U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–860PDF 2010

BIOMASS FOR THERMAL ENERGY AND

ELECTRICITY: A RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO FOR THE FUTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 21, 2009

Serial No. 111–56

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

CHRIS KING Democratic Staff Director 

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member 

ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member 

ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member 

JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member 

ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member 

TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member 

JANE WISE Research Assistant 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

October 21, 2009

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 11

Witnesses:

Dr. Don J. Stevens, Senior Program Manager, Biomass Energy & Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Department 

of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Biography .......................................................................................................... 20

Mr. Joseph J. James, President, Agri-Tech Producers, LLC 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23

Biography .......................................................................................................... 26

Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director, Strategic Center for Coal, National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28

Biography .......................................................................................................... 31

Mr. Eric L. Spomer, President, Catalyst Renewables 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33

Biography .......................................................................................................... 37

Dr. Robert T. Burns, Professor, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems 

Engineering, Iowa State University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40

Biography .......................................................................................................... 48

Discussion 

Methane as a Greenhouse Gas ........................................................................... 49

How DOE can Diversify Its Biomass Programs ................................................ 50

Activities at Agri-Tech Producers, LLC ............................................................. 52

Landfill Biogas Production .................................................................................. 53

The Energy Needs of Biopower Fuel Production ............................................... 54

Forest Health ........................................................................................................ 54

Protecting Topsoils and Soil Quality .................................................................. 55

Manure Methane Production .............................................................................. 57
Page

IV

Siting Biomass Research Within DOE ............................................................... 57

Biopower in Urban Areas .................................................................................... 59

The Sustainability of Biopower Sources ............................................................. 60

Forest Products From Federal Lands as Biomass ............................................. 62

More on Siting Biomass Research at DOE ........................................................ 63

Closing .................................................................................................................. 64

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Don J. Stevens, Senior Program Manager, Biomass Energy & Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Department 

of Energy ............................................................................................................... 66

Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director, Strategic Center for Coal, National Energy 

Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy ........................................ 68

Dr. Robert T. Burns, Professor, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems 

Engineering, Iowa State University ................................................................... 70
(1)

BIOMASS FOR THERMAL ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY: A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

PORTFOLIO FOR THE FUTURE 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
2
3

1 EIA, Monthly Energy Review, September 2008. 

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Biomass for Thermal Energy and

Electricity: A Research and

Development Portfolio for the Future 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose 

On Wednesday, October 21 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will 

hold a hearing entitled ‘‘Biomass for Thermal Energy and Electricity: A Research 

and Development Portfolio for the Future.’’ The purpose of the hearing is to explore 

the role of the Federal Government and industry in developing technologies related 

to the conversion of biomass for thermal energy and electricity. 

Biomass includes any organic matter that is available on a renewable basis, including agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and residues, wood and wood wastes 

and residues, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and aquatic organisms. Biomass has 

received considerable attention for its ability to be converted into liquid transportation fuels, but it can also produce biopower or thermal energy (heat), power (electricity) and bio-based products. Biomass feedstocks are vital as the country moves 

toward a more diverse portfolio of energy sources, especially in the Southeast and 

Northwest of the country where there is a significant quantity of these renewable 

resources.

Witnesses

• Mr. Scott M. Klara, PE—Director, Strategic Center for Coal, National Energy Technology Laboratory

• Dr. Don J. Stevens—Senior Program Manager, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory

• Mr. Eric Spomer—President, Catalyst Renewables Corporation

• Dr. Robert T. Burns—Professor, Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, 

Iowa State University

• Mr. Joseph J. James—President Agri-Tech Producers, LLC (ATP)

Background 

Biomass is mankind’s oldest source of energy. Since the time of the first nomadic 

hunter-gatherer societies, wood has been burned for cooking and heating. As few as 

five generations ago, 90 percent of our energy was supplied by the combustion of 

wood. Today, biomass provides about 10 percent of the world’s primary energy supplies. Over the last century, the convenience and low cost of fossil fuels has allowed 

an emerging industrial society to meet its vast energy needs. However, decreasing 

availability of fossil fuel resources and simultaneous increases in demand, along 

with concerns over climate change, have given rise to renewed interest in biomass 

as an energy resource. 

In the United States renewable energy—water, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass—currently accounts for approximately 10 percent of total energy production.1

Of the renewable energy consumed in the country the largest portion, 53 percent, 

comes from biomass (this includes liquid transportation fuels). The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy estimate that, by 2030, 1.3 billion tons of biomass 

could be available for energy production (including electricity from biomass, and 
4

2 Energy Information Administration/ Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics, 2008 http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelrenewable.html 3Federal Energy Management Program (DOE): Biomass Co-firing in Coal-fired Boilers http:/

/www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta¥biomass¥cofiring.pdf. 4 IEA: Biomass for Power Generation and CHP. January 2007. 

fuels from corn and cellulose). Through improvements of existing technologies and 

development of new technologies biomass could meet its potential as a major resource of renewable energy production. 

In the last decade, most legislative efforts concerning biomass have focused on 

promoting its use for the production of liquid transportation fuels. Comparatively 

little has been done to advance biomass for electricity generation and thermal energy, or ‘‘biopower.’’

Continued RD&D for Cost-Effective and Increased Energy Efficiency in 

Biopower Generation 

A variety of conversion technologies are used for biopower, many of which are capable of being integrated into the existing energy generation infrastructure. Technologies such as direct-fired systems (stoker boilers, fluidized bed boilers and co-firing), gasification systems (fixed bed gasifiers and fluidized bed gasifiers) and anaerobic digestion are in various stages of development, and some have already seen 

limited deployment in the energy sector. However, while efforts to deploy these technologies have been met with some success, there are still a number of technical barriers before these technologies reach their full potential. 

Efforts to promote biopower have largely focused on wood, wood residues, and 

milling waste. The pulp and paper industry has become a major producer of renewable energy in the United States. The industry uses ‘‘black liquor,’’ a byproduct of 

the pulping process, as well as ‘‘hog fuel’’ or other wood wastes as its feedstock to 

produce energy. Generally most of this energy is used on-site to power various industrial processes. In 2008, the pulp and paper industry generated 38 billion Kilowatt-hours, or more than two-thirds of all electricity generated from biomass.2

In a September 2009 report the Washington State Department of Ecology assessed the current energy profile of the state’s pulp and paper industry and explored 

the potential for increasing the industry’s biopower production. The Department 

found that while the state’s pulp and paper mills already produce a substantial 

amount of biopower, they typically do so with outdated and inefficient boilers and 

ancillary equipment. With older equipment, the mills produce considerably less 

power than they could with new boilers, evaporators, and turbines. Factoring for 

capital costs and increased biomass demands, the report found the benefits of implementing existing state-of-the-art technologies to be compelling. It was found that the 

total electrical power from Washington mills could be increased from 220 MW to 520 

MW with new boilers. Although this study identified key technologies that could be 

implemented immediately, it called for more research on gasification technologies 

which may be a viable replacement for existing boilers. Additionally, pulp and paper 

mills may be great demonstration facilities for integrated biorefineries which 

produce fuels, power and products. This currently is being researched through the 

DOE. 

Most of today’s biopower plants are direct-fired systems, typically producing less 

than 50 MW of electrical output. The biomass fuel is burned in a boiler to produce 

high pressure steam that is used to power a steam turbine-driven power generator. 

In many applications, steam is extracted from the turbine at medium pressures and 

temperatures and is used for process heat or space heating. While these systems are 

generally very efficient and have superior emissions profiles over many conventional 

technologies, increased research is needed to drive down capital costs, especially in 

back-end air pollution control devices. 

Another technology of interest is co-firing, a near-term low-cost option for efficiently and cleanly converting biomass to electricity by adding it as a partial substitute fuel in existing coal-fired boilers. Biomass co-firing in modern, large-scale 

coal power plants is efficient, cost-effective and requires moderate additional investment. By blending suitable biomass into coal boilers for simultaneous combustion, 

co-firing reduces the amount of coal used by as much as 20 percent. Little or no 

loss in overall boiler efficiency can be achieved if appropriate designs and operational changes occur.3 According to the International Energy Association, in the 

short-term co-firing is expected to be the most efficient use of biomass for power 

generation worldwide. As electricity from coal represents 40 percent of worldwide 

electricity, each percentage point replaced by biomass represents some 8 GW of installed capacity, and approximately 60 Mt of CO2 per year avoided.4
5

5 National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Small Modular Biomass Systems www.nrel.gov/

docs/fy03osti/33257.pdf 6 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ‘‘Learning About Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Biopower.’’ July 25, 2008, http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re¥biopower.html 7 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ‘‘An Overview of Biomass Gasification.’’ July 25, 

2008. http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/overview¥biomass¥gasification.pdf 8 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Biomass Program. 

‘‘Pyrolysis and Other Thermal Processing.’’ October 13, 2005. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/printable¥versions/pyrolysis.html 9Dynamotive Energy Systems. ‘‘Fast Pyrolysis.’’ Copyright 2009(c) http://

www.dynamotive.com/technology/fast¥pyrolysis/

Additionally, significant global market potential has been identified for small 

modular biomass systems in distributed, on-site electric power generation. These 

systems typically use locally available biomass fuels such as wood, crop waste, animal manure and landfill gas to supply electricity from five kilowatts to five 

megawatts per system to rural homes and businesses. Systems include combined 

heat and power systems for industrial applications, gasification and advanced combustion for utility scale power generation.5 Several prototype systems were developed in the early part of this decade, but continued research is required to optimize 

integration of these systems with existing infrastructure and to overcome a variety 

of other design issues. 

