![](media/image1.wmf)

**DOE Office of the Biomass Program**

**FY05 Thermochemical Portfolio Alignment Review**

**June 7-8, 2005**

**Summary of Results**

**August 11, 2005**

######### **Table of Contents**

[Introduction 1](#introduction)

[Objective of the FY05 Thermochemical Portfolio Alignment Review
3](#objective-of-the-fy05-thermochemical-portfolio-alignment-review)

[Reviewer Selection and Scoring Process
4](#reviewer-selection-and-scoring-process)

[Thermochemical Review Panel Collective Report
5](#thermochemical-review-panel-collective-report)

[2005 DOE Thermochemical Platform Evaluation Form
5](#doe-thermochemical-platform-evaluation-form)

[Review Panel Collective Gate Placement
7](#review-panel-collective-gate-placement)

[Project Specific Review Panel Ratings
9](#project-specific-review-panel-ratings)

[Project Summaries/Comments/Charts 10](#project-summariescommentscharts)

[Feed Processing and Handling (P1) 10](#feed-processing-and-handling-p1)

[Gasification of Biorefinery Residues (P2)
13](#gasification-of-biorefinery-residues-p2)

[Wet Gasification of Biorefinery Residues (P3)
16](#wet-gasification-of-biorefinery-residues-p3)

[Process Monitoring Tools (P4) 19](#process-monitoring-tools-p4)

[Thermochemical Conversion of Corn Stover (P5)
21](#thermochemical-conversion-of-corn-stover-p5)

[Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification (P6)
24](#catalytic-hydrothermal-gasification-p6)

[Gasification From Fuels and Chemicals in a Pulp Mill (P7)
26](#gasification-from-fuels-and-chemicals-in-a-pulp-mill-p7)

[High Temperature Black Liquor Gasification (P8)
28](#high-temperature-black-liquor-gasification-p8)

[Pressurized Entrained Flow BLG (P9)
30](#pressurized-entrained-flow-blg-p9)

[Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Integrated Catalyst Studies (P10)
32](#gas-clean-up-and-conditioning-integrated-catalyst-studies-p10)

[Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Catalysts Fundamentals (P11)
35](#gas-clean-up-and-conditioning-catalysts-fundamentals-p11)

[Verification of Syngas Quality (P12)
37](#verification-of-syngas-quality-p12)

[Sulfur Removal and Gasification of Membranes (P13)
39](#sulfur-removal-and-gasification-of-membranes-p13)

[Biomass Gas Clean-up (P14) 41](#biomass-gas-clean-up-p14)

[In-process Elimination of Tars (P15)
44](#in-process-elimination-of-tars-p15)

[High Temperature Sorbents (P16) 47](#high-temperature-sorbents-p16)

[Appendix A A-1](#appendix-a)

[PI Response to Reviewer Comments Overall Thermochemical Portfolio
Evaluation
A-1](#pi-response-to-reviewer-comments-overall-thermochemical-portfolio-evaluation)

[Appendix B B-1](#appendix-b)

[PI Comments on Review Panel Collective Gate Placement
B-1](#pi-comments-on-review-panel-collective-gate-placement)

[Appendix C C-1](#appendix-c)

[PI Response to Reviewer Comments by Project
C-1](#pi-response-to-reviewer-comments-by-project)

[Appendix D D-1](#appendix-d)

[DOE Action Plan Based Upon Portfolio Review
D-1](#doe-action-plan-based-upon-portfolio-review)

# Introduction

The Thermochemical Platform is focused on addressing key barriers that
will support integrated Biorefineries by lowering of the overall cost of
clean syngas (CO and H2), and other intermediates. The syngas, and other
intermediates, can ultimately be converted to liquid transportation
fuels or chemicals that will displace imported petroleum. The use of
thermochemical processes to convert lignin residues and other
biorefinery residual streams to value added power, fuels and products
will greatly improve the economics of integrated Biorefineries and
contribute to the OBP goal of developing the economically viable
Integrated Biorefinery.

There were two suites of projects that were reviewed at the FY05
Thermochemical Portfolio Alignment Meeting. The first was a series of
projects being performed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) primarily
focused on developing biomass gasification and gas clean-up technology
that can applied many different biomass feedstocks. The second is a
suite of projects that were selected by competitive solicitations or by
directed by Congress. This series of DOE subcontracted projects are
primarily looking at gas clean-up technology, black liquor gasification
and other thermochemical processes.

The key technical barriers to developing robust thermochemical processes
include feed processing and handling, thermal conversion technologies,
gas cleanup, containment materials, process control and integrated
analysis. Based on detailed technoeconomic analyses of both stand-alone
and integrated thermochemical process the major opportunity for lowering
the costs of clean syngas is the removal/reforming of tars and other
contaminants. Thus, the Thermochemical Platform includes a number of
projects focused on the cleanup and conditioning of syngas.

These are the barrier areas currently receiving funding:

**WBS 3.1. Feed processing and handling**

Analysis and experience have shown that application of typical solids
handling systems to biomass is very difficult. As the suite of biomass
feedstock is expanded to include biorefinery residues (lignin-rich
materials), agricultural residues and other herbaceous materials, feed
handling issues will arise about physical and chemical properties like
moisture content, bulk density, flowability, and contaminants. These
issues and concerns will be examined by work in this barrier area.

**WBS 3.2. Thermal conversion**

The basics of high temperature and low temperature biomass gasification
processes are considered to be well-known, but there is a lack of
information on tailoring gasifier design and conditions for production
of clean syngas of the correct composition from novel feedstocks such as
biorefinery residues, agricultural wastes and spent pulping liquors
limits the quick introduction of syngas processes.

Developing improved containment materials and process control systems
are recognized as additional barriers within this area. However, since
analysis has shown that these barriers have a relatively small impact on
the overall costs of thermochemical intermediates there are currently no
funded projects in these areas.

**WBS 3.3 Intermediate cleanup and conditioning**

Analysis and initial research have shown that the best opportunity for
lowering syngas cost is in this barrier. The raw gases from biomass
systems do not meet strict quality standards for downstream synthesis
catalysts as well as some power technologies, and will require gas
cleaning and conditioning to remove contaminants (tar, particulates,
alkali, ammonia, chlorine and/or sulfur). Pyrolysis oils are very acidic
and highly oxygenated they are unstable and tend to polymerize over
time. Thus, there is a need for technologies that can produce clean
syngas and stable pyrolysis oils.

**WBS 3.5 Process integration and analysis**

Technical issues for integrating syngas or bio-oil production and
cleanup with downstream fuels and chemicals synthesis have not been
identified or solved. This limits the rapid commercialization of the
technology. In addition, the inclusion of thermochemical processing into
the sugars biorefinery will require substantial integration and
potential process modifications.

Connection to Deployment Pathways and A, B and C Milestones

The Thermochemical Platform is addressing A, B and C milestones that are
included in five of biomass utilization pathways. The B milestones, with
supporting C milestones, include the cost of clean syngas (\$/MMBtu) and
the costs of products derived from this clean syngas (\$/gal or \$/lb),
and the costs of wood derived bio-oil (\$/gal or \$/MMBtu). The specific
pathways and technologies include 1) production of heat and power in the
Existing Dry and Wet Mills Pathway, 2) production of syngas for liquid
transportation fuels and heat and power in the Agricultural Residues
Pathway, the Energy Crops Pathway, the Pulp and Paper Mill Improvements
Pathway and Wood Products Mills Improvements Pathway, and 3) production
of bio-oil in the Pulp and Paper Mill Improvements Pathway and Wood
Products Mills Improvements Pathway.

# Objective of the FY05 Thermochemical Portfolio Alignment Review

The objective of the FY05 Thermochemical Portfolio Alignment Review was
to assemble a review panel of experts help make a determination of the
"stage placement" of the projects in the Thermochemical Platform that
are underway as well as the projects that are just getting started. Once
the individual projects have been evaluated and the current stages are
identified the projects will begin a rigorous Stage Gate Management
Review process to ensure these projects are now, and will stay, closely
aligned with the DOE Office of the Biomass Program goals and objectives.
This process is designed to bring biomass science and technology to
commercial application sooner, at lower cost, and with improved
probability of success through:

-   Strong Customer/Competition orientation

-   Better homework up-front

-   Quality of execution

-   Sharper focus, better prioritization

-   Fast-paced, parallel processing

-   Multifunctional team approach

If you would like more specific information on the Stage Gate Management
process or to view the presentations from the meeting please go to our
public website:

<http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/progs/biogeneral/obp_gate/tcindex.html>

# Reviewer Selection and Scoring Process 

  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
  Peer Review Panel               

  Professor Robert Brown          Iowa State University

  Professor Esteban Chornet       Université de Sherbrooke

  Viorel Duma                     Abengoa Bioenergy R&D, Inc.

  John Scahill                    DOE Golden Field Office

  David Turpin                    MeadWestvaco Research
  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

# Thermochemical Review Panel Collective Report

## 2005 DOE Thermochemical Platform Evaluation Form

**1. Goals, Objectives, and Barriers SCORE (0-4) [Low
High]{.underline}**

-   Does the TC Platform have clearly stated
    goals?\...\...\...\...\...\... 0 1 2 3 4

-   Do the goals adequately support overall Program
    goals?\...\...\...\... 0 1 2 3 4

-   Do the goals seem
    achievable?\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
    0 1 2 3 4

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Are technology barriers
    identified?\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
    0 1 2 3 4

-   Is the R&D program addressing the right barriers to meet

> R&D area goals (identify potential
> gaps)?\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 0 1 2 3 4

-   Is the R&D being conducted adequate to address and overcome

> the barriers in the stated time
> frame?\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 0 1 2
> 3 4

COMMENTS:

-   Syngas must be clean and first priority should be sulfur at what
    level does rest of process work.

-   M6.2.2 Milestone may be difficult to meet in required time frame
    with current resource level.

**2. Scope and Investment Level of R&D SCORE (0-4)**

-   Is the R&D a good fit with the focus and goals of the Program? 0 1 2
    3 4

-   Is the funding adequate to achieve the plan in the propose time? 0 1
    2 3 4

-   Are the right levels of resources being directed at the

> appropriate areas?.. 0 1 2 3 4

COMMENTS:

-   Most R&D projects, but not all, are a good fit to the overall
    program goals.

-   Some project, relative to their value to the overall program, are
    receiving higher levels of resources than justified.

**3. Current Status of the Program Area: Where are we now? SCORE (0-4)**

-   Does the TC Platform appear to be focused, managed well? 0 1 2 3 4

-   Has the R&D met prior schedules and planned accomplishments? 0 1 2 3
    4

-   Has the R&D experienced significant "showstoppers"

> or impediments? 0 1 2 3 4

COMMENTS:

-   See previous comments on distribution of resources.

-   Several late starts which impede the progress of the program.

-   Not all identified Milestones are receiving adequate resources to
    achieve goals in reasonable time frame.

**4. Path Forward SCORE (0-4)**

-   Are major planned milestones realistic for meeting goals in

> terms of both time frame and budgets? 0 1 2 3 4

-   If major milestones have not been met, is there an adequate

> plan going forward to overcome the impediments? 0 1 2 3 4

COMMENTS:

-   No because of delays and budgets

-   Major milestone plans going forward were not discussed or described.

**5. Overall Assessment of the DOE Thermochemical Platform Portfolio**
(qualitative response below)

-   Strengths

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Program has done a nice job of re-aligning with biorefinery concept.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Weaknesses

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Portfolio needs to show a better correlation between technology
    needs and levels of funding.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Suggested additions/deletions to improve the portfolio (R&D,
    collaborations, technology transfer, other activities) based on
    budget expenditures?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Pyrolysis should be included in the portfolio if industry interest
    and funds are available.

-   Urban wood waste should be included in the portfolio.

-   Apply the stage gate process rigorously if projects fail to meet
    their stated goals or objectives.

## Review Panel Collective Gate Placement

**[Feed Processing and Handling -- Steve Kelley]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **A**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **A**

**[Gasification of Biorefinery Residues -- David Dayton]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **A**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **A**

**[Wet Gasification of Biorefinery Residues -- Doug
Elliott]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **A**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **B, B, A, B, A**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   PNNL has a lot of experience in the process.

-   This work has been going on a number of years and the technical
    challenges have been clearly identified. The process concept works.

**[Process Monitoring Tools -- Vann Bush]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **B**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **2, 3, B, B, 2/3**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Move up since the process is ready to move to the field.

-   GTI has ample experience with coal gasification monitoring.

-   Close to Stage 2 but needs more analytical operation time to
    validate reproducibility and reliability.

-   Would place on commercial track 2 or 3.

**[Thermochemical Conversion of Corn Stover -- James
Gaddy]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **2**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **2**

######## Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification -- Ed Gray

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **2**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **2**

**[Gasification from Fuels and Chemicals in a Pulp Mill -- Ryan
Katofsky]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **2**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **2, 2, no rating, B, 2**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The project is still identifying appropriate integration scenarios.
    Once identified it should move to a 2.

**[High Temperature Black Liquor Gasification -- Craig
Brown]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **2**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **2, 2, 2, 3, 2**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This appears to fall under commercial development.

######## Pressurized Entrained Flow BLG -- Kevin Witty

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **B**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **B**

**[Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Integrated Catalyst Studies -- David
Dayton]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **B**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **B**

######## Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Catalysts Fundamentals -- Kim Magrini

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **B**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **B, A/B, A/B, B, A/B**

**[Verification of Syngas Quality -- Don Stevens]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **A**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **A**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Why isn't this project in the Products Platform rather than the
    Thermochem Platform?

**[Sulfur Removal and Gasification Membranes -- Rich Bain]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **A**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **A**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The membrane work is really "blue sky" evaluations.

**[Biomass Gas Clean-up -- Santosh Gangwal]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **B**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **B, commercial track, B, B, 2/3**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seems reasonable at start but at later stage of project will move to
    2.

-   Not sure why this is currently on the commercial track.

**[In-Process Elimination of Tars -- Larry Felix]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement **B**

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **A, commercial track, B, B, 2/3**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   This is high risk research requiring fundamental investigations of
    this new class of catalysts.

-   Initial research track but the later stage of project will move it
    into commercial development.

-   Would place on commercial track.

