fertilizer b Chemicals Custom operationsc Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Purchased irrigation water Interest on operating capital Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipmen Opportunity cost of land (rental rate) Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total, costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Yield (bushels per planted acre) Price (dollars per bushel at harvest) Enterprise size (planted acres) a Production practices: a Irrigated (percent) Dryland (percent)

a b c
Developed from survey base year, 2005. Cost of commercial fertilizers, soil conditioners, and manure. Cost of custom operations, technical services, and commercial drying.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Oats: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Area Yield per harvested acre Marketing year average price per bushel received by farmers Dollars 1.96 1.60 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.59 1.81 1.48 1.48 1.63 1.87 2.63 3.15 2.10
a Year Planted Harvested 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 1996 4,638 2,655 1997 5,068 2,813 1998 4,891 2,752 1999 4,668 2,445 2000 4,473 2,325 2001 4,401 1,911 2002 4,995 2,058 2003 4,597 2,220 2004 4,085 1,787 2005 4,246 1,823 2006 4,166 1,564 2007 3,763 1,504 2008 3,247 1,400 2009 b 3,404 1,379
Production
Value of production 1,000 Dollars 313,910 273,284 199,475 174,307 175,432 197,181 212,078 224,910 178,327 195,166 180,899 247,644 269,763 216,566
Bushels 1,000 Bushels 57.7 153,245 59.5 167,246 60.2 165,768 59.6 145,628 64.2 149,165 61.5 117,602 56.4 116,002 65.0 144,383 64.7 115,695 63.0 114,859 59.8 93,522 60.1 90,430 63.7 89,135 67.5 93,081
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-45 and annual. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a b
Oats sown for all purposes, including oats sown in the preceding fall. Preliminary
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Oats: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 Area planteda 2007 2008 2009 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres 45 50 50 *** *** 10 215 260 250 75 45 60 70 65 60 70 70 80 35 45 40 25 15 15 145 150 200 90 60 85 29 32 32 70 75 70 270 250 250 25 15 15 75 60 70 120 95 100 100 80 90 50 60 50 460 320 350 75 75 65 80 50 50 60 45 45 115 105 110 33 33 30 330 220 200 710 600 600 35 40 45 16 12 12 30 20 20 270 270 310 40 30 40 3,763 3,247 3,404 Area harvested Yield per harvested acre 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres Bushels Bushels Bushels 16 15 11 58 50 50 *** *** 8 *** *** 80 25 20 30 99 80 105 10 7 9 55 70 65 30 25 20 56 69 56 20 20 25 61 69 78 24 30 25 62 70 65 8 5 7 53 75 69 67 75 95 71 65 65 35 25 35 45 53 53 28 31 31 70 65 65 55 60 55 56 66 63 180 175 170 60 68 71 8 6 9 50 55 55 35 30 32 50 51 56 35 35 30 61 70 69 60 64 60 58 66 77 15 30 15 55 80 70 260 130 165 59 51 68 50 50 45 62 70 75 15 10 15 31 40 34 18 18 22 78 100 100 80 80 80 56 58 61 14 19 15 42 64 55 130 120 90 72 73 73 100 100 60 40 50 47 4 4 5 80 75 81 5 4 4 60 70 54 9 5 6 50 80 80 160 190 195 67 62 68 8 12 10 47 50 61 1,504 1,400 1,379 60.1 63.7 67.5 Production 2008 1,000 Bushels 750 *** 2,000 490 1,725 1,380 2,100 375 4,875 1,325 2,015 3,960 11,900 330 1,530 2,450 4,224 2,400 6,630 3,500 400 1,800 4,640 1,216 8,760 5,000 300 280 400 11,780 600 89,135
Alabama b Arkansas California Colorado Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming US
2007 1,000 Bushels 928 *** 2,475 550 1,680 1,220 1,488 424 4,757 1,575 1,960 3,080 10,800 400 1,750 2,135 3,480 825 15,340 3,100 465 1,404 4,480 588 9,360 4,000 320 300 450 10,720 376 90,430
2009 1,000 Bushels 550 640 3,150 585 1,120 1,950 1,625 483 6,175 1,855 2,015 3,465 12,070 495 1,792 2,070 4,620 1,050 11,220 3,375 510 2,200 4,880 825 6,570 2,820 405 216 480 13,260 610 93,081
a b
Relates to the total area of oats sown for all purposes, including oats sown in the preceding fall. Estimates began in 2009.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS a Oats Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 (dollars per planted acre) United States 2009 2010 155.35 59.35 21.05 235.75 12.54 46.07 2.53 9.18 15.53 12.94 2.84 0.15 101.77 0.79 35.29 67.94 89.44 5.55 8.93 207.94 309.71 -73.96 133.98 130.168 46.47 15.77 192.41 11.97 36.26 2.43 9.24 19.31 13.11 2.87 0.10 95.28 0.81 35.96 69.30 91.85 5.67 9.07 212.67 307.96 -115.55 97.12 Northern Great Plains 2009 2010 131.88 29.50 19.10 180.48 9.11 22.62 3.81 2.80 12.19 14.19 0.84 0.10 65.66 0.37 23.06 75.03 64.58 4.46 7.74 175.24 240.90 -60.42 114.82 114.82 23.42 14.57 152.81 8.65 17.36 3.75 2.80 15.13 14.46 0.86 0.06 63.07 0.38 23.31 77.06 66.50 4.53 7.89 179.67 242.74 -89.94 89.73 Prarie Gateway 2009 2010 91.133 6.53 64.03 161.69 10.16 68.36 0.98 3.06 10.79 10.44 0.27 0.15 104.21 0.40 28.74 53.25 51.18 6.13 5.67 145.37 249.58 -87.89 57.48 75.336 5.70 42.09 123.13 9.65 52.46 0.97 3.06 13.39 10.64 0.27 0.09 90.53 0.40 29.05 54.69 52.70 6.22 5.78 148.84 239.37 -116.24 32.60 Northern Crescent 2009 2010 154.752 77.41 16.88 249.04 14.41 61.62 2.48 12.02 18.93 13.33 2.01 0.18 124.98 1.63 45.68 66.27 87.51 5.78 9.66 216.53 341.51 -92.47 124.06 132.912 58.74 13.23 204.88 13.69 47.28 2.44 12.02 23.49 13.59 2.05 0.11 114.67 1.65 46.17 68.06 90.11 5.86 9.84 221.69 336.36 -131.48 90.21 Heartland 2009 2010 128.212 76.81 14.92 219.94 13.70 39.20 2.03 12.61 15.44 12.20 6.20 0.15 101.53 0.22 34.32 68.70 122.96 5.96 9.94 242.10 343.63 -123.69 118.41 103.6 62.34 10.32 176.26 13.02 30.08 2.00 12.61 19.17 12.43 6.32 0.10 95.73 0.22 34.68 70.56 126.60 6.05 10.13 248.24 343.97 -167.71 80.53
Item Gross value of production Primary product: Oats Secondary product: Straw Secondary product: Hay, silage, grazing Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed b Fertilizer Chemicals Custom operations Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Purchased irrigation water Interest on operating inputs Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipment Opportunity cost of land (rental rate) Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total, costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Yield (bushels per planted acre) Price (dollars per bushel at harvest) a Enterprise size (planted acres) a Production practices: Irrigated (percent of acres) Dryland (percent of acres) Straw (percent of acres)
65 2.39 27 1 99 71
61.4 2.12 27 1 99 71
63 2.10 66 2 98 47
60 1.92 66 2 98 47
33 2.77 47 5 95 18
34 2.19 47 5 95 18
62 2.48 25 0 100 79
57 2.34 25 0 100 79
53 2.41 23 0 100 82
52 2.00 23 0 100 82

a b
Developed from survey base year, 2005. Cost of commercial fertilizers, soil conditioners, and manure.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Ricea: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Area Yield per harvested acre Pounds 6,120 5,897 5,663 5,866 6,281 6,496 6,578 6,670 6,988 6,624 6,898 7,219 6,846 7,085 Marketing year average price per cwt. received by farmers Dollars 9.96 9.70 8.89 5.93 5.61 4.25 4.49 8.08 7.33 7.65 9.96 12.80 16.80 14.30
Year Planted 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003b 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1,000 Acres 2,824 3,125 3,285 3,531 3,060 3,334 3,240 3,022 3,347 3,384 2,838 2,761 2,995 3,135
Harvested 1,000 Acres 2,804 3,103 3,257 3,512 3,039 3,314 3,207 2,997 3,325 3,364 2,821 2,748 2,976 3,103
Production 1,000 cwt. 171,599 182,992 184,443 206,027 190,872 215,270 210,960 199,897 232,362 222,833 194,585 198,388 203,733 219,850
Value of production 1,000 Dollars 1,690,270 1,756,136 1,654,157 1,231,207 1,049,961 925,055 979,628 1,628,948 1,701,822 1,738,598 1,990,783 2,600,871 3,603,460 3,145,521
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-21 and previous annual editions, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a b
Rough Sweet rice yield and production included in 2003 as short grain but not in previous years.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Rice: Area, Yield, and Production by State, 2007-2009a Area Planted b 2009 2007 2008 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres 1,331.0 1,401.0 1,486.0 534.0 519.0 561.0 380.0 470.0 470.0 190.0 230.0 245.0 180.0 200.0 202.0 146.0 175.0 171.0 2,761.0 2,995.0 3,135.0 Area harvested 2007 2008 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres 1,325.0 1,395.0 533.0 517.0 378.0 464.0 189.0 229.0 178.0 199.0 145.0 172.0 2,748.0 2,976.0 Yield per harvested acre b 2009 2007 2008 Pounds 7,230 8,200 6,140 7,350 6,900 6,550 7,219 Pounds 6,660 8,320 5,830 6,850 6,620 6,900 6,846 Production 2008
State
Arkansas California Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Texas US
2009 1,000 Acres 1,470.0 556.0 464.0 243.0 200.0 170.0 3,103.0
2007
2009
Pounds 1,000 cwt. 1,000 cwt. 1,000 cwt. 6,800 95,814 92,938 99,924 8,600 43,684 43,030 47,804 6,300 23,222 27,037 29,217 6,700 13,892 15,687 16,281 6,710 12,279 13,173 13,423 7,770 9,497 11,868 13,201 7,085 198,388 203,733 219,850
a b
Sweet rice acreage included with short grain. Preliminary
Section: FEEDSTOCKS a Rice Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 (dollars per planted acre) United States 2009 2010 1072.84 1072.84 65.48 105.26 75.39 49.03 91.80 28.50 12.42 20.34 0.62 448.84 20.08 45.42 117.81 168.20 18.25 25.86 395.62 844.46 228.38 624.00 795.75 795.75 65.65 79.20 73.65 48.03 115.02 29.09 11.24 23.15 0.42 445.45 20.23 44.95 120.81 167.61 18.65 26.00 398.25 843.70 -47.95 350.30 Ark Non-Delta 2009 2010 927.50 927.50 61.20 89.57 66.05 31.95 97.94 29.95 0.21 12.15 0.55 389.57 21.44 38.62 120.21 127.18 18.76 20.71 346.92 736.49 191.01 537.93 681.39 681.39 61.58 67.91 65.45 32.35 121.56 30.52 0.21 14.44 0.38 394.40 21.67 39.04 123.46 130.96 19.04 21.11 355.28 749.68 -68.29 286.99 California 2009 2010 1594.44 1594.44 73.72 119.87 105.77 93.80 60.79 27.56 49.19 34.79 0.77 566.26 25.94 71.28 123.47 333.03 15.76 37.31 606.79 1,173.05 421.39 1028.18 1316.00 1316.00 74.17 90.88 104.82 94.98 75.45 28.08 49.81 40.17 0.52 558.88 26.22 72.04 126.80 342.91 15.99 38.02 621.98 1,180.86 135.14 757.12 Mississippi River Delta 2009 2010 974.16 974.16 70.05 102.23 65.29 38.95 92.75 27.00 0.00 9.67 0.57 406.51 21.62 31.65 109.48 120.10 22.79 29.12 334.76 741.27 232.89 567.65 717.10 717.10 70.48 77.51 64.70 39.44 115.13 27.52 0.00 11.84 0.39 407.01 21.85 31.99 112.43 123.67 23.12 29.67 342.73 749.74 -32.64 310.09 Gulf Coast 2009 2010 996.04 996.04 62.45 129.47 78.42 55.74 106.05 27.78 18.28 36.23 0.69 515.11 10.04 50.91 116.04 156.36 14.64 23.15 371.14 886.25 109.79 480.93 713.30 713.30 62.84 98.16 77.71 56.44 131.64 28.31 18.51 42.54 0.47 516.62 10.15 51.45 119.17 160.99 14.85 23.59 380.20 896.82 -183.52 196.68
Item Gross value of production Primary product: Rice Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed Fertilizer b Chemicals Custom operations Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Purchased irrigation water Commercial drying Interest on operating inputs Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipment Opportunity cost of land (rental rate) Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total, costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Price (dollars per cwt at harvest) Yield (cwt per planted acre) Enterprise size (planted acres) a
14.49 74.04 511
11.3 70.42 511
13 70.00 521
10 67.00 521
19 86.00 431
16 80.00 431
14 72.00 634
10 71.00 634
13 74.00 469
10 70.00 469

a b
Developed from survey base year, 2006. Cost of commercial fertilizers, soil conditioners, and manure.
Sorghum is currently a small contributor to ethanol production, but because it is largely grown in an area of the country that does not significantly overlap with corn production, it could become important in expanding the range of locations of ethanol production facilities. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Sorghum for Grain, Harvested Acres, 2007
The price for sorghum declined from 1975 to 1999 but has stabilized and even shown some increase in recent years. Sorghum has a different geographic distribution than corn but has similar properties, making it a viable crop for the production of ethanol. The price fluctuation for sorghum is also very similar to that of corn. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Sorghum: Price per Bushel, 1975-2009 (Constant 2009 dollars)
10 9 8 7
Dollars/Bushel
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Sorghum is grown in areas that are generally too dry for unirrigated corn, thus potential resource areas for starch based ethanol can be expanded through use of sorghum. Grain weight per bushel is 56 lbs. at assumed harvest moisture content of 14%. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Sorghum: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Area Planted for all Area purposesa harvested 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 13,097 11,811 10,052 9,158 9,626 7,723 9,288 8,544 9,195 7,726 10,248 8,579 9,589 7,125 9,420 7,798 7,486 6,517 6,454 5,736 6,522 4,937 7,712 6,792 8,284 7,271 6,633 5,520 Sorghum for grainb Yield per harvested acre Bushels 67.3 69.2 67.3 69.7 60.9 59.9 50.6 52.7 69.6 68.5 56.1 73.2 65.0 69.4 Sorghum for silage Yield per harvested acre
Year
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009d
Marketing year Value of average price per Area productionc Harvested Production cwtc 1,000 1,000 Bushels Dollars 1,000 Dollars Acres 795,274 4.17 1,986,316 423 633,545 3.95 1,408,534 412 519,933 2.97 904,123 308 595,166 2.80 937,081 320 470,526 3.37 845,755 278 514,040 3.46 978,783 352 360,713 4.14 855,140 408 411,219 4.26 964,978 343 453,606 3.19 843,344 352 392,739 3.33 736,629 311 276,824 5.88 883,204 347 497,445 7.28 1,925,312 392 472,342 5.72 1,631,065 408 382,983 5.90 1,242,196 254
Production
Tons 1,000 Tons 11.8 4,976 13.1 5,385 11.4 3,526 11.6 3,716 10.5 2,932 11.0 3,860 9.6 3,913 10.4 3,558 13.6 4,782 13.6 4,224 13.3 4,612 13.4 5,246 13.8 5,646 14.5 3,680
Source: USDA, 2010, Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-62, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp

a b
Grain and sweet sorghum for all uses, including syrup. Includes both grain sorghum for grain, and sweet sorghum for grain or seed. c Based on the reported price of grain sorghum; cwt = 100 pounds. d Preliminary.
Sorghum is used for ethanol production only in the two states that planted over 2 million acres, Kansas and Texas. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Sorghum: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 Area planted for all purposes State 2007 1,000 Acres 12 42 225 39 220 65 80 2,800 15 250 145 110 350 105 12 240 15 9 210 18 2,750 7,712 2008 1,000 Acres 12 57 125 47 230 60 80 2,900 13 120 85 90 300 130 16 350 11 12 170 26 3,450 8,284 2009 1,000 Acres *** 35 40 *** 180 55 40 2,700 *** 70 13 50 235 85 *** 250 *** *** 180 *** 2,700 6,633
a
Alabamab Arizona Arkansas b California Colorado Georgia Illinois Kansas b Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico b North Carolina Oklahoma b Pennsylvania b South Carolina South Dakota b Tennessee Texas US
Sorghum for grain Area harvested Yield per harvested acre Production a a a 2009 2009 2009 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres Bushels Bushels Bushels Bushels Bushels Bushels 6 6 8 40 53 85 240 318 *** 20 27 37 90 90 79 1800 2,430 680 215 115 *** 96 88 *** 20,640 10,120 2,923 10 9 *** 85 95 *** 850 855 *** 150 150 150 37 30 45 5,550 4,500 6,750 45 44 40 46 45 53 2,070 1,980 2,120 77 76 36 81 103 82 6,237 7,828 2,952 2,650 2,750 2,550 79 78 88 209,350 214,500 224,400 12 11 *** 90 90 *** 1,080 990 *** 245 110 65 95 87 82 23,275 9,570 5,330 115 82 11 85 71 70 9,775 5,822 770 100 80 43 96 97 86 9,600 7,760 3,698 240 210 140 94 91 93 22,560 19,110 13,020 75 80 50 40 43 46 3,000 3,440 2,300 8 13 *** 55 56 *** 440 728 *** 220 310 220 56 45 56 12,320 13,950 12,320 3 3 *** 56 37 *** 168 111 *** 6 8 *** 35 46 *** 210 368 *** 130 115 120 60 64 61 7,800 7,360 7,320 15 22 *** 82 91 *** 1,230 2,002 *** 2,450 3,050 2,050 65 52 48 159,250 158,600 98,400 6,792 7,271 5,520 73 65 69.4 497,445 472,342 382,983
Source: USDA, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-65, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp

a b
Preliminary. Estimates discontinued in 2009
The lower yields of sorghum grain results in lower profit in sorghum production compared to corn. Sorghum biomass production can be quite high, making it a potential source of crop residue in some areas of the country. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Sorghum Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010a (dollars per planted acre) Item Gross value of production: Primary product: Sorghum Secondary product: Sorgum silage Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed Fertilizer b Chemicals Custom operations Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Purchased irrigation water Interest on operating inputs Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipment Opportunity cost of land Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Sorghum Yield: bushels per planted acre Price: dollars per bushel Enterprise size (planted acres)a a Production practices: Irrigated (percent) Dryland (percent) United States 2009 2010 183.6 9.32 192.92 7.47 43.41 21.18 11.37 36.76 19.27 0.15 0.21 139.82 6.11 29.87 78.96 44.7 5.42 8.58 173.64 313.46 -120.54 53.10 292.79 9.46 302.25 7.58 33.22 21.34 10.37 47.61 19.79 0.12 1.4 141.43 5.89 30.42 81.13 48.39 4.74 8.6 179.17 320.6 -18.35 160.82 Heartland 2009 2010 248.80 0.00 248.80 12.31 85.94 24.48 6.73 15.16 17.28 0.00 0.23 162.13 2.61 28.04 69.67 86.55 29.44 29.27 245.58 407.71 -158.91 86.67 338.92 0.00 338.92 12.62 65.9 24.15 6.14 18.46 17.61 0.00 1.45 146.33 2.64 28.34 71.23 93.89 25.61 29.83 251.54 397.87 -58.95 192.59 Prairie Gateway 2009 2010 202.34 12.3 214.64 6.88 42.45 24.83 11.3 42.60 20.4 0.00 0.22 148.68 3.8 31.7 81.99 43.75 5.52 7.39 174.15 322.83 -108.19 65.96 300.56 12.03 312.59 7.05 32.55 24.5 10.31 53.07 20.79 0.00 1.48 149.75 Fruitful Rim 2009 2010 125.02 0.00 125.02 8.96 46.42 9.06 12.25 22.67 17.3 0.69 0.17 117.52 269.75 0.00 269.75 9.18 35.59 8.94 11.17 33.14 17.63 0.63 1.16 117.44 15.42 26.12 75.24 49.8 3.32 11.55 181.45 298.89 -29.14 152.310 Northern Great Plains 2009 2010 151.90 5.46 157.36 9.61 37.01 17.46 8.83 7.18 9.06 0.19 0.13 89.47 0.65 17.44 52.73 47.970 7.72 12.12 138.63 228.1 -70.74 67.89 204.45 5.05 209.5 9.85 28.38 17.23 8.05 8.82 9.23 0.17 0.82 82.55 0.66 17.63 53.91 52.04 6.710 12.35 143.3 225.85 -16.35 126.95
3.84 15.26 32.04 25.84 83.83 73.59 47.46 45.91 4.8 3.820 7.53 11.33 179.5 175.75 329.25 293.27 -16.66 -168.25 162.84 7.5
60 3.06 297 100 11 89
67 4.37 297 100 11 89
80 3.11 125 1 6 94
74 4.58 125 1 6 94
67 3.02 269 72 13 87
68 4.42 269 72 13 87
38 3.29 785 23 13 87
65 4.15 785 23 13 87
49 3.1 272 3 13 87
47 4.35 272 3 13 87
Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/testpick.htm