Closing the Technology Gap for Biopower Technologies 

In addition to the numerous conversion technologies used to generate electricity 

from biomass, there are several technologies that could convert biomass into a gaseous energy product to replace natural gas and other energy resources (often described as ‘‘renewable natural gas.’’) Such products can be used in existing natural 

gas pipe lines, industrial processes, home heating, or any number of other situations 

where natural gas is normally used. Gasification, pyrolysis, and anaerobic digestion 

are all conversion technologies that exist in some form in today’s market, but are 

generally not used to make renewable natural gas. Both gasification and pyrolysis 

are thermochemical conversion processes, whereas anaerobic digestion involves the 

natural decomposition of organic matter to produce methane.6

The thermochemical process of gasification begins with the decomposition of feedstocks such as wood and forest products, followed by the partial oxidation or reforming of the fuel with a gasifying agent—usually air, oxygen, or steam—to yield raw 

synthesis gas, or syngas. These gases are more easily utilized for power generation 

and often result in improved efficiency and environmental performance compared 

with the direct combustion of biomass. The gasification process is further optimized 

when operating at very high pressures, and process improvement and development 

is needed to make high-pressure feed systems commercially available.7

Nexterra Systems, based in Vancouver, Canada, has been at the industry forefront in developing biomass gasification systems. They have some operations in the 

United States, including a co-generation plant designed to power the University of 

South Carolina that consists of three gasifiers that convert wood biomass to syngas. 

In August they received $7.7M in funding from the BC Bioenergy Network (BCBN), 

Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), the National Research Council Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC–IRAP), and Ethanol BC. 

This funding will be used to support Nexterra’s recently announced program to commercialize a new high efficiency biomass power system in collaboration with GE 

Jenbacher and GE Energy. 

Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process similar to gasification. Typical pyrolysis 

processes occur in environments with virtually no oxygen. Fast pyrolysis is being 

commercially developed by organizations such as Ensyn Technologies and 

DynaMotive, a corporation also based in Vancouver, Canada and with sites in the 

United States.8 DynaMotive has developed fast pyrolysis technologies that utilize 

non-food biomass to produce a renewable liquid fuel, BioOil, as well as several other 

products. These technologies operate in oxygen-free environments at moderate temperatures, thus improving overall efficiency.9 Despite limited deployment of this 

technology, development of new methods to control the pyrolytic pathways of biooil intermediates is needed in order to increase product yield. 

Anaerobic digestion involves the breakdown of organic matter through natural biological processes and is most commonly used on manure and municipal wastes. 

This breakdown produces a ‘‘biogas’’ that consists of methane, carbon dioxide, and 
6

10 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. ‘‘Energy Savers: 

Methane (Biogas) from Anaerobic Digesters.’’ December 30, 2008. <http://

www.energysavers.gov/your¥workplace/farms¥ranches/index.cfm/mytopic=30003> 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘‘Air Pollution Control Fact Sheet.’’ EPA–452/F–03–

031. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fsncr.pdf 12 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. ‘‘Biomass Program: 

Syngas Clean-up and Conditioning.’’ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/

syngas¥cleanup.pdf

trace levels of other gases.10 There are approximately 135 anaerobic digesters in the 

United States, 125 of which are used for generating electric or thermal energy. Electric generation projects account for almost 307,000 MWh generated annually, while 

boiler projects, pipeline injection, and other energy projects account for an additional 

52,500 MWh equivalent per year. 

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in California is partnering with 

dairies, industry, and municipal waste processing facilities in projects to transport 

biomethane to consumers through their natural gas pipeline. Additionally, in 2008 

PG&E began to cultivate the next generation of biogas technologies through its 

biomethanation research project. This recently launched project explores emerging 

biomethanation technologies and processes that may increase conversion efficiency, 

expand the range of usable feedstocks and improve the quality of biomethane products. Although anaerobic digestion is considered carbon-neutral, the process does result in the formation of nitrogen oxides. Flue gas from electricity generation using 

biogas must be treated before being released into the atmosphere. There are two key 

technologies employed for this purpose: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR). Both technologies have the capability to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, but require considerable more development to optimize cost and ease of installment.11

Thermochemical conversion processes also require the cleaning of syngas before 

it can be used for energy generation. Syngas clean-up and conditioning has the 

greatest impact on the cost of syngas and is a barrier to the commercialization of 

thermochemical conversion technologies.12 Gas Technology Institute (GTI) has taken 

action in developing cleaning technologies to be used in biomass gasification. Their 

projects focus on cost-effective contaminant removal to ensure that syngas after gasification meets standards for downstream applications, such as turbine generation. 

Many of their other gas-cleaning projects are sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

Energy and focus on coal gasification and IGCC power plants. In order for 

thermochemical conversion processes to be commercialized to the extent where they 

can be utilized by small agricultural and forestry communities, the same focus needs 

to be placed on biomass gasification and pyrolysis clean-up. 

Cross-Cutting Issues 

Advancing biopower technologies requires research and development in a number 

of areas, including enhanced basic and applied research, technologies for collection 

and conversion of biomass, identification of biomass resources, cost analyses for the 

available biomass, and commercialization of emerging methods and technologies. 

Significant research breakthroughs are needed in a number of key areas including 

advances in plant science to improve the cost-effectiveness of converting biomass to 

fuel, power, and products. Some of biggest challenges remain in the areas of feedstock handling, densification and residue collection, where current inefficiencies 

make this resource costly to harvest. Furthermore, RD&D using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) will help the U.S. more accurately identify biomass availability, especially forest biomass. 

Pellet fuel biomass systems utilize biomass by-products or small diameter, lowvalue trees, and process them into pencil-sized pellets that are uniform in size, 

shape, moisture content, density and energy content. The moisture content of biomass pellets is substantially lower (four to eight percent water) than raw biomass 

(30 to 60 percent water). Less moisture means higher BTU value and easier handling, especially in freezing situations, than with green raw biomass materials. The 

density of pellet fuel is substantially higher than raw biomass: 40–45 lbs. per cubic 

foot vs. 15–30 lbs. per cubic foot in raw material form. This means that more fuel 

can be transported in a given truck space and more energy can be stored on site. 

Biomass pellets are more easily and predictably handled as well. Their uniform 

shape and size allows for a smaller and simpler feed system that reduces costs. This 

high density and uniform shape can be stored in standard silos, transported in rail 

cars and delivered in truck containers. Pellet fuel is made up of refined and densified biomass that allows for remarkable consistency and burn efficiency at a fraction of the particulate emissions of raw biomass. While, this is clearly a great im-
7

provement over raw biomass, the production of biomass pellets costs more. Research 

on mobile pelletizers has been discussed as a way to reduce the cost of transporting 

biomass, but little has been done to explore the actual technology and the difficulty 

of drying the feedstock on site.

Additional RD&D Support for Biopower 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) initiated efforts in bioenergy and subsequently transferred those efforts to DOE in the late 1970s. Biofuels and biomass energy systems were the focus of most early projects. In 1991, the DOE created the 

Biopower Program with the stated goal of contributing 600 gigawatts of new electricity generating capacity globally within 10 years. According to the IEA in 2007 

the global biomass electric generating capacity was approximately 47 GW. In 2002, 

the Biomass Program was formed to consolidate the biofuels, bioproducts, and 

biopower research efforts across DOE into one comprehensive RD&D effort. From 

the 1970s to the present, approximately $3.5 billion (including $800 million in 

ARRA funds) has been invested in a variety of RD&D programs covering biofuels 

(particularly ethanol), biopower, feedstocks, municipal wastes, and a variety of biobased products, including forest products and agricultural processing industries. A 

reinvigorated Biopower Program at DOE could help close the more than 500 

gigawatt gap between the stated goal of the original Biopower Program and the actual global biomass electricity generation.
8

Chairman BAIRD. Our hearing will come to order. I want to welcome everyone to our hearing on Biomass for Thermal Energy and 

Electricity: A Research and Development Portfolio for the Future. 

Before we begin to discuss the topic of today’s hearing, I want 

to particularly recognize some special guests in our subcommittee 

today. Members of both the Liberian and Haitian Parliaments are 

here as guests of Representative David Price from North Carolina 

as part of a week-long seminar on committee operations. I understand there are fellow committee chairs here among our guests, 

and we are very honored that you are here. It is particularly appropriate we have international governments community with us 

today as biopower, of course, is very much linked to the global 

issues of climate change and energy security. Members of Parliament include the Speaker of the House of the Haitian Chamber 

of Deputies; the President of the Haitian Senate; the Chair of the 

Haitian Committee on Justice; and the Chair of the Haitian Committee on the Budget. The Chair of the Liberian Committee on 

Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment is also here with 

us along with other Members of Parliament and dignitaries. 

Excellencies, thank you all for joining us. We welcome you here. 

We also know that our committee hearings can go somewhat timely. If you have other engagements, we will not take it personally 

if you have to go to another meeting, but we are very grateful to 

have your presence here, and we are honored. 

Did you wish to offer any comments before we start, Bob? 

Mr. INGLIS. Just to also add our welcome on this side. We are 

very grateful that you are here and hope that it is a good visit and 

a productive visit. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you very much. With that, we will proceed with our discussion of today’s hearing. We will today examine 

a number of different technologies utilized to convert biomass feedstocks into biopower, and discuss the federal role in the development of these technologies. 

While more widely known as a feedstock for liquid transportation 

fuels, biomass can also be used to generate heat and electricity, a 

field otherwise known as biopower. 

Biomass includes, of course, any organic matter that is available 

on a renewable basis, including agricultural crops, wastes and residues, wood and wood wastes and residues, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and aquatic organisms. But of course, if these things 

are used for energy, they are not waste after all, are they? They 

are raw materials from which we can generate power. 