**[High Temperature Sorbents -- Thomas Gale]{.underline}**

-   Stage Gate Placement

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposed Stage Placement B

-   Reviewer Recommended Stage **B, commercial track, B, B, 2**

# Project Specific Review Panel Ratings

  ---------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ---------- -----------
  **Project**      **Relevance**   **Approach**   **Progress**   **Success   **Future   **Average
                                                                 Factors**   Plans**    Score**

  Feed Processing  **3.60**        **3.00**       **3.20**       **2.00**    **2.10**   **2.78**
  and Handling                                                                          
  (P1)                                                                                  

  Gasification of  **3.80**        **3.20**       **3.80**       **3.40**    **3.20**   **3.48**
  Biorefinery                                                                           
  Residues (P2)                                                                         

  Wet Gasification **3.20**        **3.00**       **1.60**       **2.40**    **2.60**   **2.56**
  of Biorefinery                                                                        
  Residues (P3)                                                                         

  Process          **4.00**        **3.80**       **3.80**       **3.60**    **2.80**   **3.60**
  Monitoring Tools                                                                      
  (P4)                                                                                  

  Thermochemical   **3.80**        **3.40**       **3.00**       **2.80**    **3.00**   **3.20**
  Conversion of                                                                         
  Corn Stover (P5)                                                                      

  Catalytic        **3.20**        **3.40**       **1.20**       **3.00**    **3.00**   **2.76**
  Hydrothermal                                                                          
  Gasification                                                                          
  (P6)                                                                                  

  Gasification     **3.80**        **3.60**       **3.20**       **2.80**    **1.60**   **3.00**
  From Fuels and                                                                        
  Chemicals in a                                                                        
  Pulp Mill (P7)                                                                        

  High Temperature **3.80**        **3.40**       **3.00**       **3.40**    **2.60**   **3.24**
  Black Liquor                                                                          
  Gasification                                                                          
  (P8)                                                                                  

  Pressurized      **3.60**        **3.80**       **3.20**       **2.00**    **2.60**   **3.04**
  Entrained Flow                                                                        
  BLG (P9)                                                                              

  Gas Clean-up and **4.00**        **3.60**       **4.00**       **3.00**    **3.80**   **3.68**
  Conditioning;                                                                         
  Integrated                                                                            
  Catalyst Studies                                                                      
  (P10)                                                                                 

  Gas Clean-up and **3.80**        **3.60**       **3.60**       **3.00**    **3.40**   **3.48**
  Conditioning;                                                                         
  Catalysts                                                                             
  Fundamentals                                                                          
  (P11)                                                                                 

  Verification of  **3.20**        **3.20**       **1.40**       **2.80**    **2.80**   **2.68**
  Syngas Quality                                                                        
  (P12)                                                                                 

  Sulfur Removal   **3.80**        **3.40**       **2.20**       **2.40**    **2.00**   **2.76**
  and Gasification                                                                      
  Membranes (P13)                                                                       

  Biomass Gas      **3.20**        **3.60**       **3.40**       **2.60**    **2.80**   **3.12**
  Clean-up (P14)                                                                        

  In-process       **3.40**        **2.80**       **2.00**       **2.20**    **2.00**   **2.48**
  Elimination of                                                                        
  Tars (P15)                                                                            

  High Temperature **3.60**        **3.20**       **2.40**       **3.20**    **2.80**   **3.04**
  Sorbents (P16)                                                                        

  **4 = Excellent                                                                       
  3 = Good 2 =                                                                          
  Acceptable 1 =                                                                        
  Marginal 0 =                                                                          
  Unacceptable**                                                                        
  ---------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ---------- -----------

# Project Summaries/Comments/Charts

## Feed Processing and Handling (P1)![](media/image2.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.4923611111111112in"}

##### Project Summary

With the refocused interest of the Thermochemical Platform on combining
Sugars and Thermochemical processes in an integrated biorefinery this
work is now focused on establishing baseline information on the
properties of residue streams that can be generated by current and
future biorefineries. To this end the work this year will focus on the
composition, properties, and handling of these biorefinery residue
streams. Residue streams of interest include corn stover, lignin-rich
residue streams or even materials such as corn fiber or distillers dry
grain (DDG).

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.60 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Should support with literature search on past work in this area.

-   This project serves as a valuable role in identifying feedstock
    volumes and physical properties that will impact conversion
    technology decisions and operating conditions.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.00 on its approach.

-   Biomass properties vary not only by feedstock but by geographic
    location, weather and time of harvest. Need to focus on how this
    variability potentially affects success of biorefineries.

-   Em of ash material to determine possible agglomeration.

-   NH3 may be an index too.

-   Regional differences in feedstock properties may also be helpful.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.20 on its accomplishments.

-   Project is beginning thus cannot be outstanding.

-   The feedstock analysis work is very good.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.00 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   The investigators need to identify roadblocks associated with
    feedstocks even if it is somebody else's responsibility.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Appears to be a limited supply of lignin rich residues to provide to
    multiple conversion technologies. Can supply meet timeframe needs of
    other projects?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Not applicable -- service product.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.10 for proposed future research.

-   Not enough information presented on how the project will proceed in
    future years.

-   Should look more closely at the current residue streams of exiting
    ethanol plants and how the material interacts with lignin and stover
    in co-processing scenarios.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Not applicable -- service project.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Excellent skills of PI and his team.

-   Clear cut objectives.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   The amount of dollars committed seems large compared to the task at
    hand.

-   Work on recommendations for improving feed handling is absent.

-   Pelletization of feedstock may not be economically viable in
    commercial setting.

####### Technology Transfer Collaborations

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   A key issue is whether pelletization is required to regularly feed
    gasifiers. This has a cost impact that needs to be addressed.

-   "Control" of moisture in lignin-rich residue may be an index to
    monitor.

-   Take into consideration the differences in HHV and energy efficiency
    for using dry versus wet lignin/biomass residues in gasification and
    evaluate if the use of wet lignin for gasification makes sense
    energetically or the wet gasification is the only option for wet
    (high water content) residues.

-   More focus on correlating physical properties to operational
    difficulties in conversion technologies.

-   Investigation of thermoplastic property of lignin may be useful I
    developing approaches to feeding these materials into hot vessels.

-   Comparison of combustion should also be part of analysis.

## Gasification of Biorefinery Residues (P2)

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

###### Project Summary

With the refocused interest of the Thermochemical Platform on combining
Sugars and Thermochemical processes in an integrated biorefinery this
work is now focused on establishing baseline information on the
gasification of residue streams that can be generated by current and
future biorefineries. To this end the work this year will focus on the
composition and properties of syngas produced from these biorefinery
residue streams. Residue streams of interest include corn stover,
lignin-rich residue streams or even materials such as corn fiber or
distillers dry grain (DDG). Each of these streams will have different
elemental composition, in particular elements such as nitrogen, sulfur,
and chlorine. They also have very different composition in terms of the
ratio of carbohydrate to lignin. All of these features will impact the
quality/value of the syngas.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.80 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   This work is very relevant to advancing TC conversion technologies
    using conventional gasification. Important in identifying key
    operating parameters that impact processing costs and therefore
    syngas costs.

Not clear from presentation if higher value streams can justify the cost
of gasification.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.20 on its approach.

Need to make sure that all metrics for "syngas quality" are identified
and monitored.

-   Consider shutting off thermal cracker to get more realistic
    appraisal of "raw" syngas (since cracker makes all producer gas look
    the same).

-   Great project, albeit it will be necessarily limited to the existent
    gasifier.

-   Well designed and executed R&D appropriate to focus on biorefinery
    residues as feedstocks.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.80 on its accomplishments.

-   The on-line continuous monitoring of gas composition and quality is
    unique and clearly provides valuable information for process
    improvement.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 3.40 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   Ability to identify potential long term operation issues tied to
    contaminants is critical to TC conversion success in an integrated
    Biorefinery.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 3.20 for proposed future research.

-   Should also incorporate additional ethanol mill residues (fiber,
    DDGS) into parametric study.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Superb analyticals.

-   Well thought out parametric studies.

-   Very relevant work.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Limited so far for steam gasification.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   O~2~/h~2~O gasification will be an improvement in approaching real
    gasifiers. At least air should be used with h~2~O to approach real
    gasifiers.

-   C1 needs to be monitored.

-   Ash lixiviation profiles may be needed for use of the ash as an
    additive.

-   Thermal Cracker may not be needed if we want to know the "true"
    gasification patterns of the different feeds.

-   A key index is t be above 70% energy efficiency SG LHV/Feed LHV.

-   Work with steam and 0~2~ or enriched air in order to achieve
    autothermal functioning and produce a high energy syngas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Investigate biomass residue mixtures into parametric studies. This
    should also include mixing various moisture content feeds and
    generating steam in-situ in the reactor.

-   Need more investigation in variability of feedstocks.

## Wet Gasification of Biorefinery Residues (P3)

###### Project Summary![](media/image4.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

With the refocused interest of the Thermochemical Platform on combining
Sugars and Thermochemical processes in an integrated biorefinery, this
work is now focused on establishing the wet gasification of residue
streams for use in current and future biorefineries. To this end the
work this year will focus on bench-scale demonstration of the
sulfur/mineral matter removal technologies developed in the
Antares/Eastman project for use with biorefinery residue streams.
Residue streams of interest include corn fiber, lignin-rich residue
streams or even materials such as corn fiber or distillers\' dried grain
and solubles (DDG&S). Each of these streams will have different
elemental composition, in particular elements such as calcium, magnesium
and phosphorus, as well as sulfur. These differences may have an impact
on the utility of the sulfur/mineral matter removal technologies.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.20 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   The gas obtained (Hy/CO~2~) needs to be further reformed to produce
    H~2~/CO.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The market potential appears to be very narrow.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.00 on its approach.

-   It is not readily apparent that the moisture level in lignin rich
    residues has to be addressed using this technical approach.

-   The technical approaches to removing the contaminants in the
    feedstock are not addressed.

-   Not clear how competitive this technology is to other alternatives
    including conventional gasification.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 1.60 on its accomplishments.

-   Project results to come.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The technology has been under development for a number of years but
    issues still remain with feeding slurry into high pressure reactor.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Too early to evaluate.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.40 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   Serious issue with waste water COD levels. Potential solutions may
    be costly.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.60 for proposed future research.

-   Not enough focus on addressing the feedstock containment issue.

-   No future work planned beyond FY05.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   PI has an excellent record of accomplishments.

-   It addresses the need for an energy efficient way of using wet
    bio-sludges.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Ru is an expensive metal. The reviewer suspects that given the
    presence of N and S in the feed the catalyst will be quickly
    damaged.

-   The development of a catalyst suitable for the process needs to be
    better addressed.

-   The contaminant issue does not appear to lend itself to a universal
    solution but rather will have to be tailored to each feedstock.

-   Need to show energy efficiency of process.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Antares/Eastman CRADA

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Need to show energy efficiency vs. solids content of slurry in
    gases.

-   Catalyst lifetime needs to be monitored even in a short number of
    hours.

-   CI may be a problem.

-   Present an energy balance for the process.

## Process Monitoring Tools (P4)

###### Project Summary![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

This project is assembling and testing a suite of versatile,
state-of-the-art process monitoring instrumentation in combination with
GTI's novel sample management techniques. GTI has developed novel
approaches to enable real-time, on-line measurement of low-level
contaminants in high-temperature, high-pressure synthesis gases. The
continued success of these comprehensive, continuous, sensitive and
accurate measurements at key points in biomass gasification process
streams is essential to compare gasification conditions, quantify
fuel-specific syngas components, characterize syngas quality for end
uses, and monitor gas conditioning and cleanup effectiveness in
short-term tests.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 4.00 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   There is clearly a need for this type of process support tool in the
    gasification field. A benefit to all developers, addresses multiple
    milestones.

-   Not clear who would commercialize this technology. Would GTI serve
    as an integrator of the various analytical instrumentation and
    commercial installation?

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.80 on its approach.

Statistics!

-   Initial analytical results appear to be accurate and reproducible.

-   Tool is well designed to analyze for very low levels of contaminants
    which is necessary for FT quality syngas.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.80 on its accomplishments.

-   Sample spiking appears to validate accuracy of results.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 3.60 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   May be expensive to conduct in-plant gas analysis.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.80 for proposed future research.

-   The gas analysis to be conducted at the Weyerhauser New Bern
    gasifier will be available to support activity at the BL
    gasification part of the program.

-   Future plan unclear.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   One of the best presentations made at the review meeting.

-   Experience of GTI with interfaces is unique.

-   Innovative approach. Might assure reliable and comprehensive
    measurements.

-   Useful as a process development tool for gas clean-up technologies.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   A few more details on handling the sampling and analysis problems
    would have strengthened presentation. Not clear how validations will
    be performed.

-   Some technical issues still present. Syngas dilution and time
    interval between GC analysis can lower the residue of some
    measurements.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Excellent.

-   Plenty of interaction.

-   Use of advisory panel a plus. Appropriate mix of members.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   It is important that the time span of each chromatograph measurement
    be provided in order to average appropriately the data.

-   Statistical analysis (multivariable) -- should this be added?

-   Errors by condensation of the moisture at interface: can they be
    quantified? VOCs for instance!

## Thermochemical Conversion of Corn Stover (P5)

###### Project Summary

The purpose of this project is to develop and demonstrate at the pilot
plant scale, an optimal gasification/fermentation system to produce
ethanol from corn stover, with an emphasis on the integration of the
stover ethanol with conventional grain alcohol production. During the
first six months of this three-year project, a supply of corn stover was
secured and preliminary gasifier runs were conducted with successful
fermentation of the syngas. An assessment of the biomass availability in
the Benson, MN region showed that sufficient feedstock is available
within a 30 mile radius to support production of at least 100 million
gallons of ethanol per year. Redesign of the gasifier feed system and
the oxygen supply system were completed. Preliminary experiments with
these changes showed a doubling of gas compositions. Further studies to
gather data for design projections are on-going.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.80 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   An important biomass to ethanol pathway that is showing early
    promise.

Narrow range of benefits.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.40 on its approach.

-   The project addresses virtually every aspect of a syngas biorefinery
    but it is not clear that sufficient breadth of expertise has been
    formally engaged to cover all these aspects.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Toxins!

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Clearly identifies the need to integrate gasification technology
    with the bioconversion to ethanol plant needs.

-   Gasifier design has serious shortcomings with respect to producing
    desired syngas quality.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.00 on its accomplishments.

-   Further improvements of syngas composition desirable.

-   The long duration showed very good results with respect to the
    durability of the bacteria.

-   Reasonable conversion rate compared to conventional sugar
    fermentation.

-   N/A -- CRADA executed 5/31/05

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.80 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   PI clearly understands the importance of mass transfer limitations
    in the ultimate success of this project, but he did not formally
    address it.

-   Waste water issued need further development.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 3.00 for proposed future research.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Robust microorganism.

-   Good team.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Gasifier under evaluation is a poor choice for this process.

-   Toxins!

-   Gasifier design poor for producing desirable quality of syngas. Will
    require a significant effort to make it better.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Coordination with other DOE funded projects would be beneficial.
    Bring in other experts especially in gasification.

-   Plenty!

-   Appropriate mix and role of partners, especially CVEC.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Better analytical results are needed!

-   Long term operation is required to determine stability of
    microorganisms.

-   Address the mass transport limitations and the toxins issue.

## Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification (P6)

![](media/image8.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

**Project Summary**

The objective of the project team's Phase-I research and development
effort is to advance a low-temperature catalytic gasification concept
for use with wet biomass feedstocks, such as biosludges. The effort will
leverage efforts already undertaken by PNNL in developing LTCHG and the
endpoint of this Phase is the design of the first pilot plant for this
process at the Eastman Chemical Kingsport Chemical Production plant.
This work is expected to lead to the first chemical synthesis
application for a broad class of biomass resources with very high
moisture contents including biosludges and stillage from ethanol
production.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.20 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Narrowly focused on industrial waste stream.

-   Eastman Chemical is a good fit.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.40 on its approach.

-   I was not convinced that the design and analysis is sufficiently
    supported by testing (or at least they are not scheduled for timely
    delivery or data).

-   Technology is feasible but economics are not clear.

-   Significant technical hurdles remain to be solved.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 1.20 on its accomplishments.

-   Little specific progress to report, but had a very late start.

-   Not started.

-   CRADA has been a challenge to get in place.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 3.00 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   The barrier of catalyst poisoning is very evident. What will be done
    to overcome it was extremely vague.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Contaminant removal will be a major challenge.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 3.00 for proposed future research.

-   Was not detailed in presentation.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Builds on PNNL: technology proven at PDU level.

-   Good approach for dealing with wet biomass and biosludges.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Ru as catalyst! Too sensitive to impurities.

-   Great delay in the project.

-   It is not clear if the catalyst to be tested was sufficiently
    developed in the laboratory.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Plenty

-   A good strategic partner with Eastman Chemical.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Not much to say since project just started.

-   \$4/MMBTU is much less than the numbers that NREL has indicated for
    biomass gasification.

## Gasification From Fuels and Chemicals in a Pulp Mill (P7)

**Project Summary**![](media/image9.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in"
height="2.41875in"}

The potential for the pulp and paper industry to catalyze the
development of a biorefining industry is significant. Creating such an
industry has energy savings, energy security, rural development, and
environmental implications. These will be quantified in the project via
detailed evaluation of prospective production of clean transportation
fuels and power at U.S. pulp mills. The output of the project will
include detailed heat/mass balances for case-study mill biorefineries,
capital and operating cost estimates, project financials and a national
impacts assessment quantifying the energy, environmental and economic
development benefits. The pulp mill biorefinery systems that will be the
focus of this proposed work will feature gasification of both black
liquor and woody biomass, in order to assess the total potential
benefits when additional biomass is collected.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.80 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Clearly addresses need of pulp and paper pathway.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.60 on its approach.