a b
Developed from survey base year, 2003. Commercial fertilizer and soil conditioners.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Wheat Baseline Projections, 2009 - 2021 Item 2009/10 2010/11 Area (million acres): Planted acres 59.2 53.6 Harvested acres 49.9 47.6 Yields (bushels per acre): Yield/harvested acre 44.5 46.4 Supply and use (million bushels): Beginning stocks 657 976 Production 2,218 2,208 Imports 119 110 Supply 2,993 3,294 Food 917 940 Seed 69 76 Feed and Residual 150 180 Domestic Use 1,137 1,196 Exports 881 1,250 Total use 2,018 2,446 Ending stocks 976 848 Stocks/use ratio, percent 48.4 34.7 Prices (dollars per bushel): Farm price 4.87 5.50 Variable costs of production (dollars): Per acre 128.51 125.24 Per bushel 2.89 2.70 Returns over variable costs (dollars per acre): Net returns 88 130 Source:
USDA Long-Term Agricultural, Projection Tables to 2020 , February 2011, Table 23 - "U.S. Wheat Long-Term Projections",
2011/12 57.0 48.5 43.8 848 2,125 110 3,083 950 75 190 1,215 1,150 2,365 718 30.4 6.50 132.70 3.03 152
2012/13 55.5 47.2 44.2 718 2,085 110 2,913 959 73 175 1,207 1,000 2,207 706 32.0 5.90 135.57 3.07 125
2013/14 54.0 45.9 44.5 706 2,045 110 2,861 968 72 175 1,215 900 2,115 746 35.3 5.55 137.68 3.09 109
2014/15 53.0 45.1 44.8 746 2,020 115 2,881 977 70 175 1,222 900 2,122 759 35.8 5.45 139.84 3.12 104
2015/16 52.0 44.2 45.2 759 2,000 115 2,874 986 70 175 1,231 900 2,131 743 34.9 5.45 142.32 3.15 104
2016/17 51.5 43.8 45.5 743 1,995 120 2,858 995 70 175 1,240 900 2,140 718 33.6 5.50 145.16 3.19 105
2017/18 51.5 43.8 45.8 718 2,005 120 2,843 1,004 70 175 1,249 900 2,149 694 32.3 5.50 147.90 3.23 104
2018/19 51.5 43.8 46.1 694 2,020 125 2,839 1,013 69 175 1,257 900 2,157 682 31.6 5.55 150.66 3.27 105
2019/20 51.0 43.4 46.5 682 2,020 125 2,827 1,022 69 175 1,266 900 2,166 661 30.5 5.55 153.60 3.30 104
2020/21 51.0 43.4 46.8 661 2,030 130 2,821 1,031 69 175 1,275 900 2,175 646 29.7 5.60 156.59 3.35 105
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1192
Overall, the price for wheat has been declining due to improvements in farming techniques. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Wheat: Price per Bushel, 1975-2009 (constant 2009 dollars)
16 14 12
Dollars/Bushel
10 8 6 4 2 0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Wheat: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Area Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Planteda 1,000 Acres 75,105 70,412 65,821 62,664 62,549 59,432 60,318 62,141 59,644 57,214 57,344 60,460 63,193 59,133 harvested 1,000 Acres 62,819 62,840 59,002 53,773 53,063 48,473 45,824 53,063 49,969 50,104 46,800 50,999 55,699 49,868 Marketing year average price per bushel received Yield per b harvested acre Production by farmers Bushels 1,000 Bushels Dollars 36.3 2,277,388 4.30 39.5 2,481,466 3.38 43.2 2,547,321 2.65 42.7 2,295,560 2.48 42.0 2,228,160 2.62 40.2 1,947,453 2.78 35.0 1,605,878 3.56 44.2 2,344,415 3.40 43.2 2,156,790 3.40 42.0 2,103,325 3.42 38.6 1,808,416 4.26 40.2 2,051,088 6.48 44.9 2,499,164 6.78 44.4 2,216,171 4.85
Value of b production 1,000 Dollars 9,782,238 8,286,741 6,780,623 5,586,675 5,771,786 5,412,834 5,637,416 7,927,981 7,277,932 7,167,166 7,694,734 13,289,326 16,625,759 10,626,176
a b
Includes area seeded in preceding fall for winter wheat.
Includes allowance for loans outstanding and purchases by the Government valued at the average loan and purchase rate, by States, where applicable.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Wheat: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 State Area planteda 2007 2008 2009 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres 120 240 220 89 159 132 820 1070 430 640 840 770 2,520 2,190 2,630 57 80 70 13 25 17 360 480 340 1,235 1,400 1,310 1,000 1,200 850 420 580 470 35 40 28 10,400 9,600 9,300 440 580 510 235 400 185 220 255 230 550 730 620 1,765 1,925 1,655 370 520 180 1,050 1,250 780 5,170 5,740 5,520 2,050 1,750 1,700 23 21 20 31 35 34 490 430 450 100 130 115 630 820 700 8,595 9,230 8,680 820 1,120 1,010 5,900 5,600 5,700 855 960 890 170 195 190 160 220 165 3,508 3,661 3,209 420 620 430 6,200 5,800 6,400 146 150 154 230 310 250 2,170 2,290 2,290 8 11 9 299 373 335 146 163 155 60,460 63,193 59,133 Area harvested Yield per harvested acre 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres Bushels Bushels Bushels 76 200 180 42.0 71.0 55.0 86 155 129 101.4 97.9 99.4 700 980 390 41.0 57.0 44.0 345 545 485 85.4 90.3 87.0 2,369 1,936 2,479 39.2 30.8 40.6 55 79 67 68.0 77.0 62.0 9 23 14 55.0 55.0 43.0 230 400 250 40.0 56.0 42.0 1,175 1,330 1,250 71.2 73.8 79.3 890 1,150 820 55.0 64.0 56.0 370 560 450 56.0 69.0 67.0 28 35 22 48.0 48.0 45.0 8,600 8,900 8,800 33.0 40.0 42.0 250 460 390 48.0 71.0 57.0 220 385 175 54.0 57.0 56.0 160 180 195 66.0 73.0 60.0 530 710 560 65.0 69.0 69.0 1,710 1,870 1,595 47.9 55.9 52.8 330 485 165 56.0 62.0 50.0 880 1,160 730 43.0 48.0 47.0 5,065 5,470 5,305 29.6 30.1 33.3 1,960 1,670 1,600 43.0 44.0 48.0 13 11 13 99.2 100.1 97.8 28 33 29 51.0 61.0 51.0 300 140 140 28.0 30.0 25.0 85 122 105 53.0 63.0 65.0 500 720 600 40.0 60.0 49.0 8,405 8,640 8,415 35.6 36.0 44.8 730 1,090 980 61.0 68.0 72.0 3,500 4,500 3,500 28.0 37.0 22.0 835 945 877 52.3 55.7 55.7 155 185 175 58.0 64.0 56.0 135 205 150 30.0 54.0 47.0 3,327 3,420 3,009 43.1 50.5 42.9 260 520 340 41.0 63.0 51.0 3,800 3,300 2,450 37.0 30.0 25.0 132 139 147 42.8 41.4 49.5 205 280 210 64.0 71.0 58.0 2,137 2,255 2,225 58.7 52.7 55.3 6 8 5 57.0 60.0 50.0 278 357 315 67.1 64.5 68.0 130 146 132 25.4 29.4 38.0 50,999 55,699 49,868 40.2 44.9 44.4 Production 2008 1,000 Bushels 14,200 15,172 55,860 49,225 59,700 6 1,265 22,400 98,170 73,600 38,640 1,680 356,000 32,660 21,945 13,140 48,990 104,440 30,070 55,680 164,730 73,480 1,101 2,013 4 7,686 43,200 311,200 74 166,500 52,600 11,840 11,070 172,540 32,760 99,000 5,756 19,880 118,790 480 23,012 4,286 2,499,164
Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming US
2007 1,000 Bushels 3,192 8,724 28,700 29,465 92,980 3,740 495 9,200 83,645 48,950 20,720 1,344 283,800 12,000 11,880 10,560 34,450 81,900 18,480 37,840 149,820 84,280 1,290 1,428 8,400 4,505 20,000 298,875 44,530 98,000 43,680 8,990 4,050 143,515 10,660 140,600 5,656 13,120 125,342 342 18,640 3,300 2,051,088
2009 1,000 Bushels 9,900 12,825 17,160 42,200 100,610 4,154 602 10,500 99,130 45,920 30,150 990 369,600 22,230 9,800 11,700 38,640 84,175 8,250 34,310 176,625 76,800 1,272 1,479 3,500 6,825 29,400 377,190 70,560 77,000 48,858 9,800 7,050 129,147 17,340 61,250 7,278 12,180 123,085 250 21,420 5,016 2,216,171
a
Includes area planted preceding fall.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Wheat: Supply and Disappearance, 1996-2009 (million bushels) Supply Disappearance Domestic use Total Ending disappea stocks rance May 31 2302 444 2,298 722 2,427 946 2,386 950 2,392 876 2,154 777 1,969 491 2,353 546 2,234 540 2,154 571 2,045 456 2,314 306 2,275 657 2,018 973
Year (beginning Beginning September 1) stocks Production Importsa 1996 376 2,277 92 1997 444 2,481 95 1998 722 2,547 103 1999 946 2,296 95 2000 950 2,228 90 2001 876 1,947 108 2002 777 1,606 77 2003 491 2,344 63 2004 546 2,157 71 2005 540 2,103 81 2006 571 1,808 122 2007 456 2,051 113 2008 306 2,499 127 2009 c 657 2,216 119
Total 2,746 3,020 3,373 3,336 3,268 2,931 2,460 2,899 2,774 2,725 2,501 2,620 2,932 2,991
Food 891 914 909 929 950 926 919 912 910 917 938 947 927 917
Seed 102 92 81 92 79 83 84 80 78 77 82 88 78 70
Feedb 308 251 391 279 300 182 116 203 181 157 117 115 255 149
Total 1,301 1,257 1,381 1,300 1,330 1,192 1,119 1,194 1,168 1,151 1,137 1,050 1,260 1,137
Exportsa 1,002 1,040 1,046 1,086 1,062 962 850 1,158 1,066 1,003 908 1,264 1,015 881
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 1-7, and previous annual editions, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a b
Imports and exports include flour and other products expressed in wheat equivalent. Approximates feed and residual use and includes negligible quantities used for distilled spirits. c Preliminary. Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Wheat: Marketing Year Average Price and Value, by State, Crop of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Marketing year average price per bushel Value of production 2009b 2009b 2007 2008 2007 2008 Dollars Dollars Dollars 1,000 Dollars 1,000 Dollars 1,000 Dollars 5.30 5.95 4.60 16,918 84,490 45,540 7.03 8.27 8.85 61,329 125,993 112,970 4.72 5.88 4.85 135,464 328,457 83,226 5.41 7.08 5.70 159,583 352,644 240,600 6.01 6.62 4.50 561,326 397,140 451,962 5.56 5.96 3.50 20,794 36,255 14,539 4.00 5.50 4.30 1,980 6,958 2,589 6.50 5.95 4.30 59,800 133,280 45,150 6.56 6.38 4.75 549,000 626,694 469,179 5.37 5.89 3.85 262,862 433,504 176,792 5.20 5.91 4.20 107,744 228,362 126,630 5.25 5.90 3.95 7,056 9,912 3,911 5.93 6.94 4.85 1,682,934 2,470,640 1,792,560 5.28 5.60 4.60 63,360 182,896 102,258 5.20 5.50 4.70 61,776 120,698 46,060 5.97 5.89 3.60 63,043 77,395 42,120 5.01 5.63 4.25 172,595 275,814 164,220 7.28 7.06 4.80 595,467 739,133 402,825 4.30 5.36 4.50 79,464 161,175 37,125 5.17 5.35 4.30 195,633 297,888 147,533 7.14 6.84 5.15 1,075,754 1,138,548 906,149 5.82 6.68 4.90 490,510 490,846 376,320 6.50 6.79 4.65 8,363 7,478 5,934 5.80 6.15 3.75 8,282 12,380 5,546 5.50 7.70 4.70 46,200 32,340 16,450 6.92 6.16 4.70 31,175 47,346 32,078 4.90 5.80 4.35 98,000 251,424 127,890 7.74 7.31 4.85 2,339,614 2,296,523 1,822,071 5.37 5.82 4.35 239,126 431,378 306,936 6.22 6.93 4.80 609,560 1,153,845 369,600 8.23 6.56 4.60 358,968 343,104 223,633 6.60 5.42 4.10 59,334 64,173 40,180 4.55 5.95 4.85 18,428 65,867 34,193 6.42 6.92 5.10 899,263 1,199,255 661,874 5.05 5.71 4.65 53,833 187,060 80,631 6.40 7.58 5.25 899,840 750,420 321,563 8.30 7.97 6.30 46,822 45,855 40,090 5.78 5.88 4.05 75,834 116,894 49,329 7.58 6.26 4.80 949,132 745,163 585,473 6.17 5.85 4.20 2,110 2,808 1,050 5.30 5.47 4.10 99,002 125,803 87,822 6.68 6.51 4.70 22,048 27,921 23,575 6.48 6.78 4.85 13,289,326 16,625,759 10,626,176
Statea Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming US
a b
States with no data are not listed. Preliminary
Section: FEEDSTOCKS a Wheat Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 (dollars per planted acre) United States 2009 2010 218.97 7.98 226.95 15.82 53.45 10.25 7.90 17.13 13.72 0.38 0.17 118.82 2.74 23.82 62.64 57.34 8.62 9.21 164.37 283.19 -56.24 108.13 207.93 7.31 215.24 11.76 41.23 10.37 7.92 21.57 14.06 0.40 0.11 107.42 2.85 24.15 64.63 58.59 8.83 9.43 168.48 275.90 -60.66 107.82 Northern Great Plains 2009 2010 239.26 3.34 242.60 16.47 45.96 17.56 8.22 8.68 11.59 0.12 0.16 108.76 2.10 16.29 58.17 54.76 10.97 10.54 152.83 261.59 -18.99 133.84 241.50 3.06 244.56 12.45 36.12 17.29 8.22 10.77 11.81 0.13 0.10 96.89 2.13 16.47 59.74 56.38 11.13 10.75 156.60 253.49 -8.93 147.67 Prarie Gateway 2009 2010 167.04 9.44 176.48 11.08 46.97 4.62 7.54 21.08 14.84 0.09 0.15 106.37 2.65 27.58 60.23 43.27 6.22 7.28 147.23 253.60 -77.12 70.11 146.86 8.65 155.51 8.37 36.92 4.55 7.54 26.17 15.13 0.09 0.10 98.87 2.68 27.88 61.86 44.55 6.31 7.41 150.69 249.56 -94.05 56.64 Basin and Range 2009 2010 282.49 3.64 286.13 22.11 74.20 17.20 7.56 12.96 14.73 0.94 0.22 149.92 4.60 30.91 75.75 73.79 11.00 9.85 205.90 355.82 -69.69 136.21 328.72 3.33 332.05 16.72 58.32 16.94 7.56 16.09 15.01 0.95 0.13 131.72 4.65 31.24 77.80 75.98 11.16 10.04 210.87 342.59 -10.54 200.33 Fruitful Rim Northern Crescent 2009 2010 2009 2010 300.78 11.17 311.95 18.88 60.63 10.82 8.23 52.90 21.10 3.37 0.26 176.19 8.24 38.48 99.58 110.41 10.97 13.09 280.77 456.96 -145.01 135.76 347.05 10.23 357.28 14.28 47.66 10.66 8.23 65.66 21.50 3.41 0.17 171.57 8.33 38.89 102.28 113.69 11.13 13.34 287.66 459.23 -101.95 185.71 321.18 26.91 348.09 41.03 110.99 6.62 12.91 10.43 12.49 0.94 0.28 195.69 1.36 28.45 69.64 95.42 12.40 16.50 223.77 419.46 -71.37 152.40 357.57 24.64 382.21 31.02 87.24 6.52 12.91 12.95 12.73 0.95 0.16 164.48 1.37 28.75 71.52 98.25 12.58 16.81 229.28 393.76 -11.55 217.73 Heartland 2009 2010 274.39 16.13 290.52 32.55 106.73 5.92 7.11 8.28 10.42 0.65 0.25 171.91 1.19 19.14 60.97 105.58 7.95 9.70 204.53 376.44 -85.92 118.61 272.27 14.77 287.04 24.61 83.89 5.83 7.11 10.28 10.61 0.66 0.14 143.13 1.20 19.35 62.62 108.71 8.07 9.89 209.84 352.97 -65.93 143.91
Item Gross value of production Primary product: Wheat grain Secondary product: Silage, straw, grazing Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed b Fertilizer Chemicals Custom operations Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Purchased irrigation water and straw baling Interest on operating inputs Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipmen Opportunity cost of land (rental rate) Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total, costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Yield (bushels per planted acre) Price (dollars per bushel at harvest) a Enterprise size (planted acres) a Production practices: Winter wheat (percent of acres) Spring wheat (percent of acres) Durum wheat (percent of acres) Irrigated (percent of acres) Dryland (percent of acres) Straw (percent of acres)
40.4 5.42 412 67 28 5 95 7
45.4 4.58 412 67 28 5 95 7

c
46.1 5.19 618 27 61 12 99 5
48.3 5.00 618 27 61 12 99 5
28.9 5.78 443 100 0 0 7 93
36.9 3.98 443 100 0 0 7 93
53.3 5.30 858 75 25 0 8 92 6
61.1 5.38 858 75 25 0 8 92 6
55.7 5.40 584 72 27 23 67 13
63.1 5.50 584 72 27 23 67 13
70.9 4.53 87 93 7 0 0 100 42
68.5 5.22 87 93 7 0 0 100 42
61.8 4.44 104 83 17 0 0 100 23
57.2 4.76 104 83 17 0 0 100 23

a b c
Developed from survey base year, 2004. Cost of commercial fertilizers, soil conditioners, and manure. 0.1 to less than 5 percent.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Oil per Acre Production for Various Crops Oil/ Acre (gallons) 610 461 383 335 307 276 270 245 230 194 188 186 183 146 145 137 136 124 122 119 109 105 98 96 Oil/ Acre (gallons) 85 81 80 72 71 60 59 55 55 54 49 49 47 46 37 33 31 28 26 24 23 22 18 18
Plant Oil Palm Macauba Palm Pequi Buriti Palm Oiticia Coconut Avocado Brazil Nut Macadamia Nut Jatropa Babassu Palm Jojoba Pecan Bacuri Castor Bean Gopher Plant Piassava Olive Tree Rapeseed Opium Poppy Peanut Cocoa Sunflower Tung Oil Tree
Latin Name Elaeis guineensis Acrocomia aculeata Caryocar brasiliense Mauritia flexuosa Licania rigida Cocos nucifera Persea americana Bertholletia excelsa Macadamia terniflora Jatropha curcas Orbignya martiana Simmondsia chinensis Carya illinoensis Platonia insignis Ricinus communis Euphorbia lathyris Attalea funifera Olea europaea Brassica napus Papaver somniferum Ariachis hypogaea Theobroma cacao Helianthus annuus Aleurites fordii
Latin Name Rice Oriza sativa L. Buffalo Gourd Cucurbita foetidissima Safflower Carthamus tinctorius Crambe Crambe abyssinica Sesame Sesamum indicum Camelina Camelina sativa Mustard Brassica alba Coriander Coriandrum sativum Pumpkin Seed Cucurbita pepo Euphorbia Euphorbia lagascae Hazelnut Corylus avellana Linseed Linum usitatissimum Coffee Coffea arabica Soybean Glycine max Hemp Cannabis sativa Cotton Gossypium hirsutum Calendula Calendula officinalis Kenaf Hibiscus cannabinus L. Rubber Seed Hevea brasiliensis Lupine Lupinus albus Palm Erythea salvadorensis Oat Avena sativa Cashew Nut Anacardium occidentale Corn Zea mays
Plant
Source: Amanda Hill, Al Kurki, and Mike Morris. 2010. Biodiesel: The Sustainability Dimensions. ATTRA Publication. Butte, MT: National Center for Appropriate Technology. Pages 4-5. http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html
Camelina can be grown under marginal conditions with little moisture. It is an excellect rotational crop that is generally grown in the summer. Because camelina is high in omega-3 fatty acids, it is often used for edible oil applications, but can also be used for fuel purposes. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Camelina: Area, Yield, and Value in Montana Acreage Year Planted Harvested 22,500 12,200 20,800 9,900 20,400 9,100 19,500 9,400 Production Yield Per Total Acre (Thousand (Pounds) Pounds) 598 569 615 1,010 12,197 5,182 11,998 9,465 Value Value of Price Per Production CWT (Thousand (Dollars) Dollars) 9.18 1,112 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, website accessed Sept 2011. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publication s/crops/camelayp.htm
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Cotton: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Area Yield per harvested acre Marketing year average price per pound received by farmers Cents 70.50 66.20 61.70 46.80 51.60 32.00 45.70 63.00 44.70 49.70 48.40 61.30 49.10 62.80
Year Planted Harvested 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 1996 14,652.5 12,888.1 1997 13,898.0 13,406.0 1998 13,392.5 10,683.6 1999 14,873.5 13,424.9 2000 15,517.2 13,053.0 2001 15,768.5 13,827.7 2002 13,957.9 12,416.6 2003 13,479.6 12,003.4 2004 13,658.6 13,057.0 2005 14,245.4 13,802.6 2006 15,274.0 12,731.5 2007 10,827.2 10,489.1 2008 9,471.0 7,568.7 2009b 9,149.2 7,690.5
Production
Value of production 1,000 Dollars 6,408,144 5,975,585 4,119,911 3,809,560 4,260,417 3,121,848 3,777,132 5,516,761 4,993,565 5,695,217 5,013,238 5,652,907 3,021,485 3,735,564
Pounds 1,000 balesa 705 18,942.0 673 18,793.0 625 13,918.2 607 16,968.0 632 17,188.3 705 20,302.8 665 17,208.6 730 18,255.2 855 23,250.7 831 23,890.2 814 21,587.8 879 19,206.9 813 12,815.3 774 12,401.3
a b
480 pound net weight bales Preliminary.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Cotton: Area, Yield, and Production by State, Crop of 2007, 2008, and 2009
State and cotton classification Upland: Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Florida Georgia Kansas Louisiana Mississippi Missouri New Mexico North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Total American-Pima: Arizona California New Mexico Texas Total U.S. Total
Area Planted 2007 2008 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 400.0 290.0 170.0 135.0 860.0 620.0 195.0 120.0 85.0 67.0 1,030.0 940.0 47.0 35.0 335.0 300.0 660.0 365.0 380.0 306.0 43.0 38.0 500.0 430.0 175.0 170.0 180.0 135.0 515.0 285.0 4,900.0 5,000.0 60.0 61.0 10,535.0 9,297.0 2.5 260.0 4.7 25.0 292.2 10,827.2 0.8 155.0 2.6 15.6 174.0 9,471.0 2009
b
Area Harvested 2007

b
Yield per Harvested Acre

b
Productiona 2007 1,000 c bales 416.0 514.0 1,896.0 650.0 116.0 1,660.0 57.2 699.0 1,318.0 764.0 89.0 783.0 281.0 160.0 600.0 8,250.0 101.9 18,355.1 4.6 793.0 8.2 46.0 851.8 19,206.9 2008 1,000 balesc 469.0 405.0 1,296.0 367.0 124.0 1,600.0 34.0 281.0 683.0 698.0 71.0 755.0 262.0 246.0 530.0 4,450.0 113.5 12,384.5 0.8 403.0 3.0 24.0 430.8 12,401.3 2009 1,000 balesc 360.0 440.0 830.0 250.0 105.0 1,820.0 51.0 340.0 425.0 520.0 50.0 760.0 330.0 200.0 500.0 4,900.0 130.0 12,011.0 4.0 350.0 4.3 32.0 390.3 12,401.3
b
1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 255.0 385.0 145.0 168.0 520.0 850.0 71.0 194.0 82.0 81.0 1,000.0 995.0 38.0 43.0 230.0 330.0 305.0 655.0 272.0 379.0 30.5 39.0 375.0 490.0 205.0 165.0 115.0 158.0 300.0 510.0 5,000.0 4,700.0 64.0 59.0 9,007.5 10,201.0 1.7 119.0 3.0 18.0 141.7 9,149.2 2.5 257.0 4.6 24.0 288.1 10,489.1
2009 2009 2008 2007 2008 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres Pounds Pounds Pounds 286.0 250.0 519 787 691 133.0 144.0 1,469 1,462 1,467 615.0 500.0 1,071 1,012 797 117.0 70.0 1,608 1,506 1,714 65.0 78.0 687 916 646 920.0 990.0 801 835 882 25.0 34.0 639 653 720 234.0 225.0 1,017 576 725 360.0 295.0 966 911 692 303.0 260.0 968 1,106 960 35.0 29.0 1,095 974 828 428.0 370.0 767 847 986 155.0 200.0 817 811 792 134.0 114.0 486 881 842 280.0 280.0 565 909 857 3,250.0 3,650.0 843 657 644 60.0 63.0 829 908 990 7,400.0 7,552.0 864 803 763 0.8 151.0 1.9 15.0 168.7 7,568.7 1.7 116.0 3.0 17.8 138.5 7,690.5 883 1,481 856 920 1,419 879 480 1,281 758 768 1,226 813 1,129 1,448 688 863 1,353 774
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics, Table 2-2, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp Notes: Production ginned and to be ginned. b Preliminary c 480-pound net weight bale.
a
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Cotton Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010a (dollars per planted acre) Southern Seaboard 2009 2010 Mississippi Portal 2009 2010
Item Gross value of production Primary product: Cotton Secondary product: Cottonseed Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed b Fertilizer Chemicals Custom operations Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Ginning Purchased irrigation water Interest on operating capital Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipment Opportunity cost of land (rental rate) Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Cotton Yield (pounds per planted acre) Price (dollars per pound) Cottonseed Yield (pounds per planted acre) Price (dollars per pound) a Enterprise size (planted acres) a Production practices: Irrigated (percent) Dryland (percent)
United States 2009 2010 365.58 80.20 445.78 73.52 92.29 67.97 22.11 40.15 33.74 101.64 2.86 0.63 434.91 14.26 26.11 128.49 67.18 7.43 15.62 259.09 694.00 -248.22 10.87 620.65 99.15 719.80 81.38 73.54 68.35 22.86 50.81 34.42 127.64 3.03 0.46 462.49
Heartland Prarie Gateway 2009 2010 2009 2010 478.44 114.64 593.08 121.43 116.96 90.29 14.18 40.72 43.35 135.53 0.00 0.82 563.28 795.75 154.44 950.19 132.85 89.98 88.65 14.36 51.85 44.18 164.34 0.00 0.59 586.80 268.80 62.16 330.96 56.91 53.70 42.68 13.97 41.47 31.58 79.38 0.00 0.46 320.15
Fruitful Rim 2009 2010 604.35 123.80 728.15 76.16 121.56 98.98 62.71 75.05 36.57 188.63 36.58 1.01 697.25
550.63 495.60 603.20 90.16 80.16 85.40 640.79 575.76 688.60 62.27 82.56 90.32 41.32 145.23 111.73 41.90 91.42 89.76 14.15 22.97 23.26 53.49 34.17 41.83 32.18 33.94 34.59 116.72 113.81 105.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.76 0.50 362.39 524.86 497.18 12.07 29.51 120.35 41.71 6.40 12.35 222.39 584.78 56.01 278.40 13.46 20.70 129.34 82.48 7.78 18.24 272.00 796.86 -221.10 50.90
1058.81 410.85 715.92 166.76 96.64 121.92 1225.57 507.49 837.84 83.32 93.52 97.17 63.50 95.31 37.27 225.62 37.04 0.73 733.48 103.56 124.15 105.66 29.18 30.66 39.57 119.63 0.00 0.80 553.21 113.30 95.51 103.74 29.54 39.25 40.32 152.76 0.00 0.57 574.99
14.50 17.54 26.10 27.44 132.32 176.89 70.79 101.85 7.60 6.82 16.16 13.80 267.47 344.34 729.96 907.62 -10.16 -314.54 257.31 29.80
17.73 11.94 27.73 29.20 181.67 117.18 104.87 40.50 6.92 6.30 14.07 12.12 352.99 217.24 939.79 537.39 10.40 -206.43 363.39 10.81
13.60 27.43 27.72 16.63 16.81 20.92 32.81 33.17 20.41 20.63 132.84 149.18 153.21 149.51 153.55 84.93 115.32 118.74 103.80 106.88 7.90 10.20 10.35 9.50 9.64 18.59 27.04 27.55 19.20 19.57 278.78 361.98 370.74 319.05 327.08 775.96 1,059.23 1,104.22 872.26 902.07 -87.36 -331.08 121.35 -364.77 -64.23 191.42 30.90 492.09 -45.72 262.85
620 0.59 1,003 0.08 687 43 57
766 0.81 1,239 0.08 687 43 57
886 0.54 1,433 0.08 861 61 39
1061 0.75 1,716 0.09 861 61 39
480 0.56 777 0.08 770 46 54
697 0.79 1,127 0.08 770 46 54
826 0.6 1,336 0.06 453 28 72
754 0.8 1,220 0.07 453 28 72
765 0.79 1,238 0.10 507 57 43
937 1.13 1,516 0.11 507 57 43
747 0.55 1,208 0.08 954 45 55
942 0.76 1,524 0.08 954 45 55