Biomass feedstocks are vital as the country moves toward a more 

diverse portfolio of energy sources, especially in the southeast and 

northwest of the country where there are significant quantities of 

these renewable resources. 

For example, a 2005 report published by the Washington State 

Department of Ecology and Washington State University found 

that our state, my own, has the potential for annual production of 

over 1,769 megawatts of electrical power from biomass. This is 

roughly 50 percent of Washington State’s annual residential electrical consumption. 

Furthermore, in my home district we have abundant amounts of 

forest biomass. When this resource is harvested in conjunction with 
9

a sustainable forest management plan, important restoration goals 

can be achieved, such as wildfire mitigation, watershed protection, 

wildlife habitat restoration and reduced insect infestation, and we 

can generate valuable power as a result as well and reduce our 

CO2 output. 

To realize these benefits, new research needs to be funded. Enhanced basic and applied research and commercialization of a diversity of conversion technologies needs to be advanced. 

In 2002 the Bush Administration consolidated liquid transportation fuels, bioproducts and biopower research efforts across DOE 

into the Biomass Program, and since then the large majority of the 

research has focused on liquid transportation fuels, primarily ethanol. 

However, given the decreasing availability of fossil fuel resources 

and simultaneous increases in demand, along with concerns over 

lethal overheating of the Earth and ocean acidification, a responsible 21st century energy policy will include a renewed commitment 

to biopower technologies. 

While the development of liquid transportation fuels from biomass is a critical research area, I am interested in hearing from 

our witnesses about increasing biopower research efforts in the federal research portfolio and the steps we need to overcome barriers 

to new biopower technologies. 

My apologies to the translator with our guests. I speak awfully 

fast. Good luck. 

With that I would like to thank this excellent panel of witnesses 

for appearing before the Subcommittee this afternoon. 

I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for his 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

In today’s hearing we will examine a number of different technologies utilized to 

convert biomass feedstocks into biopower, and discuss the federal role in the development of these technologies. 

While more widely known as a feedstock for liquid transportation fuels, biomass 

can also be used to generate heat and electricity—a field otherwise known as 

‘‘Biopower.’’

Biomass includes any organic matter that is available on a renewable basis, including agricultural crops, agricultural wastes and residues, wood and wood wastes 

and residues, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and aquatic organisms. 

Biomass feedstocks are vital as the country moves toward a more diverse portfolio 

of energy sources, especially in the Southeast and Northwest of the country where 

there are significant quantities of these renewable resources. 

For example, a 2005 report published by the Washington State Department of 

Ecology and Washington State University found that my state has the potential for 

annual production of over 1,769 MW of electrical power from biomass. This equates 

to roughly 50 percent of Washington State’s annual residential electrical consumption. 

Furthermore, in my district we have abundant amounts of forest biomass. When 

this resource is harvested in conjunction with a sustainable forest management plan 

important restoration goals can be achieved, such as wildfire mitigation, watershed 

protection, wildlife habitat restoration and reduced insect infestation. 

To realize these benefits new research needs to be funded. Enhanced basic and 

applied research and commercialization of a diversity of conversion technologies 

needs to be advanced. 

In 2002 the Bush Administration consolidated liquid transportation fuels, bioproducts, and biopower research efforts across DOE into the Biomass Program, and since 

then the large majority of the research has focused on liquid transportation fuels, 

mostly ethanol. 
10

However, given the decreasing availability of fossil fuel resources and simultaneous increases in demand, along with concerns over lethal overheating of the Earth 

and ocean acidification, a responsible 21st century energy portfolio will include a renewed commitment to biopower technologies. 

While the development of liquid transportation fuels from biomass is a critical research area, I am interested in hearing from our witnesses about increasing 

biopower research efforts in the federal research portfolio, and the steps we need 

to take to overcome barriers to new biopower technologies. 

With that I’d like to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for appearing before 

the Subcommittee this afternoon, and I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member, 

Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing today. For the last 10 years or so we have primarily 

been looking toward biomass as a replacement for petroleum-based 

transportation fuels. The result has been a substantial interest in 

converting food crops to fuel with small emphasis being placed on 

developing cellulosic ethanol. 

Environmental and cost concerns are cultivating interest in other 

types of biomasses of fuel for base load electricity and thermal 

power. 

Some biomass can be and is already being used in conventional 

generation technology. Paper mills generate power from milling 

waste, and woody biomass can be mixed with coal in co-fired in 

modern and large-scale power plants. 

More research and technological innovation can expand the reach 

of renewable biomass fuels in our energy sector. 

The subject of today’s hearing represents a step in that direction. 

Developments in renewable natural gas, biorefineries, biomass 

transportation, and other technologies will help increase the efficiency of biomass energy, and a diversity of organic materials can 

be used for energy generation. 

I am looking forward to hearing about the state of the industry 

today and where we should direct federal research and development resources to overcome remaining technological hurdles. 

I also want to admit to a parochial interest in biopower. Two 

South Carolina universities, including Furman in the upstate and 

USC, have launched already bioenergy pilot projects. Our robust 

forest industry stands to gain jobs and a larger market. As we will 

hear from Mr. James, biomass energy is already creating jobs back 

home. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the balance of 

my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

For about the past 10 years, we’ve primarily been looking toward biomass as a 

replacement for petroleum-based transportation fuels. The result has been a substantial interest in converting food crops to fuel, with a smaller emphasis placed on 

developing cellulosic ethanol. 

Environmental and cost concerns are cultivating interest in other types of biomass 

as a fuel for base load electricity and thermal power. Some biomass can be and is 

already being used in conventional generation technology; paper mills generate 

power from milling waste, and woody biomass can be mixed with coal and co-fired 

in modern, large-scale power plants. More research and technological innovation can 

expand the reach of renewable biomass fuels in our energy sector. 
11

The subject of today’s hearing represents a step in that direction. Developments 

in renewable natural gas, bio-refineries, biomass transportation, and other technologies will help increase the efficiency of biomass energy and the diversity of organic materials that can be used for energy generation. I’m looking forward to hearing about the state of the industry today and where we should direct federal R&D 

resources to overcome remaining technological hurdles. 

I also want to admit a parochial interest in biopower. Two South Carolina universities, including Furman in the Upstate, have launched already bio-energy pilot 

projects, our robust forestry industry stands to gain jobs and a larger market, and 

as we’ll hear from Mr. James, biomass energy is already creating jobs back home. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BAIRD. If there are other Members who wish to submit 

additional opening statements, your statements will be added to 

the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing to receive 

testimony on the research and development (R&D) of new technology to improve the 

use of biomass for thermal energy and electricity. 

Biomass is unique among renewable energy sources because of its abundant supply and long history as a source of energy. Nearly every state in the U.S. has a 

source of biomass fuel through agricultural waste, wood and wood waste products, 

or animal and municipal waste. Further, individuals and industries have used biomass as an energy source for centuries. These characteristics make biomass an effective and efficient source of renewable energy available in the U.S. today. However, additional R&D is necessary to modernize existing techniques for using traditional forms of biomass, such as wood, and to develop ways to use new forms, like 

municipal waste. 

In particular, I am interested to learn how biomass can be used in conjunction 

with abundant and inexpensive domestic energy sources such as coal. Co-firing coal 

and biomass fuel has proven to be an efficient means of producing abundant energy 

while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Illinois has an abundant coal and agricultural products, and co-firing could provide a cost-effective way to produce clean energy while extending the supply of coal. I would like to hear from our witnesses, 

especially Mr. Klara of the Strategic Center for Coal, how the existing technology 

for co-firing coal and biomass can be improved and utilized to demonstrate its widespread use. 

Finally, I would like to hear from our witness how Congress and the public and 

private sector can work together to support biomass R&D. 

I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. Thank 

you again, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. At this point, it is my pleasure to introduce our 

witnesses at this time. Dr. Don J. Stevens is a Senior Program 

Manager at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL. Mr. 

Scott M. Klara is the Director of the Strategic Center for Coal at 

DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory. Mr. Eric Spomer is 

the President of Catalyst Renewables Corporation. Dr. Robert 

Burns is a Professor of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at 

Iowa State University, and I will again yield to my friend and 

Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, to introduce our last witness. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to introduce Mr. Joseph James who is a terrific example of alternative 

energy industry that is creating new jobs in South Carolina. Mr. 

James has over 35 years of experience in economic development devoted to achieving equity for disadvantaged people in communities. 

Since 2004 his career has taken on a new focus aiming to create 

jobs and revitalize rural African-American communities in South 

Carolina through opportunities in the emerging biomass and bioenergy fields. In recognition of his pioneering work, he was award-
12

ed the 2008 Purpose Prize. He also is a bioenergy entrepreneur. He 

is the founding member and Vice President of the Board of South 

Carolina Biomass Council and a member of the Southeast Agricultural Forest Energy Resources Alliance. He is the President of 

Agri-Tech Producers which is developing and commercializing biomass technology in South Carolina through partnerships with 

North Carolina State University and Kusters Zima Corporation in 

Spartanburg. 

Looking forward to hearing from him about this innovative 

torrefaction technology that Agri-Tech Producers is bringing to the 

market, and we thank him for being here. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. It is obvious we not only 

have professional interests as Members, Chair and Ranking Member of this Committee, we have personal interest as we represent 

districts with great potential. Our colleague, Dr. Bartlett, as you 

may discover when he offers his questions, is one of the real leaders in walking the talk of renewable energy. He has probably the 

lowest carbon footprint of any Member of Congress in his residence, 

and I admire that greatly. So he brings great expertise. 

With that, we will begin. As the witnesses know, we have five 

minutes for a testimony followed by questions from the panel, and 

we invite you to begin. We will begin now with Dr. Stevens. 