-   Well planned and executed approach to identify appropriate
    technologies for pulp mill.

-   Very Comprehensive.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.20 on its accomplishments.

-   Good preliminary results.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.80 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   No showstoppers.

-   Could have addressed business showstoppers e.g., decline of domestic
    industry.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 1.60 for proposed future research.

-   1 year project.

-   Outstanding plan to proceed for remaining work on this project.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Closely knitted group of modelers.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Plenty

-   Well balanced team with UOP, Shell and BP. Useful to have petroleum
    industry interest in program.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   The P&P industry is reluctant to make big investments. A criteria
    for choice should be the lowest investment target that makes project
    possible.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Analyze suitability of DME as transportation fuel.

## High Temperature Black Liquor Gasification (P8)

**Project Summary**![](media/image10.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in"
height="2.41875in"}

Weyerhaeuser owns and operates the world\'s only high temperature black
liquor gasification facility at it pulp mill in New Bern, NC. The focus
of this project is to utilize the New Bern gasifier as a \"test bed\" to
advance the state of high temperature black liquor gasification
technology toward the commercial-scale, pressurized, O2-blown gasifier
needed as an enabling technology in the future Forest Products
BioRefinery. Our approach is to first gain a fundamental understanding
of factors leading to key process performance, integration, and
reliability issues; then to develop and implement practical solutions
that can be demonstrated in the long term commercial operation at New
Bern. Advanced CFD and process modeling tools will be developed and
employed in the evaluation and design phases of the project.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.80 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   This project is specific to a specific gasifier.

-   Market and customers are other pulp mills.

-   Project addresses key barriers to achieving BLG in P&P industry.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.40 on its approach.

-   Not clear how approach achieves higher availability of BLG.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The project is clearly focused on specific technical hurdles that
    will improve the chance for commercial success.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.00 on its accomplishments.

-   Could be more focus on solving or stream operation problems.
    Refractory issues should be solvable.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 3.40 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   Already in a commercial setting.

-   Project is focused on several key issues that must be addressed for
    this technology to be seriously considered for commercialization.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.60 for proposed future research.

-   Project has just begun. Future work plans are not applicable at this
    point.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Experienced team of operators with advanced team of modelers.

-   Appear to have gained a good understanding of the correlation
    between operational problems and issues with refractory.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Project plan does not live up to the potential of team for advancing
    BLG. What is going to be done that addresses low availability of
    gasifier? What tests will solve dregs problem? Modeling work was
    focus of presentation, but it does not resolve these questions.

-   Difficult to see how the information can be used by or useful to
    others.

-   Little operational data provided.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Partnership well established.

-   Close contact interaction with Chemrec the technology vendor.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Monitor capital investment required for this technology vs. advanced
    combustion systems? They should have provided some data

## Pressurized Entrained Flow BLG (P9)

###### Project Summary![](media/image11.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

Pressurized, oxygen-blown gasification is a superior alternative to the
conventional recovery boiler for processing spent pulping liquor, and
makes it possible for a pulp mill to be the heart of a forest
biorefinery for production of automotive fuels. Though air-blown
atmospheric gasification for incrementally increasing capacity has been
commercially proven, there are many uncertainties and challenges
associated with operation under pressurized, oxygen-blown conditions
that would be necessary to handle all a mill\'s liquor. This project
aims to acquire critical data and develop models to describe liquor
conversion behavior in such a system. Specifically, the chemical,
physical, radiative and transport properties of black liquor at
different stages of conversion\--from liquor injection to formation of
the final smelt and syngas products\--are being be measured under
conditions representative of those in a full-scale gasifier.
Mathematical models to describe the observed behavior, suitable for
incorporation into computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models, are being
developed. These tools and the improved understanding that results will
improve the likelihood of demonstration of black liquor gasification and
the forest biorefinery.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.60 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   It is perhaps specific to liquid feed.

-   Serves a useful role in facilitating successful commercialization of
    BL gasification.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.80 on its approach.

-   

-   Separate BL from softwoods and hardwoods.

-   Clearly meets all criteria.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.20 on its accomplishments.

-   Project too early to show outstanding advances.

-   Forcing progress upsets and then measuring the results is a
    reasonable approach.

-   Project has made good progress in the short time since it started.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.00 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   Operation of high pressure, 0~2~ blown gasifier of any size has all
    kinds of showstoppers but these issues were not addressed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Elucidating green lignin dreg formulation not well characterized.

-   Not applicable.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.60 for proposed future research.

-   Project has just started.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Experienced person in entrained flow gasification.

-   Blending operating and modeling.

-   Strong planning and analysis.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Not to include softwood vs. hardwood lignin.

-   Not much data yet -- the project could be closer linked to the
    related High Temperature BLG project.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   With Weyerhauser, Chemrec, and perhaps the simulation companies.

-   Not clear how close the interaction with Weyerhauser is. On the
    surface it does not appear there is close coordination between
    activities.

######## Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

-   This project should be part of the previous Weyerhauser project.

-   Interact more closely with Weyerhauser in obtaining feedstock BL
    from the New Bern Project.

## Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Integrated Catalyst Studies (P10)

###### Project Summary![](media/image12.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

This project is focused on demonstrating catalytic steam reforming of
biomass gasification tars at the pilot scale using developing metalized
catalysts on robust supports suitable for use in a fluidized bed
reformer. Fluidization is required to optimize the contact of catalyst
with the tars because surface coke (carbon) formation competes with the
steam reforming reactions to deactivate the catalyst and limit catalyst
lifetime and optimum performance. Catalyst activities are being
determined in the full stream tar reforming reactor at 3 different
temperatures and 3 space velocities. Selected catalysts are being tested
for initial tar and methane reforming activity and lifetime using
biomass-derived syngas from wood and corn stover in the TCPDU. Measured
tar and light hydrocarbon conversions as a function of time and
temperature can be interpreted to yield fundamental understanding of the
deactivation kinetics of available and developing catalysts, and
long-term catalyst lifetime testing. This multi-level effort will lead
to an optimized catalytic steam reforming process ready for commercial
demonstration.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 4.00 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Catalytic gas is clearly very important for a good energy efficiency
    of the gasification.

-   Critically important to program objective.

-   Scope should include black liquor derived syngas in addition to wood
    and corn stover.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.60 on its approach.

-   Clearly, sulfur is the showstopper and requires a very definitive
    approach to sulfur mitigation.

-   Exploratory work of high temperature cracking should be tried prior
    or instead of any catalytic slip.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 4.00 on its accomplishments.

-   Results to date are very useful to the program.

-   Agree with PI -- sulfur removal technology plus sulfur and nitrogen
    measurement are key results.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 3.00 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   More detail required on handling sulfur problem.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Addition of CaO for the gasifier will lower the S and CL and will
    thus be beneficial.

-   Sulfur removal is critical, need to look at other approach.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

###### Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed

This project was rated 3.80 for proposed future research.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Good capabilities for working on very important problem.

-   Excellent grasp of the issues by the PI.

-   Focuses on basic kinetics, a need in the reactor.

-   Detailed real time analysis of the syngas.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Need to get in place the continuous monitoring of sulfur and
    nitrogen. Need to place more emphasis on identifying and installing
    sulfur control technology.

-   Has not considered thermal cracking of high tar as part of the
    conditioning step.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Would be useful to include BL as a feedstock.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   This project needs to be closely coordinated with the sulfur control
    projects being supported by DOE.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Generic research that is of interest to the field.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Add a prior thermal cracking/reformer step to minimize "stress" on
    catalyst.

-   Put CaO in gasifier or grid reactor to block CL and S.

-   Identify the factors and gas components which deactivate the
    catalysts.

-   Find a suitable regeneration procedure for the catalysts.

## Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Catalysts Fundamentals (P11)

###### Project Summary

The goal of the catalyst development and optimization portion of the
Office of Biomass Program's Gas Cleanup and Conditioning Task is to
develop effective catalysts for fluidized bed systems to efficiently
crack and reform tars present in biomass-derived syngas. A requirement
for efficient catalyst development is the ability to rapidly
characterize new and used catalysts to both assess preparations before
use and determine causes for any activity changes after use. To perform
this work, we are using a micro activity test system (MATS) that
provides detailed catalyst characterization through temperature
programmed desorption (TPD) and reaction (TPR) techniques. To rapidly
assess catalyst performance, we designed and built a second MATS system,
called MATS 2, to perform steam reforming of model tar compounds.
![](media/image13.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.80 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Premised on importance of fluidizable catalysts. Needs to better
    motivate this premise.

-   Critical work to program to achieve clean syngas.

-   Would also like to see work addressing M6.2.2. M6.2.3.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.60 on its approach.

-   During Q/A made clear how attrition resistance is being evaluated,
    but was not evident in presentation.

-   Excellent characterization capability.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.60 on its accomplishments.

-   See weakness comment below.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 3.00 on success factors and showstoppers.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 3.40 for proposed future research.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   PI knows catalysts and has the ability to integrate it with process
    considerations.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Motivation for reducing amount of Ni is not convincing. As long as
    some Ni is present the same environmental concerns exist. Also, data
    presented shows catalytic activity increases with Ni content. Why
    try to reduce this activity?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   None.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Collaboration with other groups working on attrition resistant
    fluidizable catalysts seems weak.

-   This project is of generic interest.

-   Links with ceramic company have been made.

-   Should develop some close interactions with industry.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Emphasize studies on reactivation/regeneration for instance NiS air
    NiO = SO~2~

H~2~1 Ni + H~2~O

-   Study the regenerated catalysts. See if they are changed compared to
    the fresh ones.

-   Study the feasibility of continuously regenerating the catalysts
    with a separate regenerating unit and reintroducing them into the
    reforming unit.

## Verification of Syngas Quality (P12)

![](media/image14.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

###### Project Summary

This project focuses on demonstrating that the syngas derived from
biorefinery residue gasification is suitable for the production of mixed
alcohols in an integrated biorefinery. The technical barriers of syngas
quality (potential catalysts poisons) identified in previous work will
be validated, and cleanup/conditioning approaches for specific
biorefinery residues (corn fiber, corn stover, lignin-rich residues,
etc.), developed to produce fungible syngas for downstream catalytic
conversion. Developing partnerships with catalyst manufacturers who have
a proven history for developing mixed alcohol synthesis catalysts will
become critical to the biorefinery residue to mixed alcohol product
technology development since many of these catalysts are not
commercially available and many catalysts companies with previous R&D
efforts in this area are not currently engaged in mixed alcohol
synthesis catalyst development

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.20 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Presentation seemed to indicate that customer base is shrinking
    rather than growing.

-   Synthesis of mixed alcohols has great potential and is a very good
    fit in the integrated biorefinery.

-   Useful in enhancing the program options for liquid fuels and
    chemicals.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.20 on its approach.

-   Too early to judge.

-   Limited effort to only understanding what is currently available. If
    they need to make catalysts instead of buying them they should look
    at approaches to improving selectivity.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 1.40 on its accomplishments.

-   Relatively modest funding level and lack of participation by
    catalyst manufacturers will limit progress in this area.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Not really applicable since work has not started.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Will establish a good baseline but should identify ways to improve
    existing catalysts.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.80 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   Need to give more encouragement that this project has a chance of
    eventual commercial success. This might be helped by closer
    interaction with economic assessment experts.

-   No yield goals are presented. No relativity discussion although in
    questioning the speaker mentioned that their goal is in linear
    alcohols.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Need to better understand why commercial catalyst manufacturers have
    stopped work in this area.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.80 for proposed future research.

-   N/A -- project has just started.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Background in catalysis of PNNL and PI.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Presentation was light on technical details. Progress not detailed.

-   Metrics on yields/relativity not defined.

-   The project deals actually with product synthesis and not what the
    title says.

-   Appears to be limited interest by industry.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Possible link with Abengoa and catalyst manufacturers.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Define the goal in terms of yield.

-   STY is not a proper unit. It should be WHSV or a similar index.

## Sulfur Removal and Gasification of Membranes (P13)

###### Project Summary![](media/image15.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

Sulfur Removal - The objective of this task is to define the options and
costs, in particular the costs at different scales, of technology that
can be used to remove sulfur from syngas. There is a great deal of
background on technology that can be used to remove sulfur from syngas,
but the costs, in particular the costs of technology at scales useful
for biomass gasification, are not well-defined. This work will be guided
by both NREL and PNNL and conducted through a subcontract with an
engineering and design firm who can provide up to date information on
the costs for sulfur removal. The parameters that impact sulfur removal
the options and costs of technology for sulfur removal, such as, biomass
feedstock, process size, syngas utilization technology will all be
evaluated.

Gasification of Membranes - The purpose of this project is to provide an
evaluation of the overall feasibility of using membranes integrated in
biomass gasifiers for a variety of uses. The goals of this study are
to: 1) determine whether there are appropriately robust materials for
use in these systems; 2) determine whether there is potential for these
systems to be effective in the presence of particulates, alkali, tars,
and other typical impurities; and 3) determine whether there is basic
economic potential for these systems.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.80 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Sulfur removal in syngas is very important to the program goals but
    may need something more than existing technology to fit.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.40 on its approach.

-   Needs to address more specifically hot gas cleanup of sulfur.

-   Concerned with the assumption that commercially available sulfur
    removal technologies will perform well with high sulfur contents
    (\>2.5%) for black liquor syngas.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 2.20 on its accomplishments.

-   Just starting.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.40 on success factors and showstoppers.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.00 for proposed future research.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   PIs

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Not clear whether membranes downstream are appropriate given
    predictable plugging problems.

-   Not practiced with existing gasifier/reformer technology for sulfur
    management.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   This project needs to support the NREL tar cracking project (which
    needs sulfur removal).

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Define levels of cleaning of S

    -   10 ppm

    -   1 ppm

    -   0.1 ppm

-   Taking into account all that S removal methods are suitable only for
    low temperatures, analyze the best configuration for placement of
    the S removal.

## Biomass Gas Clean-up (P14)

###### Project Summary![](media/image16.wmf){width="3.704861111111111in" height="2.442361111111111in"}

The objective of the project is to develop and demonstrate a novel
fluidized-bed process module called a "therminator" to simultaneously
destroy and/or remove tar, NH~3~ and H~2~S from raw syngas produced by a
fluidized-bed biomass gasifier. The therminator consists of coupled
fluidized bed reactors---a cracker and a regenerator. An attrition
resistant triple-function catalyst is circulated between the two
reactors. The goal of the therminator is to crack tar to \< 0.1 g/m^3^,
reduce H~2~S to \< 10 ppmv and decompose \> 90% of the NH~3~ to N~2~ and
H~2~. The project consists of development and scale-up of the triple
function catalyst; design, construction and commissioning of a
skid-mounted bench-scale therminator; transport to and installation of
the therminator at an operating pressurized fluidized-bed biomass
gasification pilot-plant; and slip-stream demonstration of the
therminator over long-term tests using actual biomass gasification
syngas. Engineering evaluation and commercial assessment of the
therminator technology is proceeding in parallel to its development.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.20 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Not clear what levels of cleanup could be achieved. Focus of DOE
    program is not for super clean syngas for fuel synthesis instead of
    power.

-   Customers will be a function of cost of "termination".

-   Project is useful in achieving program goals for gas clean-up but
    not to levels adequate for fuels production.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.60 on its approach.

-   Cleaning targets are well defined. Not known any cost estimate.

-   Excellent mix of partners from University and industry.

-   Lower catalyst operating temperature may offer advantage.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 3.40 on its accomplishments.

-   Project is starting.

-   Initial ammonia destruction result very good.

-   Good progress on development of cold flow system.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.60 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   A project like this certainly has potential showstoppers which need
    to be recognized. Certainly there is a concern that target
    reductions in contaminants will not be reached (low enough to make
    downstream polishing feasible).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   They seem well defined.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   No critical success factors identified. Treatment of tailgas could
    be an issue.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.80 for proposed future research.