a b
Developed from survey base year, 2007. Commercial fertilizer, soil conditioners, and manure.
USDA's 2008 soybean baseline projections do not specifically show oil produced for use as a biofuel and do not reflect in the projections the probable increase in demand for soybean oil as a biofuel which is anticipated due to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is likely that future USDA soybean baseline projections will reflect the market changes. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Soybeans and Products Baseline Projections, 2008-2021 Item 2008/09 Area (million acres): Planted 75.7 Harvested 74.7 Yield/harvested acre (bushels) 39.7 Supply (million bushels) Beginning stocks, Sept 1 205 Production 2,967 Imports 13 Total supply 3,185 Disposition (million bushels) Crush 1,662 Seed and residual 101 Exports 1,283 Total disposition 3,047 Carryover stocks, August 31 Total ending stocks 138 Stocks/use ratio, percent 4.5 Prices (dollars per bushel) Soybean price, farm 9.97 Variable costs of production (dollars): Per acre 127.06 Per bushel 3.20 Returns over variable costs (dollars per acre): Net returns 269 Soybean oil (million pounds) Beginning stocks, Oct. 1 2,485 Production 18,753 Imports 90 Total supply 21,328 Domestic disappearance 16,339 For methyl ester a 1,904 Exports 2,250 Total demand 18,589 Ending stocks, Sept. 30 2,739 Soybean oil price ($/lb) 0.3216 Soybean meal (thousand short tons) Beginning stocks, Oct. 1 294 Production 39,112 Imports 90 Total supply 39,496 Domestic disappearance 30,757 Exports 8,500 Total demand 39,257 Ending stocks, Sept. 30 239 Soybean meal price ($/ton) 331.17 Crushing yields (pounds per bushel) Soybean oil 11.28 Soybean meal 47.08 Crush margin ($ per bushel) 1.45 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 77.5 76.4 44.0 138 3,359 15 3,512 1,752 108 1,501 3,361 151 4.5 9.59 132 3.01 290 2,861 19,615 105 22,581 15,822 1,682 3,400 19,222 3,358 0.3567 235 41,702 150 42,087 30,634 11,150 41,784 303 311.27 11.20 47.60 1.81 77.7 76.8 43.9 151 3,375 10 3,536 1,665 117 1,570 3,351 185 5.5 11.45 131 2.98 372 3,358 18,980 115 22,453 17,100 2,900 2,700 19,800 2,653 0.445 303 39,532 165 40,000 30,600 9,100 39,700 300 330.00 11.40 47.50 1.46 78.0 77.1 43.5 185 3,355 10 3,550 1,660 125 1,575 3,360 190 5.7 11.20 136 3.13 351 2,653 18,940 125 21,718 17,400 3,100 1,950 19,350 2,368 0.455 300 39,435 165 39,900 31,000 8,600 39,600 300 312.50 11.41 47.50 1.41 78.3 77.3 44.0 190 3,395 10 3,595 1,670 125 1,605 3,400 195 5.7 10.55 139 3.15 325 2,368 19,070 135 21,573 18,000 3,500 1,500 19,500 2,073 0.455 300 39,685 165 40,150 31,250 8,600 39,850 300 286.00 11.42 47.50 1.44 78.5 77.6 44.4 195 3,445 10 3,650 1,695 126 1,635 3,456 194 5.6 10.25 140 3.16 315 2,073 19,375 145 21,593 18,200 3,500 1,300 19,500 2,093 0.455 300 40,235 165 40,700 31,700 8,700 40,400 300 275.00 11.43 47.50 1.48 79.0 78.1 44.9 194 3,505 10 3,709 1,715 127 1,670 3,512 197 5.6 10.20 142 3.17 315 2,093 19,620 155 21,868 18,425 3,500 1,300 19,725 2,143 0.460 300 40,685 165 41,150 32,150 8,700 40,850 300 271.00 11.44 47.50 1.50 79.0 78.1 45.3 197 3,540 10 3,747 1,735 128 1,685 3,548 199 5.6 10.25 144 3.18 320 2,143 19,865 165 22,173 18,650 3,500 1,400 20,050 2,123 0.460 300 41,235 165 41,700 32,650 8,750 41,400 300 273.50 11.45 47.50 1.51 79.5 78.5 45.8 199 3,590 10 3,799 1,770 128 1,705 3,603 196 5.4 10.25 146 3.19 323 2,123 20,285 175 22,583 18,875 3,500 1,500 20,375 2,208 0.460 300 41,985 165 42,450 33,150 9,000 42,150 300 273.50 11.46 47.50 1.52 79.5 78.5 46.2 196 3,625 10 3,831 1,790 129 1,715 3,634 197 5.4 10.30 148 3.20 328 2,208 20,530 185 22,923 19,125 3,525 1,575 20,700 2,223 0.463 300 42,485 165 42,950 33,650 9,000 42,650 300 275.00 11.47 47.50 1.54 79.5 78.5 46.7 197 3,660 10 3,867 1,810 129 1,730 3,669 198 5.4 10.30 150 3.22 330 2,223 20,780 195 23,198 19,375 3,550 1,625 21,000 2,198 0.465 300 42,985 165 43,450 34,150 9,000 43,150 300 274.00 11.48 47.50 1.55 79.5 78.5 47.1 198 3,695 10 3,903 1,830 129 1,745 3,704 199 5.4 10.35 152 3.23 335 2,198 21,025 205 23,428 19,625 3,575 1,675 21,300 2,128 0.468 300 43,485 165 43,950 34,650 9,000 43,650 300 275.00 11.49 47.50 1.55 79.5 78.5 47.6 199 3,735 10 3,945 1,850 130 1,765 3,745 200 5.3 10.35 154 3.24 338 2,128 21,275 215 23,618 19,875 3,600 1,700 21,575 2,043 0.470 300 43,985 165 44,450 35,150 9,000 44,150 300 275.00 11.50 47.50 1.59
Source: U.S.Department of Agriculture, USDA Agricultural Projections to 2020 , February 2011, Table 24 - U.S. soybean and products, long term projections http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewStaticPage.do?url=http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/94005/./2011/index.html
a
Soybean oil used for methyl ester for production of biodiesel, history from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Note: Marketing year beginning September 1 for soybeans; October 1 for soybean oil and soybean meal.
The price for soybeans has declined since the mid 70s but has shown a modest increase since reaching a low of about five dollars a bushel in 2001. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Soybeans: Price per Bushel, 1975-2009 (constant 2009 dollars)
30
25
Dollars/Bushel
20
15
10
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Soybeans: Area, Yield, Production, and Value, 1996-2009 Soybeans for beans Marketing year average price per bushel raised by farmers Dollars 7.35 6.47 4.93 4.63 4.54 4.38 5.53 7.34 5.74 5.66 6.43 10.10 9.97 9.45
Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Area Area harvested Planted 1,000 Acres 1,000 Acres 64,195 63,349 70,005 69,110 72,025 70,441 73,730 72,446 74,266 72,408 74,075 72,975 73,963 72,497 73,404 72,476 75,208 73,958 72,032 71,251 75,522 74,602 64,741 64,146 75,718 74,681 77,451 76,372
Yield per acre Bushels 37.6 38.9 38.9 36.6 38.1 39.6 38.0 33.9 42.2 43.1 42.9 41.7 39.7 44.0
Production 1,000 Bushels 2,380,274 2,688,750 2,741,014 2,653,758 2,757,810 2,890,682 2,756,147 2,453,845 3,123,790 3,068,342 3,196,726 2,677,117 2,967,007 3,359,011
Value of production 1,000 Dollars 17,439,971 17,372,628 13,493,891 12,205,352 12,466,572 12,605,717 15,252,691 18,015,097 17,895,510 17,297,137 20,468,267 26,974,406 29,458,225 31,760,452
Soybean production is highly variable by state, with the Mid-west producing the largest amount. States with the highest production levels are Illinois and Iowa. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Soybeans: Area, Yield, and Production, by State, 2007-2009 Area planted State 2007 1,000 Acres 190 2,850 160 14 295 8,300 4,800 8,650 2,650 1,120 615 405 1,800 6,350 1,460 4,700 3,870 82 205 1,440 3,100 4,250 190 435 460 3,250 1,080 95 510 15 1,400 64,741 2008 1,000 Acres 360 3,300 195 32 430 9,200 5,450 9,750 3,300 1,390 1,050 495 1,900 7,050 2,000 5,200 4,900 92 230 1,690 3,800 4,500 400 435 540 4,100 1,490 230 580 19 1,610 75,718 2009 1,000 Acres 440 3,420 185 37 470 9,400 5,450 9,600 3,700 1,430 1,020 485 2,000 7,200 2,160 5,350 4,800 89 255 1,800 3,900 4,550 405 450 590 4,250 1,570 215 580 20 1,630 77,451 Soybeans for beans Area harvested Yield per harvested acre Production 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Acres Acres Acres Bushels Bushels Bushels Bushels Bushels 185 350 430 21.0 35.0 40.0 3,885 12,250 2,820 3,250 3,270 36.0 38.0 37.5 101,520 123,500 155 193 183 26.0 27.5 42.0 4,030 5,308 12 29 34 24.0 38.0 38.0 288 1,102 285 415 440 30.0 31.0 36.0 8,550 12,865 8,280 9,120 9,350 43.5 47.0 46.0 360,180 428,640 4,790 5,430 5,440 46.0 45.0 49.0 220,340 244,350 8,630 9,670 9,530 52.0 46.5 51.0 448,760 449,655 2,610 3,250 3,650 33.0 37.0 44.0 86,130 120,250 1,100 1,380 1,420 27.5 34.5 48.0 30,250 47,610 600 950 940 43.0 33.0 39.0 25,800 31,350 390 485 475 27.5 30.0 42.0 10,725 14,550 1,790 1,890 1,990 40.0 37.0 40.0 71,600 69,930 6,290 6,970 7,120 42.5 38.0 40.0 267,325 264,860 1,440 1,960 2,030 40.5 40.0 38.0 58,320 78,400 4,670 5,030 5,300 37.5 38.0 43.5 175,125 191,140 3,850 4,860 4,760 51.0 46.5 54.5 196,350 225,990 80 90 87 31.0 30.0 42.0 2,480 2,700 203 226 254 39.0 46.0 43.0 7,917 10,396 1,380 1,670 1,750 22.0 33.0 34.0 30,360 55,110 3,060 3,760 3,870 35.5 28.0 30.0 108,630 105,280 4,240 4,480 4,530 47.0 36.0 49.0 199,280 161,280 180 360 390 26.0 25.0 31.0 4,680 9,000 430 430 445 41.0 40.0 46.0 17,630 17,200 440 530 565 18.5 32.0 24.5 8,140 16,960 3,240 4,060 4,190 42.0 34.0 42.0 136,080 138,040 1,010 1,460 1,530 19.0 34.0 45.0 19,190 49,640 92 205 190 37.5 24.5 25.0 3,450 5,023 500 570 570 27.5 32.0 37.0 13,750 18,240 14 18 19 33.0 41.0 41.0 462 738 1,380 1,590 1,620 40.5 35.0 40.0 55,890 55,650 64,146 74,681 76,372 41.7 39.7 44.0 2,677,117 2,967,007
Alabama Arizona Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin US
2009 1,000 Bushels 17,200 122,625 7,686 1,292 15,840 430,100 266,560 486,030 160,600 68,160 36,660 19,950 79,600 284,800 77,140 230,550 259,420 3,654 10,922 59,500 116,100 221,970 12,090 20,470 13,843 175,980 68,850 4,750 21,090 779 64,800 3,359,011
Source: U.S.Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 3-36, and previous annual editions, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
In 2006, soybean stocks and production reached its greatest level during the period 1995-2008. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Soybeans: Supply and Disappearance, 1995-2008 (thousand bushels) Supply Stocks by Position Year beginning September 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 b 2008 Terminal market, interior mill, elevator, and warehouse 229,684 123,935 88,233 115,499 203,482 177,662 164,247 145,361 120,329 83,014 156,038 273,026 430,810 158,034
Farm 105,130 59,523 43,600 84,300 145,000 112,500 83,500 62,700 58,000 29,400 99,700 176,300 143,000 47,000
Total 334,814 183,458 131,833 199,799 348,482 290,162 247,747 208,061 178,329 112,414 255,738 449,326 573,810 205,034
Production 2,174,254 2,380,274 2,688,750 2,741,014 2,653,758 2,757,810 2,890,682 2,756,147 2,453,665 3,123,686 3,063,237 3,188,247 2,677,117 2,967,007
Total 2,513,524 2,572,636 2,825,589 2,944,334 3,006,411 3,051,540 3,140,749 2,968,869 2,637,773 3,241,782 3,327,452 3,655,086 3,260,798 3,185,314
Table continued Year beginning September 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 b 2008 Crushedc 1,369,541 1,436,961 1,596,980 1,589,787 1,577,650 1,639,670 1,699,741 1,614,787 1,529,699 1,696,081 1,738,852 1,807,706 1,803,407 1,661,987
Disappearance Seed, feed and residual 111,441 118,954 154,476 201,414 165,194 168,252 169,296 131,380 109,072 192,806 199,396 157,074 93,445 101,849 Exports 849,084 885,888 874,334 804,651 973,405 995,871 1,063,651 1,044,372 886,551 1,097,156 939,879 1,116,496 1,158,829 1,283,269 Total 2,330,066 2,440,803 2,625,790 2,595,852 2,716,249 2,803,793 2,932,688 2,790,540 2,525,322 2,986,044 2,878,126 3,081,276 3,055,764 3,047,106
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics , Table 3-34, and previous annual editions, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp
a b
Includes imports. Preliminary. c Reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Prices for soybeans used for biodiesel production may vary for each mill depending on whether the mills are owned by farmers cooperatives or whether the soybeans are purchased on the open market. The average price per bushel rose sharply by nearly 4 dollars between 2006 and 2007 but then declined by 65 cents between 2007 and 2009. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Soybeans for Beans: Marketing Year Average Price and Value, by State, Crop of 2007, 2008, and 2009 Value of production Marketing year average price per bushel 2009b 2009b 2007 2008 2007 2008 Dollars Dollars Dollars 1,000 Dollars 1,000 Dollars 1,000 Dollars 11.40 10.30 10.40 44,289 126,175 178,880 9.02 9.64 9.60 915,710 1,190,540 1,177,200 11.50 9.40 9.60 46,345 49,895 73,786 8.90 8.50 9.50 2,563 9,367 12,274 11.90 9.50 9.50 101,745 122,218 153,900 10.40 10.20 9.70 3,745,872 4,372,128 4,171,970 10.20 10.20 9.55 2,247,468 2,492,370 2,545,648 10.50 10.20 9.40 4,711,980 4,586,481 4,568,682 10.10 9.39 9.25 869,913 1,129,148 1,485,550 10.10 10.00 9.65 305,525 476,100 657,744 8.43 9.52 9.60 217,494 298,452 351,936 11.20 9.20 9.70 120,120 133,860 193,515 9.69 9.82 9.40 693,804 686,713 748,240 10.20 10.10 9.30 2,726,715 2,675,086 2,648,640 8.36 9.29 9.15 487,555 728,336 705,831 10.10 9.74 9.40 1,768,763 1,861,704 2,167,170 9.92 9.79 9.40 1,947,792 2,212,442 2,438,548 10.10 9.75 9.45 25,048 26,325 34,530 11.20 10.30 8.95 88,670 107,079 97,752 10.10 9.33 9.50 306,636 514,176 571,710 9.63 9.71 9.25 1,046,107 1,022,269 1,073,925 9.93 10.30 9.60 1,978,850 1,661,184 2,130,912 10.00 9.10 9.35 46,800 81,900 113,042 10.70 10.20 9.35 188,641 175,440 191,395 10.90 9.00 9.75 88,726 152,640 138,938 9.60 9.65 9.05 1,306,368 1,332,086 1,592,619 10.30 9.45 9.65 197,657 469,098 664,403 10.40 9.25 9.25 35,880 46,463 43,938 11.40 9.10 9.60 156,750 165,984 207,936 11.30 9.75 9.60 5,221 7,196 7,478 9.83 9.80 9.45 549,399 545,370 612,360 31,760,452 10.10 9.97 9.45 26,974,406 29,458,225
State
Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Virginia West Virginia Wisconsin US
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010 Agricultural Statistics, Table 3-38, http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/index.asp Notes: States with no data are not listed. b Preliminary
a
Soybean production area is similar to corn production area, with the addition of more area in North and South Dakota and along the Mississippi Delta. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Soybeans for Beans, Harvested Acres in the United States, 2007
As with all agricultural crops, soybean costs and returns per acre vary by region. In general, soybean returns are a little less than returns for corn when only operating costs are considered. Section: FEEDSTOCKS a Soybean Production Costs and Returns per Planted Acre by Region, Excluding Government Payments, 2009-2010 (dollars per planted acre) United States 2009 2010 437.10 437.10 55.26 23.65 17.38 7.17 13.48 13.22 0.14 0.19 130.49 2.14 17.19 75.54 108.98 10.84 14.57 229.26 359.75 77.35 306.61 47 9.30 303 9 91 449.32 449.32 59.20 17.87 17.04 6.52 16.75 13.46 0.14 1.31 132.29 2.11 17.33 77.51 148.34 9.41 14.86 269.56 401.85 47.47 317.03 47 9.56 303 9 91 Heartland 2009 2010 502.86 502.86 53.50 22.01 16.87 6.03 10.48 11.47 0.00 0.17 120.53 1.26 15.67 71.33 127.92 10.68 14.62 241.48 362.01 140.85 382.33 51 9.86 299 4 96 505.41 505.41 57.49 16.88 16.64 5.50 13.01 11.69 0.00 1.21 122.42 1.27 15.84 73.26 174.63 9.29 14.90 289.19 411.61 93.80 382.99 51 9.91 299 4 96 Northern Northern Great Crescent Plains Prarie Gateway 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 415.80 415.80 57.94 33.93 16.33 9.35 11.88 11.40 0.00 0.20 141.03 1.28 18.27 64.62 89.62 13.43 18.80 206.02 347.05 68.75 274.77 42 9.90 164 2 98 Eastern Uplands 2009 2010 Southern Seaboard 2009 2010 373.92 373.92 50.52 60.11 18.48 6.11 9.52 10.42 0.00 0.22 155.38 2.90 19.06 62.51 49.46 9.18 10.87 153.98 309.36 64.56 218.54 38 9.84 240 0 100 Mississippi Portal 2009 2010 332.64 332.64 58.53 17.24 21.49 9.54 31.57 19.74 0.00 1.58 159.69 7.38 20.04 86.38 110.88 8.77 10.71 244.16 403.85 -71.21 172.95 33 10.08 676 38 62
Item Gross value of production Primary product: Soybeans Total, gross value of production Operating costs: Seed Fertilizer b Chemicals Custom operations Fuel, lube, and electricity Repairs Purchased irrigation water Interest on operating capital Total, operating costs Allocated overhead: Hired labor Opportunity cost of unpaid labor Capital recovery of machinery and equipment Opportunity cost of land (rental rate) Taxes and insurance General farm overhead Total, allocated overhead Total costs listed Value of production less total costs listed Value of production less operating costs Supporting information: Yield (bushels per planted acre) Price (dollars per bushel at harvest) Enterprise size (planted acres) a Production practices: a Irrigated (percent) Dryland (percent)
468.00 323.40 352.98 482.46 410.34 393.60 327.67 468.00 323.40 352.98 482.46 410.34 393.60 327.67 62.26 57.43 61.71 51.29 55.11 52.55 56.46 26.02 10.64 8.15 13.19 10.12 36.51 27.99 16.11 14.63 14.43 15.18 14.98 13.48 13.30 8.52 5.78 5.27 8.80 8.02 8.28 7.55 14.74 9.65 11.98 25.13 31.19 11.12 13.81 11.62 13.29 13.54 18.24 18.59 11.37 11.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.76 1.61 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.16 1.15 0.19 1.40 0.19 1.31 140.66 111.58 116.23 133.78 141.02 133.50 132.01 1.29 1.64 1.66 2.08 2.10 2.95 2.98 18.47 14.45 14.60 20.81 21.03 18.19 18.38 66.37 80.29 82.46 88.58 90.97 66.81 68.61 122.34 58.89 80.40 76.55 104.51 71.47 97.56 11.68 9.26 8.06 10.77 9.37 8.28 7.20 19.16 11.64 11.86 15.94 16.24 14.23 14.50 239.31 176.17 199.04 214.73 244.22 181.93 209.23 379.97 287.75 315.27 348.51 385.24 315.43 341.24 88.03 35.65 37.71 133.95 25.10 78.17 -13.57 327.34 211.82 236.75 348.68 269.32 260.10 195.66 48 9.75 164 2 98 35 9.24 164 2 98 37 9.54 164 2 98 51 9.46 254 32 68 42 9.77 254 32 68 40 9.84 321 6 94 31 10.57 321 6 94
310.30 341.60 310.30 341.60 54.29 54.47 46.09 22.48 18.23 21.79 5.57 10.47 11.82 25.43 10.62 19.37 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.22 148.09 154.23 2.93 7.31 19.26 19.83 64.20 84.10 67.52 81.22 7.99 10.08 11.08 10.51 172.98 213.05 321.07 367.28 -10.77 -25.68 162.21 187.37 29 10.70 240 0 100 35 9.76 676 38 62

a b
Developed from survey base year, 2006. Commercial fertilizer, soil conditioners, and manure.
Using algae as a feedstock for biofuels has several advantages, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Algal Biofuels Technology Roadmap. One of those advantages is that algal production offers high yields per acre of cultivation compared to other feedstocks. Originating from several different sources of data, an estimated oil content of different algal species is shown below. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Oil Content in Selected Algal Species Oil Content (% dry weight) Reference (cited after Carisson et al., 2007) 28-40 29-75 29 15-55 42 36-42 66 7-33 31 (6-63) 46 (31-68) 28-50 31 45 33 (9-59) 15-32 (21-31) 20 35-54 50-77 Ben-Amotz and Tornabene (1985) Sheehan et al. (1998); Banerjee et al. (2002); Metzger & Largeau (2005) Sheehan et al. (1998) Xu et al. (2006) Sheehan et al. (1998) Kishimoto et al. (1994); Tsukahara & Sawayama (2005) Sheehan et al. (1998) Sheehan et al. (1998); Valenzuela-Espinoza et al. (2002) Ben-Amotz & Tornabene (1985); Negoro et al. (1991); Sheehan et al. (1998) Sheehan et al. (1998); Hu et al. (2006) Kyle DJ, Gladue RM (1991) Patent Application, PCT WO 91/1447, 3 Oct 1991 Sheehan et al. (1998) Sheehan et al. (1998) Sheehan et al. (1998) Sheehan et al. (1998); Zittelli et al. (2006); Christi (2007) Brown et al. (1996) www.oilgae.com www.oilgae.com www.oilgae.com
Species Ankistrodesmus TR-87 Botryococcus braunii Chlorella sp. Chlorella protothecoides (autotrophic/heterothrophic) Cyclotella DI-35 Dunaliella tertiolecta Hantzschia DI-160 Isochrysis sp. Nannochloris Nannochloropsis Nitzschia TR-114 Phaeodactylum tricornutum Scenedesmus TR-84 Stichococcus Tetraselmis suecica Thalassiosira pseudonana Crpythecodinium cohnii Neochloris oleoabundans Schisochytrium
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Reality of Algal Fuels, presentation by Tanya Kuritz, September 1, 2011. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/forums/Tanya%20Kuritz%20slides_Sep_1_11.pdf
Corn stover residue consists of the stalks, leaves, husks, and cobs left in the field after corn is harvested.
Section: FEEDSTOCKS Corn Stover Residue Yield for Reduced Tillage and No-till Production, 2012
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update : Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry . R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 227p. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf
Logging residues are the unused portions of growing-stock and non-growing-stock trees cut or killed by logging and left in the woods. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Spatial Distribution of Logging Residues at $20 and $40 per Dry Ton Delivered to Roadside
$20 per dry ton
$40 per dry ton
Other removal residues are the unutilized wood volume cut or otherwise killed from timberland clearing or precommercial thinning operations. It does not include volume removed from inventory through reclassification of timberland to productive reserved forest land. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Spatial Availability of Other Removal Residues at $40 per Dry Ton (Delivered to Roadside)
$40 per dry ton
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update : Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry . R.D. Perlack and B.J. Stokes (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 227p. h ttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf
Forest residue thinnings are the material generated from thinnings designed to reduce the risk of loss to wildfire on timberlands. Timberland is forestland that is capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial products in natural stands and is not withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulation. These lands are distributed throughout the United States. As with logging residues, economics, site-specific characteristics and costs affect the recoverability of this material. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Spatial Distribution of Simulated Forest Residue Thinnings at $30 and $60 per Dry Ton (Roadside)
$30 per dry ton
$60 per dry ton
Secondary Biomass Feedstocks