Thanks again to all of you for your presence. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DON J. STEVENS, SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER, BIOMASS ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE, 

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Dr. STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the 

Members of the Committee. I very much appreciate this opportunity to be here today at a time when our nation is moving forward with a sense of purpose and urgency toward a more sustainable energy future, and biomass is certainly part of that future. 

As a nation, we have approximately 1.3 billion tons potentially 

available on an annual basis for a variety of energy purposes. As 

you indicated, those resources come from woody biomass, from agricultural residues, from dedicated energy crops, and others, all of 

which vary significantly on a regional basis. We can use that for 

a variety of purposes, biofuels, or for the topic of today, biopower. 

Several technology options exist to convert biomass to biopower 

including direct combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis, which I am 

talking about today. 

So what is pyrolysis and why is it important? Well, biomass pyrolysis is simply the process of heating biomass in the absence of 

air to produce a combination of liquids, solids and gaseous products, and we can control the relative amounts of those by selecting 

the process conditions accordingly. 

Today I will focus on so-called ‘‘fast pyrolysis’’ which produces a 

liquid product referred to as ‘‘bio-oil.’’ That bio-oil has several important characteristics that are beneficial for power generation. 

Most importantly, the bio-oil can be used in high-efficiency electric 

generation systems, systems that can’t directly use solid biomass. 

With stabilization and upgrading, the bio-oil can be used in industrial turbines, combined cycle systems, or potentially solid oxide 
13

fuel cells. These have electric generation efficiencies of 30 to 40 or 

more percent compared to a simple wood-fired boiler system with 

efficiencies of 15 to 25 percent. And since we have a finite amount 

of biomass in our nation, it is important to use that efficiently to 

meet our national energy needs. 

Both nationally and internationally at present, there is significant interest in using pyrolysis. Technologies to produce bio-oil are 

in the near-commercial stage of development, and there are several 

large-scale development units with capacities ranging from about 

five to about 200 tons per day in operation to produce bio-oil on a 

demonstration basis. However, at present, no fully integrated commercial bio-oil to energy facilities exist. 

The primary technical barrier at this time is the need for stabilization and upgrading. Stabilization is necessary so the bio-oil 

can be stored and used for periods of several months, and additional upgrading is needed to meet equipment specifications for 

high-technology conversion systems. The upgrading, among other 

things, chemically neutralizes the bio-oil and removes mineral 

salts. 

There are quite a few national and international research programs currently focused on removing these technical barriers for 

the utilization of biomass. Pacific Northwest National Lab, for example, is working with many partners, including industry, Department of Energy, USDA, and other national labs and universities to 

improve bio-oil stabilization and upgrading. And we are also looking at the use of catalysts to improve the initial quality of the biooil as it is formed to reduce the need for downstream stabilization 

and upgrading. 

In addition, we are working in collaboration with a range of 

international groups to understand just how much stabilization and 

upgrading is needed for various applications for bio-oil. PNNL 

leads the International Energy Agency’s Pyrolysis Task, and we are 

also working with groups in Canada, Finland and Asia on other pyrolysis issues. 

As a result of this work, we are making significant progress in 

overcoming the technical barriers for using bio-oil. 

In summary, I would like to conclude by noting that pyrolysis offers flexible options to meet our national and regional energy 

needs. The bio-oil gives us the opportunity to more efficiently 

produce the electricity, and national and international programs 

are assisting industry by resolving the existing technical barriers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stevens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON J. STEVENS

Introduction 

Chairman Baird and distinguished Members of this subcommittee, thank you for 

providing me an opportunity to testify today regarding biomass pyrolysis and its potential for contributing to our nation’s energy needs. 

My name is Don Stevens, and I am a Senior Program Manager in the Energy & 

Environment Directorate at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). In this 

role I am responsible for developing PNNL’s technical approach to sustainable production of biopower and biofuels. I have over 30 years of research and development 

experience in the area of biomass power and fuels, and much of that work has focused on the use of pyrolysis and gasification. During this time, I have worked with 

the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of the Biomass Program as well as a variety 
14

of other U.S. and international clients, including the International Energy Agency’s 

Implementing Agreement on Bioenergy. 

Today I will provide information on biomass pyrolysis and its potential for contributing to our national needs for sustainable energy. I will:

• explain why biomass pyrolysis offers potential advantages for producing both 

biopower and ‘‘drop-in’’ biofuels from biomass

• address the current state of development for the technology

• describe technical barriers that, if overcome, could speed technology deployment

• describe national and international research efforts that are addressing these 

technical barriers.

The Importance of Biomass Pyrolysis 

Over the past three or four years, biomass pyrolysis has attracted increasing attention as a technology with the potential to more effectively utilize biomass resources. Pyrolysis provides a flexible pathway to convert solid biomass to a liquid 

intermediate. Following stabilization and upgrading, the resulting product can be 

used to fuel higher-efficiency electric power generation technologies such as gas turbines or integrated combined cycle systems. With additional upgrading, the bio-oil 

can potentially be used in highly efficient fuel cells or can be refined to liquid transportation fuels. Biomass pyrolysis thus provides a continuum of options for efficiently 

producing electricity or fuels to meet a variety of our national needs.

The production of bio-oil as an intermediate has several potential benefits. Liquid 

intermediates have higher bulk energy densities than the solid biomass and can be 

transported at lower cost. Liquid intermediates are more readily fed into advanced 

biomass conversion technologies than solids, and they are more readily fed, with 

other fuels, into to co-firing facilities. The liquid intermediates are particularly important because they are compatible with advanced conversion technologies such as 

industrial turbines, which more efficiently utilize our biomass resources. These highefficiency systems are a priority because they can achieve the highest impact from 

our limited biomass resources. Biomass is also the only source of renewable liquid 

fuels to displace petroleum, and the bio-oil liquid intermediate is a promising opportunity for producing renewable ‘‘drop-in’’ gasoline and diesel transportation fuels. 

The impact of using pyrolysis to increase utilization efficiency is shown in Figure 

1. The raw bio-oil, as produced, can be combusted in conventional steam boilers with 

current biomass-to-electricity generation efficiencies typically ranging from about 15 

percent to 25 percent depending on scale and other factors. Following moderate stabilization and upgrading, the bio-oil can potentially be combusted in industrial turbines which have electrical efficiencies of about 30 percent, or in combined cycle gas/

steam turbines that have efficiencies of 35 percent or more. Additional stabilization 

and upgrading would potentially permit the pyrolysis product to be used in advanced solid oxide fuel cells with electric generation efficiencies of 40 percent or 

more. These ranges are approximate. The same type of upgrading needed for fuel 

cell use would also be relevant to producing liquid transportation fuels. This range 

of opportunities provides flexibility in meeting national and regional energy needs.
15

Overview of Pyrolysis and Bio-oil 

Biomass consists of a complex arrangement of natural, oxygen-containing polymers, including cellulose, hemicelluloses, and lignin, which have fairly low energy 

density. A challenge exists in converting these constituents into a state that can be 

shipped inexpensively to large-scale central processing facilities and used efficiently 

in high technology conversion systems. Pyrolysis, which is defined as the heating 

of biomass in the absence of air, is one option for converting biomass to a liquid 

intermediate. Pyrolysis processes generate a liquid bio-oil along with gas and solid 

(biochar) by-products, and the relative portions of each can be controlled by the 

processing conditions. While pyrolysis has been used historically to produce charcoal, most current efforts are focused on advanced processes that maximize the yield 

of bio-oil.

Fast Pyrolysis 

At present, fast pyrolysis is the most developed pyrolysis technology for producing 

liquid bio-oil. In fast pyrolysis, the biomass is reacted at moderately high temperatures (450–550 °C), for very short times (less than one second). This produces biooil with physical properties superficially similar to #4 fuel oil, but different chemically. The bio-oil is less stable and more acidic than petroleum oil, and also may 

contain small percentages of inorganic mineral salts from the biomass. These characteristics make the raw product unsuitable for longer-term storage, for use in higher-efficiency electric generation systems, or for use as a liquid transportation fuel. 

However, the oil can be stabilized and upgraded using processes such as 

hydrotreating to produce stable fuels for advanced technologies such as industrial 

gas turbines for power generation. Depending on the extent of upgrading, the refined bio-oil can also potentially be used in advanced fuel cells or even gasoline- and 

diesel-range hydrocarbons for transportation fuels. The overall process is depicted 

in Figure 2.
16

1 J. Lehmann and S. Joseph. 2009. ‘‘Biochar for environmental management: An introduction.’’ 

Chpt. 1 in J. Lehmann and S. Joseph (eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management: Science 

and Technology. Earthscan Publishers, London, UK.

Distributed Pyrolysis and Refining 

Pyrolysis technology provides a means by which biomass can be collected and initially converted near its source. Fast pyrolysis units can be located near biomass 

resources where the biomass would be converted to the higher energy density biooil. The resulting bio-oil can be collected from multiple facilities and transported to 

larger-scale central facilities for stabilization or end-use (Figure 3), taking into account economies of scale to help reduce costs. This provides an effective way to decouple the biomass resource from the eventual conversion and potentially can reduce 

the costs of collecting and transporting biomass.

Related Pyrolysis Technologies 

In addition to fast pyrolysis, other pyrolysis technologies of value exist. Hydrothermal liquefaction has also been examined to convert feedstocks such as wet biomass to bio-oil. This technique liquefies wet biomass streams at temperatures of 

about 350 °C and high pressures (200 atm) to produce a bio-oil with less oxygen 

than fast pyrolysis. This approach could be useful in cases where the biomass resource has high moisture content, such as the residual biomass from algae production. 