-   Had identified key milestones.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Looking at catalytic system that operates at temperature well
    matched to biomass gasification.

-   RTI has prior experience in non-attrition catalyst.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Instrumentation for measuring contaminants should be strengthened.

-   Analytical protocols?

-   The purity level of the syngas after the tar cracking is not enough
    for chemical synthesis.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Good collaboration.

-   Cratech is the gasification partner Sud Chemie.

-   Appropriate mix of partners especially Sud Chemie for industrial
    catalyst development. Also deployment of the Cra Tech gasifier is a
    plus.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Analytical protocols need to be better defined.

-   Tail gas characterization needs to be monitored.

## In-process Elimination of Tars (P15)

###### Project Summary![](media/image17.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

The primary goal of this project is to develop a new and more efficient
method for engineering and economically producing optimized catalysts
for the reduction or elimination of tars in biomass gasification. The
project approach permits the incorporation of catalytically active
materials (e.g. NiO) within an inert, refractory material (e.g. olivine)
which is then processed as needed to enhance the availability of
catalytic material on all exposed surfaces. When these mixtures are
prepared and made into finely divided granules (300 -- 600 μm average
diameter for use in a fluidized bed) or into self-supporting monoliths,
the resulting materials should be indistinguishable (in catalytic
function) from catalysts prepared by conventional techniques. The
advance that allows such catalytic materials to be produced is the
availability of a high-energy, compact, submerged combustion glass
melter to combine the catalytic material with a refractory glass a
single manufacturing step.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.40 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 2.80 on its approach.

-   Not clear this large of project is supported by existing data or
    theory.

-   Surface science is needed.

-   Is a novel approach to catalyst formulation and could potentially
    have unique functional properties.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 2.00 on its accomplishments.

-   Project had a very late start.

-   Project is in negotiation stage with partners.

-   Little catalytic info planned.

-   Good progress on understanding functionality of olivine properties
    at various operating temperatures.

-   N/A Project just started 4/1/05. Still resolving some subcontractor
    issues so -- not rated.

**[Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers]{.underline}**

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 2.20 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   Lots of potential showstoppers which require tentative plans for
    moving around them.

-   No catalytic info has been shown.

-   Not clear if they will be able to achieve attrition resistance and
    surface area requirements.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.00 for proposed future research.

-   See above comment.

-   Very unclear plan of experiments.

-   Compare the performance with the Ni catalysts.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Innovative research.

-   Strong team.

-   Link between IGT and Alfred University (glass specialist) and
    Nextech have a unique expertise.

-   Novel approach to unique catalysts that can change properties as a
    function of process conditions.

######## Weaknesses

-   I'm surprised that such a high risk project supported with so little
    preliminary data would be funded at \$2 million. It seems like the
    stage gate process needs to be applied rigorously to this project
    before moving it forward in subsequent years.

-   No background data on catalysis.

-   Need more surface characterization.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Well established.

-   Have a good mix of collaborators with excellent credentials and
    potential commercial partners.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Surface science is needed to understand what makes the active sites
    active, regenerable, etc.

## High Temperature Sorbents (P16)

![](media/image18.wmf){width="3.9138888888888888in" height="2.41875in"}

###### Project Summary

The objective of this project is to contribute to the development of
advanced hot-gas cleanup systems, via the introduction of (1)
*high-temperature sorbent technology* for removing trace metals, (2)
strategies to prevent plugging and damage to barrier filters, and (3)
fundamental modeling of the governing mechanisms. In FY05, progress will
be made on model development, and the slipstream tests at the PSDF will
be completed. Significant progress in determining the mechanisms
governing the capture of heavy metals by high-temperature sorbents in
bio-syngas environments will be made. In addition, mechanisms
controlling eutectic melting during heavy-metal scavenging in bio-syngas
environments will be elucidated. This information will be derived from
both the slipstream tests at the PSDF and from the simulated bio-syngas
experiments and graphite-furnace AA analysis.

**[Question 1: Relevance]{.underline}** to overall objectives.

**Stage Gate Criteria 1) Strategic Fit and 2) Customers/Markets**.

This project was rated 3.60 for its relevance to DOE objectives.

-   Removal of alkali and heavy metals is critical for chemical systems
    and use of syngas.

-   Have looked at a number of metals in coal but they are not the same
    in biomass.

-   Addresses turbine operation in a refinery but not for fuel
    production.

**[Question 2: Approach]{.underline}** to performing the R&D.

**Stage Gate Criteria 3) Technical Feasibility and 4) Competitive
Advantage**

This project was rated 3.20 on its approach.

-   Light on technical details. Hard to evaluate!

-   The research approach is well designed and already shown to be
    feasible in an oxidizing environment.

**[Question 3: Technical Accomplishments and Progress]{.underline}**

The project was rated 2.40 on its accomplishments.

-   Sorbents were used in flue gas.

-   Progress is still uncertain at this time.

######## Question 4: Success Factors and Showstoppers

**Stage Gate Criteria 5) Legal/Regulatory Compliance and 6) Critical
Success Factors and Showstoppers**

The project was rated 3.20 on success factors and showstoppers.

-   The behavior of the sorbents under reducing conditions will be
    critical for the success of the project.

-   Mineral matter in biomass is much more extensive.

**[Question 5: Proposed Future Research]{.underline}** approach and
relevance.

**Stage Gate Criteria 7: Plan to Proceed**

This project was rated 2.80 for proposed future research.

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

-   Prior experience with sorbents.

**[Weaknesses]{.underline}**

-   Need to see more technical details for an evaluation. More
    justification is required of technical potential of this project.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There may be obnoxious metals in biomass.

**[Technology Transfer Collaborations]{.underline}**

-   Work of generic interest.

-   PSDF facility \*Southern Company) is appropriate partner to lead to
    commercialization.

**[Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project
Scope]{.underline}**

-   Give precise info on what metals are going to be scavenged (Na, Pb,
    Cd and "other metals").

-   Study the possibility of improving the behavior and properties of
    the sorbents under reducing conditions.

# 

# Appendix A 

# PI Response to Reviewer Comments Overall Thermochemical Portfolio Evaluation 

**Dayton, Bain, Jechura (NREL) Response to Overall Portfolio Reviewer
Comments**

***1. Goals Objectives, and Barriers***

**Reviewer Comment:** Syngas must be clean and first priority should be
sulfur at what level does rest of process work.

**Reviewer Comment:** M6.2.2 milestone (Validate Cleanup Technologies On
Spent Pulping Liquor Syngas) may be difficult to meet in required time
frame with current resource level.

**PI Response** (Dayton, Bain Jechura): We appreciate the review panel's
recognition of the difficulties of carrying out research in an
environment of funding uncertainty.

**PI Response** (Elliott): The reviewers see a strong alignment with OBP
plan.

**PI Response** (Felix): Disruptions to our energy infrastructure caused
by hurricane Katrina reemphasize the importance of securing an adequate
level of governmental support for developing viable alternatives to
petroleum-based feedstocks to sustain and grow our GNP.

**PI Response** (Katofsky): Seems like a fair assessment.

**PI Response** (Witty): Agreed. BLG syngas is not comparable to other
biomass gasification syngas, and is expected to have much higher
concentrations of alkali and sulfur species. The most suitable cleanup
technology does depend on the gasification technology used. High
temperature (entrained-flow) gasification of kraft liquor will likely be
the first technology to become commercial. DOE should support validation
of syngas cleanup for this type of system.

***2. Scope and Investment Level of R&D***

**PI Response** (Dayton, Bain Jechura): We will continue to evaluate the
appropriate funding levels of individual projects given the constraints
of the overall funding levels.

**PI Response** (Elliott): The major problem is the too low investment
by DOE.

**PI Response** (Katofsky): Given the strategic significance of
bio-based chemicals and fuels, I would agree that funding is too low. My
other big take-away, which I believe is consistent with what the
reviewers found, is that the biorefinery concept is really beginning to
crystallize, and that the DOE program has done a good job at focusing
its limited resources.

***3. Current Status of the Program Area: Where are we now?***

**PI Response** (Dayton, Bain Jechura): We will continue to evaluate the
appropriate funding levels of individual projects given the constraints
of the overall funding levels.

4\. Path Forward

**PI Response** (Dayton, Bain Jechura): Future plans will continue to be
adjusted based upon overall funding levels.

**PI Response** (Elliott): The major problem is the too low investment
by DOE.

**PI Response** (Katofsky): Agree -- I think the key issue here is one
of funding to get us to where we need to be.

5\. Overall Assessment of the DOE Thermochemical Platform Portfolio

**PI Response** (Dayton, Bain Jechura): We appreciate the review panel's
recognition of the platform's realignment with the biorefinery concept
and the difficulties posed by funding levels. We agree that other
potential feedstocks, urban wood wastes in particular, will be accessed
as to their applicability.

**PI Response** (Elliott): Strength and Weakness are accurate. The
suggestion for addition of pyrolysis is appropriate; isn't urban wood
waste already part of the OBP plan? Stage gate should be useful.

**PI Response** (Stevens): In a general way, the criteria as written
penalize both "new start" projects and ones that will terminate in a
given year. The "new starts" are typically given low scores in the area
of Progress, while projects about to terminate get low scores in the
area of Future Plans. Perhaps the criteria could be changed slightly to
something like "Progress: Is progress satisfactory given the current
stage of the effort?" And similarly, the wording for "Future Plans"
might be something like "Are the Future Plans clear and appropriate?".
That way, good projects won't start in a deficit nor end in one.

# Appendix B

# PI Comments on Review Panel Collective Gate Placement

**[Feed Processing and Handling -- Steve Kelley/John
Jechura]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

**[Gasification of Biorefinery Residues -- David Dayton]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

**[Wet Gasification of Biorefinery Residues -- Doug
Elliott]{.underline}**

Split decision, but B may be more appropriate than A.

**[Process Monitoring Tools -- Vann Bush]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

**[Thermochemical Conversion of Corn Stover -- James
Gaddy]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

**[Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification -- Ed Gray]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

**[Gasification From Fuels and Chemicals in a Pulp Mill -- Ryan
Katofsky]{.underline}**

At the time of the review meeting we were at an early stage of our
project compared to most other that were presented. Our program is also
more analytical in nature and may not fit as well into the stage-gate
process. With that said, I do agree with the "Stage 2" designation. I
would also note that some of the outcomes of our work should help inform
Stage B of the research track, but our project will not directly those
types of R&D problems.

**[High Temperature Black Liquor Gasificiation -- Craig
Brown]{.underline}**

**Comment:** This appears to fall under commercial development.

**Response:** The BLG facility at New Bern is in full commercial
operation. The intent of this project is to take advantage of this
facility to address key barriers which are common to the development of
the pressurized version of the technology. The pressurized version is
still pre-commercial with the pilot plant start-up expected this month
in Pitea, Sweden. The pressurized version is a cornerstone technology in
the "Integrated Forest Products Biorefinery".

######## Pressurized Entrained Flow Black Liquor Gasification -- Kevin Witty

No additional comments from PI.

**[Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Integrated Catalyst Studies -- David
Dayton]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

**[Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Catalysts Fundamentals -- Kim
Magrini]{.underline}**

The review panel was mixed about the placement of this project either in
Stage A or B. The proposed placement was in Stage B but the activities
do range from Stage A efforts (catalyst surface analysis and
deactivation mechanism interpretation) to fluidizable catalyst
development in Stage B.

######## Verification of Syngas Quality

No additional comments from PI.

**[Sulfur Removal and Gasification Membranes -- Rich Bain]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

**[Biomass Gas Cleanup]{.underline}**

No additional comments from PI.

######## In-process Elimination of Tars

No additional comments from PI.

######## High Temperature Sorbents

No additional comments from PI.

# Appendix C

# PI Response to Reviewer Comments by Project 

**Feed Processing and Handling -- Steve Kelley/John Jechura**

###### *Relevance*

**Reviewer Comment:** Should support with literature search on past work
in this area.

**Reviewer Comment:** This project serves as a valuable role in
identifying feedstock volumes and physical properties that will impact
conversion technology decisions and operating conditions.

**PI Response:** Review panel agreed that this project is relevant
towards for OBP to meet its goals and objectives.

**PI Response** (Eliott)**:** A literature search is included in the
project.

###### *Approach*

**Reviewer Comment:** Biomass properties vary not only by feedstock but
by geographic location, weather and time of harvest. Need to focus on
how this variability potentially affects success of biorefineries.

**Reviewer Comment:** Em of ash material to determine possible
agglomeration.

**Reviewer Comment:** NH3 may be an index too.

**Reviewer Comment:** Regional differences in feedstock properties may
also be helpful.

**PI Response:** We will address the implications of regional feedstock
composition variation. There is existing work at INL and NREL that has
been addressing this but more from the viewpoint of Biochemical
applications. We will be more proactive to take into account their
findings. However, we do not expect that thermochemical conversions will
be as

**PI Response** (Elliott)**:** Regional variability is a factor included
in the data collection.

**PI Response** (Elliott)**:** Ash agglomeration will not be tested, but
ash composition will be and may provide insight.

**PI Response** (Elliott)**:** Nitrogen content data will be collected.

###### *Success Factors and Showstoppers*

**Reviewer Comments:** The investigators need to identify roadblocks
associated with feedstocks even if it is somebody else's responsibility.

**Reviewer Comments:** Appears to be a limited supply of lignin rich
residues to provide to multiple conversion technologies. Can supply meet
timeframe needs of other projects?

**Reviewer Comments:** Not applicable -- service product.

**PI Response** (Elliott)**:** We will continue to work with NREL's
Biochemical group to schedule the production of lignin rich residues for
testing of thermochemical conversion.

Roadblocks associated with biorefinery residue feedstocks will be
identified. Availability of lignin-rich biorefinery residue limits
experimental testing but should not inhibit data collection.

###### *Proposed Future Research*

**Reviewer Comment:** Not enough information presented on how the
project will proceed in future years.

**Reviewer Comment:** Should look more closely at the current residue
streams of exiting ethanol plants and how the material interacts with
lignin and stover in co-processing scenarios.

**Reviewer Comment:** Not applicable -- service project.

**PI Response:** Activities will become more incorporated with the other
projects, in particular the Gasification of Biorefinery Residues
project.

**PI Response** (Elliott)**:** Project will gather information on
current EtOH plant residue streams and is not limited to stover.

**Gasification of Biorefinery Residues -- David Dayton**

###### Relevance

Review panel agreed that this project was very relevant for helping OBP
meet its goals and objectives.

###### Approach

Will identify syngas quality in the future in terms of gas cleanliness
(S, Cl, and tars) and categorize the syngas efficiency (syngas
LHV/biomass LHV).

With additional resources (time and funds) the TCPDU will be
re-configured to move the cyclone separators to the outlet of the
fluidized bed gasifier prior to the thermal cracker. This will give us
additional process flexibility to maximize (more thermal cracking) or
minimize the effect of the thermal cracker.

###### Success Factors and Showstoppers

The addition of on-line analyzers for S, N, and Cl will provide the
desired determination of the long term effects of these contaminants on
gasification processes.

###### Proposed Future Research

The evaluation of additional biorefinery residues, including corn fiber,
DDGS, lignin-rich residues and others will be evaluated in future years.
The order of testing will be dictated by OBP R&D objectives and resource
availability. Testing alternative feedstocks is a potential area future
for collaborations with industrial partners. We will test available
feedstocks of interest to future partners as opportunities present
themselves.

###### Additional Comments

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

We have already begun to explore the addition of air to the gasifier
oxidant. One technical issue that will be of concern is bed
agglomeration at higher bed temperatures. At the lower temperatures of
steam gasification this is not an issue. As air is introduced and bed
temperatures increase, ash chemistry and bed agglomeration will become
operational issues that will require strict attention.

We are aware of the need for on-line S, N, and Cl measurement. We
currently have a GC on loan and installed that can measure sulfur
species. We are awaiting the delivery of micro-GC's with sulfur
measurement capabilities. Delivery of these instruments is currently a
year behind schedule. To date, we have not identified on-line analyzers
for N and Cl. Another option is to perform impinger sampling, capture
the condensate and analyze the collected liquid for Cl and N content.