Residues and byproduct streams from food, feed, fiber, wood, and materials processing plants are the main source of secondary biomass. Secondary biomass feedstocks differ from primary biomass feedstocks in that the secondary feedstocks are a by-product of processing of the primary feedstocks. By processing it is meant that there is substantial physical or chemical breakdown of the primary biomass and production of by-products. Processors may be factories or animals. Field processes such as harvesting, bundling, chipping or pressing do not cause a biomass resource that was produced by photosynthesis (e.g., tree tops and limbs) to be classified as secondary biomass. Specific examples of secondary biomass includes sawdust from sawmills, black liquor (which is a byproduct of paper making), and cheese whey (which is a by-product of cheese making processes). Manures from concentrated animal feeding operations are collectable secondary biomass resources. Vegetable oils used for biodiesel that are derived directly from the processing of oilseeds for various uses are also a secondary biomass resource. It is difficult to find good direct sources of information on secondary biomass resources. In most cases, one has to estimate availability based on information and assumptions about the industries or companies generating the biomass. These estimates can be inaccurate because the amount of material that is a byproduct to a given process can change over time as processes become more efficient or new uses are found for some by-product components. The estimates provided in this Data Book were generated either by industries using secondary biomass to make a marketable fuel (e.g., the pellet fuel industry), or were generated by Forest Service staff using the Timber Product Output database, http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/default.asp. This database is based on wood harvest and use inventories conducted every 5 years; the 2002 inventory is the latest source of information. The wood already used for energy provides insight on current bioenergy produced and the unused biomass represents wood that is already collected and potentially very easy to make available for additional energy production. Though a relatively small amount, it would likely be some of the first wood used if bioenergy use is accelerated in the U.S. Information on black liquor production and use for energy is kept and tracked by the forest products industry but is proprietary. An estimate of black liquor production could be made based on publicly available information on pulp mills. However, any current listing of pulp mills in operation will be out-ofdate within a month or two of publication because of the frequent closing of mills that is occurring. Thus, though a very important resource for bioenergy production today, no attempt is made to include a state level estimate of black liquor production in this book. Source: Lynn Wright, Oak Ridge, TN.
The Forest Service's State and Private Forestry, Technology Marketing Unit, has awarded grants to stimulate utilization of woody biomass, especially of wood from areas needing hazardous fuels reduction. The projects are small and often support the purchase of equipment by small companies. The primary objective of the Forest Service is to increase the removal and use of small diameter wood from forests. Only 2009 and 2010 projects are shown in this summary. Section: FEEDSTOCKS U.S. Forest Service - Woody Biomass Utilization Grantees 2009 & 2010 Company Name Headrick Logging Sierra Resource Management Del Logging, Inc. Cooley Forest Products J. W. Bamford, Inc. West Range Reclamation Arizona Log and TimberWorks JL Shavings San Carlos Apache Timber Products Warner Enterprises Foothills Firewood Restoration Solutions ABCO Wood Recycling Location 2010 Grant Summary Anderson, CA Jamestown, CA Bieber, CA Phoenix, AZ Oroville, CA Crawford, CO Eagar, AZ Tularosa, NM San Carlos, AZ Redding, CA Lyons, OR Corona, NM Post Falls, ID Table Continued on Next Page Award (Dollars) 350,000 329,000 350,000 350,000 300,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 272,770 350,000 325,014 350,000 200,000
Section: FEEDSTOCKS U.S. Forest Service - Woody Biomass Utilization Grantees 2009 & 2010 - Continued Company Name Rover Shavings & Post, Inc. Pure Wood Products, LLC California Wood Shavings, Inc. CLT Logging, Inc. Franklin Logging, Inc. Scott Dunn Logging Trinity River Lumber Company Independent Log Company Intermountain Resources, LLC Rogue Resources, Inc./More Lumber Idaho Forest Group, LLC Eagle Stud Mill, Inc. Eureka Pellet Mills, Inc. Southwest Pion, Inc. Community Smallwood Solutions Marubeni Sustainable Energy Olson Brothers Enterprises, LLC Location 2009 Grant Summary Rover, AR Pinetop, AZ Jamestown, CA Grenada, CA Bella Vista,CA Fortuna, CA Weaverville, CA Alamosa, CO Montrose, CO Milner, CO Athol, ID Missoula, MT Missoula, MT Datil, NM Wallowa, OR Lakeview, OR Crivitz, WI Award (Dollars) 250,000 250,000 249,550 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 249,819 250,000 250,000
Source: U.S. Forest Service State & Private Forestry Technology Marketing Unit website.
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2010/06/0340.xml http://www.wbi.wisc.edu/research/agriculture-secretary-vilsack-awards-more-than-42-million-for-woody-biomassutilization-projects/
The map below showing feedlot capacity and distribution throughout the United States is important as an indication of manure availability. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Feedlot Capacity and Distribution, 2004
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Biobased Products Market Potential and Projections Through 2025. Page 224. OCE-2008-1, February 2008. http://www.usda.gov/oce/energy/index.htm
The Forest Service classifies primary mill residues into three categories: bark, coarse residues (chunks and slabs) and fine residues (shavings and sawdust). These mill residues are excellent sources of biomass for cellulosic ethanol because they tend to be clean, uniform, concentrated, have low moisture content, and are already located at a processing facility. These traits make mill residues excellent feedstocks for energy and biomass needs as well. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Primary Mill Residue Production and Use by State, 2007 (Dry tons) State Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado 113,930 Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Total residue produced Fiber byproducts 6,770,270 2,319,180 97,190 31,920 5,372,030 2,456,840 3,629,030 1,476,540 31,680 45,860 3,440 21,500 0 2,513,390 847,310 6,994,830 2,972,760 2,219,550 1,265,060 282,420 61,060 766,650 243,420 181,810 3,280 27,500 5,530 1,550,470 432,260 4,611,930 1,756,760 506,010 190,440 222,510 40,070 126,770 23,340 1,850,630 517,590 1,232,550 133,450 6,542,100 2,423,340 1,146,430 206,690 1,510,080 1,075,350 46,710 0 0 0 335,450 82,920 8,720 0 114,000 58,000 1,236,310 210,720 5,249,660 2,229,160 430 0 352,880 40,670 826,190 282,710 7,577,270 5,439,820 1,628,140 351,080 15,310 0 2,808,670 1,140,530 230,500 148,030 2,009,600 622,210 4,843,870 1,686,570 41,110 360 104,440 59,940 2,897,960 1,130,530 5,278,350 2,682,220 843,300 272,170 1,708,220 357,640 219,840 96,940 86,712,401 35,409,538 Fuel byproducts 3,990,970 520 2,710,020 1,665,350 21,990 5,080 2,560 1,171,030 2,889,040 825,880 97,910 150,360 28,460 3,000 463,290 2,677,480 166,820 12,330 41,200 946,470 996,530 3,284,510 148,650 286,000 7,800 0 125,670 1,340 8,710 453,000 1,772,510 80 140,010 466,650 1,559,250 419,530 290 1,454,330 31,730 844,040 2,728,800 5,240 44,500 1,211,790 1,593,360 281,230 947,400 44,910 36,727,621 Miscellaneous byproducts Unused mill residues 453,010 7,120 63,400 1,350 192,280 12,890 422,040 65,090 57,960 2,300 33,390 3,950 18,940 0 492,860 2,200 1,087,890 45,140 122,610 6,010 104,920 18,520 362,240 10,630 149,910 160 10,250 8,720 599,730 55,200 147,610 30,080 106,270 42,480 153,030 17,070 62,230 0 372,800 13,760 75,700 26,880 739,120 95,140 711,310 79,790 139,600 9,140 33,930 4,970 0 0 119,850 7,020 5,950 1,440 42,390 4,900 545,200 27,390 1,235,180 12,810 90 260 149,600 22,600 76,340 500 561,870 16,320 686,560 170,970 14,640 390 212,760 1,050 48,440 2,290 355,770 187,580 425,480 3,020 31,070 4,440 0 0 516,280 39,370 981,320 21,450 171,120 118,780 342,770 60,410 43,980 34,010 13,279,682 1,295,560
Source: USDA-FS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service). 2007. Timber Products Output Mapmaker Version 1.0
Although the mill residues shown in the map below are currently unused, they represent a source of biomass that could be utilized fairly easily compared with other sources of biomass. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Unused Mill Residues in the U.S. by County
Source: USDA-FS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service). 2007. Timber Products Output Mapmaker Version 1.0 Note: Map created by Bioenergy Resource and Engineering Systems Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Woodpelletcapacityincreasedsharplyfrom2005to2009.In2008U.S.productionwas66%ofcapacitywhileCanadianproduction wasabout81%ofcapacitythatyear.About80%ofU.S.pelletproductionisuseddomesticallywhiletheremaining20%isexported, largelytoEuropewherethereisgrowingdemandforpelletfuel. Section:FEEDSTOCKS NorthAmericanPelletCapacity,20032009
Source: UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture,NorthAmerica'sWoodPelletSector ,HenrySpelter,DanielToth,ResearchPaperFPLRP656, August2009,CorrectedSeptember2009.
Shipments of cordwood appliances have been declining over the last 10 years while shipments of pellet appliances rose sharply at times during this period. Cordwood appliances are by far the largest share of wood burning appliances. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Pellet and Cordwood Appliance Shipments from Manufacturers, 1998-2010 Pellet Appliances % Change 34,000 a 18,360 -46% 30,970 69% 53,473 73% 33,978 -36% 48,669 43% 67,467 39% 118,746 76% 133,105 12% 54,032 -59% 141,208 161% 46,133 -67% 44,269 -4% Cordwood Appliances 652,500 795,767 609,332 637,856 534,406 503,699 498,630 561,696 518,439 362,243 345,658 236,743 230,787 % Change a 22% -23% 5% -16% -6% -1% 13% -8% -30% -5% -32% -3%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Source: Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, http://www.hpba.org/index.php?id=238

a
Data not available
Tertiary Biomass Feedstocks

Tertiary biomass includes post consumer residues and wastes, such as fats, greases, oils, construction and demolition wood debris, other waste wood from the urban environments, as well as packaging wastes, municipal solid wastes, and landfill gases. The category other wood waste from the urban environment could include trimmings from urban trees, which technically fits the definition of primary biomass. However, because this material is normally handled as a waste stream along with other post-consumer wastes from urban environments (and included in those statistics), it makes the most sense to consider it to be part of the tertiary biomass stream. The proper categorization of fats and greases may be debatable since those are byproducts of the reduction of animal biomass into component parts. However, since we are considering animals to be a type of biomass processing factory, and since most fats and greases, and some oils, are not available for bioenergy use until after they become a post-consumer waste stream, it seems appropriate for them to be included in the tertiary biomass category. Vegetable oils derived from processing of plant components and used directly for bioenergy (e.g. soybean oil used in biodiesel) would be a secondary biomass resource, though amounts being used for bioenergy are most likely to be tracked together with fats, greases and waste oils. Source: Lynn Wright, Oak Ridge, TN.
Construction and demolition produce a sizeable amount of biomass material, though, recovery and use of those materials pose economic challenges. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Spatial Availability of Urban Wood Waste (Municipal Solid Waste) and Construction and Demolition Wood Residues
Landfill gas is becoming a more prominent source of energy; all but four states are using landfill gas to some extent. There are a number of states that are utilizing the majority of landfill sites available to them. Section: FEEDSTOCKS Landfill Gas Projects and Candidate Landfills by State, April 2011 State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Virgin Islands Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Total Operational Projects 4 0 3 4 77 1 3 3 16 13 0 2 32 22 4 6 7 6 2 10 20 35 7 2 11 1 2 0 7 18 2 28 17 2 19 3 7 38 0 2 12 1 6 27 4 5 26 0 6 2 26 0 551 Candidate Landfills 18 2 14 7 37 12 3 a 16 24 8 3 23 12 14 8 18 7 2 11 2 5 6 13 15 3 4 3 3 3 3 6 33 1 21 12 3 11 12 a 8 1 11 50 5 a 12 2 8 9 6 2 ~510
Source: EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program, April 12, 2011 http://www.epa.gov/lmop/
a
No data available.
Appendix A - Conversions Contents

Lower and Higher Heating Values of Gas, Liquid and Solid Fuels Heat Content Ranges for Various Biomass Fuels Average Heat Content for Selected Waste Fuels The Effect of Moisture on Heating Values Forestry Volume Unit to Biomass Weight Considerations Estimation of Biomass Weights from Forestry Volume Data Forestry Volume Unit to Biomass Weight Examples Stand Level Biomass Estimation Number of Trees per Acre and Hectare by Tree Spacing Combination Wood and Log Volume to Volume Conversion Factors Estimating Tons of Wood Residues Per Thousand Board Feet of Lumber Produced by Sawmills Estimating Tons of Wood Residue Per Thousand Board Feet of Wood Used for Selected Products Area and Length Conversions Mass Units and Mass per Unit Area Conversions Distance and Velocity Conversions Capacity, Volume and Specific Volume Conversions Power Unit Conversions Small and Large Energy Units and Energy per Unit Weight Conversions Most Commonly Used Biomass Conversion Factors Alternative Measures of Greenhouse Gases Fuel Efficiency Conversions SI Prefixes and Their Values Metric Units and Abbreviations Cost per Unit Conversions
Data Type Updated

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011 09/30/2011
Section: Appendix A Lower and Higher Heating Values of Gas, Liquid and Solid Fuels Fuels Gaseous Fuels @ 32 F and 1 atm Natural gas Hydrogen Still gas (in refineries) Liquid Fuels Crude oil Conventional gasoline Reformulated or low-sulfur gasoline CA reformulated gasoline U.S. conventional diesel Low-sulfur diesel Petroleum naphtha NG-based FT naphtha Residual oil Methanol Ethanol Butanol Acetone E-Diesel Additives Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) Liquefied natural gas (LNG) Dimethyl ether (DME) Dimethoxy methane (DMM) Methyl ester (biodiesel, BD) Fischer-Tropsch diesel (FTD) Renewable Diesel I (SuperCetane) Renewable Diesel II (UOP-HDO) Renewable Gasoline Liquid Hydrogen Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) Ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE) Tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME) Butane Isobutane Isobutylene Propane Solid Fuels Coal (wet basis) [6] Bituminous coal (wet basis) [7] Coking coal (wet basis) Farmed trees (dry basis) Herbaceous biomass (dry basis) Corn stover (dry basis) Forest residue (dry basis) Sugar cane bagasse Petroleum coke Source: GREET, The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use In Transportation Model, GREET 1.8d.1, developed by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, released August 26, 2010. http://greet.es.anl.gov/ Notes: [1] The lower heating value (also known as net calorific value) of a fuel is defined as the amount of heat released by combusting a specified quantity (initially at 25C) and returning the temperature of the combustion products to 150C, which assumes the latent heat of vaporization of water in the reaction products is not recovered. The LHV are the useful calorific values in boiler combustion plants and are frequently used in Europe. The higher heating value (also known as gross calorific value or gross energy) of a fuel is defined as the amount of heat released by a specified quantity (initially at 25C) once it is combusted and the products have returned to a temperature of 25C, which takes into account the latent heat of vaporization of water in the combustion products. The HHV are derived only under laboratory conditions, and are frequently used in the US for solid fuels. [2] Btu = British thermal unit. [3] The heating values for gaseous fuels in units of Btu/lb are calculated based on the heating values in units of Btu/ft3 and the corresponding [4] The heating values in units of MJ/kg, are converted from the heating values in units of Btu/lb. [5] For solid fuels, the heating values in units of Btu/lb are converted from the heating values in units of Btu/ton. [6] Coal characteristics assumed by GREET for electric power production. [7] Coal characteristics assumed by GREET for hydrogen and Fischer-Tropsch diesel production. Lower Heating Value (LHV) [1] Btu/ft3 [2] Btu/lb [3] MJ/kg [4] 983 20,267 47.141 290 51,682 120.21 1458 20,163 46.898 Btu/gal [2] 129,670 116,090 113,602 113,927 128,450 129,488 116,920 111,520 140,353 57,250 76,330 99,837 83,127 116,090 84,950 74,720 68,930 72,200 119,550 123,670 117,059 122,887 115,983 30,500 93,540 96,720 100,480 94,970 90,060 95,720 84,250 Btu/ton [2] 19,546,300 22,460,600 24,600,497 16,811,000 14,797,555 14,075,990 13,243,490 12,947,318 25,370,000 Btu/lb [3] 18,352 18,679 18,211 18,272 18,397 18,320 19,320 19,081 16,968 8,639 11,587 14,775 12,721 18,679 20,038 20,908 12,417 10,061 16,134 18,593 18,729 18,908 18,590 51,621 15,094 15,613 15,646 19,466 19,287 19,271 19,904 Btu/lb [5] 9,773 11,230 12,300 8,406 7,399 7,038 6,622 6,474 12,685 MJ/kg [4] 42.686 43.448 42.358 42.500 42.791 42.612 44.938 44.383 39.466 20.094 26.952 34.366 29.589 43.448 46.607 48.632 28.882 23.402 37.528 43.247 43.563 43.979 43.239 120.07 35.108 36.315 36.392 45.277 44.862 44.824 46.296 MJ/kg [4] 22.732 26.122 28.610 19.551 17.209 16.370 15.402 15.058 29.505 Higher Heating Value (HHV) [1] Btu/ft3 [2] Btu/lb [3] MJ/kg [4] 1089 22,453 52.225 343 61,127 142.18 1,584 21,905 50.951 Btu/gal [2] 138,350 124,340 121,848 122,174 137,380 138,490 125,080 119,740 150,110 65,200 84,530 108,458 89,511 124,340 91,410 84,820 75,610 79,197 127,960 130,030 125,294 130,817 124,230 36,020 101,130 104,530 108,570 103,220 98,560 103,010 91,420 Btu/ton [2] 20,608,570 23,445,900 25,679,670 17,703,170 15,582,870 14,974,460 14,164,160 14,062,678 26,920,000 Btu/lb [3] 19,580 20,007 19,533 19,595 19,676 19,594 20,669 20,488 18,147 9,838 12,832 16,051 13,698 20,007 21,561 23,734 13,620 11,036 17,269 19,549 20,047 20,128 19,911 60,964 16,319 16,873 16,906 21,157 21,108 20,739 21,597 Btu/lb [5] 10,304 11,723 12,840 8,852 7,791 7,487 7,082 7,031 13,460 MJ/kg [4] 45.543 46.536 45.433 45.577 45.766 45.575 48.075 47.654 42.210 22.884 29.847 37.334 31.862 46.536 50.152 55.206 31.681 25.670 40.168 45.471 46.628 46.817 46.314 141.80 37.957 39.247 39.322 49.210 49.096 48.238 50.235 MJ/kg [4] 23.968 27.267 29.865 20.589 18.123 17.415 16.473 16.355 31.308 Density grams/ft3 22.0 2.55 32.8 grams/gal 3,205 2,819 2,830 2,828 3,167 3,206 2,745 2,651 3,752 3,006 2,988 3,065 2,964 2,819 1,923 1,621 2,518 3,255 3,361 3,017 2,835 2,948 2,830 268 2,811 2,810 2,913 2,213 2,118 2,253 1,920
Section: Appendix A Heat Content Ranges for Various Biomass Fuels (dry weight basisa) with English and Metric Units Fuel type & source English Higher Heating Value Btu/lbc Btu/lb MBtu/ton 7,487 7,031 7,587 - 7,967 7,450 - 8,349 6,964 - 8,148 6,811 - 8,838 8,950 - 10,000 7,754 - 8,233 8,852 15.2 - 15.9 14.9 - 16.7 13.9 - 16.3 13.6 - 17.7 17.9 - 20.0 15.5 - 16.5 Metricb Higher Heating Value kJ/kg MJ/kg 17,636 - 18,519 17,317 - 19,407 16,188 - 18,940 15,831 - 20,543 18,100 - 19,580 18,024 - 19,137 18,185 - 18,570 19,000 - 19,750 19,546 - 19,948 19,000 - 19,599 19,022 - 19,737 18,556 - 19,750 17.6 - 18.5 17.3 - 19.4 16.1 - 18.9 15.8 - 20.5 18.1 - 19.6 18.0 - 19.1 18.2 - 18.6 19.0 - 19.8 19.5 - 19.9 19.0 - 19.6 19.0 - 19.7 18.6 - 19.7 Lower Heating Value kJ/kg MJ/kg 16,849 - 17,690 17,713 - 17,860 15,082 - 17,659 16.8 - 18.1 17.7 - 17.9 15.1 - 17.7
Agricultural Residues Corn stalks/stover (1,2,6) Sugarcane bagasse (1,2,6) Wheat straw (1,2,6) Hulls, shells, prunings (2,3) Fruit pits (2-3) Herbaceous Crops Miscanthus (6) switchgrass (1,3,6) Other grasses (6) Bamboo (6) Woody Crops Black locust (1,6) Eucalyptus (1,2,6) Hybrid poplar (1,3,6) Willow (2,3,6) Forest Residues Hardwood wood (2,6) Softwood wood (1,2,3,4,5,6) Urban Residues MSW (2,6) RDF (2,6) Newspaper (2,6) Corrugated paper (2,6) Waxed cartons (2)
7,791
17,818 - 18,097 16,767 - 17,294 16,909 - 17,348 18,464 17,963 17,700 16,734 - 18,419 17,514 - 20,768 11,990 - 18,561 14,274 - 18,609 18,389 - 20,702 17,012 25,261
17.8 - 18.1 16.8 - 18.6 16.9 - 17.3 18.5 18.0 17.7 16.7 - 18.4 17.5 - 20.8 12.0 - 18.6 14.3 - 18.6 18.4 - 20.7
7,082
8,409 - 8,582 8,174 - 8,432 8,183 - 8,491 7,983 - 8,497 8,017 - 8,920 8,000 - 9,120 5,644 - 8,542 6,683 - 8,563 8,477 - 9,550 7,428 -7,939 11,727 - 11,736
16.8 - 17.2 16.3 - 16.9 16.4 - 17.0 16.0 - 17.0 16.0 - 17.5 16.0 - 18.24 11.2 - 17.0 13.4 - 17.1 17 - 19.1 14.9 - 15.9 23.5 - 23.5
18,635 - 20,734 18.6 - 20.7 18,595 - 21,119 18.6 - 21.1 13,119 - 19,855 15,535 - 19,904 19,704 - 22,199 17,265 - 18,453 27,258 - 27,280 13.1 - 19.9 15.5 - 19.9 19.7 - 22.2 17.3 - 18.5 27.3
Sources: 1 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/feedstock_databases.html 2 Jenkins, B., Properties of Biomass , Appendix to Biomass Energy Fundamentals , EPRI Report TR-102107, January, 1993. 3 Jenkins, B., Baxter, L., Miles, T. Jr., and Miles, T., Combustion Properties of Biomass, Fuel Processing Technology 54, pg. 17-46, 1998. 4 Tillman, David, Wood as an Energy Resource , Academic Press, New York, 1978 , 5 Bushnell, D., Biomass Fuel Characterization: Testing and Evaluating the Combustion Characteristics of Selected Biomass Fuels BPA report, 1989 6 http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis Original references are provided in the Phyllis database for biomass and waste of the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands.
a This table attempts to capture the variation in reported heat content values (on a dry weight basis) in the US and European literature based on values in the Phyllis database, the US DOE/EERE feedstock database, and selected literature sources. Table A.3 of this document provides information on heat contents of materials "as received" with varying moisture contents. b c
Metric values include both HHV and LHV since Europeans normally report the LHV (or net calorific values) of biomass fuels. HHV assumed by GREET model given in Table A.1 of this document
Section: Appendix A Average Heat Content of Selected Waste Fuels Fuel Type Agricultural Byproducts Black Liquor Digester Gas Landfill Gas MSW Biogenic Methane Paper Pellets Peat Railroad Ties Sludge Waste Sludge Wood Solid Byproducts Spent Sulfite Liquor Utility Poles Waste Alcohol Heat Contenta 8.248 11.758 0.619 0.490 9.696 0.841 13.029 8.000 12.618 7.512 10.071 25.830 12.720 12.500 3.800 Units Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Thousand Cubic Feet Million Btu/Thousand Cubic Feet Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Thousand Cubic Feet Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Short Ton Million Btu/Barrel
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Trends in Consumption and Electricity, 2008 Edition, Table 1.10, Average Heat Content of Selected Biomass Fuels. August 2010. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/rentrends.html Higher heating value MSW = Municipal Solid Waste
a
The Effect of Moisture on Heating Values