Pyrolysis is also used to produce solids. The oil yield from biomass decreases while 

the solid (biochar) content increases to about a 30 percent yield. The biochar is being 

examined as a method to remove atmospheric carbon (via plant growth) for storage 

in soil. As a soil amendment, biochar not only acts as a carbon pool, but it has been 

shown to reduce fertilizer requirements while enhancing crop yields and reducing 

phosphorous and nitrogen chemical runoff in some soils in certain geographical regions.1

Summary of the Current Biomass Pyrolysis Industry 

Presently, the use of fast pyrolysis to produce liquid bio-oil intermediates for energy uses is at the near-commercial stage. Smaller-scale fast pyrolysis technologies 
17

are used by companies in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere to produce ‘‘liquid smoke,’’ which is processed into a food flavoring and additive. Larger-scale fast 

pyrolysis demonstration facilities are being built or operated in the United States, 

Canada, Europe, and Asia with companies such as Ensyn, Dynamotive, BTG, Renewable Oil International, and others. These demonstration units have capacities 

ranging from about five to 200 tons/day of biomass feed, and they will produce biooil that could potentially be used in energy applications. At present, there are no 

integrated, fully commercial facilities where the bio-oil is converted to either electricity or transportation fuels. 

Conventional, slow-pyrolysis continues to be used to produce commercial charcoal 

for cooking and industrial purposes throughout the world. The efficiency of these 

processes varies widely depending on the type of process used. The charcoal is frequently sold as ‘‘lump’’ charcoal or briquetted to provide consistency in the product. 

Commercial charcoal may also contain carbon from other sources such as coal or residual petroleum. 

Biochar is produced using the same slow pyrolysis technologies as those for charcoal, but additives common to commercial charcoal are omitted. Several smaller 

companies have recently been established to produce biochar using slow pyrolysis 

technologies, but at present there is an uncertain market for the product. The value 

of biochar, to the producer or the user, has yet to be quantified.

Technology Barriers 

Although the capability to produce pyrolysis bio-oils exists, there are currently no 

integrated, pyrolysis-based facilities commercially producing either electricity or 

transportation fuel, as noted previously. Technical barriers impede the deployment 

of these technologies.

Stabilization and Upgrading: 

The primary technical barrier for biomass pyrolysis is related to the characteristics of the bio-oil. At a molecular level, the raw bio-oil contains 30–35 percent oxygen by weight, with that oxygen coming from the biomass feedstock. The crude product is less stable than petroleum and will begin to change at room temperature over 

a period of several weeks or months, or more rapidly upon heating to even moderate 

temperatures. The product slowly becomes more viscous, and may separate into 

multiple phases. The oxygen content makes the raw bio-oil mildly acidic, and that 

can potentially lead to corrosion of tanks used for transportation and storage. The 

bio-oil also may contain small quantities of inorganic mineral salts that were part 

of the original biomass. When the bio-oil is subsequently burned, the salts can volatilize and then condense on cooler locations downstream, potentially creating deposits that reduce system performance or can cause significant damage in systems such 

as gas turbines with high rotation speeds. 

Effective, low-cost stabilization and upgrading of the bio-oil is needed to help biomass pyrolysis more rapidly enter the market. Stabilization and upgrading processes improve the quality of the oil by removing oxygen, reducing the acidity, and 

removing mineral salts from the intermediate. 

The extent of upgrading required will depend on the end-use for the bio-oil. In 

electric generation systems, raw bio-oil can potentially be used in simple boiler/

steam systems, but stabilization is needed to ensure the bio-oil can be stored for reasonable periods of time at a variety of different temperatures. Additional upgrading 

is needed for more advanced conversion technologies, such as advanced boiler systems, industrial gas turbines, or combined cycle systems. The upgrading would reduce the acidity of the bio-oil and remove mineral content to be fully compatible 

with these advanced systems. The advanced systems provide higher electric generation efficiencies that better utilize the biomass resource. As is found with refining 

petroleum, additional upgrading would be required to provide a fuel for advanced 

fuel cells or for transportation fuels. The upgrading would remove small amounts 

of sulfur from the product and further reduce its oxygen content. Similarly, the 

more extensive upgrading is also needed to produce ‘‘drop-in’’ gasoline, diesel, and 

jet fuels for transportation fuels. The need for stabilization and upgrading can be 

viewed as a continuum where stabilization is desirable for even the simplest conversion technology, and additional upgrading is required to produce a fuel that can be 

used in advanced technologies, either for electric generation or for transportation 

fuels.

Improving the Bio-oil Quality: 

The need for stabilization and upgrading of the bio-oil could potentially be reduced if a higher quality bio-oil could be produced. Current fast pyrolysis systems 
18

have been optimized to produce high liquid yields, and there is limited ability to 

change the properties of the bio-oil. Modified systems, such as those using catalysts 

during the pyrolysis process, could produce bio-oil that would also require less upgrading. The catalysts would enhance the rate of chemical reactions that remove oxygen from the biomass, thus providing an intermediate with lower oxygen content. 

Other processing techniques can also potentially be applied to bio-oil improvement. 

Improvement of the original bio-oil quality is needed for either electricity generation 

or for producing transportation fuels.

Expanding Bio-oil Standards: 

For bio-oil to enter the marketplace, standards are needed to define its characteristics and qualities. Working within the International Energy Agency’s Bioenergy 

Agreement, PNNL recently helped establish the first standard for use of bio-oil as 

a burner fuel, ASTM Standard D–7544–09. This standard provides definition of the 

qualities the intermediate must have for use in boilers. Additional standards are 

needed to quantify the qualities necessary for higher efficiency uses of the bio-oil.

Improving Utilization of Byproducts: 

Pyrolysis creates a combination of liquid, gaseous, and solid (char) products. The 

liquid will primarily be used for energy purposes, but it also contains precursors to 

higher-value chemicals. Better extraction and utilization of these precursors for 

chemical products can potentially increase the economic rate of return for the pyrolysis-based conversion facility (biorefinery). The bio-oil is a complex mixture of many 

individual components, and there is a need to better characterize the intermediate 

and better understand the processing involved in generating chemical byproducts. 

In addition to liquids, pyrolysis also produces solid char. The term biochar has 

been applied to the use of that material as a soil amendment. The impact of biochar 

is only partially understood at this time. While biochar can produce significant yield 

improvements in some soils, it has very little effect on others. This arises both from 

the variability of soils as well as the variability of biochar produced by different pyrolysis approaches. Improved understanding of the characteristics of the biochar and 

how those influence plant growth are needed. That information will provide a better 

quantification of the value of biochar to the farmer. In addition, work is needed to 

understand the sustainability impacts of biochar. For example, it is not presently 

clear whether there would be greater carbon savings to pyrolyze biomass and put 

biochar in the ground, or to alternatively convert that same biomass to liquid transportation fuels, thus displacing petroleum fuel emissions. Additional information on 

the total ‘‘value’’ of biochar is needed before effective markets can be established.

Industry Acceptance of Bio-oil: 

Bio-oil is a relatively new product, and the industries which might use it effectively are not familiar with bio-oil. Changing fuel presents both a market risk and 

a market opportunity. Programs to reduce the technical and financial risk of using 

bio-oil may be helpful to assist with deployment. 

The implementation of biomass pyrolysis also will depend on the complex match 

between regional feedstock resources, their availability, and the corresponding regional needs for fuels, power, and products, including chemicals and biochar. Analyses such as life cycle studies, technoeconomic projections, and related work will assist industry in making educated decisions on the most effective use of biomass on 

both a regional and a national basis.

Current Research

Overview of National and International Research: 

Biomass research is being conducted by many groups, both in the United States 

and in other countries. 

In the United States, research has been focused primarily on the production of 

liquid transportation fuels that will be ‘‘drop-in’’ hydrocarbon replacements for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels. As such, these are compatible with the existing fuel supply, distribution, and utilization infrastructure. Research on pyrolysis-derived 

biofuels has focused on the major barriers of stabilization and upgrading the biooil intermediate. The research in this area has included a range of thermal and 

catalytic techniques to convert biomass to refinery feedstock that can be finished to 

transportation fuels. This research has been funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy with additional efforts funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The stabilization and upgrading research is directly relevant for producing 

bio-oil intermediates used in high-efficiency electric generation systems. While the 
19

amount of upgrading needed for electric power generation will be less than that 

needed for hydrocarbon fuels, the same types of processing techniques are likely to 

be used in both. 

In other countries including Canada, Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom, the 

Netherlands, Australia, and others, researchers are examining the use of pyrolysis 

bio-oil both for transportation fuel and electricity generation. There is international 

recognition of the flexibility of pyrolysis to meet a variety of fuel and electricity 

needs. The interest in producing electricity is particularly strong in countries such 

as Finland where renewable portfolio mandates provide very significant cost incentives to produce biopower. By comparison, incentives of that magnitude do not exist 

in the United States. In some countries, biopower is seen as the earliest use of biooil, with transportation fuels being viewed as an attractive alternative as the upgrading technology advances. 

International cooperation in the area of biomass pyrolysis is fostered by the International Energy Agency’s Bioenergy Agreement through their Task 34, Biomass Pyrolysis. This Agreement promotes information exchange, exchange of researchers, 

and production of original scientific reports. The interests of this group are based 

on the priorities of the participating countries and include pyrolysis for both biofuels 

and biopower. The International Energy Agency’s Bioenergy Pyrolysis Task has 

been renewed for a three-year period starting January 2010 through the end of 

2012. Douglas C. Elliott, an international expert on biomass pyrolysis at PNNL, 

leads this Task.