I assume the next comment refers to gasifier ash as a soil amendment?
This is currently outside the scope of this project but could be
included in future years if additional resources become available or
industrial partners are identified.

The response to the Approach above includes the possible
re-configuration of the TCPDU to provide additional process flexibility
in relation to the thermal cracker.

Mixed biomass residues is another feedstock option that can be tested
with additional resources or industrial partnerships. This would allow
us to study a much wider variety of feedstocks with wide variability of
compositions.

**Doug Elliott (PNNL) on Wet Gasification of Biorefinery Residues --
Doug Elliott**

###### Relevance

Point one (gas reforming to synthesis gas) appears to be correct.

The second point is incorrect -- most biorefinery residues will be wet,
making wet gasification the preferred method.

###### Approach

Really only 2 points, not 3.

That wet gasification is preferred for wet waste is not well evaluated
yet. It is a program analysis need.

The technical approach for contaminant removal was only briefly
mentioned but is the focus of the research of the Eastman project and
will be demonstrated in this project. The reviewer is correct to
identify it as the key issue.

###### Technical Accomplishments and Progress

As identified, the progress is yet to come. It awaits the equipment
development in the Eastman project.

The high-pressure feed of slurry is an important component of this
project.

###### Success Factors and Showstoppers

Wastewater COD is inappropriately identified as a serious issue in light
of the fact that the wet gasification process produces a less
contaminated wastewater condensate than conventional gasification.

###### Proposed Future Research

"containment" should probably be "contaminant." In which case, the
reviewer is incorrect as processing real wet biomass with contaminants
[is]{.underline} the focus of this project. (if it is "containment," I
don't know what they are referring to)

Our future work plan is to finish this testing and do no further work.
The project should not be downgraded for completing the work and showing
no future work.

###### Additional Comments

###### Strengths

The reviewers express a supportive and contradictory view relative to
the first issue raised in Approach. Apparently, there is a difference of
opinion among the team.

###### Weaknesses

The questions about the catalyst reflect the focus of the project, i.e.
show that appropriate measures have been developed to protect the
catalyst from the contaminants.

The universality of these measures is an important issue, in which the
PI believes.

The energy efficiency is a strength or weakness depending on whether you
believe the numbers or not. Again, apparently a difference of opinion
among the review team.

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

The reviewers correctly identify the link between this project and
Eastman/Antares project.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

Development of detailed numbers for energy efficiency versus solids
content will be done in the Eastman/Antares project.

Catalyst lifetime will be evaluated in these short tests and appropriate
extrapolations will be made.

Chloride will be monitored but is not expected to be a problem.

The energy balance will be more appropriate in the Eastman/Antares
project.

**Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Integrated Catalyst Studies -- David
Dayton**

###### Relevance

Black liquor is a very aggressive feedstock for gasification because of
the high alkali (Na) and sulfur content. Addition of this feedstock to
the gasification testing will require evaluation of the materials of
construction of the vessels and piping in the TCPDU. Replacing vessels
with new exotic alloys or with refractory-lined vessels would be cost
prohibitive.

###### Approach

Sulfur measurement and mitigation are clearly issues that need to be
addressed immediately. We will look into adding sulfur-gettering
material like CaO to the gasifier bed to minimize sulfur release.
Additional unit operations for sulfur removal will also be explored but
will require additional resources to complete.

###### Success Factors and Showstoppers

The issue of sulfur mitigation was brought up again in response to this
question. As mentioned above, in bed sulfur getters will be evaluated
and additional unit operations for sulfur removal such as limestone
(CaO) or ZnO gettering reactors will be explored.

###### Additional Comments

###### Weaknesses

The lack of continuous monitoring of sulfur and nitrogen species was
highlighted as a weakness. Since the review, we have installed a
dedicated GC for monitoring sulfur species. This instrument is on loan
because the 2 micro GC's we ordered to measure sulfur gases are about a
year behind schedule for delivery. In the interim, the loaner instrument
will be used to measure sulfur. We are still in the process of
identifying an appropriate analyzer for nitrogen species such as ammonia
and cyanide.

Evaluating the effectiveness of thermal cracking can be evaluated in the
future. Either ramping the thermal cracker up to higher temperatures or
adding an inert material to the full stream reformer and increasing the
bed temperature are two possible process options to be considered.

**Technology Transfer Collaborations**

We will attempt to better align our efforts with the other gas cleanup
and conditioning projects within the Thermochemical Platform by
evaluating additional catalysts being developed and incorporating
appropriate sulfur removal technologies being considered in these
projects and others, particularly the Sulfur Removal paper study being
conducted in FY05.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

Catalyst deactivation is being studied in concert with the Catalyst
Fundamentals task. Detailed elemental and surface analysis of fresh,
spent, oxidized, and reduced catalyst materials is being conducted in
FY05 and will continue in the future. The impacts of coke formation,
sulfur, and chlorine poisoning will be assessed.

Once the deactivation mechanisms are identified and quantified through
detailed kinetic measurements, a regeneration procedure for the
catalysts will be developed. The results from the 24 hour catalyst
testing planned for FY06 will help to address catalyst lifetime after
multiple oxidation/reduction cycles. This and associated kinetic data
will be incorporated into designing a catalytic reforming reactor wit
continuous catalyst regeneration to maintain maximum activity.

**Thermochemical Conversion of Corn Stover -- James Gaddy**

**Relevance**

**Approach**

[Breadth of Expertise]{.underline} -- In addition to BRI, the partners
in this project include Chippewa Valley Ethanol Cooperative, Katzen
International, Burns and McDonnell and University of Arkansas, that
provide broad expertise in corn farming, conventional ethanol
production, all engineering and scientific disciplines, syngas
fermentation, etc. In addition, BRI is working with T. R. Miles, Inc.
that has broad expertise in gasification and biomass handling systems.

[Toxins]{.underline} -- BRI has identified the tolerance level of the
bacteria to various compounds in syngas from a variety of feedstocks,
including wood, MSW, ASR, etc. Similar studies for syngas from corn
stover will be completed later in the project. Preliminary fermentation
studies with stover syngas have shown that the pre-treatment with water
scrubbing and carbon adsorption is adequate to remove any toxins.

[Gasifier­]{.underline} -- Any gasifier can be coupled with the BRI
fermentation to produce ethanol. The gasifier selected for the pilot
plant has recently been modified to double the synthesis gas
compositions of CO and H~2~.

**Technical Accomplishments and Progress**

[Syngas Quality]{.underline} -- A continuous feed system is being added
to further improve syngas quality.

**Success Factors and Showstoppers**

[Mass Transfer]{.underline} -- BRI has studied and quantified the mass
transfer limitations of this fermentation and developed, in conjunction
with mixing experts, the scale-up procedures for commercial design.

[Waste Water]{.underline} -- Steady-state characterization and
minimization of all effluent streams, including wastewater, will be
conducted in a later phase of this project.

**Proposed Future Research**

**Additional Comments**

**Strengths**

**Weaknesses** -- See above.

**Technology Transfer Collaborations**

**Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope**

######## Catalytic Hydrothermal Gasification -- Edward E. Gray, P.E.

**Relevance**

The project is sharply focused on developing the basis for the first
pilot plant at the Eastman Kingsport Chemical Plant. The pilot is seen
as the next logical step in a progression to offering the technology to
any refinery (biochemical, petrochemical or coal based) that produces
significant biosludge waste streams. Wet biomass streams from current
pulp & paper and corn milling facilities in the U.S. alone represents 50
million tons of potential wet feedstocks.

**Approach**

PNNL has accelerated the testing program at the lab to meet design
requirements earlier -- Preliminary batch testing results are already in
and were the subject of the August project review in Kingsport.
Continuous reactor testing could begin as soon as October unless DOE
funding is delayed. The approach is an iterative one in which data on
the feedstocks (composition and reactor results) informs design --
design improvements and innovations inform how the next set of test will
be run. This is as good as it gets in world of pilot plant design.

The economics of syngas production are changing as we speak and in our
favor. Our original target set two year ago in preparing the proposal
will be revisited in light of the trends we see in chemical feedstock
cost today. Both Eastman and Antares are working together to scrutinize
the financial pro forma for both the first full scale plant at Kingsport
and for future commercial applications at other refineries a
BioProcessing facilities.

**Technical Accomplishments and Progress**

The reviewers correctly noted the slow start of the project; however,
the completion of the CRADA is an often time consuming while absolutely
critical step. Primary issues were not related to IP but rather safety
and liability issues for the on site testing. Eastman runs a very tight
ship at Kingsport and the line demarcating respective partner
liabilities had to be well defined.

**Success Factors and Showstoppers**

Contaminant removal to prevent catalyst poisoning is correctly
identified as a critical focus of the process development effort.
However, early results suggest that there may be a number of economic
options for protecting catalyst beds which will be incorporated into
upcoming continuous reactor testing. Materials handling, transport and
heat recovery are also critical design tasks that will determine the
outcome of the project.

**Proposed Future Research**

The project plan includes several stage gates with appropriate Go/NoGo
decisions as defined by the industrial participants. The project
objectives and pathway is well understood. A key element of the future
development is sizing the pilot sufficiently large to allow for the
success of a follow-on full scale demonstration plant.

**Additional Comments**

**Strengths**

Agree

**Weaknesses**

The catalyst has been developed through significant laboratory testing
over several years in an earlier DOE-EE project. Sensitivity of Ru is no
greater than other metals, but its protection remains the key
development task in this project. Project work has accelerated
sufficiently over the summer months to be completely caught up by the
end of the calendar year if no delays in DOE committed funding occur.

**Technology Transfer Collaborations**

Agree

**Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope**

The estimated gas cost (at a level below NREL\'s projections of
conventional gasification) will be evaluated in detail as part of this
project. Note that NREL\'s model does not even address the use of wet
biomass, while the estimates given in this project assume a zero wet
biomass cost. However as noted above in discussing the economics under
approach we are revisiting the targets for syngas production costs.

**Gasification from Fuels and Chemicals in a Pulp Mill -- Ryan
Katofsky**

###### Relevance

Agree. No additional comments

###### Approach

Agree. No additional comments

###### Technical Accomplishments and Progress

I believe the lower score here relative to the high scores on Relevance
and Approach largely reflects where we were in the project (i.e.,
preliminary results only).

###### Success Factors and Showstoppers

As noted earlier, this project does not fit as well with this rating
category, since there really are no technical show stoppers. I do agree
that we could have used this topic to address broader industry risks
rather than project-specific issues.

###### Proposed Future Research

I believe the low score reflects the relatively short duration of this
project compared to other projects reviewed, and the fact that it is a
stand-alone project. At least one reviewer did comment that our plan for
the project itself was well developed. We are also discussing with DOE
and others, potential ways to expand the scope to cover additional
biorefinery configurations.

**Additional Comments**

**Strengths**

Agree -- I believe we have a very good team assembled.

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

Agree

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

Per the reviewer comments, we have spent some additional time
investigating DME markets (transportation and other).

Regarding the comment about the reluctance of the P&P industry to make
big investments, while there will be differences between investment
levels, depending on the choice of fuel and the scale, they will all
represent significant investments relative to business as usual. This
speaks to the need for cross-industry partnerships and consortia to make
P&P biorefineries a reality.

**High Temperature Black Liquor Gasification -- Craig Brown**

###### Relevance

**Comment:** This project is specific to a specific gasifier.

**Response:** The results of this project will be most relevant to
entrained flow black liquor gasification (BLG). However, some of the
reliability issues (e.g. scaling and fouling in green liquor circuits),
and process integration issues (e.g. dregs handling) will be common to
other BLG technologies. Also, advancing the state of process modeling
tools, particularly the underlying rate models, will be applicable to
other BLG approaches.

**Comment:** Market and customers are other pulp mills.

**Response:** (none)

**Comment:** Project addresses key barriers to achieving BLG in P&P
industry.

**Response:** That's the intent.

###### Approach

**Comment:** Not clear how approach achieves higher availability of BLG.

**Response:** The two key barriers to higher availability are (1)
refractory life and (2) scaling and fouling in process condensate and
green liquor circuits. Although refractory *materials* are not part of
this project (other DOE sponsored projects are addressing this), a key
focus of this project is development of an improved liquor "burner" that
will enable operation of the gasifier at lower temperatures. This is key
to improved overall process efficiency *and* *to extending refractory
life*.

Regarding barrier (2), the approach is 1) to develop a solid fundamental
understanding of the underlying chemistry leading to scaling and fouling
in process circuits (this is Georgia Tech's role on the project), 2)
identify and implement practical solutions (operational or process
configuration changes, new equipment...), and 3) to evaluate the impact
of the change during long term operation.

**Comment:** The project is clearly focused on specific technical
hurdles that will improve the chance for commercial success.

**Response:** Thank you -- that's the goal!

**Technical Accomplishments and Progress**

**Comment:** Could be more focus on solving or stream operation
problems. Refractory issues should be solvable.

**Response:** We agree refractory issues are solvable. As mentioned
above they are being worked on two fronts: (1) materials - focus of
other DOE sponsored work and (2) process - this project through improved
burner design = lower reactor operating temperature. Reliable
containment of a feedstock with 20% sodium (dry solids basis) in a
molten phase reactor is a key technology challenge.

###### Success Factors and Showstoppers

**Comment:** Already in a commercial setting.

**Response:** This is the key advantage we offer. Long term commercial
operation allows us to evaluate and address issues (particularly process
reliability concerns) not possible in laboratory or pilot scale
operations. Keep in mind that our focus is on development of tools and
addressing issues that will be directly applicable to the pressurized
version of the technology. The pressurized version is still
pre-commercial with the pilot plant start-up expected this month in
Pitea, Sweden.The pressurized version is a cornerstone technology in the
"Integrated Forest Products Biorefinery".

**Comment:** Project is focused on several key issues that must be
addressed for this technology to be seriously considered for
commercialization.

**Response:** Thank you, that's our intent!

###### Proposed Future Research

**Comment:** Project has just begun. Future work plans are not
applicable at this point.

**Response:** none

###### Additional Comments

**Strengths**

**Comment:** Experienced team of operators with advanced team of
modelers.

**Response:** none

**Comment:** Appear to have gained a good understanding of the
correlation between operational problems and issues with refractory.

**Response:** none

###### Weaknesses

**Comment:** Project plan does not live up to the potential of team for
advancing BLG. What is going to be done that addresses low availability
of gasifier? What tests will solve dregs problem? Modeling work was
focus of presentation, but it does not resolve these questions.

**Response:** Sorry, modeling may have seemed like the focus of the
presentation because that's where we have early results. Development of
useful modeling tools is certainly one interim project objective;
however, the real project focus is on developing (in part through the
application of the modeling tools) and demonstrating practical solutions
to key process issues.

See response above regarding how the project is addressing availability
concerns.

The dregs issue is being addressed in two ways:

\(1\) Improvements in burner design - Reduction in operating temperature
is constrained by the production of "dregs free" green liquor; i.e., we
don't have a dregs issue if we operate at higher temperatures, the
challenge is to develop a burner that enables operation at a lower
reactor temperature while maintaining dregs at or below current levels.

\(2\) Dregs characterization -- understanding the underlying physical
(including filterability) and chemical characteristics of the gasifier
dregs is key to developing process solutions. Although not specifically
scoped in this project, it is hoped that this will lead to the
demonstration of green liquor filtration technology that would
remove/mitigate the constraint mentioned above.

**Comment:** Difficult to see how the information can be used by or
useful to others.

**Response:** We think information generated in this project will be
very useful to anybody considering the application of high temperature
black liquor gasification.