Definitions for heating value of a biomass The heating value of any fuel is the energy released per unit mass or per unit volume of the fuel when the fuel is completely burned (ANSI/ASABE S593.1 2011). The term calorific value is synonymous to the heating value. Typical units for expressing calorific or heating value are MJ/kg in SI units or Btu/lb in English units. The heating value of a fuel depends on the assumption made on the condition of water molecules in the final combustion products. The higher heating value (HHV) refers to a condition in which the water is condensed out of the combustion products. Because of this condensation all of the heating value of the fuel including sensible heat and latent heat are accounted for. The lower heating value (LHV), on the other hand refers to the condition in which water in the final combustion products remains as vapor (or steam); i.e. the steam is not condensed into liquid water and thus the latent heat is not accounted for. The term net heating value (NHV) refers to LHV (ANSI/ASABE S593.1 2011). The term gross heating value (GHV) refers to HHV. Determination of heating value of a biomass Heating value of a biomass is measured experimentally in terms of the high heating value (HHV). The standard method uses a device called bomb calorimeter. The device burns a small mass of biomass in the presence of oxygen inside a sealed container (or bomb). The heat released from combustion is transferred to a mass of fluid (air or water) that surrounds the container. The heating value is calculated from the product of mass of fluid x specific heat of fluid x net temperature increase. The calculated heating value must be corrected for heat losses to the mass of container, heat conduction through the container wall, and heat losses to the surrounding of the device. In modern calorimeters the corrections are made automatically using sensors and controllers. The resulting measured heating value is considered gross heating value (high heating value) at constant volume because the biomass combustion in the container has taken place inside the fixed volume of the container. The resulting gross heating value can be expressed based on dry mass content of the sample biomass, HHV (Eq. 1) HHVd 1 M where HHVd is the gross heating value of the biomass in MJ/kg of bone dry biomass, HHV is the gross heating value determined by the calorimeter. M is the moisture content of the biomass in decimal wet mass fraction. The high heating value can be estimated from the composition of the fuel (Gaur and Reed 1995), HHVd 0.35 X C 1.18 X H 0.10 X S 0.02 X N 0.10 X O 0.02 X ash (Eq. 2) where X is the mass fractions (percent mass dry basis) for Carbon (C), Hydrogen (H), Sulfur (S), Nitrogen (N), Oxygen (O), and ash content (ash). The unit of HHV in Equation 2 is in
MJ/kg dry mass. Equation 2 shows that the elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Sulfur increase the heating value whereas the elements Nitrogen, Oxygen, and ash suppress the heating value. Net heating value of biomass The HHV or GHV for woody biomass (including bark) that is determined experimentally is around 20 MJ/kg (8600 Btu/ lb) dry mass basis and for herbaceous biomass it is around 18.8 MJ/kg (8080 Btu/ lb) dry mass basis (Oberberger and Thek 2010). For a moist fuel, the heating value decreases because a portion of the combustion heat is used up to evaporate moisture in the biomass and this evaporated moisture has not been condensed to return the heat back to the system. An estimate of the LHV or net heating value (NHV) is obtained from the measured HHV by subtracting the heat of vaporization of water in the products. (Eq. 3) LHV HHV 1 M 2.447 M where LHV is the gross (or lower) heating value MJ/kg, M is the wet basis moisture content (mass fraction decimal). The constant 2.447 is the latent heat of vaporization of water in MJ/kg at 25oC. A more accurate estimate of the net heating value from equation 3 can be obtained by including the heat released by the combustion of the hydrogen content of the biomass. High and low heating value at constant pressure In practice, the gases evolving from combustion of a biomass are expanded without much constraints. In other words during combustion the volume expands but the pressure in the combustion zone does not change much. This situation is often present in a boiler combustion chamber with unrestricted exhaust system. For these cases equation 3 developed from constant volume measurement is converted to heating value at constant pressure according to equation 4, (Eq. 4) HHVp HHV 0.212 X H 0.0008 X O X N where HHVp is the high heating value at constant pressure for dry biomass. XH, XO, and XN are the mass fraction (percent dry mass) of the biomass. For wet biomass, the net heating value at constant pressure is calculated from (Eq. 5) LHVp ,w HHVp 1.0 M 2.443M M is the wet basis moisture content (mass fraction decimal). LHVp,w is the net heating value of biomass at constant pressure per unit of wet biomass. Example of using equations 1-5 The high heating values of two biomass species poplar and stover along with their ultimate analysis were measured. The moisture content of the samples was 35% wet mass basis. The table below lists the measured data.
Measured Moisture, Elements, and High Heating Value of Biomass M (%) Ash (%) 35 0.65 35 11.27 C (%) 51.64 44.80 H (%) 6.26 5.35 O (%) 41.45 39.55 N (%) 0.00 0.38 HHVd S (%) (MJ/kg) 0.00 20.75 0.01 17.33
Poplar Stover
Estimation of HHVd (constant volume) Equation 2 is used to calculate high heating value HHVd 0.35 X C 1.18 X H 0.10 X S 0.02 X N 0.10 X O 0.02 X ash Substituting from compositions listed in the table above for poplar HHVd 0.35( 51.64 ) 1.18( 6.26 ) 0.10( 0.00 ) 0.02( 0.00 ) 0.10( 41.45 ) 0.02( 0.65 )
21.3 MJ/kg
and for stover, HHVd 0.35( 44.80 ) 1.18( 5.35 ) 0.10( 0.01 ) 0.02( 0.38 ) 0.10( 39.55 ) 0.02( 11.27 )
17.8 MJ/kg
The calculated HHVd for both species are slightly higher than measured HHVd in the table above. Estimation of LHV (constant volume) Equation 3 is used to calculate low heating value LHV HHVd 1 M 2.447 M Substituting for HHV and moisture content, for poplar, LHV ( 20.8 )1 0.35 2.447( 0.35 )
12.7 MJ/kg
and for stover,
LHV ( 17.3 )1 0.35 2.447( 0.35 ) 10.4 MJ/kg
Calculations for of HHVp (constant pressure) Equation 3 is used to calculate low heating value (or net calorific value) at constant pressure HHVp HHVd 0.212 X H 0.0008 X O X N Substituting from the table above for HHVd (for constant volume) and concentrations, for poplar, HHVp ( 20.8 ) 0.212( 6.26 ) 0.000841.45 0.00
19.4 MJ/kg
and for stover,
HHVp ( 17.3 ) 0.212( 5.35 ) 0.000839.55 0.38 16.1 MJ/kg
Calculations for of LHVp (constant pressure) Equation 5 is used to calculate low heating value, LHVp HHVp 1.0 M 2.443M Substituting for HHVp and moisture content, for poplar, LHV ( 19.4 )1 0.35 2.443( 0.35 )
11.8 MJ/kg
and for stover,
LHV ( 16.1 )1 0.35 2.443( 0.35 )
9.6 MJ/kg The table below shows the application of equation 5 to calculate the net heating value of biomass at various levels of moisture content. Increasing moisture content diminished the net heat value of biomass to the point that at slightly higher than 80% moisture content, much of the heat content of the biomass is used up to evaporate its moisture.
Effect of Moisture Content on the Net Heating Value of Biomass at Constant Pressure
Moisture content percent wet mass basis
Biomass Poplar Stover
0 19.4 16.1
10 17.3 14.3
20 15.1 12.4
30 12.9 10.6
40 50 60 70 80 10.7 8.5 6.3 4.1 1.9 8.7 6.8 5.0 3.1 1.3
List and Definition of Symbols