PNNL’s Research in Pyrolysis: 

PNNL is conducting research in each of the technical barrier areas described 

above. A primary area of research at PNNL focuses on stabilizing and upgrading 

bio-oil. Through the Laboratory’s Department of Energy-funded program, PNNL 

teams with key partners, including other national laboratories and industry partners such as Ensyn, a pyrolysis oil company, UOP, a major petroleum refinery technology provider, and others to examine upgrading to produce transportation fuels. 

PNNL also has privately funded efforts exploring technology development for use 

with biomass feedstocks unique to Asia. 

PNNL is also working in two international collaborations, one with Canada and 

one with Finland, to examine the extent of stabilization and upgrading needed for 

utilization of bio-oil for either electric generation or biofuel applications. This work 

is examining the characteristics of bio-oils produced from a range of biomass feedstocks, including beetle-killed pine, with the intent of matching those with end-use 

requirements. The work leverages DOE’s funding with equivalent amounts from 

Canada and Finland to organizations such as Finland’s VTT Laboratory, Natural 

Resources Canada (Canmet) laboratory, and the University of British Columbia. 

PNNL also conducts research on ways to improve the quality of bio-oil to reduce 

the need for stabilization and upgrading. Catalytic processing during the initial pyrolysis step is being used to remove more oxygen from the bio-oil. This work, funded 

by the DOE Office of the Biomass Program is relevant to production of bio-oil for 

either biopower or biofuel use. 

Research to assist in the establishment of bio-oil standards is being conducted at 

PNNL in association with the efforts of the International Energy Agency’s Pyrolysis 

Task. As noted previously, PNNL leads this Task and helped establish the first 

ASTM standard for bio-oil quality for boiler use in 2009. Additional work to establish standards for bio-oil use in more efficient applications is ongoing. The International Energy Agency Task also is coordinating research on higher-value chemical 

products that can potentially be produced from biomass pyrolysis in so-called biorefineries. 

Researchers at PNNL also are examining the use of biochar as a soil amendment 

as part of their work with DOE’s Office of the Biomass Program. In collaboration 

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture at the Prosser Experimental Station, we 

are focusing on the characterization of biochar from various biomass sources and 

correlating those differences with changes in soil productivity. 

We are also completing a research Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) and ConocoPhillips 

on hydrothermal liquefaction for producing bio-oil from wet biomass feedstocks. Finally, PNNL is involved in engineering studies aimed at developing technoeconomic 

models for pyrolysis technologies and evaluating life cycle impacts of pyrolysis 

versus other fuel production options. 

It is important to note that biomass pyrolysis must be accomplished in a sustainable manner that minimizes impacts to our water resources and the environment. 

PNNL, with part of its DOE funding, is examining the sustainability of biomass 

thermal conversion processes, including pyrolysis. We are also developing water 
20

availability and land-use change models that will help ensure a wide range of technologies, such as biomass pyrolysis that can be done on a sustainable basis.

Summary 

In summary, biomass pyrolysis offers a flexible and effective way to create a liquid intermediate that can be used for either transportation fuels or electricity generation. Converting the solid biomass to a liquid both increases the energy density 

and makes the intermediate easier to feed to conversion systems than solid biomass. 

These characteristics allow expanded use of biomass. 

Stabilization and upgrading of the bio-oil intermediate is important. While some 

systems can potentially operate with raw bio-oil, stabilization and upgrading greatly 

expands the opportunities for bio-oil utilization. The upgraded bio-oil can be used 

in higher efficiency electric generation technologies to achieve higher productivity 

from our finite biomass resources. In addition, upgrading technologies can be utilized to produce ‘‘drop-in’’ transportation fuels compatible with present infrastructure. 

Current research programs internationally are addressing the key barriers to biomass pyrolysis utilization. The Federal Government can further advance these research efforts by funding strong core research programs. While emphasis on implementation is vital, it also is important to invest in our nation’s science base, which 

provides the necessary foundation for developing next-generation technology aimed 

at addressing key research challenges within the scope of DOE’s implementation 

projects and beyond. 

Finally, the Nation needs to conduct analyses such as life cycle assessments, 

technoeconomic projections, and others to help prioritize what the most important 

uses of our biomass resources are, both nationally and regionally. With finite 

amounts of biomass available annually, we need solid technical information on a regional and national basis to decide whether it is better to convert these to electricity, to fuels that reduce imported oil, or to some combination of both. This information will be essential to assist industry in determining how to best use biomass 

resources as they deploy these technologies. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share this information.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DON J. STEVENS

Dr. Stevens is presently a Senior Program Manager in the Energy Directorate of 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. He has over 30 years of RD&D experience 

in the area of biomass energy systems. 

In his current position, he is responsible for developing programs with DOE and 

industry to convert biomass resources to chemicals, fuels and electricity. PNNL’s 

work in this area focuses on the use of thermal catalysis and biotechnology to create 

fuels and higher value products from biomass residues. The biofuels help the nation 

meet its goals of reducing imports of petroleum, and the bio-based products are important in providing economic return in the integrated biorefineries of the future. 

Dr. Stevens is also involved in programs on biofuels sponsored the International Energy Agency and serves as a Director for the Biomass Energy Research Association. 

Over a 30-year period, he has conducted research and performed analysis on a variety of bioenergy systems. Dr. Stevens is the author or co-author of numerous publications and has been an editor of three books on biomass energy. He received his 

Ph.D. Degree in physical chemistry from University of Utah in 1976 and conducted 

postdoctoral work on biological membranes at the University of Illinois ChampaignUrbana.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. Mr. James. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH J. JAMES, PRESIDENT, AGRITECH PRODUCERS, LLC 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear 

before you today and discuss some things that Agri-Tech Producers, 

LLC, is doing. I want to give a special thanks to Congressman Inglis for his interest in our work. It turns out that our manufacturing 

partner is located in his district, even though our company is not 

within his district, but we greatly appreciate his interest and his 

support. 
21

I would like to state a problem. Cellulosic material, wood and agricultural material, is not an easy substance to work with. It is 

generally about 50 percent moisture, particularly in the case of 

wood, it is bulky, it is of relatively low energy value, and the economics of getting it from the place of harvest to the place where 

it is actually going to be used as a fuel or energy sometimes means 

that we leave a lot of that material, of that one billion that was 

referred to earlier, remains in place where it might have been 

growing. 

So a solution is required to that problem: A solution that removes as much of the water as possible, that densifies the energy 

content of the material, that also may change its physical characteristics in such a way that utilities can coal fire it and grind it 

very easily and mix it with coal as well as other users, and other 

logistical approaches such as densification or crushing the material 

into briquettes or pellets will help facilitate its usability. 

And of course, there is a challenge in developing the appropriate 

supply chains to get material from the point of where it has been 

grown and harvested to the point where it could be used. And I do 

want to emphasize there is a real need for a focus on solid fuels 

in addition to liquid fuels, so I appreciate your comments earlier, 

Mr. Chairman. 

About three years ago we got focused on something called 

torrefaction. Torrefaction is essentially a process. Again, it is a 

mild form of pyrolysis actually which dries off the water, and in the 

case of the innovations at North Carolina State University has developed, we are able to capture some of the off-gases and use those 

as process heat. So the process that we operate uses about 80 percent green fuel, if you will, and very little fossil fuel and outside 

energy. I won’t go into anymore details in that. My written testimony has quite a bit about the process. 

But the key thing is that it creates fuels from either wood or 

from agriculture material that can be used cost effectively. When 

I say cost effectively, we are talking about producing material that 

may range in the $80 to $100 a ton range, and they have BTU 

counts or energy content in the 11,000 BTU range which is very 

comparable to coal, and the pricing of that is also comparable to 

coal. 

Our company has been very fortunate to have received a variety 

of federal and state support in our efforts to commercialize this 

very exciting technology. One of our affiliates years back was fortunate to get a grant from the U.S. Forest Service’s Woody Biomass 

Utilization Program, and our assignment was to work in the national forest in South Carolina and try to create new markets for 

the biomass that results when the forest does its thinnings to reduce the hazard of fire and also to improve forest health. We have 

quickly learned what I have just described, that if you are close to 

the customer, it is easy to take that material and ship it to the customer for their use. If you are more than 30, 40, 50 miles away, 

it is almost impossible to make the economics work. That is when 

we went looking for a solution to that problem and discovered the 

torrefaction process at NC State. 

We have also been fortunate to have received funding from the 

U.S. Forest Service’s Wood Education Resource Center, and we are 
22

using those resources to help us investigate the differences between 

torrefying hard woods and torrefying soft woods. As you might 

guess, different materials have different characteristics, so there is 

a need for research to fine tune or possibly make different kinds 

of equipment to handle different kinds of material. 

Mr. Chairman, we are very fortunate as well recently to have 

gotten a grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) under their 

SBIR/STTR program which is allowing us to look at the feasibility 

of developing mobile torrefaction units, which would allow us to go 

from farm to farm or forest—logging deck to logging deck, be able 

to collect more material from disbursed places and put that into 

the channel of material that can be used. 

I do have some suggestions about some additional federal support that would be helpful to us. One is increasing availability of 

financing for small companies. We are very fortunate at the moment that we don’t need financing to advance our manufacturing 

of torrefaction equipment. However, as we get into, and spend a little bit of our time on, the processing side, the credit crunch that 

our country is suffering, particularly for small companies, is creating some challenges that we are going to need some help with. 

In addition, we have some very exciting intellectual property 

(IP). Our intellectual property is much in demand around the 

world, and we are getting inquiries from China, India, Russia and 

other places, places which may or may not properly respect IP. We 

would like to be part of the global solution for renewable energy, 

but as a small company we are very nervous about sharing our IP 

in certain places abroad. Any help that the Federal Government, 

either legislatively or in negotiations, bilateral or otherwise, would 

be extremely helpful to us as well. 