**Comment:** Little operational data provided.

**Response:** none

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

**Comment:** Partnership well established.

**Response:** none

**Comment:** Close contact interaction with Chemrec the technology
vendor.

**Response:** none

**Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope**

**Comment:** Monitor capital investment required for this technology vs.
advanced combustion systems? They should have provided some data

**Response:** A thorough economic review of BLG compared to advanced
recovery boiler technology is available in an earlier DOE sponsored
study lead by Princeton University (Larson et al, [A Cost-Benefit
Assessment of Biomass Gasification Power Generation in the Pulp and
Paper Industry]{.underline})

**Pressurized Entrained Flow BLG -- Kevin Whitty**

###### Relevance

**COMMENT:** It is perhaps specific to liquid feed.

**RESPONSE:** This program focuses only on black liquor, which is
received from the mill as a liquid.

**COMMENT:** Serves a useful role in facilitating successful
commercialization of BL gasification.

**RESPONSE:** (none)

###### Approach

**COMMENT:** Separate BL from softwoods and hardwoods

**RESPONSE:** Though not part of the original project scope, this
(softwood versus hardwood) could be another interesting variable to
study. Given the severity of the process and its effectiveness at
breaking down the organic fraction of the liquor, little difference
between hardwood and softwood liquors is expected. (If it were low
temperature gasification or liquor pyrolysis, notable variations between
hardwood and softwood would be expected.) Nonetheless, if time/funding
permit and if softwood-only and hardwood-only mills willing to send
black liquor can be identified, such investigation will be considered.

**COMMENT:** Clearly meets all criteria.

**RESPONSE:** (none)

###### Technical Accomplishments and Progress

**COMMENT:** Project too early to show outstanding advances.

**RESPONSE:** (none)

**COMMENT:** Forcing progress upsets and then measuring the results is a
reasonable approach.

**RESPONSE:** Generally speaking, showstoppers with such technologies
don\'t result from planned, controlled, steady-state operation, but are
instead the result of unforeseen upsets in the process. This is why we
have included this in the experimental approach.

**COMMENT:** Project has made good progress in the short time since it
started.

**RESPONSE:** (none)

###### Success Factors and Showstoppers

**COMMENT:** Operation of high pressure, O~2~ blown gasifier of any size
has all kinds of showstoppers but these issues were not addressed.

**RESPONSE:** This is true, though many of these showstoppers (nozzle
failure, refractory damage) are the result of long-term operation. This
project aims to improve the understanding of this type of black liquor
gasification in order to minimize or prevent such showstoppers in
full-scale systems. With regard to the small-scale system under
construction at University of Utah, campaigns will be relatively short
(6-8 hours). The project PI has experience running a pressurized,
O~2~-blown BLG system in Sweden. Starting up that system and getting it
to operating conditions was relatively easy. Weyerhaeuser also has
little problem starting up their New Bern plant. (The fact that black
liquor is liquid and can be pumped helps minimize fuel feeding
problems.) Because the system comes to steady state quickly (within an
hour), longer campaigns are not within the scope of this program. That
said, it is expected that it will take some time to develop reliable
startup and operation procedures for the Utah system.

**COMMENT:** Elucidating green lignin dreg formulation not well
characterized.

**RESPONSE:** This project centers on the gasifier reactor itself.
Downstream systems, including the quench where green liquor is formed,
are not within the scope of this program. Green liquor dreg formation is
a recognized concern for BLG systems. The Weyerhaeuser program (P8) is
better suited to study green liquor dregs. That said, we should be able
to provide information on unburned carbon, which makes up a significant
fraction of green liquor dregs in a BLG system.

###### Proposed Future Research

**COMMENT:** Project has just started.

**RESPONSE:** (none)

**Additional Comments**

**Strengths**

**COMMENTS:** Experienced person in entrained flow gasification.
Blending operating and modeling. Strong planning and analysis.

**RESPONSE:** (none)

###### Weaknesses

**COMMENT:** Not to include softwood vs. hardwood lignin.

**RESPONSE:** See response to comment above under \"approach.\"

**COMMENT:** Not much data yet -- the project could be closer linked to
the related High Temperature BLG project.

**RESPONSE:** We have contacted Weyerhaeuser and will be meeting with
them soon to see how we can more closely collaborate.

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

**COMMENT:** With Weyerhaeuser, Chemrec, and perhaps the simulation
companies.

**COMMENT:** Not clear how close the interaction with Weyerhaeuser is.
On the surface it does not appear there is close coordination between
activities.

**RESPONSE** (to both): Collaboration at this point is informal. We are
working on coordinating with Weyerhaeuser\'s project to maximize the
effectiveness of both programs. Guidance and feedback from Chemrec is
also being sought.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

**COMMENT:** This project should be part of the previous Weyerhaeuser
project.

**RESPONSE:** Though too late to realistically merge the projects, we
are pursuing closer collaboration. The two projects complement each
other well; the University of Utah project is focused on details of
black liquor conversion in an entrained-flow gasifier while the
Weyerhaeuser project focuses on process-related issues.

**COMMENT:** Interact more closely with Weyerhaeuser in obtaining
feedstock BL from the New Bern Project.

######## Gas Clean-up and Conditioning; Catalysts Fundamentals -- Kim Magrini

###### Relevance

We tested numerous naphtha-reforming catalysts with biomass derived gas
and liquid feedstocks and found that catalyst mechanical integrity was
insufficient when used for steam reforming at 850ºC in a fluid bed
environment. Fluidization is required for efficient tar cracking and
reforming because it increases catalyst contact with the feedstock and
reduces coke formation, which is characteristic of these feedstocks.
Industrial fluidizable reforming catalysts are not available though
recent awarded subcontracts within the Biomass Program focus on
developing such materials. Particles derived from crushing and sieving
commercial packed bed catalysts exhibited consistent attrition losses of
10-20-wt% per day under fluidizing conditions. Because process economics
cannot support such losses, we needed to identify and/or develop an
attrition-resistant catalyst that could withstand fluidized reforming
conditions.

M6.2.2 and M6.2.3 are black liquor syn-gas related goals. The technical
challenges associated with black liquor are the high sulfur and Na
content of the feedstock. In developing reforming catalysts, S and Na
are considered catalyst poisons and add an additional dimension to
catalyst deactivation and regeneration. Sodium release is unique to
black liquor gasification expect in unusual circumstances with biomass
feeds that have high Na content (California wheat straw is an example).
Sulfur is expected to be an issue for a wider range of biorefinery
residues, including corn stover, as highlighted in the Integrated
Catalyst Testing project, and biochemical conversion residues (lignin).
While black liquor gasification/catalyst testing is not currently funded
in this area, the sulfur removal/mitigation strategies and the impact of
sulfur on reforming catalyst performance will be transferable from
studies with biorefinery residues.

###### Technical Accomplishments and Progress

Since the review we have evaluated several catalyst formulations made
with a new alumina support and containing significantly more Ni and find
that activity is significantly improved. These catalysts perform as well
as a commercial reforming catalyst while containing a factor of two less
Ni. We are currently investigating the impact of increased Ni content on
catalyst performance and agree that any Ni is an environmental issue
though less remains better.

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

We met the RTI group, who are developing fluidizable reforming catalysts
with Sud Chemie (catalyst manufacturer) at the review and have been
invited and will visit with them in the near future. Dr. James White
(Battelle/PNNL) has agreed to visit with us in the near future to tour
our facilities and add his recommendations to the catalyst development
project. Note that the Biomass Program funded industrial projects have
just begun and we intend to collaborate with these groups as material
become available for testing. Also note that we have and are contacting
industrial catalyst manufacturers that may have catalysts to evaluate
but they can be reluctant to provide materials and currently do not have
fluidizable reforming catalysts.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

Sulfur impact on catalyst activity is an issue that must and will be
addressed. We now monitor catalyst sulfur content by inductively coupled
plasma analysis and find that feedstock appears to influence catalyst S
content after use. We anticipate evaluating the impact of S on catalyst
performance with both MATS units in FY06.

We are currently studying the impacts of feedstock and reaction
temperature on catalysts used in the Integrated Catalyst Studies task
and find that we can fingerprint new and used catalysts with both micro
activity test systems. This ability has led us to develop a catalyst
regeneration protocol that ensures catalyst performance in the TCPDU. We
are also beginning to understand what causes catalyst deactivation and
if deactivation is reversible. This work will ultimately be used to
develop catalyst regeneration protocols possibly as a function of
feedstock type.

Continuous catalyst regeneration is a process issue that must eventually
be addressed though additional resources will be required to achieve
this goal.

**Verification of Syngas Quality -- Don Stevens**

###### Relevance

Ongoing analysis by NREL and PNNL continues to suggest that thermal
ethanol plus other products provides an excellent opportunity for the
biorefinery. A more detailed analysis is ongoing, but initial results
should be available soon.

###### Approach

The work is initially looking at readily available catalysts to provide
"base-line" performance data. But in addition, it was always planned to
produce new catalysts in the lab. Four new catalysts have already been
produced at PNNL, and additional ones will be produced in the future,
guided by initial experimental results.

**Technical Accomplishments and Progress**

This project had started just prior to the Stage Gate Placement, so
accomplishments to that date are understandably few.

The research, as proposed, does look beyond existing catalysts and does
include catalyst manufacturers, points which were apparently not made
clear in the presentation. While the initial studies will examine
existing catalysts, the work plan calls for making new catalysts for
this purpose, and PNNL has already made several. In addition, catalyst
manufacturers are now actively involved, and we (PNNL and NREL) have a
nondisclosure agreement and catalysts samples from a major catalyst
manufacturer.

###### Success Factors and Showstoppers

The economic success of this approach continues to be evaluated by the
analysis group at NREL, and numbers from that study will help guide the
overall project.

As was noted in the presenter's verbal comments, the goals for
establishing catalyst "turn-over" and lifetimes have been determined,
and research is attempting to achieve those goals. In addition, we would
like to be able to better control the selectivity and "tuneability" of
these catalysts to produce various percentages of higher alcohols
depending on market forces. Our first focus is on the reactivity and
that may help determine more specific "selectivity" goals.

**Additional Comments**

**Strengths**

The ability to test actual biomass gas streams in the NREL gasification
facility is another project strength, which wasn't mentioned by the
reviewers

Weaknesses

The project has clearly defined metrics including catalyst rates and
lifetimes, and accompanying economic goals. Apparently these were not
adequately conveyed in the presentation.

There is actually a reasonably high level of industry interest in
thermal ethanol, and both NREL and PNNL are aware of several specific
business opportunities. However, because of proprietary agreements, some
of these opportunities cannot be discussed in public. We strongly
believe that industry currently has strong interest in thermal ethanol.

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

The research as proposed includes catalyst manufacturers. Other
companies including Abengoa have expressed interest in the general
process, and some of those companies have submitted related proposals to
DOE. As possible, the results from this "core R&D" effort will be shared
with industry.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

We will use the reviewer's specific suggestions related to yield and
terminology, and we will also use the suggestions throughout the review
to further strengthen the project.

**Sulfur Removal and Gasification Membranes -- Rich Bain**

###### Relevance

For first generation pioneer systems, existing sulfur removal technology
should be the preferred technology for sulfur removal from syngas after
tar removal, whether it is catalytic or thermal. Both catalytic and
thermal cracking should liberate sulfur and thus require downstream
control. A question remains regarding sulfur (H~2~S and COS) removal
requirements prior to catalytic tar reforming.

###### Approach

As part of the gas cleanup and conditioning project we will look into
adding sulfur-gettering material like CaO to the gasifier bed to
minimize sulfur release. Depending on the degree of sulfur capture in
the gasifier additional unit operations for sulfur removal such as
limestone (CaO) or ZnO getter beds may need to be explored.

We are relying on the expertise of the subcontracting team, lead by
Nexant, to determine the appropriateness of commercial sulfur removal
technologies for black liquor syngas

Technical Accomplishments and Progress

The sulfur removal study has been completed by Nexant and a draft
milestone report issued.

For membranes, the technology assessment portion of the study will be
completed by the end of September, and selected economic case studies
will be completed by the end of first quarter FY2006.

**Success Factors and Showstoppers**

We agree with the rating.

###### Proposed Future Research

We agree with the rating. No further effort on evaluation of commercial
sulfur removal technologies is planned. Efforts for sulfur control prior
to catalytic tar reforming will be performed as part of the gas cleanup
and conditioning project. The evaluation of membranes is still underway.
Until the technical and economic assessment is complete further research
cannot be proposed.

###### Additional Comments

###### Weaknesses

Regarding membranes, we agree with the comment about plugging. In
addition, the potential presence of alkali vapors (specifically
potassium) is problematic for ceramic membranes and ceramic supports.

We are not sure that the second comment refers to sulfur removal or
membranes. Existing first generation biomass gasification systems do not
incorporate sulfur removal. Most gasifiers use low sulfur woody fuels,
and are designed heat and power applications. These systems can meet
emissions standards without sulfur removal. At the same time, there are
thousands of commercial sulfur removal systems in operation. Final
sulfur removal before synthesis does not involve research, but good E&C
firm evaluation and design. There are outstanding questions about the
degree of sulfur control/removal needed before tar reforming. This will
be evaluated as part of the gas cleanup and conditioning task.

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

All results obtained in the study are being disseminated to the gas
cleanup and conditioning project and to the group performing
technoeconomic analyses.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

The specific allowable (target) sulfur level in clean syngas is a
function of the synthesis process and catalyst selected. We have
developed general guidelines for specific processes. Location of sulfur
removal technology in an integrated process is being evaluated as part
of the technoeconomic evaluations that are being performed.

Santosh Gangwal -- Biomass Gas Cleanup

###### Relevance

We agree. A super clean syngas will require 2 steps; a bulk step that is
being developed in this project and a polishing step. For woody and
agricultural biomass gasification, contaminants are at a widely
differing levels---for example the tar is at 10000-15000 ppm, the
ammonia is at 1000-4000 ppm and the sulfur is at 50 to 100 ppm.
Following the therminator, we hope to have residual contaminants at
similar levels, that can be handled much more effectively in a single
polishing bed to achieve super clean syngas for fuels production. We
anticipate the polishing bed to be a mixed-metal oxide supported on a
high surface area eg. zeolite type support, operating at 200 + degrees
C.

Although the development of the polishing bed is presently not in the
scope of work, it can certainly be added.

**Success Factors and Showstoppers**

We will add monitoring of the tail gas in the project

###### Weaknesses

-   Instrumentation for measuring contaminants should be strengthened.

-   Analytical protocols?

We are addressing this in the project, although not presented in detail
at the meeting due to time constraints. The measurement protocols will
include a GC to measure fixed gases and C1 to C6 hydrocarbons, an
elaborate tar sampling and analytical protocol (based on the EU
protocol), ammonia measurement using ion-selective electrodes, and H2S
measurement using a second GC.

-   The purity level of the syngas after the tar cracking is not enough
    for chemical synthesis.

I agree. Response addressed previously.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

We agree. We further recommend adding the development of a polishing bed
to the scope of work to go hand in hand with the therminator.

**Larry Felix -- In-Process Elimination of Tars**

###### Relevance

> No comments

###### Approach

-   Not clear this large of project is supported by existing data or
    theory.

-   Surface science is needed.