Symbol LHV HHV GHV NHV HHVp HHVd M X Subscripts ash C d H N O p w Units Btu C MJ kg lb Definition Lower heating value Higher heating value Gross heating value Net heating value High heating value at constant pressure Bone dry gross heating value of the biomass Moisture content wet mass basis Mass fraction percent dry mass basis Ash Carbon Dry mass basis Hydrogen Nitrogen Oxygen Constant pressure Moist biomass British thermal unit Degrees Celsius Mega (106) Joule (SI unit) Kilogram Pound mass
References ASABE Standards. 2011. American Society for Agricultural & Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI: ASABE. ASTM E870 - 82(2006) Standard Test Methods for Analysis of Wood Fuels. http://www.astm.org/Standards/E870.htm Gaur, S., T. Reed. 1995. An atlas of thermal data for biomass and other fuels. NREL/TB433-7965, UC Category: 1310, DE95009212, National Renewable laboratory, Golden Colorado, USA. Obenberger, I. and G. Thek. 2010. The Pellet Handbook. IEA Bioenergy. Earthscan LLC, Washington, DC. SIS-CENTS14918:2005. Solid biofuels. Method of determination of calorific value. http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=77,19836&_dad=portal&_sc hema=PORTAL Sjaak, Van Loo, Jaap Koppejan. 2008. The handbook of biomass combustion and co-firing. Earthsacn, Washington, DC. TAPPI Gross heating value of black liquor, Test Method T 684 om11http://www.tappi.org/Bookstore/Standards--TIPs/Standards.aspx
Written by Shahab Sokhansanj, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September 2011.
Section: Appendix A Forestry Volume Unit to Biomass Weight Considerations
Biomass is frequently estimated from forestry inventory merchantable volume data, particularly for purposes of comparing regional and national estimates of aboveground biomass and carbon levels. Making such estimations can be done several ways but always involves the use of either conversion factors or biomass expansion factors (or both combined) as described by figure 1 below. Figure 2 clarifys the issue further by defining what is included in each catagory of volume or biomass units.
Volume/Merchantable
C E E
Volume/Stem
C
Biomass/
Volume/Total
E+C
Biomass/Stem
C E
Biomass/Total
Figure 1 Source: Somogyi Z. et al. Indirect methods of large-scale biomass estimation. Eur J Forest Res (2006) DOI 10.1007/s10342-006-0125-7
Unfortunately definitions used in figure 1 are not standardized worldwide, but figure 2 below demonstrates definitions used in the United States for forest inventory data. The merchantable volume provided by forest inventory reports commonly refers only to the underbark volume or biomass of the main stem above the stump up to a 4 inch (10 cm) top. Merchantable stem volume can be converted (symbolized by C in Fig. 1) to merchantable biomass. Both merchantable volume and biomass must be expanded (symbolized by E in Figure 1) to include the bark for stem volume or biomass. Further expansion is needed to obtain the total volume or biomass which includes stem, bark, stump, branches and foliage, especially if evergreen trees are being measured. When estimating biomass available for bioenergy, the foliage is not included and the above-ground portion of the stump may or may not be included depending on whether harvest occurs at ground level or higher. Both conversion and expansion factors can be used together to translate directly between merchantable volumes per unit area and total biomass per unit area (see table A5, Appendix A) .
Figure 2 Source: Jenkins, JC, Chojnacky DC, Heath LS, Birdsey RA. Comprehensive Database of Diameter-based Biomass Regressions for North American Tree Species. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report NE-319, pp 1-45 (2004)
Section: Appendix A Estimation of Biomass Weights from Forestry Volume Data Simple volume to weight conversion Anequationforestimationofmerchantablebiomassfrommerchantablevolumeassumingthe specificgravityandmoisturecontentareknownandthespecificgravitybasiscorrespondstothe moisturecontentofthevolumeinvolved. Weight=(volume)*(specificgravity)*(densityofH2O)*(1+MCod/100) wherevolumeisexpressedincubicfeetorcubicmeters, wherethedensityofwateris62.4lb/ft 3or1000kg/m3, where MCod equals oven dry moisture content. forexampletheweightoffiberinanovendrylogof44ft 3withaspecificgravityof0.40= 3 40ft3*0.40 * 62.4 lb ft * (1+0/100) equals 1,098 lb or 0.549 dry ton Source: Briggs D. 1994. Forest Products Measurements and Conversion Factors, Chapter 1. College of Forest Resources University of Washington. http://www.ruraltech.org/projects/conversions/briggs_conversions/briggs_book.asp Specific gravity (SG) is a critical element of the volume to biomass estimation equation. The SG content should correspond to the moisture content of the volume involved. SG varies considerably from species to species, differs for wood and bark, and is closely related to the moisture content as explained in graphs and tables in Briggs (1994). The wood specific gravity of species can be found in several references though the moisture content basis is not generally given. Briggs (1994) suggests that a moisture content of 12% is the standard upon which many wood properties measurements are based. Biomass expansion factors for estimating total aboveground biomass Mg ha -1 from growing stock volume data (m 3 ha-1) Methods for estimating total aboveground dry biomass per unit area from growing stock volume data in the USDA ForestService FIA database were described by Schroeder et. al (1997). The growing stock volume was by definition limited to trees > than or equal to 12.7 cm diameter. It is highly recommended that the paper be studied for details of how the biomass expansion factors (BEF) for oak-hickory and beech-birch were developed. The BEFs for the two forest types were combined and reported as: BEF = EXP (1.912 - 0.344*lnGSV) GSV = growing stock volume m 3 ha-1 R2 = 0.85, n = 208 forest units , std. error of estimate = 0.109. The result is curvilinear with BEF values ranging from 3.5 to 1.5 for stands with very low growing stock volume and approaching the value of 1 at high growing stock volumes. Minimum BEFs for the forest types evaluated are estimated to be about 0.61 to 0.75. Source: Schroeder P, Brown S, Mo J, Birdsey R, Cieszewski C. 1997. Biomass estimation for temperate broadleaf forests of the US using forest inventlry data. Forest Science 43, 424-434.
Section: Appendix A Forestry Volume Unit to Biomass Weight Examples (selected examples from the north central region)
Green Dry weight weight of Green Green Specific Specific MC wood & solid weight gravity gravity wood & wood & bark cordb a a 3 3 wood (lbs) bark bark (%) bark lb/ft lb/ft Green weight of solid cordb (tons)c Air-dry tons per solid cordb 15% MCc Oven-dry tons per solid cord 0% MCc
Species Group
Softwood Southern Pine Jack Pine Red Pine White Pine Hardwood Red Oak Beech Sycamore Cottonwood Willow Source:
0.47 0.40 0.41 0.37 0.56 0.56 0.46 0.37 0.34
0.32 0.34 0.24 0.49 0.65 0.56 0.45 0.43 0.43
50 47 47 47 44 41 55 55 55
64 54 54 53 73 64 62 59 56
32 29 29 28 41 38 28 27 25
5,056 4,266 4,266 4,187 5,767 5,056 4,898 4,661 4,424
2.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2
1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1
1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.0
Smith, B. Factors and Equations to Estimate Forest Biomass in the North Central Region. 1985. USDA Forest Service, North Central Experimental Station. Research Paper NC-268 (This paper quotes many original literature sources for the equations and estimates.) Note: A caution: In extensive online research for reference sources that could provide guidance on estimating biomass per unit area from volume data (eg m 3, ft3 or board ft), several sources of conversion factors and "rules of thumb" were found that provided insufficient information to discern whether the reference was applicable to estimation of biomass availibility. For instance moisture contents were not associated with either the volume or the weight information provided. These "rule of thumb" guides can be useful when fully understood by the user, but they can be easily misinterpreted by someone not understanding the guide's intent. For this reason, most simple "rules of thumb guides" are not useful for converting forest volume data to biomass estimates.
The SG numbers are based on weight oven-dry and volume when green (Smith, 1985; table 1) of wood and bark respectively. Wood and bark are combined for other columns (Smith, 1985, table 2) . A standard solid cord for the north central region was determined by Smith, 1985 to be 79 ft3 rather than the national average of 80 ft3 as used in table A9 in appendix A..
c b
The green weight values in lbs provided by the Smith (1985) paper were converted to green tons, air-dry tons and oven-dry tons for convenience of the user.
Section: Appendix A Stand Level Biomass Estimation Biomass estimation at the individual field or stand level is relatively straight forward, especially if being done for plantation grown trees that are relatively uniform in size and other characteristics. The procedure involves first developing a biomass equation that predicts individual tree biomass as a function of diameter at breast height (dbh) , or of dbh plus height. Secondly, the equation parameters (dbh and height) need to be measured on a sufficiently large sample size to minimize variation around the mean values, and thirdly, the mean individual tree weight results are scaled to the area of interest based on percent survival or density information (trees per acre or hectare). Regression estimates are developed by directly sampling and weighing enough trees to cover the range of sizes being included in the estimation. They often take the form of: ln Y (weight in kg) = -factor 1 + factor 2 x ln X (where X is dbh or dbh 2 +height/100) Regression equations can be found for many species in a wide range of literature. Examples for trees common to the Pacific Northwest are provided in reference 1 below. The equations will differ depending on whether foliage or live branches are included, so care must be taken in interpreting the biomass data. For plantation trees grown on cropland or marginal cropland it is usually assumed that tops and branches are included in the equations but that foliage is not. For trees harvested from forests on lower quality land, it is usually recommended that tops and branches should not be removed (see reference 2 below) in order to maintain nutrient status and reduce erosion potential, thus biomass equations should assume regressions based on the stem weight only.
Sources: (1) Briggs, D. Forest Products Measurements and Conversion Factors. College of Forest Resources University of Washington. Available as of 9/29/2008 at: http://www.ruraltech.org/projects/conversions/briggs_conversions/briggs_book.asp (2) Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Guidance on Harvesting Woody Biomass for Energy in Pennsylvania. September, 2007. Available as of 9-29-08 at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/PA_Biomass_guidance_final.pdf
Section: Appendix A Number of Trees per Acre and per Hectare by Various Tree Spacing Combinations Trees Spacing per Acre (feet) = = 1x1 43,560 2x2 10,890 2x4 5,445 3x3 4,840 4x4 2,722 4x5 2,178 4x6 1,815 4x7 1,556 4x8 1,361 4x9 1,210 4 x 10 1,089 5x5 1,742 5x6 1,452 5x7 1,245 5x8 1,089 5x9 968 5 x 10 871 6x6 1,210 6x7 1,037 6x8 908 6x9 807 6 x 10 726 6 x 12 605 7x7 889 7x8 778 7x9 691 7 x 10 622 7 x 12 519 8x8 681 8x9 605 8 x 10 544 8 x 12 454 9x9 538 9 x 10 484 9 x 12 403 10 x 10 436 10 x 12 363 10 x 15 290 12 x 12 302 12 x 15 242
a b
Spacing Trees per (meters)= Hectarea 0.3 x 0 .3 107,637 26,909 0.6 x 0.6 13,455 0.6 x 1.2 11,960 0.9 x 0.9 6,726 1.2x 1.2 5,382 1.2 x 1.5 4,485 1.2 x 1.8 3,845 1.2 x 2.1 3,363 1.2 x 2.4 2,990 1.2 x 2.7 2,691 1.2 x 3.0 4,304 1.5 x 1.5 3,588 1.5 x 1.8 3,076 1.5 x 2.1 2,691 1.5 x 2.4 2,392 1.5 x 2.7 2,152 1.5 x 3.0 2,990 1.8 x 1.8 2,562 1.8 x 2.1 2,244 1.8 x 2.4 1,994 1.8 x 2.7 1,794 1.8 x 3.0 1,495 1.8 x 3.7 2,197 2.1 x 2.1 1,922 2.1 x 2.4 1,707 2.1 x 2.7 1,537 2.1 x 3.0 1,282 3.1 x 3.7 1,683 2.4 x 2.4 1,495 2.4 x 2.7 1,344 2.4 x 3.0 1,122 2.4 x 3.7 1,329 2.7 x 2.7 1,196 2.7 x 3.0 996 2.7 x 3.7 1,077 3.0 x 3.0 897 3.0 x 3.7 717 3.0 x 4.5 746 3.7 x 3.7 598 3.7 x4.6
Spacing (meters)= 0.1 x 0.1 0.23 x 0.23 0.3 x 0.3 0.5 x 0.5 0.5 x 1.0 0.5 x 2.0 0.75 x 0.75 0.75 x 1.0 0.75 x 1.5 1.0 x 1.0 1.0 x 1.5 1.0 x 2.0 1.0 x 3.0 1.5 x 1.5 1.5 x 2.0 1.5 x 3.0 2.0 x 2.0 2.0 x 2.5 2.0 x 3.0 2.0 x 4.0 2.5 x 2.5 2.5 x 3.0 3.0 x 3.0 3.0 x 4.0 3.0 x 5.0 4.0 x 4.0 5.0 x 5.0
Trees per Hectare 1,000,000 189,035 107,593 40,000 20,000 10,000 17,778 13,333 8,889 10,000 6,667 5,000 3,333 4,444 3,333 2,222 2,500 2,000 1,667 1,250 1,600 1,333 1,111 833 666 625 400
Spacing (ft Trees per and in ) = Acreb 4" x 4 " 405,000 9" x 9 " 76,559 1' x 1' 43,575 1'8" x 1'8" 16,200 1'8" x 3'3" 8,100 1'8" x 6'7" 4,050 2'6" x 2'6" 7,200 2'6" x 3'3" 5,400 2'5" x 4'11" 3,600 3'3" x 3'3" 4,050 3'3" x 4'11" 2,700 3'3" x 6'6" 2,025 3'3" x 9'10" 1,350 4'11"x4'11" 1,800 4'11"x 6'6" 1,350 4'11"x9'10" 900 6'6" x 6'6" 1,013 6'6" x 8'2" 810 6'6" x 9'10" 675 6'6" x 13'1" 506 8'2" x 8'2" 648 8'2" x 9'10" 540 9'10"x9'10" 450 9'10"x13'1" 337 9'10"x13'1" 270 253 13'1" x 13'1" 162 16'5" x 16'5"
The spacing is approximated to nearest centimeter but trees per hectare = trees per acre x 2.471 The spacing is approximated to nearest inch but trees per acre = trees per hectare x 0.405
The conversions in this table are only suitable for converting volume units of harvested roundwood or processed sawtimber to approximate alternative volume units, but not for estimating standing volume of biomass. Section: Appendix A Wood and Log Volume to Volume Conversion Factors TO standard cord 1 0.625 0.7813 0.00065 0.651 0.0078 0.2759 solid cord 1.6 1 1.25 0.00104 1.0416 0.0125 0.4414 board foot 1,536 960 1,200 1 1,000 12 423.77 1,000 board feet 1.536 0.96 1.2 0.001 1 0.012 0.4238 cubic foot average 128 80a 100 0.0833 83.33 1 35.3146 cubic meters average 3.6246 2.2653 2.832 0.0024 2.3598 0.0283 1
FROM standard cord solid cord cunit board foot 1,000 board feet cubic foot cubic meters
cunit 1.28 0.8 1 0.00083 0.8333 0.01 0.3531
Source:
http://www.unitconversion.org/
(Verified with several other sources.)
Brief Definitions of the Forestry Measures A standard cord is 4 ft x 4 ft x 8 ft stack of roundwood including bark and air A solid cord is the net volume of roundwood in a standard cord stack A cunit is 100 cubic feet of solid wood 1 board foot (bf) is a plank of lumbar measuring 1 inch x 1 foot x 1 foot (1/12 ft 3) 1000 board feet (MBF) is a standard measure used to buy and sell lumber 1 cubic foot of lumber or roundwood is a 1 ft x 1 ft x 1 ft cube 1 cubic meter of lumber or roundwood is a 1 m x 1 m x 1 m cube
The estimate of 80 cubic feet (or 2.26 cubic meters) in a solid cord is an average value for stacked lumber and also for hardwood roundwood with bark. Values for all roundwood wood types with and without bark can range from 60 to 95 cubic feet or (1.69 to 2.69 cubic meters) depending on wood species, moisture content and other factors.
To use these conversion factors, first decide the mill type, which is based on equipment; then determine the average scaling diameter of the logs. If the equipment indicates a mill type B and the average scaling diameter is 13 inches, then look under Mill Type B, line 2. This line shows that for every thousand board feet of softwood lumber sawed, 0.42 tons of bark, 1.18 tons of chippable material, and 0.92 tons of fines are produced, green weight. Equivalent hard hardwood and soft hardwood data are also given. Converting factors for shavings are omitted as they are zero for sawmills. Section: Appendix A Estimating Tons of Wood Residue Per Thousand Board Feet of Lumber Produced by Sawmills, by Species and Type of Residue Softwoodc Chippable G 1.57 1.18 1.07 0.88 1.57 1.18 1.07 0.88 1.57 1.18 1.07 0.88 1.90 1.34 1.17 0.98 OD 0.78 0.58 0.53 0.43 0.78 0.58 0.53 0.43 0.78 0.58 0.53 0.43 0.94 0.66 0.58 0.48 Hard hardwoodc Bark Chipable Fine G 0.84 0.72 0.56 0.49 0.84 0.72 0.56 0.49 0.84 0.72 0.56 0.49 0.84 0.72 0.56 0.49 OD 0.59 0.51 0.39 0.35 0.59 0.51 0.39 0.35 0.59 0.51 0.39 0.35 0.59 0.51 0.39 0.35 G 1.84 1.53 1.17 1.03 1.84 1.53 1.17 1.03 1.84 1.53 1.17 1.03 2.23 1.72 1.29 1.15 OD 1.04 0.87 0.66 0.58 1.04 0.87 0.66 0.58 1.04 0.87 0.66 0.58 1.28 0.98 0.73 0.65 G 1.26 1.34 1.08 1.05 0.92 0.84 0.84 0.80 1.26 1.34 1.08 1.05 0.53 0.65 0.72 0.68 OD 0.71 0.76 0.61 0.60 0.52 0.48 0.48 0.45 0.71 0.76 0.61 0.60 0.28 0.37 0.41 0.38 Soft hardwoodc Bark Chipable Fine G 0.58 0.50 0.39 0.34 0.58 0.50 0.39 0.34 0.58 0.50 0.39 0.34 0.58 0.50 0.39 0.34 OD 0.41 0.35 0.27 0.24 0.41 0.35 0.27 0.24 0.41 0.35 0.27 0.24 0.41 0.35 0.27 0.24 G 1.27 1.06 0.81 0.72 1.27 1.06 0.81 0.72 1.27 1.06 0.81 0.72 1.54 1.19 0.89 0.80 OD 0.72 0.60 0.46 0.41 0.72 0.60 0.46 0.41 0.72 0.60 0.46 0.41 0.88 0.68 0.51 0.46 G 0.86 0.91 0.74 0.72 0.63 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.86 0.91 0.74 0.72 0.36 0.45 0.50 0.47 OD 0.49 0.52 0.42 0.41 0.36 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.49 0.52 0.42 0.41 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.26
Bark Small end Mill Typea diameterb 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Gd 0.46 0.42 0.41 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 ODe 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Fine G 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.91 0.90 0.76 0.71 0.64 0.98 0.92 1.00 0.91 0.57 0.60 0.61 0.54
OD 0.48 0.45 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.48 0.45 0.49 0.45 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.28
A, B, C, H, and I
D and E
Source: Ellis, Bridgette K. and Janice A. Brown, Tennessee Valley Authority. "Production and Use of Industrial Wood and Bark Residues in the Tennessee Valley Region," August 1984.
a
Mill Type A. Circular headsaw with or without trim saw B. Circular headsaw with edger and trim saw. C. Circular headsaw with vertical band resaw, edger, trim saw. D. Band headsaw with edger, trim saw. E. Band headsaw with horizontal band resaw, edger, trim saw. F. Band headsaw with cant gangsaw, edger, trim saw. G. Chipping head rig. H. Round log mill. I. Scragg mill. Average small-end log (scaling) diameter classes. 1. 5-10 inches. 2. 11-13 inches. 3. 14-16 inches. 4. 17 inches and over
See Appendix A for species classification, i.e., softwood, hard hardwood, and soft hardwood. G = green weight, or initial condition, with the moisture content of the wood as processed e OD = Oven Dry. It is the weight at zero percent moisture. f Fine is sawdust and other similar size material.
d
Section: Appendix A Estimating Tons of Wood Residue Per Thousand Board Feet of Wood Used for Selected Products Softwooda % MC Shavings 19 0.42 12 0.25 100 9 100 60 0.21 80 100 Hard hardwooda % MC Shavings 19 0.54 6 0.57 9 0.36 70 9 70 60 0.25 Soft hardwooda % MC Shavings 19 0.40 9 0.26 9 95 60 0.17 -
Type of Plant Planing mill Wood chip milld Wooden furniture frames Shingles & cooperage stock Plywood Veneer Pallets and skids Log homes Untreated posts, poles, and pilings Particleboard Pulp, paper, and paperboard
Bark 0.60 0.42 0.42 0.46 0.60 0.60 Bark 0.90 0.56 0.72 0.90 Bark 0.62 0.50 0.60 0.62
% MC 50 50 50 50 60 70 % MC 60 60 60 60 % MC 88 88 60 88
Chipable 0.05 0.22 1.29 0.13 1.77 0.42 0.17 0.40 -
% MC 19 12 60 % MC 19 6 9 60 % MC 19 9 60 -
Finec 0.05 1.01 0.21 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.21 Finec 0.07 1.47 0.26 0.08 Finec 0.05 0.21 0.06 0.21 -
%MC 12 100 9 60 80 100 6 %MC 9 70 9 60 %MC 9 9 60 6 -
Planing mill Wood chip mill Hardwood flooring Wooden furniture frames Shingles & cooperage stock Plywood Veneer Pallets and skids Pulp, paper, and paperboard
Chipableb 0.06 0.12 0.31 1.66 0.16 2.70 0.50 Chipableb 0.04 0.22 0.13 2.13 0.34 -
Planing mill Wood chip mill Wooden furniture frames Plywood Veneer Pallets and skids Particleboard Pulp, paper, and paperboard
Source: Ellis, Bridgette K. and Janice A. Brown, Tennessee Valley Authority. "Production and Use of Industrial Wood and Bark Residues in the Tennessee Valley Region", August 1984. Notes: For shingles and cooperage stock the table indicates that for every thousand board feet of softwood logs used, 1.29 tons of chippable material could be expected, with an average moisture content (MC) of 100%, based on oven dry weight. If the Average MC of the wood used is greater or less than 100%, proportionally greater or lesser weight of material could be expected.
a b
For definitions of species, see next page
Chippable is material large enough to warrant size reduction before being used by the paper, particleboard, or metallurgical industries. c Fines are considered to be sawdust or sanderdust. d For chipping mills with debarkers only
Section: Appendix A Area and Length Conversions Area Multiply acres (ac) hectares (ha) hectares (ha) hectares (ha) 2 square kilometer (km ) square kilometer (km2) square kilometer (km2) square mile (mi2) square mile (mi2) square mile (mi2) square yards (yd2) square meters (m2) square foot (ft 2) square meters (m2) square inchs (in2) square decimeter (dm2) square centimeters (cm2) square millimeter (mm2) square feet (ft 2) square rods (rd2), sq pole, or sq perch Length Multiply miles (mi) miles (mi) miles (mi) miles (mi) kilometers (km) kilometers (km) kilometers (km) kilometers (km) feet (ft) meters (m) yard (yd) meters (m) inches (in) centimeters (cm) by 1.6093 1,609.34 1,760.00 5,280.00 0.6214 1,000.00 1,093.60 3,281.00 0.3048 3.2808 0.9144 1.0936 2.54 0.3937 To Obtain kilometers meters yards feet miles meters yards feet meters feet meters yards centimeters inches
a
by 0.4047 2.4710 0.0039 10000 247.10 0.3861 100 258.9990 2.5900 640 0.8361 1.1960 0.0929 10.7639 6.4516 15.5000 0.1550 0.0020 929.03 25.2930
To Obtain hectares acres square miles square meters acres square miles hectares hectares square kilometers acres square meters square yards square meters square feet square centimeters (exactly) square inches square inches square inches square centimeters square meters
Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology, General Tables of Units and Measurements http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/h4402_appenc.pdf
a
An acre is a unit of area containing 43,560 square feet. It is not necessarily square, or even rectangular. If a one acre area is a perfect square, then the length of a side is equal to the square root of 43,560 or about 208.71 feet.
Mass
Section: Appendix A Mass Units and Mass per Unit Area Conversions Multiply by 28.3495 0.0353 0.4536 453.6 2.2046 0.0011 1 2205 1000 1.102 0.9842 2000 907.2 0.9072 0.8929 2240 1.12 1016 1.016 To Obtain grams ounces kilograms grams pounds U.S. or short tons megagram (Mg) pounds kilograms short tons long tons pounds kilograms megagrams Imperial or long tons pounds short tons kilograms megagrams
ounces (oz) grams (gm) pounds (lbs) pounds (lbs) kilograms (kg) kilograms (kg) metric tons or tonne (t)a metric tons or tonne (t) metric tons or tonne (t) metric tons or tonne (t) metric tons or tonne (t) U.S. or short tons, (ts) U.S. or short tons, (ts) U.S. or short tons, (ts) U.S. or short tons, (ts) Imperial or long tons (tl) Imperial or long tons (tl) Imperial or long tons (tl) Imperial or long tons (tl) Mass per Unit Area Multiply
megagram per hectare (Mg ha ) kilograms per square meter (kg m-1) tons (short US) per acre (t ac-1) tons (short US) per acre (t ac-1) kilograms per square meter (kg m-1) pounds per square foot (lb ft2) kilograms per square meter (kg m-1) kilogram per hectare (kg ha-1) pounds per acre (lb ac-1)
-1
by 0.4461 4.461 2.2417 0.2241 0.2048 4.8824 21.78 0.892 1.12
To Obtain short tons per acre short tons per acre megagram per hectare kilograms per square meter pounds per square foot kilogram per square meter short tons per acre pounds per acre kilogram per hectare
Sources: www.gordonengland.co.uk/conversion and http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight and the Family Farm Series Publication, "Vegetable Crop Production" at http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/pubs/Family_Farm_Series/Veg/Fertilizing/appendix.html The proper SI unit for a metric ton or tonne is megagram (MG) however "t" is commonly used in practice as in dt ha-1 for dry ton per hectare. Writers in the US also normally use "t" for short ton as in dt ac-1 for dry ton per acre, so noting the context in the interpretation of "t" is important.
a
Section: Appendix A Distance and Velocity Conversions 1 inch (in) = = = = = = = = = = = = = 0.0833 ft 0.0278 yd 2.54 cm 0.0254 m 12.0 in 0.3333 yd 30.48 cm 0.3048 m 63360 in 5280 ft 1760 yd 1609 m 1.609 km 1 centimeter (cm) = = = = 1 meter (m) = = = = = = = = = 0.3937 in 0.0328 ft 0.0109 yd 0.01 m 39.3700 in 3.2808 ft 1.0936 yd 100 cm 39370 in 3281 ft 1093.6 yd 0.6214 mile 1000 m
1 foot (ft)
1 mile (mi)
1 kilometer (km)
1 in/hr = 2.54 cm/hr 1cm/hr = 0.3937 in/hr 1 ft/sec = 0.3048 m/s = 0.6818 mph = 1.0972 km/h 1 m/sec = 3.281 ft/s = 2.237 mph = 3.600 km/h 1 km/h = 0.9114 ft/s = 0.2778 m/s = 0.6214 mph 1 mph = 1.467 ft/s = 0.4469 m/s = 1.609 km/h
Source: Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel and R.G. Boundy. 2008, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27 , ORNL-6981, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Section: Appendix A Capacity, Volume and Specific Volume Conversions a Capacity and Volume 1 U.S. gallon (gal) = = = = = = = 3.785 4 0.8327 0.0238 0.0039 0.1337 231 4.546 4.803 1.201 0.0286 0.0045 0.1605 277.4 264.172 1000 1056 6.2898 35.3145 1.3079 0.061 1.8161 0.908 0.1135 0.1099 0.0284 0.0275 0.0086 liters (L) US quarts (qt) UK gallon (gal) barrels oil (bbl) cubic meters (m3) cubic feet (ft3) cubic inches (in3) liters US qt US gal bbl (oil) m3 ft3 in3 US gal L US qt bbl (oil) ft3 yd3 in3 US pint (pt) US qt US peck (pk) UK pk US bushel (bu) UK bu US bbl dry 1 liter (L) = = = = = = = = = = = = = 0.2642 0.22 1.056 0.00629 61.02 0.03531 0.001 158.97 168 42 34.97 0.15897 5.615 9702 7.4805 28.3168 29.9221 0.1781 0.0283 0.037 16.3872 64 32 35.239 4 3.8757 0.9700 0.3947 12.7172 3.1793 US gal UK gal US qt bbl (oil) in3 ft3 m3 L US qt US gal UK gal m3 ft3 in3 US gal L US qt bbl (oil) m3 yd3 cm3 US pt US qt L US pk UK pk UK bu US bbl dry UK pk UK bu
1 imperial (UK) gallon (gal) = = = = = = = 1 cubic meter (m3) = = = = =
1 barrel (bbl) oil
1 cubic foot (ft3)
1 cubic centimeter (cm3) 1 Liter (L) dry volume
= = = = = = = = = =
1 cubic inches (in3) = 1 US bushel = = = = = = = = =
1 barrel (dry)
13.1248 US pk 3.2812 US bu
1 barrel (dry)
Specific Volume 1 US gallon per pound (gal/lb)
= = = = = =
0.8326 0.1337 8.3454 0.0083 0.0083 8.3451
UK gal/lb ft3/lb L/kg L/g 3 m /kg 3 cm /g
1 liter per kilogram = (L/kg) = = = = =
0.0997 0.1118 0.016 0.0353 1 1000
UK gal/lb US gal/lb ft3/lb ft3/kg 3 m /kg 3 cm /g
Sources: Websites www.gordonengland.co.uk/conversion/power.html and www.unitconversion.org were used to make or check conversions.
a
Forestry unit relationships are provided in table A.9.
Section: Appendix A Power Unit Conversions Per second basis TO FROM hp hp-metric kW kJ s-1 BtuIT s-1 0.707 0.697 0.948 0.948 1 kcalIT s-1 0.1780 0.1757 0.2388 0.2388 0.2520
Horsepower Metric horsepower Kilowatt kilojoule per sec BtuIT per sec Kilocalories per sec
IT
1 0.986 1.341 1.341 1.415
1.014 1 1.360 1.359 1.434
0.746 0.736 1 1 1.055
0.746 0.736 1 1 1.055
5.615
5.692
4.187
4.187
3.968
Per hour basis TO FROM hp hp- metric kW J hr-1 BtuIT hr-1 kcalIT hr-1
Horsepower Metric horsepower kilowatt Joule per hr BtuIT per hr Kilocalories per hr
IT
1.014
0.746
268.5 x 104 265.8 x 104 360 x 104 1 1055
2544
641.19
0.986 1.341
1 1.360
0.736 1
2510 3412 9.48 x 10-4 1
632.42 859.85 2.39 x 10-4 0.2520
3.73 x 10-7 3.78 x 10-7 2.78 x 10-7 3.93 x 10-4 3.98 x 10-4 2.93 x 10-4
1.56 x 10-3 1.58 x 10-3 1.163 x 10-3
4187
3.968
Sources: www/unitconversion.org/unit_converter/power.html and www.gordonengland.co.uk/conversion/power.html were used to make conversions Note: The subscript "IT" stands for International Table values, which are only slightly different from thermal values normally subscripted "th". The "IT" values are most commonly used in current tables and generally are not subscripted, but conversion calculators ususally include both.
Section: Appendix A Small and Large Energy Units and Energy per Unit Weight Conversions Energy Units FROM: megajoule (MJ) joule (J)a Kilowatt hours (k W h) BtuIT calorieIT (calIT) MJ 1 1 x 10-6 3.6 1.055 x 10-3 J 1 x 106 1 3.6 x 106 1055.055 4.186 TO: kWh 0.278 0.278 x 10-6 1 2.93 x 10-4 1.163 x 10
-6
BtuIT 947.8 9.478 x 10-4 3412 1 3.97 x 10-3
calIT 238845 0.239 859845 251.996 1
Energy per Unit Weight TO: FROM: joule per kilogram ( J kg-1) kilojoules per kilogram( kJ kg -1) calorieth per gram (calIT g-1) BtuIT per pound (BtuIT lb-1) J kg
-1
kJ kg-1 0.001 1 4.1868 2.326
calIT g-1 2.39 x 10-4 0.2388 1 0.5555
BtuIT lb-1 4.299 x 10-4 0.4299 1.8 1
1 1000 4186.8 2326
FROM: Terajoules Gigacalories Million tonnes of oil equivalent Million Btu Gigawatthours Sources:
Large Energy Unit Conversions TO: Million Gigatonnes of Terajoules calories oil equivalent multiply by: 1 4.1868 x 10-3 4.1868 x 104 1.0551 x 10-3 3.6 238.8 1 107 0.252 860 2.388 x 10-5 10-7 1 2.52 X 10-8 8.6 x 10-5
Million Btu
Gigawatthours
947.8 3.968 3.968 x 107 1 3412
0.2778 1.163 x 10-3 11,630 2.931 x 10-4 1
www.gordonengland.co.uk/conversion/power.html and www.convert-me.com/en/convert/power and www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/fuel-efficiency-mass were used to make or check conversions Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel and R.G. Boundy. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27, Appendix B.7. ORNL-6981, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Note: The subscript "IT" stands for International Table values, which are only slightly different from thermal values normally subscripted "th". The "IT" values are most commonly used in current tables and generally are not subscripted, but conversion calculators ususally include both.
a
One Joule is the exact equivalent of one Newton meter (Nm) and one Watt second.
Section: Appendix A Most Commonly Used Biomass Conversion Factors 1 Quadrillion Btu's (Quad) = 1 x 1015 Btu = 1.055 Exajoules (EJ) = 1.055 x 1018 Joules (J) 1 Million Btu's (MMbtu) = 1 x 106 Btu = 1.055 Gigajoules (GJ) = 1.055 x 109 J 1000 Btu per pound x 2000 lbs per ton = 2 MMbtu per ton = 2.326 GJ per Megagram (Mg) 8500 Btu per pound (average heating value of wood) = 17 MMbtu per ton = 19.8 GJ per Mg
Section: Appendix A Alternative Measures of Greenhouse Gases 1 pound methane, measured in carbon units (CH4) 1 pound carbon dioxide, measured in carbon units (CO2-C) 1 pound carbon monoxide, measured in carbon units (CO-C) 1 pound nitrous oxide, measured in nitrogen units (N2O-N) = 1.333 pounds methane, measured at full molecular weight (CH4) 3.6667 pounds carbon dioxide, measured at full molecular weight (CO2) 2.333 pounds carbon monoxide, measured at full molecular weight (CO) 1.571 pounds nitrous oxide, measured at full molecular weight (N2O)
= =
Source: Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel and R.G. Boundy. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27 , Appendix B.9. ORNL-6981, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Section: Appendix A Fuel Efficiency Conversions MPG 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 Formula Miles/liter 2.64 3.96 5.28 6.60 7.92 9.25 10.57 11.89 13.21 14.53 15.85 17.17 18.49 19.81 21.13 22.45 23.77 25.09 26.42 27.74 29.06 30.38 31.70 33.02 34.34 35.66 36.98 38.30 39.62 MPG/3.785 Kilometers/L 4.25 6.38 8.50 10.63 12.75 14.88 17.00 19.13 21.25 23.38 25.51 27.63 29.76 31.88 34.01 36.13 38.26 40.38 42.51 44.64 46.76 48.89 51.01 53.14 55.26 57.39 59.51 61.64 63.76 MPG/[3.785/1.609] L/100 kilometers 23.52 15.68 11.76 9.41 7.84 6.72 5.88 5.23 4.70 4.28 3.92 3.62 3.36 3.14 2.94 2.77 2.61 2.48 2.35 2.24 2.14 2.05 1.96 1.88 1.81 1.74 1.68 1.62 1.57 235.24/MPG
Source: Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel and R.G. Boundy. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27 , Appendix B.13. ORNL-6981, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Note: MPG = Miles per Gallon. L = Liters.
Section: Appendix A SI Prefixes and Their Values Value 10-18 10-15 10-12 10-9 10-6 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 106 109 1012 1015 1018 Prefix atto femto pico nano micro milli centi deci deca hecto kilo mega giga tera peta exa Symbol a f p n m c d da h k M G T P E
One million million millionth One thousand million millionth One million millionth One thousand millionth One millionth One thousandth One hundredth One tenth One Ten One hundred One thousand One million One billiona One trilliona One quadrilliona One quintilliona
Source: Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel and R.G. Boundy. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27, Appendix B.14. ORNL-6981, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
a
Care should be exercised in the use of this nomenclature, especially in foreign correspondence, as it is either unknown or carries a different value in other countries. A "billion," for example, signifies a value of 1012 in most other countries.
Section: Appendix A Metric Units and Abbreviations Quantity Energy Specific energy Specific energy consumption Energy consumption Energy economy Power Specific power Power density Speed Acceleration Range (distance) Weight Torque Volume Mass; payload Length; width Brake specific fuel consumption Fuel economy (heat engine) Unit name joule joule/kilogram joule/kilogramkilometer joule/kilometer kilometer/kilojoule kilowatt watt/kilogram watt/meter3 kilometer/hour meter/second2 kilometer kilogram newtonmeter meter3 kilogram meter kilogram/joule liters/100 km Symbol J J/kg J/(kgkm) J/km km/kJ kW W/kg W/m 3 km/h m/s2 km kg Nm m3 kg m kg/J L/100 km
Source: Davis, S.C., S.W. Diegel and R.G. Boundy. 2008. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 27 , Appendix B.15. ORNL-6981, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Section: Appendix A Cost per Unit Conversions Multiply $/ton $/Mg $/Mbtu $/GJ by 1.1023 0.9072 0.9407 1.0559 To Obtain $/Mg $/ton $/GJ $/Mbtu
Appendix B - Biomass Characteristics

Biomass feedstocks and fuels exhibit a wide range of physical, chemical, and agricultural process engineering properties. Despite their wide range of possible sources, biomass feedstocks are remarkably uniform in many of their fuel properties, compared with competing feedstocks such as coal or petroleum. For example, there are many kinds of coals whose gross heating value ranges from 20 to 30 GJ/tonne (gigajoules per metric tonne; 8600-12900 Btu/lb). However, nearly all kinds of biomass feedstocks destined for combustion fall in the range 1519 GJ/tonne (6450-8200 Btu/lb). For most agricultural residues, the heating values are even more uniform about 15-17 GJ/tonne (6450-7300 Btu/lb); the values for most woody materials are 18-19 GJ/tonne (7750-8200 Btu/lb). Moisture content is probably the most important determinant of heating value. Air-dried biomass typically has about 15-20% moisture, whereas the moisture content for oven-dried biomass is around 0%. Moisture content is also an important characteristic of coals, varying in the range 2-30%. However, the bulk density (and hence energy density) of most biomass feedstocks is generally low, even after densification between about 10 and 40% of the bulk density of most fossil fuels although liquid biofuels have comparable bulk densities. Most biomass materials are easier to gasify than coal, because they are more reactive, with higher ignition stability. This characteristic also makes them easier to process thermochemically into higher-value fuels such as methanol or hydrogen. Ash content is typically lower than for most coals, and sulphur content is much lower than for many fossil fuels. Unlike coal ash, which may contain toxic metals and other trace contaminants, biomass ash may be used as a soil amendment to help replenish nutrients removed by harvest. A few herbaceous feedstocks stand out for their peculiar properties, such as high silicon or alkali metal contents these may require special precautions for harvesting, processing and combustion equipment. Note also that mineral content can vary as a function of soil type and the timing of feedstock harvest. In contrast to their fairly uniform physical properties, biomass fuels are rather heterogeneous with respect to their chemical elemental composition. Among the liquid biomass fuels, biodiesel (vegetable oil ester) is noteworthy for its similarity to petroleum-derived diesel fuel, apart from its negligible sulfur and ash content. Bioethanol has only about 70% the heating value of petroleum distillates such as gasoline, but its sulfur and ash contents are also very low. Both of these liquid fuels have lower vapor pressure and flammability than their petroleum-based competitors an advantage in some cases (e.g. use in confined spaces such as mines) but a disadvantage in others (e.g. engine starting at cold temperatures). The tables on the following 3 pages show some "typical" values or a range of values for selected compositional, chemical and physical properties of biomass feedstocks and liquid biofuels. Figures for fossil fuels are provided for comparison.
Sources for further information: US DOE Biomass Feedstock Composition and Property Database. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/feedstock_databases.html PHYLLIS - database on composition of biomass and waste. http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis/ Nordin, A. (1994) Chemical elemental characteristics of biomass fuels. Biomass and Bioenergy 6, 339-347. Source: All information in Appendix B was taken from a fact sheet by Jonathan Scurlock, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bioenergy Feedstock Development Programs. P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6407
Section: Appendix B Characteristics of Selected Feedstocks and Fuels
Bioenergy Feedstocks
Liquid Biofuels Fossil Fuels
Corn stovera Sweet sorghum Sugarcane bagassea Sugarcane leaves Hardwood Softwood Hybrid poplara Bamboo Switchgrassa Miscanthus Giant Reed Bioethanol Biodiesel Coal (low rank; lignite/sub-bituminous) Coal (high rank bituminous/anthracite) Oil (typical distillate)
Cellulose (Percent) 30 - 38 27 32 - 43 b 45 42 39 - 46 41-49 31 - 34 44 31 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hemi-cellulose (Percent) 19 - 25 25 19 - 25 b 30 21 17 - 23 24-28 24 - 29 24 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lignin (Percent) 17 - 21 11 23 - 28 b 20 26 21 - 8 24-26 17 - 22 17 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extractives (Percent) 3.3 - 11.9 1.5 - 5.5
1.6 - 6.9 4.9 - 24.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program. P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6407 (compiled by Jonathon Scurlock in 2002, updated by Lynn Wright in 2008). Notes: N/A = Not Applicable. a Updated using http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/feedstock_databases.html b Data not available.
Characteristics of Selected Feedstocks and Fuels (Continued)