And then lastly, we believe that in addition to industrial-scale activity where hundreds and thousands of tons of material are processed by large, fixed units in large facilities, we think there is tremendous opportunity for forest-reliant communities and rural communities to use our technology on a community scale if you will, 

to work in their forests, to work with their farmers, improve forest 

health, but also generate new revenues and new jobs in those communities. DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

have funded large-scale research, or research into large-scale biomass supply and biomass value train operations. We would suggest 

that in addition to that, in order for us and others to have impact 

on rural communities, that we should also be looking at the community scale or microscale as well, and we would be glad to participate in that. In your own state, Mr. Chairman, we have had a 

number of forest communities contact us looking for ways to add 

value to the materials that they have available to them. We would 

love to be able to provide demonstration units to them so that they 

might accomplish that particular mission. 

In summary, we are very excited to be with you today. We think 

there are some great opportunities to move forward, and we look 

forward to working with the Committee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:]
23

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. JAMES

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

this opportunity to appear before you today. I am Joseph J. James, President of 

Agri-Tech Producers, LLC (ATP), a company, which is commercializing innovative 

torrefaction technology, developed by NC State University, which cost effectively 

converts cellulosic biomass, like wood and agricultural materials, into a dry, more 

energy dense and more usable renewable fuel, which can be co-fired with coal and 

used for a variety of other renewable energy purposes. Most of our efforts are focused on making world-class torrefaction equipment, but we also plan to be involved 

in a limited number of biomass processing plants, using our torrefaction technology.

Overview of Testimony: 

I would like to discuss why it is important to treat cellulosic biomass, in order 

to make it a cost-effective source of renewable energy, and why that is important 

to developing effective biomass supply chains necessary for our nation’s clean energy 

future. I will obviously talk about torrefaction and the important role that technology can play, in addition to the need for densification processes to enhance the 

logistics of shipping and handling cellulosic biomass. Lastly, I will describe the role 

our Federal Government has played in helping our company compete in the global 

market place and what additional measures are necessary for our company’s and 

our nation’s success.

The Problem: 

There are substantial economic and logistical challenges in shipping woody biomass out of the forested areas or agricultural biomass from farming areas, in a costeffective manner, to distant end-users. Untreated cellulosic biomass, woody or otherwise, is moist and bulky, which limits its ability to be cost-effectively transported 

to ultimate users and renders a lot of otherwise available biomass useless. 

In addition, many forests go without mechanical treatments to remove overgrown 

underbrush, which is necessary for fire hazard reduction and forest health, because 

the resultant biomass is not close enough to markets to generate sufficient offsetting 

revenues.

Solutions: 

Solutions to these economic and logistical problems will require new processes, 

which can cost-effectively remove much of the moisture found in cellulosic biomass, 

increasing the energy density of the material, converting it into a substance more 

easily used by the end-user and making it a more valuable substance, before shipping. Also, it is common practice to use physical densification methods, to pelletize 

or briquette cellulosic biomass, in order to make it more physically dense, so that 

more energy per ton can be shipped. For example, toffefied biomass has been shown 

to make stronger, more energy rich and water resistant pellets and the torrefaction 

process may eliminate the need for a separate drying system, used by most pellet 

makers, who incur substantial capital and operating costs for such systems. 

The U.S. Department of Energy has funded projects to enhance the effectiveness 

of biomass supply chains and more planning and research in that area is needed, 

including, in my opinion, research and demonstrations on how to develop small-scale 

biomass operations, which can generate jobs in many, poor rural communities.

Torrefaction Technology: 

Torrefaction is a relatively mild heat treatment of biomass, carried out under atmospheric pressure in the absence of oxygen, at a temperature between 200–300 °C. 

North Carolina State University (NCSU) has a variation in the temperature by 

which its torrefaction process is run. During torrefaction, all moisture and volatile 

organic compounds in the biomass are removed and the properties of biomass are 

changed to obtain a much better fuel (more energy dense), lowering transportation 

costs and improving combustion (higher heating value). 

Water and the volatile organic compounds (e.g., pinenes and turpenes) are vaporized in the torrefaction process, as is some of the hemicelluloses. In NCSU’s process, 

the gaseous products of torrefaction are captured and combusted to allow the process to run on minimal external energy inputs. When green wood (approximately 50 

percent water by weight) is torrefied, ideally about 80 percent of the original energy 

is available in the final torrefied product, which is roughly 30 percent of the initial 

green weight. The energy density of the torrefied biomass is approximately 11,000 

BTUs, which is comparable to that of coal, at 12,000 BTUs, but with no net carbon 

dioxide emissions and other pollutants, that make coal a concern. 
24

The innovations to the basic torrefaction process, which NCSU has developed, is 

most easily understood as a mix of counter-flow heat exchanger, indirect heating 

gasification and wood chip conveyor (see Figure 1, below). The woody biomass 

(chips) enters a torrefaction chamber (mild steel pipe) that is sealed from the heating fluid surrounding it (combustion gases). The biomass is mechanically conveyed 

from the cool end to the hot end of the torrefaction chamber and is heated by simple 

conduction from hot gases moving from the hot end to the cool end, outside the 

torrefaction chamber. The biomass is also heated by pyrolitic reactions within the 

torrefaction chamber. 

As the biomass is heated, water vapor, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and methane are released and move from the 

torrefied material, under natural draft to a flame source, where all but the water 

vapor are combusted with atmospheric oxygen. The combusted gasses and water 

vapor move around the torrefaction chamber and release their heat to the incoming 

biomass, before being released to the atmosphere. 

The biomass in pipes, within the interior of the torrefaction chamber is not exposed to either a direct flame or the combustion gasses. Volatile organic compounds 

and water vapor are inhibited from moving out of the torrefaction chamber by the 

wood chips in the hopper above the wood-metering device, at the inlet of the 

torrefaction chamber. The torrefied wood is cooled in a sealed chamber while being 

conveyed to a briquetting or pelletizing machine, a waiting truck or a storage container. 

Torrefaction changes cellulosic biomass from a moist, fibrous, perishable, material 

into a dry, grind-able, stable fuel that can be used as a coal substitute and a feedstock for many other energy-making uses. Torrefaction eliminates the costs associated with transporting the moisture in the biomass, elevates the heating value of 

the biomass fuel, and reduces the volume of the biomass. The energy density of the 

torrefied product can be two to three times, more dense than untreated biomass, on 

a weight basis, and two to four times, on a volume basis. Torrefied biomass offers 

higher co-firing rates for coal-fueled power generation plants than can be achieved 

with the combustion of untreated biomass. In addition, torrefaction renders cellulosic a more brittle substance, which can easily be crushed along with coal, without any substantial equipment upgrades by the utility.

Federal Government Support Provided to ATP: 

ATP has been helped by several federal programs, including funding received by 

ATP’s affiliate, under the U.S. Forest Service’s Woody Biomass Utilization Grant 

Program, as well as a grant received by ATP from the Forest Service’s Wood Education and Resource Center (WERC) and by ATP under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR/STTR) Program. 
25

Under the Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program, our affiliate is working 

with the Francis Marion & Sumter National Forest, in South Carolina, to find new 

markets for the woody biomass which results when the Forest does its mechanical 

thinning, to remove underbrush and small trees, in order to reduce the hazard of 

severe forest fires and to promote forest health. 

It was while operating that program that we learned of the challenges of shipping 

cellulosic biomass to distant customers. The Forest Service has amended that grant 

agreement to allow our affiliate to collaborate with ATP, this spring, to demonstrate 

how torrefaction might overcome the logistical challenges of shipping National Forest biomass to distant customers. Hopefully, the new revenues received might allow 

more acreage in the National Forest to receive much needed thinning. 

Our observations have shown that different types of cellulosic material torrefy differently. ATP’s WERC grant allows ATP and NCSU to determine the differences between the way hardwoods torrefy, as compared to softwoods, and to develop processes which will allow hardwoods to be torrefied successfully. 

This week, Clemson University will be submitting a grant proposal, allowing us 

to collaboratively determine how best to torrefy and densify switchgrass, as well. 

Lastly, ATP has recently been awarded a Phase l Doe STTR grant, which will 

allow us to determine the feasibility of developing mobile torrefaction units. Such 

units may make it easier to convert smaller, dispersed sources of agricultural and 

forestry biomass, from individual farmers or from individual foresters. Such units 

might also be able to intercept urban wood waste, prevent it from clogging landfills 

and convert it into a renewable fuel. Such systems may also be able to convert 

downed trees, in a disaster area, into renewable fuels and much needed revenues.

Suggestions for Additional Federal Support:

1. ATP is ever so grateful for the support we have already received from state 

and federal sources, but there are additional things which need to be done 

to help companies, like ours, effectively compete in the global marketplace.

Three of these additional things are:

• Increasing the Availability of Financing for Small Clean Energy Businesses—

Although ATP does not now need financing for its core equipment manufacturing operations, it will need financing to become involved in developing biomass processing plants, using its torrefaction technology. Unfortunately, credit for small businesses, especially those using new technologies, is nearly nonexistent. Most federal renewable energy financing programs are geared towards very large projects or rural enterprises.

• Protecting Small Business IP in Third-World Markets—ATP has been regularly contacted by businesses from Third-World countries, like China, India 

and Russia, where it is difficult to protect intellectual property (IP). Although 

ATP would like to offer its equipment in such countries, it is afraid to do so, 

for fear of having its machines copied and losing U.S. technology and jobs.