> Response:
>
> This project resulted from a competitive process in which a detailed
> proposal that reviewed the existing data and theory to support our
> approach and presented a plan for reaching the project goal was
> submitted to the DOE and subjected to a rigorous evaluation and
> grading process. While the review presentation could not address these
> issues in detail (and remain within our allotted time) we refer the
> reviewers to the following literature cited in the proposal that
> addresses their concerns:
>
> 1\. Existing data on the usefulness of olivine as a robust bed
> material for fluidized bed gasification:
>
> 1\. Rapagna, S., Jand, N., Kiennemann, A., Foscolo, P.U., *Steam
> Gasification of biomass in a fluidized-bed of olivine particles*,
> Biomass and Bioenergy 19 (2000) 187-197.
>
> 2\. Devi L., Smits, B. A., Ptasinski, K. J., Janssen, F. J. J. G.,
> Bergman, P. C. A., Kiel, J. H.A., *Catalytic Decomposition of Tar from
> Biomass Gasifier*, Presented at the International Nordic Bioenergy
> 2003 Conference, September 2-5, 2003, Jyväskylä, Finland.
>
> 3\. Devi, L., van Pol, W.L.C., Ptasinski, K.J., Janssen, F.J.J.G.,
> *Catalytic decomposition of biomass tars. Olivine as a prospective
> catalyst for biomass gasification processes*, in Proc. Topical Conf.
> on Envisioning Biorefineries: Chemicals and Materials from Renewable
> Feedstocks. AIChE Annual Meeting; Editors: -, San Francisco, CA,
> United States, pp. 1, November 16-21, 2003.
>
> 2\. The incorporation of NiO in olivine as a method to improve its
> catalytic activity substantiated by experimental results. Surface
> science considerations are addressed in detail in these papers.
>
> 4\. Courson, C., Udron, L., Petit, C., Kiennemann, A., *Grafted NiO on
> natural olivine for dry reforming of methane*, Science and Technology
> of Advanced Materials 3 (2002) 271-282.
>
> 5\. Courson, C., Udron, L., Swierczynski, D., Petit, C., Kiennemann,
> A., *Hydrogen production from biomass gasification on nickel catalysts
> Tests for dry reforming of methane*, Catalysis Today 76 (2002) 75-86.

###### Technical Accomplishments and Progress

-   Little catalytic info planned.

> Response:
>
> We do not understand the comment. Perhaps the reviewers did not
> observe that the GTI catalyst test facility was shown as being in
> initial shake-down testing at the time of the project presentation.
> Thus, no results were available to present.

**Success Factors and Showstoppers**

> Comments:

-   Lots of potential showstoppers which require tentative plans for
    moving around them.

-   No catalytic info has been shown.

-   Not clear if they will be able to achieve attrition resistance and
    surface area requirements.

> Responses:
>
> 1\. Indeed, there can be many showstoppers and three of the most
> important are identified in the presentation. The project was clearly
> identified as a completely new approach to catalyst preparation in the
> project proposal, being submitted in Topic Area 2: Thermochemical
> Conversion -- Fundamental Breakthrough Research, and therefore subject
> to more inherent risk than proposals submitted in another topic area.
>
> 2\. As above, we do not understand the comment. The GTI catalyst test
> facility was shown as being in initial shake-down testing at the time
> of the project presentation so test results were not yet available
> from that facility. Should the reviewers be referring to a lack of
> experimental results cited in the project review presentation to show
> that olivine and Ni-olivine are suitable catalytic materials for
> biomass gasification, we again refer the reviewers to literature cited
> in the proposal, above.
>
> 3\. With regard to attrition resistance, that issue was specifically
> addressed in the project proposal. As the literature cited above (1-3)
> from the proposal substantiates, olivine is an inherently
> attrition-resistant material for fluidized bed, biomass gasification.
> Finally, surface area considerations are moot. Ni-olivine catalysts as
> developed by Courson, et al, (references 4 and 5, above) have
> inherently low surface areas yet have been shown to function as
> effective catalysts. Our development is directed toward duplicating
> (and possibly improving) catalysts such as those developed by Courson,
> et al, through a new and more economical process.

###### Proposed Future Research

> Comments:

-   Very unclear plan of experiments.

-   Compare the performance with the Ni catalysts.

> Responses:
>
> 1\. A valid comment. However, an overall project plan/schedule was
> included in the project review presentation. While this plan/schedule
> presents no detailed plan for experiments, the very early stage of the
> project coupled with the continuing process of securing subcontracts
> with our project partners led us to avoid this exercise for the
> project review presentation.
>
> 2\. As we indicated above, at the time of this presentation, the GTI
> catalyst test facility was not operational. Since that time a number
> of tests have been conducted with a variety of Ni-based catalytic
> materials using naphthalene as a surrogate tar.

**Additional Comments**

**Strengths**

> No comments

**Weaknesses**

> Comments:

-   I'm surprised that such a high risk project supported with so little
    preliminary data would be funded at \$2 million. It seems like the
    stage gate process needs to be applied rigorously to this project
    before moving it forward in subsequent years.

-   No background data on catalysis.

-   Need more surface characterization.

> Responses:
>
> 1\. The first comment above appears to question the proposal review
> process. If so, we are not qualified to address the question. Perhaps
> the project proposal was not made available to the reviewers for their
> inspection.
>
> 2\. See the references that were cited in the proposal, (references
> 1-5, above) that address the remaining comments of the reviewers.

###### Technology Transfer Collaborations

> No comments

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

> Comment:

-   Surface science is needed to understand what makes the active sites
    active, regenerable, etc.

> Response:
>
> This is an obvious direction for inquiry that constitutes the main
> focus of our Ohio State University and NexTech Materials, Ltd. project
> partners. In addition, as glass chemistry issues affect the mobility
> of catalytically active metals in glass, this is also a focus for our
> Alfred University project partner.

**High Temperature Sorbents -- Thomas Gale**

###### Relevance

It is perhaps not completely correct to say that the metals examined
from coal are not the same as from biomass. First of all, at high
temperatures, all of the volatile and semi-volatile metals (most of
those of interest) vaporize into their elemental form, so they are in
exactly the same form regardless of the feedstock they came from.
Secondly, essentially all of the metals that are found in coal are also
found in biomass and visa versa. The difference between the two is the
quantity of each metal in each feedstock and the acid gases produced
from gasification of the feedstock that can have a significant affect
the speciation of the metals as the gas cools.

As stated in the comment, high-temperature sorbents will be applicable
to combined cycle systems, where the gas turbine needs to be protected
against damage by alkali metals. However, high- or moderate-temperature
sorbents technology may also be effective for fuels production,
depending on the entire process design being considered. Admittedly,
there is room for lower-temperature sorbent work to develop technologies
that can clean syngas and fuels from toxic and nuisance metals when
transforming biomass into fuels and chemicals. This topic is interesting
to Southern Research and would fit in nicely with the work we are
currently doing. However, the scope of the project and budget are
currently too small to focus on both areas of research.

###### Proposed Future Research

Please see the latest Quarterly Report for additional information on the
Future Research to be conducted on this project. The schedule has
changed somewhat, based on some outside events.

###### Additional Comments

###### Weaknesses

I am not sure what was meant by obnoxious metals in biomass. Actually,
the metals in biomass are known. There are no surprises waiting. How to
capture these metals and deal with challenges to capture these metals is
the point of the project.

###### Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

Initially, emphasis is being placed on the alkali metals (e.g.,
particularly Na and K) that are major metal components that can cause
significant damage to turbine blades. However, as the project proceeds,
emphasis will be on all metals of concern (i.e., toxic metals), Pb, Cd,
Se, As, Ni, Hg (although Hg is not collectable at high temperatures),
and any other toxic metal that is detectable by advanced analytical
equipment.

It was recommended that we should "Study the possibility of improving
the behavior and properties of the sorbents under reducing conditions".
Yes, this is part of the Scope of Work for this project. In fact, it is
the major portion of the Scope of Work for this project.

# Appendix D

# DOE Action Plan Based Upon Portfolio Review 

**Review Panel Collective Gate Placement**

  ---------------------- -------- --------------- --------------- ---------------------
  **Project**            **PI**   **Reviewers**   **DOE           **Comments**
                                                  DECISION**      

  Feed Processing and    A        A               A               
  Handling (P1)                                                   

  Gasification of        A        A               A               
  Biorefinery Residues                                            
  (P2)                                                            

  Wet Gasification of    A        B, B, A, B, A   A               
  Biorefinery Residues                                            
  (P3)                                                            

  Process Monitoring     B        2, 3, B, B, 2/3 3               THISIS ON THE
  Tools (P4)                                                      COMMERCIAL TRACK, NOT
                                                                  R&D TRACK

  Thermochemical         2        2               2               
  Conversion of Corn                                              
  Stover (P5)                                                     

  Catalytic Hydrothermal 2        2               2               
  Gasification (P6)                                               

  Gasification From      2        2, 2, no        2               
  Fuels and Chemicals in          rating, B, 2                    
  a Pulp Mill (P7)                                                

  High Temperature Black 2        2, 2, 2, 3, 2   2               
  Liquor Gasification                                             
  (P8)                                                            

  Pressurized Entrained  B        B               B               
  Flow BLG (P9)                                                   

  Gas Clean-up and       B        B               B               
  Conditioning;                                                   
  Integrated Catalyst                                             
  Studies (P10)                                                   

  Gas Clean-up and       B        B, A/B, A/B, B, B               PAST EXPLORATORY,
  Conditioning;                   A/B                             THEY ARE GENERATING
  Catalysts Fundamentals                                          DATA FOR ANALYZING.
  (P11)                                                           

  Verification of Syngas A        A               A               
  Quality (P12)                                                   

  Sulfur Removal and     A        A               A               
  Gasification Membranes                                          
  (P13)                                                           

  Biomass Gas Clean-up   B        B, commercial   B transitioning IN LATE FY06, THEY
  (P14)                           track, B, B,    to 3            SHOULD BE XTIONING TO
                                  2/3                             COMMERICAL TRACK WITH
                                                                  A DEMO AT A PILOT
                                                                  FACILITY. They will
                                                                  require a Stage Gate
                                                                  review at this point.

  In-process Elimination B        A, commercial   B transitioning IN LATE FY06, THEY
  of Tars (P15)                   track, B, B,    to 3            SHOULD BE
                                  2/3                             TRANSITIONING TO
                                                                  COMMERICAL TRACK WITH
                                                                  A DEMO AT A PILOT
                                                                  FACILITY. They will
                                                                  require a Stage Gate
                                                                  review at this point

  High Temperature       B        B, commercial   B               At end of project
  Sorbents (P16)                  track, B, B, 2                  (e.g. late FY07),
                                                                  should transition to
                                                                  commercial track.
                                                                  They will require a
                                                                  Stage Gate review at
                                                                  this point
  ---------------------- -------- --------------- --------------- ---------------------