Ash melting temperature [some ash sintering observed] (C)
Liquid Biofuels Fossil Fuels
Corn stovera Sweet sorghum Sugarcane bagassea Sugarcane leaves Hardwood Softwood Hybrid poplara Bamboo Switchgrassa Miscanthus Giant reed Bioethanol Biodiesel Coal (low rank; lignite/sub-bituminous) Coal (high rank bituminous/anthracite) Oil (typical distillate)
Ash % 9.8 - 13 5 5.5 2.8 - 9.4 7.7 0.45 0.3 0.4 - 2.4 0.8 - 2.5 2.8 - 7.5 1.5 - 4.5 5-6 b <0.02 5 - 20 1 - 10 0.5 - 1.5
Sulfur (Percent)
Potassium (Percent)
0.06 - 0.1 b 0.02 - 0.03 b 0.009 0.01 0.02 - 0.03 0.03 - 0.05 0.07 - 0.11 0.1 0.07 <0.01 <0.05 1.0 - 3.0 0.5 - 1.5 0.2 - 1.2
b b 0.73-0.97 b 0.04 b 0.3 0.15 - 0.50 b 0.37 - 1.12 b b <0.0001 0.02 - 0.3 0.06 - 0.15 b
b b b b [900] b 1,350 b 1,016 1,090 [600] b N/A N/A ~1,300 ~1,300 N/A
Characteristics of Selected Feedstocks and Fuels (Continued) Chopped density Baled density at harvest [compacted bales] Cellulose fiber length (mm) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) 1.5 b b b b b 50 - 75 1.7 b 25 - 40 b b 1.2 b b b b b 1 - 1.4 150 (chips) b 1.5 - 3.2 b b 105 - 133 b 108 70 - 100 130 - 150 [300] b 1.2 b b (typical bulk densities or range given below) N/A N/A 790 N/A N/A 875 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 700 850 700 - 900
Corn stovera Sweet sorghum Sugarcane bagassea Sugarcane leaves Hardwood Softwood Hybrid poplara Bamboo Switchgrassa Miscanthus Giant reed
Liquid Biofuels
Fossil Fuels
Bioethanol Biodiesel Coal (low rank; lignite/subbituminous) Coal (high rank bituminous/anthracite) Oil (typical distillate)
GLOSSARY
Agricultural Residue - Agricultural crop residues are the plant parts, primarily stalks and leaves, not removed from the fields with the primary food or fiber product. Examples include corn stover (stalks, leaves, husks, and cobs); wheat straw; and rice straw. With approximately 80 million acres of corn planted annually, corn stover is expected to become a major biomass resource for bioenergy applications. Air dry - The state of dryness at equilibrium with the water content in the surrounding atmosphere. The actual water content will depend upon the relative humidity and temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. Alcohol - The family name of a group of organic chemical compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. The molecules in the series vary in chain length and are composed of a hydrocarbon plus a hydroxyl group. Alcohol includes methanol and ethanol. Alkaline metals - Potassium and sodium oxides (K2O + NaO2) that are the main chemicals in biomass solid fuels that cause slagging and fouling in combustion chambers and boilers. Anaerobic digestion - Decomposition of biological wastes by micro-organisms, usually under wet conditions, in the absence of air (oxygen), to produce a gas comprising mostly methane and carbon dioxide. Annual removals - The net volume of growing stock trees removed from the inventory during a specified year by harvesting, cultural operations such as timber stand improvement, or land clearing. ASABE Standard X593 - The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) in 2005 produced a new standard (Standard X593) entitled Terminology and Definitions for Biomass Production, Harvesting and Collection, Storage, Processing, Conversion and Utilization. The purpose of the standard is to provide uniform terminology and definitions in the general area of biomass production and utilization. This standard includes many terminologies that are used in biomass feedstock production, harvesting, collecting, handling, storage, pre-processing and conversion, bioenergy, biopower and bioproducts. The terminologies were reviewed by many experts from all of the different fields of biomass and bioenergy before being accepted as part of the standard. The full-text is included on the online Technical Library of ASABE (http://asae.frymulti.com); members and institutions holding a site license can access the online version. Print copies may be ordered for a fee by calling 269-4290300, e-mailing [email protected], or by mail at: ASABE, 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, MI 49085. Asexual reproduction - The naturally occurring ability of some plant species to reproduce asexually through seeds, meaning the embryos develop without a male gamete. This ensures the seeds will produce plants identical to the mother plant.
Avoided costs - An investment guideline describing the value of a conservation or generation resource investment by the cost of more expensive resources that a utility would otherwise have to acquire. Baghouse - A chamber containing fabric filter bags that remove particles from furnace stack exhaust gases. Used to eliminate particles greater than 20 microns in diameter. Barrel of oil equivalent - (BOE) The amount of energy contained in a barrel of crude oil, i.e. approximately 6.1 GJ (5.8 million Btu), equivalent to 1,700 kWh. A "petroleum barrel" is a liquid measure equal to 42 U.S. gallons (35 Imperial gallons or 159 liters); about 7.2 barrels are equivalent to one tonne of oil (metric). Basal Area - The area of the cross section of a tree stem, including the bark, measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). Biobased product - The term 'biobased product,' as defined by Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA), means a product determined by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to be a commercial or industrial product (other than food or feed) that is composed, in whole or in significant part, of biological products or renewable domestic agricultural materials (including plant, animal, and marine materials) or forestry materials. Biochemical conversion - The use of fermentation or anaerobic digestion to produce fuels and chemicals from organic sources. Biological oxygen demand (BOD) - An indirect measure of the concentration of biologically degradable material present in organic wastes. It usually reflects the amount of oxygen consumed in five days by biological processes breaking down organic waste. Biodiesel - Fuel derived from vegetable oils or animal fats. It is produced when a vegetable oil or animal fat is chemically reacted with an alcohol. Bioenergy - Useful, renewable energy produced from organic matter - the conversion of the complex carbohydrates in organic matter to energy. Organic matter may either be used directly as a fuel, processed into liquids and gasses, or be a residual of processing and conversion. Bioethanol - Ethanol produced from biomass feedstocks. This includes ethanol produced from the fermentation of crops, such as corn, as well as cellulosic ethanol produced from woody plants or grasses. Biorefinery - A facility that processes and converts biomass into value-added products. These products can range from biomaterials to fuels such as ethanol or important feedstocks for the production of chemicals and other materials. Biorefineries can be based on a number of processing platforms using mechanical, thermal, chemical, and biochemical processes. Biofuels - Fuels made from biomass resources, or their processing and conversion derivatives. Biofuels include ethanol, biodiesel, and methanol.
Biogas - A combustible gas derived from decomposing biological waste under anaerobic conditions. Biogas normally consists of 50 to 60 percent methane. See also landfill gas. Biogasification or biomethanization - The process of decomposing biomass with anaerobic bacteria to produce biogas. Biomass - Any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses, animal manure, municipal residues, and other residue materials. Biomass is generally produced in a sustainable manner from water and carbon dioxide by photosynthesis. There are three main categories of biomass - primary, secondary, and tertiary. Biomass energy - See Bioenergy. Biomass processing residues - Byproducts from processing all forms of biomass that have significant energy potential. For example, making solid wood products and pulp from logs produces bark, shavings and sawdust, and spent pulping liquors. Because these residues are already collected at the point of processing, they can be convenient and relatively inexpensive sources of biomass for energy. Biopower - The use of biomass feedstock to produce electric power or heat through direct combustion of the feedstock, through gasification and then combustion of the resultant gas, or through other thermal conversion processes. Power is generated with engines, turbines, fuel cells, or other equipment. Biorefinery - A facility that processes and converts biomass into value-added products. These products can range from biomaterials to fuels such as ethanol or important feedstocks for the production of chemicals and other materials. Biorefineries can be based on a number of processing platforms using mechanical, thermal, chemical, and biochemical processes. Bone dry - Having zero percent moisture content. Wood heated in an oven at a constant temperature of 100C (212F) or above until its weight stabilizes is considered bone dry or oven dry. Bottoming cycle - A cogeneration system in which steam is used first for process heat and then for electric power production. Bound nitrogen - Some fuels contain about 0.1-5 % of organic bound nitrogen which typically is in forms of aromatic rings like pyridine or pyrrole. Black liquor - Solution of lignin-residue and the pulping chemicals used to extract lignin during the manufacture of paper. British thermal unit - (Btu) A non-metric unit of heat, still widely used by engineers. One Btu is the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water from 60F to 61F at one atmosphere pressure. 1 Btu = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ). BTL - Biomass-to-Liquids.
Bulk density - Weight per unit of volume, usually specified in pounds per cubic foot. Bunker - A storage tank. Buyback Rate - The price a utility pays to purchase electricity from an independent generator. By-product - Material, other than the principal product, generated as a consequence of an industrial process or as a breakdown product in a living system. Capacity factor - The amount of energy that a power plant actually generates compared to its maxumum rated output, expressed as a percentage. Carbonization - The conversion of organic material into carbon or a carbon-containing residue through pyrolysis. Carbon Cycle - The carbon cycle includes the uptake of carbon dioxide by plants through photosynthesis, its ingestion by animals and its release to the atmosphere through respiration and decay of organic materials. Human activities like the burning of fossil fuels contribute to the release of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) - A colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas that is a normal part of the ambient air. Carbon dioxide is a product of fossil fuel combustion. Catalyst - A substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction, without being consumed or produced by the reaction. Enzymes are catalysts for many biochemical reactions. Cellulose - The main carbohydrate in living plants. Cellulose forms the skeletal structure of the plant cell wall. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) - The amount of dissolved oxygen required to combine with chemicals in wastewater. A measure of the oxygen equivalent of that portion of organic matter that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidizing agent. Closed-loop biomass - Crops grown, in a sustainable manner, for the purpose of optimizing their value for bioenergy and bioproduct uses. This includes annual crops such as maize and wheat, and perennial crops such as trees, shrubs, and grasses such as switchgrass. Cloud point - The temperature at which a fuel, when cooled, begins to congeal and take on a cloudy appearance due to bonding of paraffins. Coarse materials - Wood residues suitable for chipping, such as slabs, edgings, and trimmings. Combustion turbine - A type of generating unit normally fired by oil or natural gas. The combustion of the fuel produces expanding gases, which are forced through a turbine, which produces electricity by spinning a generator. Commercial species - Tree species suitable for industrial wood products.
Condensing turbine - A turbine used for electrical power generation from a minimum amount of steam. To increase plant efficiency, these units can have multiple uncontrolled extraction openings for feed-water heating. Conservation reserve program - CRP provides farm owners or operators with an annual peracre rental payment and half the cost of establishing a permanent land cover in exchange for retiring environmentally sensitive cropland from production for 10 to 15 years. In 1996, Congress reauthorized CRP for an additional round of contracts, limiting enrollment to 36.4 million acres at any time. The 2002 Farm Act increased the enrollment limit to 39 million acres. Producers can offer land for competitive bidding based on an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) during periodic signups, or can automatically enroll more limited acreages in practices such as riparian buffers, field windbreaks, and grass strips on a continuous basis. CRP is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris - Building materials and solid waste from construction, deconstruction, remodeling, repair, cleanup or demolition operations. Coppicing - A traditional method of woodland management, by which young tree stems are cut down to a low level, or sometimes right down to the ground. In subsequent growth years, many new shoots will grow up, and after a number of years the cycle begins again and the coppiced tree or stool is ready to be harvested again. Typically a coppice woodland is harvested in sections, on a rotation. In this way each year a crop is available. Cord - A stack of wood comprising 128 cubic feet (3.62 m3); standard dimensions are 4 x 4 x 8 feet, including air space and bark. One cord contains approximately 1.2 U.S. tons (oven-dry) = 2400 pounds = 1089 kg. Corn Distillers Dried Grains (DDG) - Obtained after the removal of ethanol by distillation from the yeast fermentation of a grain or a grain mixture by separating the resultant coarse grain fraction of the whole stillage and drying it by methods employed in the grain distilling industry. Cropland - Total cropland includes five components: cropland harvested, crop failure, cultivated summer fallow, cropland used only for pasture, and idle cropland. Cropland used for crops - Cropland used for crops includes cropland harvested, crop failure, and cultivated summer fallow. Cropland harvested includes row crops and closely sown crops; hay and silage crops; tree fruits, small fruits, berries, and tree nuts; vegetables and melons; and miscellaneous other minor crops. In recent years, farmers have double-cropped about 4 percent of this acreage. Crop failure consists mainly of the acreage on which crops failed because of weather, insects, and diseases, but includes some land not harvested due to lack of labor, low market prices, or other factors. The acreage planted to cover and soil improvement crops not intended for harvest is excluded from crop failure and is considered idle. Cultivated summer fallow refers to cropland in sub-humid regions of the West cultivated for one or more seasons to control weeds and accumulate moisture before small grains are planted. This practice is optional in some areas, but it is a requirement for crop production in the drier cropland areas of the West. Other types of fallow, such as cropland planted with soil improvement crops but not
harvested and cropland left idle all year, are not included in cultivated summer fallow but are included as idle cropland. Cropland pasture - Land used for long-term crop rotation. However, some cropland pasture is marginal for crop uses and may remain in pasture indefinitely. This category also includes land that was used for pasture before crops reached maturity and some land used for pasture that could have been cropped without additional improvement. Cull tree - A live tree, 5.0 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or larger that is nonmerchantable for saw logs now or prospectively because of rot, roughness, or species. (See definitions for rotten and rough trees.) dbh - The diameter measured at approximately breast high from the ground. Deck - (also known as "landing", "ramp", "set-out") An area designated on a logging job for the temporary storage, collection, handling, sorting and/or loading of trees or logs. Denatured - In the context of alcohol, it refers to making alcohol unfit for drinking without impairing its usefulness for other purposes. Deoxygenation - A chemical reaction involving the removal of molecular oxygen (O2) from a reaction mixture or solvent. Digester - An airtight vessel or enclosure in which bacteria decomposes biomass in water to produce biogas. Dimethyl ether - Also known as methoxymethane, methyl ether, wood ether, and DME, is a colorless, gaseous ether with with an ethereal smell. Dimethyl ether gas is water soluble and has the formula CH3OCH3. Dimethyl ether is used as an aerosol spray propellant. Dimethyl ether is also a clean-burning alternative to liquified petroleum gas, liquified natural gas, diesel and gasoline. It can be made from natural gas, coal, or biomass. Discount rate - A rate used to convert future costs or benefits to their present value. Distillers Dried Grains (DDG) - The dried grain byproduct of the grain fermentation process, which may be used as a high-protein animal feed. Distillers Wet Grains (DWG) - is the product obtained after the removal of ethyl alcohol by distillation from the yeast fermentation of corn. Distributed generation - The Generation of electricity from many small on-site energy sources. It has also been called also called dispersed generation, embedded generation or decentralized generation. Downdraft gasifier - A gasifier in which the product gases pass through a combustion zone at the bottom of the gasifier.
Dutch oven furnace - One of the earliest types of furnaces, having a large, rectangular box lined with firebrick (refractory) on the sides and top. Commonly used for burning wood. Heat is stored in the refractory and radiated to a conical fuel pile in the center of the furnace. Effluent - The liquid or gas discharged from a process or chemical reactor, usually containing residues from that process. Emissions - Waste substances released into the air or water. See also Effluent. Energy crops - Crops grown specifically for their fuel value. These include food crops such as corn and sugarcane, and nonfood crops such as poplar trees and switchgrass. Currently, two types of energy crops are under development; short-rotation woody crops, which are fastgrowing hardwood trees harvested in 5 to 8 years, and herbaceous energy crops, such as perennial grasses, which are harvested annually after taking 2 to 3 years to reach full productivity. Enzyme - A protein or protein-based molecule that speeds up chemical reactions occurring in living things. Enzymes act as catalysts for a single reaction, converting a specific set of reactants into specific products. Ethanol (CH5OH) - Otherwise known as ethyl alcohol, alcohol, or grain-spirit. A clear, colorless, flammable oxygenated hydrocarbon with a boiling point of 78.5 degrees Celsius in the anhydrous state. In transportation, ethanol is used as a vehicle fuel by itself (E100 100% ethanol by volume), blended with gasoline (E85 85% ethanol by volume), or as a gasoline octane enhancer and oxygenate (E10 10% ethanol by volume). Exotic species - Introduced species not native or endemic to the area in question. Externality - A cost or benefit not accounted for in the price of goods or services. Often "externality" refers to the cost of pollution and other environmental impacts. Farmgate price - A basic feedstock price that includes cultivation (or acquisition), harvest, and delivery of biomass to the field edge or roadside. It excludes on-road transport, storage, and delivery to an end user. For grasses and residues this price includes baling. For forest residues and woody crops this includes minimal comminution (e.g. chipping). Fast pyrolysis - Thermal conversion of biomass by rapid heating to between 450 and 600 degrees Celsius in the absence of oxygen. Fatty acids - A group of chemical compounds characterized by a chain made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms and having a carboxylic acid (COOH) group on one end of the molecule. They differ from each other in the number of carbon atoms and the number and location of double bonds in the chain. When they exist unattached to the other compounds, they are called free fatty acids. Feedstock - A product used as the basis for manufacture of another product.
Feller-buncher - A self-propelled machine that cuts trees with giant shears near ground level and then stacks the trees into piles to await skidding. Fermentation - Conversion of carbon-containing compounds by micro-organisms for production of fuels and chemicals such as alcohols, acids, or energy-rich gases. Fiber products - Products derived from fibers of herbaceous and woody plant materials. Examples include pulp, composition board products, and wood chips for export. Fischer-Tropsch Fuels - Liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced by a process that combines carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The process is used to convert coal, natural gas and low-value refinery products into a high-value diesel substitute fuel. Fine materials - Wood residues not suitable for chipping, such as planer shavings and sawdust. Firm power - (firm energy) Power which is guaranteed by the supplier to be available at all times during a period covered by a commitment. That portion of a customer's energy load for which service is assured by the utility provider. Flash pyrolysis - See fast pyrolysis. Flash vacuum pyrolysis (FVP) - Thermal reaction of a molecule by exposing it to a short thermal shock at high temperature, usually in the gas phase. Flow control - A legal or economic means by which waste is directed to particular destinations. For example, an ordinance requiring that certain waste be sent to a landfill is waste flow control. Flow rate - The amount of fluid that moves through an area (usually pipe) in a given period of time. Fluidized-bed boiler - A large, refractory-lined vessel with an air distribution member or plate in the bottom, a hot gas outlet in or near the top, and some provisions for introducing fuel. The fluidized bed is formed by blowing air up through a layer of inert particles (such as sand or limestone) at a rate that causes the particles to go into suspension and continuous motion. The super-hot bed material increased combustion efficiency by its direct contact with the fuel. Fly ash - Small ash particles carried in suspension in combustion products. Forest land - Land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, including land that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. Forest land includes transition zones, such as areas between heavily forested and nonforested lands that are at least 10 percent stocked with forest trees and forest areas adjacent to urban and built-up lands. Also included are pinyon-juniper and chaparral areas in the West and afforested areas. The minimum area for classification of forest land is 1 acre. Roadside, streamside, and shelterbelt strips of trees must have a crown width of at least 120 feet to qualify as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest areas are classified as forest if less than 120 feet wide.
Forestry residues - Includes tops, limbs, and other woody material not removed in forest harvesting operations in commercial hardwood and softwood stands, as well as woody material resulting from forest management operations such as precommercial thinnings and removal of dead and dying trees. Forest health - A condition of ecosystem sustainability and attainment of management objectives for a given forest area. Usually considered to include green trees, snags, resilient stands growing at a moderate rate, and endemic levels of insects and disease. Natural processes still function or are duplicated through management intervention. Forwarder - A self-propelled vehicle to transport harvested material from the stump area to the landing. Trees, logs, or bolts are carried off the ground on a stake-bunk, or are held by hydraulic jaws of a clam-bunk. Chips are hauled in a dumpable or open-top bin or chip-box. Fossil fuel - Solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels formed in the ground after millions of years by chemical and physical changes in plant and animal residues under high temperature and pressure. Oil, natural gas, and coal are fossil fuels. Fouling - The coating of heat transfer surfaces in heat exchangers such as boiler tubes caused by deposition of ash particles. Fuel cell - A device that converts the energy of a fuel directly to electricity and heat, without combustion. Fuel cycle - The series of steps required to produce electricity. The fuel cycle includes mining or otherwise acquiring the raw fuel source, processing and cleaning the fuel, transport, electricity generation, waste management and plant decommissioning. Fuel Treatment Evaluator (FTE) - A strategic assessment tool capable of aiding the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of fuel treatment opportunities. Fuelwood - Wood used for conversion to some form of energy, primarily for residential use. Furnace - An enclosed chamber or container used to burn biomass in a controlled manner to produce heat for space or process heating. Gasohol - A mixture of 10% anhydrous ethanol and 90% gasoline by volume; 7.5% anhydrous ethanol and 92.5% gasoline by volume; or 5.5% anhydrous ethanol and 94.5% gasoline by volume. There are other fuels that contain methanol and gasoline, but these fuels are not referred to as gasohol. Gas turbine - (combustion turbine) A turbine that converts the energy of hot compressed gases (produced by burning fuel in compressed air) into mechanical power. Often fired by natural gas or fuel oil. Gasification - A chemical or heat process to convert a solid fuel to a gaseous form.
Gasifier - A device for converting solid fuel into gaseous fuel. In biomass systems, the process is referred to as pyrolitic distillation. See Pyrolysis. Genetic selection - Application of science to systematic improvement of a population, e.g. through selective breeding. Gigawatt (GW) - A measure of electrical power equal to one billion watts (1,000,000 kW). A large coal or nuclear power station typically has a capacity of about 1 GW. Global Climate Change - Global climate change could result in sea level rises, changes to patterns of precipitation, increased variability in the weather, and a variety of other consequences. These changes threaten our health, agriculture, water resources, forests, wildlife, and coastal areas. Global warming - A term used to describe the increase in average global temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. Grassland pasture and range - All open land used primarily for pasture and grazing, including shrub and brush land types of pasture; grazing land with sagebrush and scattered mesquite; and all tame and native grasses, legumes, and other forage used for pasture or grazing. Because of the diversity in vegetative composition, grassland pasture and range are not always clearly distinguishable from other types of pasture and range. At one extreme, permanent grassland may merge with cropland pasture, or grassland may often be found in transitional areas with forested grazing land. Greenhouse effect - The effect of certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere in trapping heat from the sun. Greenhouse gases - Gases that trap the heat of the sun in the Earth's atmosphere, producing the greenhouse effect. The two major greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Other greenhouse gases include methane, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, and nitrous oxide. Green Power - Electricity that is generated from renewable energy sources is often referred to as green power. Green power products can include electricity generated exclusively from renewable resources or, more frequently, electricity produced from a combination of fossil and renewable resources. Also known as blended products, these products typically have lower prices than 100 percent renewable products. Customers who take advantage of these options usually pay a premium for having some or all of their electricity produced from renewable resources. Green Power Purchasing/Aggregation Policies - Municipalities, state governments, businesses, and other non-residential customers can play a critical role in supporting renewable energy technologies by buying electricity from renewable resources. At the local level, green power purchasing can mean buying green power for municipal facilities, streetlights, water pumping stations and other public infrastructure. Several states require that a certain percentage of electricity purchased for state government buildings come from renewable resources. A few states allow local governments to aggregate the electricity loads of the entire
community to purchase green power and even to join with other communities to form an even larger green power purchasing block. This is often referred to as "Community Choice." Green power purchasing can be achieved via utility green pricing programs, green power marketers (in states with retail competition), special contracts, or community aggregation. Grid - An electric utility company's system for distributing power. Growing stock - A classification of timber inventory that includes live trees of commercial species meeting specified standards of quality or vigor. Cull trees are excluded. When associated with volume, includes only trees 5.0 inches in d.b.h. and larger. Habitat - The area where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions. Habitat includes living and non-living attributes and provides all requirements for food and shelter. Hammermill - A device consisting of a rotating head with free-swinging hammers which reduce chips or wood fuel to a predetermined particle size through a perforated screen. Hardwoods - Usually broad-leaved and deciduous trees. Heat rate - The amount of fuel energy required by a power plant to produce one kilowatt-hour of electrical output. A measure of generating station thermal efficiency, generally expressed in Btu per net kWh. It is computed by dividing the total Btu content of fuel burned for electric generation by the resulting net kWh generation. Heat transfer efficiency - useful heat output released / actual heat produced in the firebox. Heating value - The maximum amount of energy that is available from burning a substance. Hectare - Common metric unit of area, equal to 2.47 acres. 100 hectares = 1 square kilometer. Hemicellulose Hemicellulose consists of short, highly branched chains of sugars. In contrast to cellulose, which is a polymer of only glucose, a hemicellulose is a polymer of five different sugars. It contains five-carbon sugars (usually D-xylose and L-arabinose) and six-carbon sugars (D-galactose, D-glucose, and D-mannose) and uronic acid. The sugars are highly substituted with acetic acid. The branched nature of hemicellulose renders it amorphous and relatively easy to hydrolyze to its constituent sugars compared to cellulose. When hydrolyzed, the hemicellulose from hardwoods or grasses releases products high in xylose (a five-carbon sugar). The hemicellulose contained in softwoods, by contrast, yields more six-carbon sugars. Herbaceous - Non-woody type of vegetation, usually lacking permanent strong stems, such as grasses, cereals and canola (rape). HFCS - High fructose corn syrup. Higher heating value - (HHV) The maximum potential energy in dry fuel. For wood, the range is from 7,600 to 9,600 Btu/lb and grasses are typically in the 7,000 to 7,500 Btu/lb range. Hog - A chipper or mill which grinds wood into an acceptable form to be used for boiler fuel.