+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Review   |                                |                        |
| Panel      |                                |                        |
| Recomme    |                                |                        |
| ndations** |                                |                        |
+============+================================+========================+
| *          | **Reviewers'**                 | **DOE Response &       |
| *Project** |                                | Comments**             |
|            | **Recommendations**            |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Feed     | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   | W1:                    |
| Processing |                                |                        |
| and        | -   The amount of dollars      | W2:                    |
| Handling   |     committed seems large      |                        |
| (P1)**     |     compared to the task at    | This is a 1 year       |
|            |     hand.                      | project to only        |
|            |                                | generate data on       |
|            | -   Work on recommendations    | characteristics of     |
|            |     for improving feed         | feedstocks and the TC  |
|            |     handling is absent.        | conversion of those.   |
|            |                                | This TEA-type data is  |
|            | -   Pelletization of feedstock | meant to be fed into a |
|            |     may not be economically    | TEA for an Integrated  |
|            |     viable in commercial       | Biorefinery.           |
|            |     setting.                   |                        |
|            |                                | R5: Will change SOW to |
|            | **[Recommendations for         | examine more of the    |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project | physical properties.   |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           | And deliver a table of |
|            |                                | physical properties    |
|            | -   A key issue is whether     | and linking to         |
|            |     pelletization is required  | operational            |
|            |     to regularly feed          | difficulties.          |
|            |     gasifiers. This has a cost |                        |
|            |     impact that needs to be    |                        |
|            |     addressed.                 |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   "Control" of moisture in   |                        |
|            |     lignin-rich residue may be |                        |
|            |     an index to monitor.       |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Take into consideration    |                        |
|            |     the differences in HHV and |                        |
|            |     energy efficiency for      |                        |
|            |     using dry versus wet       |                        |
|            |     lignin/biomass residues in |                        |
|            |     gasification and evaluate  |                        |
|            |     if the use of wet lignin   |                        |
|            |     for gasification makes     |                        |
|            |     sense energetically or the |                        |
|            |     wet gasification is the    |                        |
|            |     only option for wet (high  |                        |
|            |     water content) residues.   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   More focus on correlating  |                        |
|            |     physical properties to     |                        |
|            |     operational difficulties   |                        |
|            |     in conversion              |                        |
|            |     technologies.              |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Investigation of           |                        |
|            |     thermoplastic property of  |                        |
|            |     lignin may be useful I     |                        |
|            |     developing approaches to   |                        |
|            |     feeding these materials    |                        |
|            |     into hot vessels.          |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Comparison of combustion   |                        |
|            |     should also be part of     |                        |
|            |     analysis.                  |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Ga       | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   | DOE will discuss these |
| sification |                                | technical              |
| of         | -   Limited so far for steam   | recommendations with   |
| B          |     gasification.              | the PI.                |
| iorefinery |                                |                        |
| Residues   | **[Recommendations for         | GO/HQ will discuss     |
| (P2)**     | Additions/Deletions to Project | with NREL.             |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   O~2~/h~2~O gasification    |                        |
|            |     will be an improvement in  |                        |
|            |     approaching real           |                        |
|            |     gasifiers. At least air    |                        |
|            |     should be used with h~2~O  |                        |
|            |     to approach real           |                        |
|            |     gasifiers.                 |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   C1 needs to be monitored.  |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Ash lixiviation profiles   |                        |
|            |     may be needed for use of   |                        |
|            |     the ash as an additive.    |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Thermal Cracker may not be |                        |
|            |     needed if we want to know  |                        |
|            |     the "true" gasification    |                        |
|            |     patterns of the different  |                        |
|            |     feeds.                     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   A key index is t be above  |                        |
|            |     70% energy efficiency SG   |                        |
|            |     LHV/Feed LHV.              |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Work with steam and 0~2~   |                        |
|            |     or enriched air in order   |                        |
|            |     to achieve autothermal     |                        |
|            |     functioning and produce a  |                        |
|            |     high energy syngas.        |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | ```{=html}                     |                        |
|            | <!-- -->                       |                        |
|            | ```                            |                        |
|            | -   Investigate biomass        |                        |
|            |     residue mixtures into      |                        |
|            |     parametric studies. This   |                        |
|            |     should also include mixing |                        |
|            |     various moisture content   |                        |
|            |     feeds and generating steam |                        |
|            |     in-situ in the reactor.    |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Need more investigation in |                        |
|            |     variability of feedstocks. |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Wet      | **[Question 1:                 | One year effort to     |
| Ga         | Relevance]{.underline}** to    | develop info on        |
| sification | overall objectives.            | specific feedstocks.   |
| of         |                                | Info will be publicly  |
| B          | -   The gas obtained           | available in the       |
| iorefinery |     (Hy/CO~2~) needs to be     | milestone report.      |
| Residues   |     further reformed to        |                        |
| (P3)**     |     produce H~2~/CO.           | Comment will be        |
|            |                                | provided to PI for     |
|            | ```{=html}                     | consideration in the   |
|            | <!-- -->                       | final report.          |
|            | ```                            |                        |
|            | -   The market potential       |                        |
|            |     appears to be very narrow. |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Question 5: Proposed Future |                        |
|            | Research]{.underline}**        |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Not enough focus on        |                        |
|            |     addressing the feedstock   |                        |
|            |     containment issue.         |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   No future work planned     |                        |
|            |     beyond FY05.               |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Ru is an expensive metal.  |                        |
|            |     The reviewer suspects that |                        |
|            |     given the presence of N    |                        |
|            |     and S in the feed the      |                        |
|            |     catalyst will be quickly   |                        |
|            |     damaged.                   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   The development of a       |                        |
|            |     catalyst suitable for the  |                        |
|            |     process needs to be better |                        |
|            |     addressed.                 |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   The contaminant issue does |                        |
|            |     not appear to lend itself  |                        |
|            |     to a universal solution    |                        |
|            |     but rather will have to be |                        |
|            |     tailored to each           |                        |
|            |     feedstock.                 |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Need to show energy        |                        |
|            |     efficiency of process.     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Need to show energy        |                        |
|            |     efficiency vs. solids      |                        |
|            |     content of slurry in       |                        |
|            |     gases.                     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Catalyst lifetime needs to |                        |
|            |     be monitored even in a     |                        |
|            |     short number of hours.     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   CI may be a problem.       |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Present an energy balance  |                        |
|            |     for the process.           |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Process  | **[Question 5: Proposed Future | Funding will cease     |
| Monitoring | Research]{.underline}**        | after current funds    |
| Tools      |                                | are exhausted          |
| (P4)**     | -   The gas analysis to be     |                        |
|            |     conducted at the           | DOE will discuss these |
|            |     Weyerhauser New Bern       | technical              |
|            |     gasifier will be available | recommendations with   |
|            |     to support activity at the | the PI. And will make  |
|            |     BL gasification part of    | recommendation for     |
|            |     the program.               | additional validation  |
|            |                                | at gasifier            |
|            | -   Future plan unclear.       | facilities.            |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   | GO/HQ will discuss     |
|            |                                | with GTI               |
|            | -   A few more details on      |                        |
|            |     handling the sampling and  |                        |
|            |     analysis problems would    |                        |
|            |     have strengthened          |                        |
|            |     presentation. Not clear    |                        |
|            |     how validations will be    |                        |
|            |     performed.                 |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Some technical issues      |                        |
|            |     still present. Syngas      |                        |
|            |     dilution and time interval |                        |
|            |     between GC analysis can    |                        |
|            |     lower the residue of some  |                        |
|            |     measurements.              |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   It is important that the   |                        |
|            |     time span of each          |                        |
|            |     chromatograph measurement  |                        |
|            |     be provided in order to    |                        |
|            |     average appropriately the  |                        |
|            |     data.                      |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Statistical analysis       |                        |
|            |     (multivariable) -- should  |                        |
|            |     this be added?             |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Errors by condensation of  |                        |
|            |     the moisture at interface: |                        |
|            |     can they be quantified?    |                        |
|            |     VOCs for instance!         |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Ther     | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   | DOE has visited the PI |
| mochemical |                                | (BRI), facilities to   |
| Conversion | -   Gasifier under evaluation  | discuss these and has  |
| of Corn    |     is a poor choice for this  | now resolved several   |
| Stover     |     process.                   | of these issues.       |
| (P5)**     |                                |                        |
|            | -   Toxins!                    | GO/HQ visited BRI      |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Gasifier design poor for   |                        |
|            |     producing desirable        |                        |
|            |     quality of syngas. Will    |                        |
|            |     require a significant      |                        |
|            |     effort to make it better.  |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Better analytical results  |                        |
|            |     are needed!                |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Long term operation is     |                        |
|            |     required to determine      |                        |
|            |     stability of               |                        |
|            |     microorganisms.            |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Address the mass transport |                        |
|            |     limitations and the toxins |                        |
|            |     issue.                     |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| *          | **[Question 5: Proposed Future | Initial delays have    |
| *Catalytic | Research]{.underline}**        | been overcome, project |
| Hy         |                                | is now on track.       |
| drothermal | -   Was not detailed in        |                        |
| Ga         |     presentation.              | DOE will discuss these |
| sification |                                | technical              |
| (P6)**     | **[Strengths]{.underline}**    | recommendations with   |
|            |                                | the PI.                |
|            | -   Builds on PNNL: technology |                        |
|            |     proven at PDU level.       | A stage gate is        |
|            |                                | scheduled, prior to    |
|            | -   Good approach for dealing  | advancing project,     |
|            |     with wet biomass and       | specifically to        |
|            |     biosludges.                | address these issues   |
|            |                                | and more.              |
|            | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   |                        |
|            |                                | GO lead,               |
|            | -   Ru as catalyst! Too        |                        |
|            |     sensitive to impurities.   | Stage Gate is          |
|            |                                | currently scheduled    |
|            | -   Great delay in the         | for December 05.       |
|            |     project.                   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   It is not clear if the     |                        |
|            |     catalyst to be tested was  |                        |
|            |     sufficiently developed in  |                        |
|            |     the laboratory.            |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Not much to say since      |                        |
|            |     project just started.      |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   \$4/MMBTU is much less     |                        |
|            |     than the numbers that NREL |                        |
|            |     has indicated for biomass  |                        |
|            |     gasification.              |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Ga       | **[Technology Transfer         | Agree, DOE is          |
| sification | Collaborations]{.underline}**  | addressing these with  |
| From Fuels |                                | PI. DOE is trying to   |
| and        | -   Well balanced team with    | have PI prioritize     |
| Chemicals  |     UOP, Shell and BP. Useful  | ethanol as the primary |
| in a Pulp  |     to have petroleum industry | case study.            |
| Mill       |     interest in program.       |                        |
| (P7)**     |                                | NETL/HQ                |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   The P&P industry is        |                        |
|            |     reluctant to make big      |                        |
|            |     investments. A criteria    |                        |
|            |     for choice should be the   |                        |
|            |     lowest investment target   |                        |
|            |     that makes project         |                        |
|            |     possible.                  |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | ```{=html}                     |                        |
|            | <!-- -->                       |                        |
|            | ```                            |                        |
|            | -   Analyze suitability of DME |                        |
|            |     as transportation fuel.    |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **High     | **[Recommendations for         | DOE will discuss       |
| T          | Additions/Deletions to Project | (request) performing   |
| emperature | Scope]{.underline}**           | this analysis with the |
| Black      |                                | PI. (advanced          |
| Liquor     | -   Monitor capital investment | combustion vs. HT BLG) |
| Ga         |     required for this          |                        |
| sification |     technology vs. advanced    | NETL/HQ                |
| (P8)**     |     combustion systems? They   |                        |
|            |     should have provided some  |                        |
|            |     data                       |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **P        | #######                        | DOE will facilitate    |
| ressurized | # *Recommendations for Additio | closer interaction     |
| Entrained  | ns/Deletions to Project Scope* | between these two      |
| Flow BLG   |                                | projects.              |
| (P9)**     | -   This project should be     |                        |
|            |     part of the previous       |                        |
|            |     Weyerhauser project.       |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Interact more closely with |                        |
|            |     Weyerhauser in obtaining   |                        |
|            |     feedstock BL from the New  |                        |
|            |     Bern Project.              |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Gas      | **[Question 1:                 | DOE will discuss these |
| Clean-up   | Relevance]{.underline}** to    | technical              |
| and        | overall objectives.            | recommendations with   |
| Con        |                                | the PI. And will make  |
| ditioning; | -   Catalytic gas is clearly   | recommendation for     |
| Integrated |     very important for a good  | additional validation  |
| Catalyst   |     energy efficiency of the   | at gasifier            |
| Studies    |     gasification.              | facilities.            |
| (P10)**    |                                |                        |
|            | -   Critically important to    | GO/HQ will discuss     |
|            |     program objective.         | with NREL.             |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Scope should include black |                        |
|            |     liquor derived syngas in   |                        |
|            |     addition to wood and corn  |                        |
|            |     stover.                    |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | ```{=html}                     |                        |
|            | <!-- -->                       |                        |
|            | ```                            |                        |
|            | -   More detail required on    |                        |
|            |     handling sulfur problem.   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | ```{=html}                     |                        |
|            | <!-- -->                       |                        |
|            | ```                            |                        |
|            | -   Addition of CaO for the    |                        |
|            |     gasifier will lower the S  |                        |
|            |     and CL and will thus be    |                        |
|            |     beneficial.                |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Sulfur removal is          |                        |
|            |     critical, need to look at  |                        |
|            |     other approach.            |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Strengths]{.underline}**    |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Good capabilities for      |                        |
|            |     working on very important  |                        |
|            |     problem.                   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Excellent grasp of the     |                        |
|            |     issues by the PI.          |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Focuses on basic kinetics, |                        |
|            |     a need in the reactor.     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Detailed real time         |                        |
|            |     analysis of the syngas.    |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Add a prior thermal        |                        |
|            |     cracking/reformer step to  |                        |
|            |     minimize "stress" on       |                        |
|            |     catalyst.                  |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Put CaO in gasifier or     |                        |
|            |     grid reactor to block CL   |                        |
|            |     and S.                     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Identify the factors and   |                        |
|            |     gas components which       |                        |
|            |     deactivate the catalysts.  |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Find a suitable            |                        |
|            |     regeneration procedure for |                        |
|            |     the catalysts.             |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Would be useful to include |                        |
|            |     BL as a feedstock.         |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Gas      | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   | DOE will discuss these |
| Clean-up   |                                | technical              |
| and        | -   Motivation for reducing    | recommendations with   |
| Con        |     amount of Ni is not        | the PI.                |
| ditioning; |     convincing. As long as     |                        |
| Catalysts  |     some Ni is present the     | And will encourage PI  |
| Fu         |     same environmental         | to explore additional  |
| ndamentals |     concerns exist. Also, data | commercial catalyst    |
| (P11)**    |     presented shows catalytic  | development industry   |
|            |     activity increases with Ni | collaboration.         |
|            |     content. Why try to reduce |                        |
|            |     this activity?             | GO/HQ will discuss     |
|            |                                | with NREL.             |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Emphasize studies on       |                        |
|            |     reactivation/regeneration  |                        |
|            |     for instance               |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | > NiS airNiO = SO~2~ H~2~1     |                        |
|            | > Ni + H~2~O                   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Study the regenerated      |                        |
|            |     catalysts. See if they are |                        |
|            |     changed compared to the    |                        |
|            |     fresh ones.                |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Study the feasibility of   |                        |
|            |     continuously regenerating  |                        |
|            |     the catalysts with a       |                        |
|            |     separate regenerating unit |                        |
|            |     and reintroducing them     |                        |
|            |     into the reforming unit.   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Collaboration with other   |                        |
|            |     groups working on          |                        |
|            |     attrition resistant        |                        |
|            |     fluidizable catalysts      |                        |
|            |     seems weak.                |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Links with ceramic company |                        |
|            |     have been made ,BUT should |                        |
|            |     develop some close         |                        |
|            |     interactions with          |                        |
|            |     industry.                  |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Ve       | **[Question 1:                 | Program Goal is        |
| rification | Relevance]{.underline}** to    | ethanol production,    |
| of Syngas  | overall objectives.            | producing mixed        |
| Quality    |                                | alcohols brings high   |
| (P12)**    | -   Presentation seemed to     | value to biorefinery.  |
|            |     indicate that customer     | PIs are discussing     |
|            |     base is shrinking rather   | with Catalyst industry |
|            |     than growing.              | to develop economic    |
|            |                                | viability of potential |
|            | ```{=html}                     | catalysts              |
|            | <!-- -->                       |                        |
|            | ```                            |                        |
|            | -   Synthesis of mixed         |                        |
|            |     alcohols has great         |                        |
|            |     potential and is a very    |                        |
|            |     good fit in the integrated |                        |
|            |     biorefinery.               |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Useful in enhancing the    |                        |
|            |     program options for liquid |                        |
|            |     fuels and chemicals.       |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Appears to be limited      |                        |
|            |     interest by industry.      |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Define the goal in terms   |                        |
|            |     of yield.                  |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   STY is not a proper unit.  |                        |
|            |     It should be WHSV or a     |                        |
|            |     similar index.             |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Sulfur   | **[Recommendations for         | DOE will discuss these |
| Removal    | Additions/Deletions to Project | technical              |
| and        | Scope]{.underline}**           | recommendations with   |
| Ga         |                                | the PI.                |
| sification | -   Define levels of cleaning  |                        |
| Membranes  |     of S                       | GO/HQ will discuss     |
| (P13)**    |                                | with NREL              |
|            |     -   10 ppm                 |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            |     -   1 ppm                  |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            |     -   0.1 ppm                |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Taking into account all    |                        |
|            |     that S removal methods are |                        |
|            |     suitable only for low      |                        |
|            |     temperatures, analyze the  |                        |
|            |     best configuration for     |                        |
|            |     placement of the S         |                        |
|            |     removal.                   |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   This project needs to      |                        |
|            |     support the NREL tar       |                        |
|            |     cracking project (which    |                        |
|            |     needs sulfur removal).     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Not practiced with         |                        |
|            |     existing gasifier/reformer |                        |
|            |     technology for sulfur      |                        |
|            |     management.                |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Not clear whether          |                        |
|            |     membranes downstream are   |                        |
|            |     appropriate given          |                        |
|            |     predictable plugging       |                        |
|            |     problems.                  |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **Biomass  | **[Question 1: Relevance to    | DOE will discuss these |
| Gas        | overall                        | technical              |
| Clean-up   | objectives.]{.underline}**     | recommendations with   |
| (P14)**    |                                | the PI.                |
|            | -   Not clear what levels of   |                        |
|            |     cleanup could be achieved. | Stage Gate is          |
|            |     Focus of DOE program is    | scheduled for FY06,    |
|            |     not for super clean syngas | many of these issues   |
|            |     for fuel synthesis instead | will be addressed at   |
|            |     of power.                  | this review.           |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Customers will be a        | GO/HQ will discuss     |
|            |     function of cost of        | with RTI.              |
|            |     "termination".             |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Project is useful in       |                        |
|            |     achieving program goals    |                        |
|            |     for gas clean-up but not   |                        |
|            |     to levels adequate for     |                        |
|            |     fuels production.          |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Analytical protocols need  |                        |
|            |     to be better defined.      |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Tail gas characterization  |                        |
|            |     needs to be monitored.     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   The purity level of the    |                        |
|            |     syngas after the tar       |                        |
|            |     cracking is not enough for |                        |
|            |     chemical synthesis.        |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **         | **[Question 5: Proposed Future | Agree with need for    |
| In-process | Research]{.underline}**        | rigorous Stage Gate,   |
| E          | approach and relevance.        | prior to letting of    |
| limination |                                | additional funding     |
| of Tars    | -   Very unclear plan of       |                        |
| (P15)**    |     experiments.               | DOE will discuss these |
|            |                                | technical              |
|            | -   Compare the performance    | recommendations with   |
|            |     with the Ni catalysts.     | the PI.                |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   | Stage Gate is          |
|            |                                | scheduled for FY06,    |
|            | -   I'm surprised that such a  | many of these issues   |
|            |     high risk project          | will be addressed at   |
|            |     supported with so little   | this review.           |
|            |     preliminary data would be  |                        |
|            |     funded at \$2 million. It  | GO/HQ will discuss     |
|            |     seems like the stage gate  | with GTI.              |
|            |     process needs to be        |                        |
|            |     applied rigorously to this |                        |
|            |     project before moving it   |                        |
|            |     forward in subsequent      |                        |
|            |     years.                     |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   No background data on      |                        |
|            |     catalysis.                 |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Need more surface          |                        |
|            |     characterization.          |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | **[Recommendations for         |                        |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Surface science is needed  |                        |
|            |     to understand what makes   |                        |
|            |     the active sites active,   |                        |
|            |     regenerable, etc.          |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+
| **High     | **[Weaknesses]{.underline}**   | Agree with need for    |
| T          |                                | rigorous Stage Gate,   |
| emperature | -   Need to see more technical | prior to letting of    |
| Sorbents   |     details for an evaluation. | additional funding     |
| (P16)**    |     More justification is      |                        |
|            |     required of technical      | DOE will discuss these |
|            |     potential of this project. | technical              |
|            |                                | recommendations with   |
|            | ```{=html}                     | the PI.                |
|            | <!-- -->                       |                        |
|            | ```                            | Stage Gate is          |
|            | -   There may be obnoxious     | scheduled for FY06,    |
|            |     metals in biomass.         | many of these issues   |
|            |                                | will be addressed at   |
|            | **[Recommendations for         | this review.           |
|            | Additions/Deletions to Project |                        |
|            | Scope]{.underline}**           | GO/HQ will discuss     |
|            |                                | with SRI.              |
|            | -   Give precise info on what  |                        |
|            |     metals are going to be     |                        |
|            |     scavenged (Na, Pb, Cd and  |                        |
|            |     "other metals").           |                        |
|            |                                |                        |
|            | -   Study the possibility of   |                        |
|            |     improving the behavior and |                        |
|            |     properties of the sorbents |                        |
|            |     under reducing conditions. |                        |
+------------+--------------------------------+------------------------+