Horsepower - (electrical horsepower; hp) A unit for measuring the rate of mechanical energy output, usually used to describe the maximum output of engines or electric motors. 1 hp = 550 foot-pounds per second = 2,545 Btu per hour = 745.7 watts = 0.746 kW Hydrocarbon - A compound containing only hydrogen and carbon. The simplest and lightest forms of hydrocarbon are gaseous. With greater molecular weights they are liquid, while the heaviest are solids. Hydrolysis - A process of breaking chemical bonds of a compound by adding water to the bonds. Idle cropland - Land in cover and soil improvement crops, and cropland on which no crops were planted. Some cropland is idle each year for various physical and economic reasons. Acreage diverted from crops to soil-conserving uses (if not eligible for and used as cropland pasture) under federal farm programs is included in this component. Cropland enrolled in the Federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is included in idle cropland. Incinerator - Any device used to burn solid or liquid residues or wastes as a method of disposal. In some incinerators, provisions are made for recovering the heat produced. Inclined grate - A type of furnace in which fuel enters at the top part of a grate in a continuous ribbon, passes over the upper drying section where moisture is removed, and descends into the lower burning section. Ash is removed at the lower part of the grate. Incremental energy costs - The cost of producing and transporting the next available unit of electrical energy. Short run incremental costs (SRIC) include only incremental operating costs. Long run incremental costs (LRIC) include the capital cost of new resources or capital equipment. Independent power producer - A power production facility that is not part of a regulated utility. Indirect liquefaction - Conversion of biomass to a liquid fuel through a synthesis gas intermediate step. Industrial wood - All commercial roundwood products except fuelwood. Invasive species - A species that has moved into an area and reproduced so aggressively that it threatens or has replaced some of the original species. Iodine number - A measure of the ability of activated carbon to adsorb substances with low molecular weights. It is the milligrams of iodine that can be adsorbed on one gram of activated carbon. Joule - Metric unit of energy, equivalent to the work done by a force of one Newton applied over a distance of one meter (= 1 kg m2/s2). One joule (J) = 0.239 calories (1 calorie = 4.187 J). Kilowatt - (kW) A measure of electrical power equal to 1,000 watts. 1 kW = 3412 Btu/hr = 1.341 horsepower. See also watt.
Kilowatt hour - (kWh) A measure of energy equivalent to the expenditure of one kilowatt for one hour. For example, 1 kWh will light a 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours. 1 kWh = 3412 Btu. Landfill gas - A type of biogas that is generated by decomposition of organic material at landfill disposal sites. Landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane. See also biogas. Landing - A cleared working area on or near a timber harvest site at which processing steps are carried out. Legume - Any plant belonging to the leguminous family. Characterized by pods as fruits and root nodules enabling the storage of nitrogen. Levelized life-cycle cost - The present value of the cost of a resource, including capital, financing and operating costs, expressed as a stream of equal annual payments. This stream of payments can be converted to a unit cost of energy by dividing the annual payment amount by the annual kilowatt-hours produced or saved. By levelizing costs, resources with different lifetimes and generating capabilities can be compared. Lignin - Structural constituent of wood and (to a lesser extent) other plant tissues, which encrusts the cell walls and cements the cells together. Live cull - A classification that includes live cull trees. When associated with volume, it is the net volume in live cull trees that are 5.0 inches in dbh and larger. Logging residues - The unused portions of growing-stock and non-growing-stock trees cut or killed by logging and left in the woods. Lower heating value (LHV) - The potential energy in a fuel if the water vapor from combustion of hydrogen is not condensed. Megawatt - (MW) A measure of electrical power equal to one million watts (1,000 kW). See also watt. Merchantable - Logs from which at least some of the volume can be converted into sound grades of lumber ("standard and better" framing lumber). Methanol - A Methyl alcohol having the chemical formula CH30H. Also known as wood alcohol, methanol is usually produced by chemical conversion at high temperatures and pressures. Although usually produced from natural gas, methanol can be produced from gasified biomass (syngas). Mill/kWh - A common method of pricing electricity in the U.S. Tenths of a U.S. cent per kilowatt hour. Mill residue - Wood and bark residues produced in processing logs into lumber, plywood, and paper. MMBtu - One million British thermal units.
Moisture content - (MC) The weight of the water contained in wood, usually expressed as a percentage of weight, either oven-dry or as received. Moisture content, dry basis - Moisture content expressed as a percentage of the weight of oven-dry wood, i.e.: [(weight of wet sample - weight of dry sample) / weight of dry sample] x 100 Moisture content, wet basis - Moisture content expressed as a percentage of the weight of wood as-received, i.e.: [(weight of wet sample - weight of dry sample) / weight of wet sample] x 100 Monoculture - The cultivation of a single species crop. Municipal solid waste (MSW) - Garbage. Refuse offering the potential for energy recovery; includes residential, commercial, and institutional wastes. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - A federal law enacted in 1969 that requires all federal agencies to consider and analyze the environmental impacts of any proposed action. NEPA requires an environmental impact statement for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. NEPA requires federal agencies to inform and involve the public in the agencys decision making process and to consider the environmental impacts of the agencys decision. Net Metering - For those consumers who have their own electricity generating units, net metering allows for the flow of electricity both to and from the customer through a single, bidirectional meter. With net metering, during times when the customer's generation exceeds his or her use, electricity from the customer to the utility offsets electricity consumed at another time. In effect, the customer is using the excess generation to offset electricity that would have been purchased at the retail rate. Under most state rules, residential, commercial, and industrial customers are eligible for net metering, but some states restrict eligibility to particular customer classes. Net present value - The sum of the costs and benefits of a project or activity. Future benefits and costs are discounted to account for interest costs. Nitrogen fixation - The transformation of atmospheric nitrogen into nitrogen compounds that can be used by growing plants. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - Gases consisting of one molecule of nitrogen and varying numbers of oxygen molecules. Nitrogen oxides are produced from the burning of fossil fuels. In the atmosphere, nitrogen oxides can contribute to the formation of photochemical ozone (smog), can impair visibility, and have health consequences; they are thus considered pollutants. Noncondensing, controlled extraction turbine - A turbine that bleeds part of the main steam flow at one (single extraction) or two (double extraction) points. Nonforest land - Land that has never supported forests and lands formerly forested where use of timber management is precluded by development for other uses. (Note: Includes area used for crops, improved pasture, residential areas, city parks, improved roads of any width and
adjoining clearings, powerline clearings of any width, and 1- to 4.5-acre areas of water classified by the Bureau of the Census as land. If intermingled in forest areas, unimproved roads and nonforest strips must be more than 120 feet wide, and clearings, etc., must be more than 1 acre in area to qualify as nonforest land.) Nonattainment area - Any area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard established by the Environmental Protection Agency for designated pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and ozone. Nonindustrial private - An ownership class of private lands where the owner does not operate wood-using processing plants. Oilseed crops - Primarily soybeans, sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, peanuts and cottonseed, used for the production of cooking oils, protein meals for livestock, and industrial uses. Old growth - Timber stands with the following characteristics; large mature and over-mature trees in the overstory, snags, dead and decaying logs on the ground, and a multi-layered canopy with trees of several age classes. Open-loop biomass - Biomass that can be used to produce energy and bioproducts even though it was not grown specifically for this purpose. Examples of open-loop biomass include agricultural livestock waste and residues from forest harvesting operations and crop harvesting. Organic compounds - Chemical compounds based on carbon chains or rings and also containing hydrogen, with or without oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements. Other forest land - Forest land other than timberland and reserved forest land. It includes available forest land, which is incapable of annually producing 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood under natural conditions because of adverse site conditions such as sterile soils, dry climate, poor drainage, high elevation, steepness, or rockiness. Other removals - Unutilized wood volume from cut or otherwise killed growing stock, from cultural operations such as precommercial thinnings, or from timberland clearing. Does not include volume removed from inventory through reclassification of timberland to productive reserved forest land. Other sources - Sources of roundwood products that are not growing stock. These include salvable dead, rough and rotten trees, trees of noncommercial species, trees less than 5.0 inches d.b.h., tops, and roundwood harvested from non-forest land (for example, fence rows). Oxygenate - A substance which, when added to gasoline, increases the amount of oxygen in that gasoline blend. Includes fuel ethanol, methanol, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Particulate - A small, discrete mass of solid or liquid matter that remains individually dispersed in gas or liquid emissions. Particulates take the form of aerosol, dust, fume, mist, smoke, or spray. Each of these forms has different properties.
Photosynthesis - Process by which chlorophyll-containing cells in green plants concert incident light to chemical energy, capturing carbon dioxide in the form of carbohydrates. Pilot scale - The size of a system between the small laboratory model size (bench scale) and a full-size system. Poletimber trees - Live trees at least 5.0 inches in d.b.h. but smaller than sawtimber trees. Pour point - The minimum temperature at which a liquid, particularly a lubricant, will flow. Prescribed fire - Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. Prior to ignition, a written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Protection Act requirements must be met. Present value - The worth of future receipts or costs expressed in current value. To obtain present value, an interest rate is used to discount future receipts or costs. Primary wood-using mill - A mill that converts roundwood products into other wood products. Common examples are sawmills that convert saw logs into lumber and pulp mills that convert pulpwood roundwood into wood pulp. Process heat - Heat used in an industrial process rather than for space heating or other housekeeping purposes. Producer gas - Fuel gas high in carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), produced by burning a solid fuel with insufficient air or by passing a mixture of air and steam through a burning bed of solid fuel. Proximate analysis - An analysis which reports volatile matter, fixed carbon, moisture content, and ash present in a fuel as a percentage of dry fuel weight. Public power - The term used for not-for-profit utilities that are owned and operated by a municipality, state or the federal government. Public utility commissions - State agencies that regulate investor-owned utilities operating in the state. Public utility regulatory policies act - (PURPA) A Federal law requiring a utility to buy the power produced by a qualifying facility at a price equal to that which the utility would otherwise pay if it were to build its own power plant or buy power from another source. Pulpwood - Roundwood, whole-tree chips, or wood residues that are used for the production of wood pulp. Pulp chips - Timber or residues processed into small pieces of wood of more or less uniform dimensions with minimal amounts of bark. Pyrolysis - The thermal decomposition of biomass at high temperatures (greater than 400 F, or 200 C) in the absence of air. The end product of pyrolysis is a mixture of solids (char),
liquids (oxygenated oils), and gases (methane, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide) with proportions determined by operating temperature, pressure, oxygen content, and other conditions. Quad: One quadrillion Btu (1015 Btu) = 1.055 exajoules (EJ), or approximately 172 million barrels of oil equivalent. Reburning - Reburning entails the injection of natural gas, biomass fuels, or other fuels into a coal-fired boiler above the primary combustion zonerepresenting 15 to 20 percent of the total fuel mixcan produce NOx reductions in the 50 to 70 percent range and SO2 reductions in the 20 to 25 percent range. Reburning is an effective and economic means of reducing NOx emissions from all types of industrial and electric utility boilers. Reburning may be used in coal or oil boilers, and it is even effective in cyclone and wet-bottom boilers, for which other forms of NOx control are either not available or very expensive. Recovery boiler - A pulp mill boiler in which lignin and spent cooking liquor (black liquor) is burned to generate steam. Refractory lining - A lining, usually of ceramic, capable of resisting and maintaining high temperatures. Refuse-derived fuel - (RDF) Fuel prepared from municipal solid waste. Noncombustible materials such as rocks, glass, and metals are removed, and the remaining combustible portion of the solid waste is chopped or shredded. RDF facilities process typically between 100 and 3,000 tons of MSW per day. Renewable diesel - Defined in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as fuel produced from biological material using a process called "thermal depolymerization" that meets the fuel specification requirements of ASTM D975 (petroleum diesel fuel) or ASTM D396 (home heating oil). Produced in free-standing facilities. Renewable Fuel Standards - Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPA is responsible for promulgating regulations to ensure that gasoline sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. A national Renewable Fuel Program (also known as the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, or RFS Program) will increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into gasoline, starting with 4.0 billion gallons in calendar year 2006 and nearly doubling to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. The RFS program was developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders. Renewables Portfolio Standards/Set Asides - Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) require that a certain percentage of a utility's overall or new generating capacity or energy sales must be derived from renewable resources, i.e., 1% of electric sales must be from renewable energy in the year 200x. Portfolio Standards most commonly refer to electric sales measured in megawatt-hours (MWh), as opposed to electric capacity measured in megawatts (MW). The term "set asides" is frequently used to refer to programs where a utility is required to include a certain amount of renewables capacity in new installations.
Reserve margin - The amount by which the utility's total electric power capacity exceeds maximum electric demand. Residues - Bark and woody materials that are generated in primary wood-using mills when roundwood products are converted to other products. Examples are slabs, edgings, trimmings, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and clippings, and pulp screenings. Includes bark residues and wood residues (both coarse and fine materials) but excludes logging residues. Return on investment- (ROI) The interest rate at which the net present value of a project is zero. Multiple values are possible. Rotation - Period of years between establishment of a stand of timber and the time when it is considered ready for final harvest and regeneration. Rotten tree - A live tree of commercial species that does not contain a saw log now or prospectively primarily because of rot (that is, when rot accounts for more than 50 percent of the total cull volume). Rough tree - (a) A live tree of commercial species that does not contain a saw log now or prospectively primarily because of roughness (that is, when sound cull, due to such factors as poor form, splits, or cracks, accounts for more than 50 percent of the total cull volume) or (b) a live tree of noncommercial species. Roundwood products - Logs and other round timber generated from harvesting trees for industrial or consumer use. Saccharification - The process of breaking down a complex carbohydrate, such as starch or cellulose, into its monosaccharide components. Salvable dead tree - A downed or standing dead tree that is considered currently or potentially merchantable by regional standards. Saplings - Live trees 1.0 inch through 4.9 inches in d.b.h. Saturated steam- Steam at boiling temperature for a given pressure. Secondary wood processing mills - A mill that uses primary wood products in the manufacture of finished wood products, such as cabinets, moldings, and furniture. Shaft horsepower - A measure of the actual mechanical energy per unit time delivered to a turning shaft. See also horsepower. Silviculture - Theory and practice of controlling the establishment, composition, structure and growth of forests and woodlands. Slagging - The coating of internal surfaces of fireboxes and in boilers from deposition of ash particles.
Softwood - Generally, one of the botanical groups of trees that in most cases have needle-like or scale-like leaves; the conifers; also the wood produced by such trees. The term has no reference to the actual hardness of the wood. The botanical name for softwoods is gymnosperms. Sound dead - The net volume in salvable dead trees. Species - A group of organisms that differ from all other groups of organisms and that are capable of breeding and producing fertile offspring. This is the smallest unit of classification for plants and animals. spp. - This notation means that many species within a genus are included but not all. SRIC - Short rotation intensive culture - the growing of tree crops for bioenergy or fiber, characterized by detailed site preparation, usually less than 10 years between harvests, usually fast-growing hybrid trees and intensive management (some fertilization, weed and pest control, and possibly irrigation). Stand - (of trees) A tree community that possesses sufficient uniformity in composition, constitution, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities. Stand density - The number or mass of trees occupying a site. It is usually measured in terms of stand density index or basal area per acre. Starch - A naturally abundant nutrient carbohydrate, found chiefly in the seeds, fruits, tubers, roots, and stem pith of plants, notably in corn, potatoes, wheat, and rice, and varying widely in appearance according to source but commonly prepared as a white amorphous tasteless powder. Steam turbine- A device for converting energy of high-pressure steam (produced in a boiler) into mechanical power which can then be used to generate electricity. Stover - The dried stalks and leaves of a crop remaining after the grain has been harvested. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) - Formed by combustion of fuels containing sulfur, primarily coal and oil. Major health effects associated with SO2 include asthma, respiratory illness, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. SO2 combines with water and oxygen in the atmosphere to form acid rain, which raises the acid levels of lakes and streams, affecting the ability of fish and some amphibians to survive. It also damages sensitive forests and ecosystems, particularly in the eastern part of the US. It also accelerates the decay of buildings. Making electricity is responsible for two-thirds of all Sulfur Dioxide. Superheated steam - Steam which is hotter than boiling temperature for a given pressure. Surplus electricity - Electricity produced by cogeneration equipment in excess of the needs of an associated factory or business.
Sustainable - An ecosystem condition in which biodiversity, renewability, and resource productivity are maintained over time. Switchgrass - Panicum virgatum, is a native grass species of the North American Praries that has high potential as an herbaceous energy crop. The relatively low water and nutrient requirements of switchgrass make it well suited to marginal land and it has long-term, high yield productivity over a wide range of environments. Synthetic ethanol - Ethanol produced from ethylene, a petroleum by-product. Systems benefit charge - A small surcharge collected through consumer electric bills that are designated to fund certain "public benefits" that are placed at risk in a more competitive industry. Systems benefit charges typically help to fund renewable energy, research and development, and energy efficiency. Therm - A unit of energy equal to 100,000 Btus (= 105.5 MJ); used primarily for natural gas. Thermal NOx - Nitrous Oxide (NOx) emissions formed at high temperature by the reaction of nitrogen present in combustion air. cf. fuel NOx. Thermochemical conversion - Use of heat to chemically change substances from one state to another, e.g. to make useful energy products. Timberland - Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing crops of industrial wood, and that is not withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulation. Areas qualifying as timberland are capable of producing more than 20 cubic feet per acre per year of industrial wood in natural stands. Currently inaccessible and inoperable areas are included. Timber Product Output Database Retrieval System (TPO) - Developed in support of the 1997 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment, this system acts as an interface to a standard set of consistently coded TPO data for each state and county in the country. This set of national TPO data consists of 11 data variables that describe for each county the roundwood products harvested, the logging residues left behind, the timber otherwise removed, and the wood and bark residues generated by its primary wood-using mills. Tipping fee - A fee for disposal of waste. Ton, Tonne - One U.S. ton (short ton) = 2,000 pounds. One Imperial ton (long ton or shipping ton) = 2,240 pounds. One metric tonne(tonne) = 1,000 kilograms (2,205 pounds). One oven-dry ton or tonne (ODT, sometimes termed bone-dry ton/tonne) is the amount of wood that weighs one ton/tonne at 0% moisture content. One green ton/tonne refers to the weight of undried (fresh) biomass material - moisture content must be specified if green weight is used as a fuel measure. Topping cycle - A cogeneration system in which electric power is produced first. The reject heat from power production is then used to produce useful process heat.
Topping and back pressure turbines - Turbines which operate at exhaust pressure considerably higher than atmospheric (noncondensing turbines). These turbines are often multistage types with relatively high efficiency. Total Solids - The amount of solids remaining after all volatile matter has been removed from a biomass sample by heating at 105C to constant weight. Transesterification - A chemical process which reacts an alcohol with the triglycerides contained in vegetable oils and animal fats to produce biodiesel and glycerin. Traveling grate- A type of furnace in which assembled links of grates are joined together in a perpetual belt arrangement. Fuel is fed in at one end and ash is discharged at the other. Trommel screen - A revolving cylindrical sieve used for screening or sizing compost, mulch, and solid biomass fuels such as wood chips. Tub grinder - A shredder used primarily for woody, vegetative debris. A tub grinder consists of a hammermill, the top half of which extends up through the stationary floor of a tub. As the hammers encounter material, they rip and tear large pieces into smaller pieces, pulling the material down below the tub floor and ultimately forcing it through openings in a set of grates below the mill. Various sized openings in the removable grates are used to determine the size of the end product. Turbine - A machine for converting the heat energy in steam or high temperature gas into mechanical energy. In a turbine, a high velocity flow of steam or gas passes through successive rows of radial blades fastened to a central shaft. Turn down ratio- The lowest load at which a boiler will operate efficiently as compared to the boiler's maximum design load. Ultimate analysis - A description of a fuels elemental composition as a percentage of the dry fuel weight. Unmerchantable wood - Material which is unsuitable for conversion to wood products due to poor size, form, or quality. Urban wood waste - Woody biomass generated from tree and yard trimmings, the commercial tree care industry, utility line thinning to reduce wildfire risk or to improve forrest health, and greenspace maintenance. Volatile matter - Those products, exclusive of moisture, given off by a material as a gas or vapor, determined by definite prescribed methods that may vary according to the nature of the material. One definition of volatile matter is part of the proximate analysis group usually determined as described in ASTM D 3175. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) - Non-methane hydrocarbon gases, released during combustion or evaporation of fuel.
Waste streams - Unused solid or liquid by-products of a process. Water-cooled vibrating grate - A boiler grate made up of a tuyere grate surface mounted on a grid of water tubes interconnected with the boiler circulation system for positive cooling. The structure is supported by flexing plates allowing the grid and grate to move in a vibrating action. Ashes are automatically discharged. Watershed - The drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved nutrients, and sediments to a stream or lake. Watt - The common base unit of power in the metric system. One watt equals one joule per second, or the power developed in a circuit by a current of one ampere flowing through a potential difference of one volt. One Watt = 3.412 Btu/hr. See also kilowatt. Wheeling - The process of transferring electrical energy between buyer and seller by way of an intermediate utility or utilities. Whole-tree chips - Wood chips produced by chipping whole trees, usually in the forest. Thus the chips contain both bark and wood. They are frequently produced from the low-quality trees or from tops, limbs, and other logging residues. Whole-tree harvesting - A harvesting method in which the whole tree (above the stump) is removed. Yarding - The initial movement of logs from the point of felling to a central loading area or landing.

Biomass Energy Data Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Energy Data Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Energy Data Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USEFUL WEB SITES GOVERNMENT LINKS U.S.

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

BIOMASS ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 4

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

INTRODUCTION TO BIOMASS Contents

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Overview

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Paper and Allied Products

Chemicals and Allied Products

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Section: INTRODUCTION Summary of Biomass Energy Consumption, 2010

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Section: INTRODUCTION A Comparison of Climate Impacts of Various Bioenergy Systems

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Resources Overview

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/A_to_Z/index.asp#h

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Green Hydrocarbon Biofuels

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Section: BIOFUELS Diagram of Routes to Make Biofuels

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Products Reaction Conditions Residence Time Selectivity

Recyclability Size of Cellulosic Plant

Yes with Solid Catalysts 100-2,000 tons/day

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Source: DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biofuels.html

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Pour Point, ASTM D 97. Calculated. c Based on Cetane.

Biomass Energy Data Book 2011 http://cta.ornl.gov/bedb

Individual Countries United States Brazil European Union China Canada