We recommend that our government negotiate special protections for small, 

clean energy business IP, as it has bi-lateral discussions with such ThirdWorld countries, who are demanding access to climate change technology. We 

also hope that patent applications for renewable energy technologies, which 

are pending in the U.S. Patent Office, be given expedited treatment. We understand that such a measure may be under consideration by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

• Funding to Create and Demonstrate Community-Scale Biomass Production 

Systems—ATP believes that its torrefaction process and other technologies 

might be able to reduce rural poverty, if funding for developing small-scale 

biomass conversion facilities was available. The development of communitybased biomass systems is complex and will take a sustained and coordinated 

effort, especially encouraging and assisting smaller farmers to grow dedicated 

bio-crops, as well as developing the supply chain elements needed to make 

such systems work. Funding, similar to DOE’s large-scale Biomass Supply 

Systems program, would be very helpful, along with adding new flexibility to 

some of the Rural Development Programs offered by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. By the way, USDA’s Biomass Capital Assistance Program 

(BCAP) looks like a very helpful program.

Closing Remarks: 

In summary, it is important to treat cellulosic biomass, in order to make it a more 

cost-effective source of renewable energy. New technologies, including innovations to 
26

processes, like torrefaction, can play important roles, in addition to densification 

processes, to enhance the logistics of shipping and handling cellulosic biomass. Lastly, our Federal Government has played an important role in helping our company 

compete in the global market place, but there are additional federal measures necessary for our company’s and our nation’s success in the clean energy economy. 

On behalf of Agri-Tech Producers, LLC and our partners and supporters, I thank 

you for your time and attention. I would be pleased to answer any questions that 

you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOSEPH J. JAMES

Joseph J. James is President of Agri-Tech Producers, LLC (ATP), a for-profit company, which is commercializing biomass technology and promoting the utilization of 

highly productive bio-crops. 

ATP is commercializing innovative torrefaction technology, developed by North 

Carolina State University, which converts cellulosic biomass into a cost-effective fuel 

for electric utilities to co-fire with coal; makes superior energy pellets; and is a superior feedstock for certain cellulosic ethanol-making processes. 

Mr. James is Vice President of the Board of the South Carolina Biomass Council 

and a member of the Southeast Agriculture and Forestry Energy Resources Alliance 

(SAFER). Mr. James is a 2008 Purpose Prize winner, for his Greening of Black 

America Initiative, which seeks to assure the inclusion of rural African-American 

communities and individuals in the Nation’s growing green economy in the Carolinas. 

Mr. James has been an economic development professional, for over 35 years, has 

received a BS, in Science, from Union College and has studied law and business administration at New York University.

Chairman BAIRD. Excellent testimony. Thank you. Mr. Klara. 

STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT M. KLARA, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC 

CENTER FOR COAL, NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. KLARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on 

behalf of the United States Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Research Program, particularly those activities related to co-feeding 

biomass materials with coal that reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of electric power generation in large industrial processes. 

The Clean Coal Research Program, which is administered by the 

Department’s Office of Fossil Energy and implemented by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), is designed to remove environmental concerns over the future use of coal by developing a portfolio of innovative clean coal technologies. In partnership with the private sector, efforts are focused on maximizing efficiency and environmental performance while minimizing the cost of 

these new technologies. In recent years, the Clean Coal Research 

Program has been structured to focus on advanced coal technologies with integrated carbon capture and storage. Co-feeding 

biomass with coal to current and future power plants is a logical 

part of this strategy. The coal and biomass co-feeding option, when 

integrated in an advanced energy system with carbon capture and 

storage, can provide electric power on a life cycle basis with nearzero greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass can be co-fed to nearly all 

coal-based processes, including pulverized coal combustion, advanced oxygen-based combustion plants, and advanced gasificationbased plants. When combined with pre- or post-combustion carbon 

capture technologies, co-feeding biomass offers a very sound strategy to reduce the carbon intensity of these energy systems. Coal 

biomass systems could become part of an early compliance strategy, 
27

particularly in existing power plants. Coal biomass systems can 

benefit from the economies of scale offered by large coal-based energy systems. Large biomass-only plants are often constrained by 

low biomass energy density, feedstock water content, feedstock collection and preparation and local/regional feedstock availability. 

Biomass can be used more effectively as a co-feed in large central 

coal plants to realize the benefits of the economies of scale. Coal 

can also serve to offset the seasonal and variable nature of the supply and availability of biomass feedstocks. 

Considerable experience exists with a number of biomass-topower generation facilities that have been constructed and operating, particularly in Europe. The International Energy Agency’s 

Bioenergy Task 32 has compiled a very extensive database to provide a nice overview of this experience. It reports that over the past 

five to ten years there has been remarkable rapid progress in the 

developing of co-firing. Several plants have been retrofitted for 

demonstration purposes, while another number of new plants are 

already being designed for involving biomass co-utilization with 

fossil fuels. The majority of these plants are equipped with pulverized coal boilers, which is the standard, state-of-the-art technology. 

Tests have been performed with virtually every commercially significant fuel type, for example, lignite coal, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal and opportunity fuels such as petroleum coke and 

with every major category of biomass, herbaceous and woody fuel 

pipes generated as residue and energy crops. Over 40 plants in the 

United States have co-fired coal and biomass over a period of several years. Operations have ranged from several hours of operation 

to several years with five plants operating continuously for testing 

purposes, either on wood or switchgrass, and one plant operating 

commercially over the past two years on a mixture of coal and 

wood. 

Research efforts are currently focused on biomass preparation 

and pretreatment requirements, feeding coal-biomass mixtures into 

high-pressure gasifiers at commercial conditions, and characterizing the composition of the resultant stream to determine impacts 

on downstream components. 

Biological capture of CO2 through algae cultivation is another 

CO2 reduction strategy that is gaining attention as a possible 

means for greenhouse gas reductions from these fossil fuel plants. 

Algae, the fastest-growing plants on Earth, can double their size as 

frequently as every two hours while consuming CO2. Algae can be 

grown in regions such as desert conditions as not to compete with 

farmlands and forests, and they do not require fresh water to grow. 

While it is recognized that the greenhouse gases stored by algae 

will ultimately be reduced to the atmosphere, there is a net-carbon 

offset by effectively using more of the carbon contained in the fuel 

to produce energy. 

In conclusion, to establish a new and widely deployed industry 

based on growing, harvesting and processing large quantities of 

biomass fuel on a regular basis, there are some key issues that are 

needed to be addressed, many of which are here and with the other 

speakers. The single most important issue we believe is how much 

biomass can sustainably be made available to economically and reliably support a power industrial facility. This factor alone, biomass 
28

availability, will in turn dictate the scale of plant or plants in a 

particular region. Also, experience dictates that the energy crop 

must not be competitive with the food chain, so land use and crop 

choices need to be carefully designed and managed. 

There are a number of technical challenges as well to using biomass in future and current plants relative to things like biomass 

feeding, slagging, fouling and corrosion of downstream processes 

and components. 

This completes my statement, and I look forward to the discussion period. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Klara follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT M. KLARA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this 

opportunity to provide testimony on the United States Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) Clean Coal Research Program, particularly those activities related to co-feeding biomass materials with coal that reduce the life cycle carbon intensity of electric 

power generation and large industrial processes. 

Biomass can be introduced to our nation’s energy mix as a feedstock input to thermal energy power plants. In addition, the emissions output of fossil energy power 

plants can be used to cultivate algae for subsequent energy use. Both applications 

are effective strategies for reducing the carbon intensity of our nation’s power generation fleet and industrial processes.

Introduction to Clean Coal Research Program 

Fossil fuel resources represent a tremendous national asset. Throughout our history, an abundance of fossil fuels in North America has contributed to our nation’s 

economic prosperity. In Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s October 12, 2009, letter, 

delivered to Energy Ministers and other attendees of the Carbon Sequestration 

Leadership Forum in London, he said that: ‘‘Coal accounts for 25 percent of the 

world’s energy supply and 40 percent of carbon emissions, and is likely to be a major 

and growing source of electricity generation for the foreseeable future.’’ Secretary 

Chu further stated, ‘‘. . . I believe we must make it our goal to advance carbon capture and storage technology to the point where widespread, affordable deployment 

can begin in eight to ten years . . .. But finding safe, affordable, broadly deployable 

methods to capture and store carbon dioxide is clearly among the most important 

issues scientists have ever been asked to solve.’’

The Clean Coal Research Program—administered by DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and implemented by the National Energy Technology Laboratory—is designed 

to remove environmental concerns over the future use of coal by developing a portfolio of innovative clean coal technologies. In partnership with the private sector, efforts are focused on maximizing efficiency and environmental performance, including carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage, while minimizing the costs of these 

new technologies. In recent years the Clean Coal Research Program has been structured to focus on advanced coal technologies with integrated Carbon Capture and 

Storage (CCS). The Program is focused on two major strategies:

• Mitigating emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from fossil energy systems; 

and

• Substantially improving the efficiency of fossil energy systems.

Displacing coal fuel with biomass provides an opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from our nation’s power production and industrial facilities.

Background and Potential Importance of Coal-Biomass Systems 

A key challenge to enabling the continued widespread use of coal will be our ability to reduce climate warming GHG emissions. Utilizing a coal-biomass feedstock 

combination complements a carbon capture and storage strategy to reduce GHG. Cofeeding biomass also offers the potential for the Nation to meet its energy and environmental goals, while using domestic energy resources and furthering domestic energy security. 

The coal and biomass co-feeding option, when integrated in an advanced energy 

system like advanced gasification-based technology with CCS, can provide electric 

power, on a life cycle basis, with near-zero GHG emissions. 
29

1http://www.ieabcc.nl/database/cofiring.html

Biomass can be co-fed to existing pulverized coal combustion plants, advanced oxygen-based combustion plants, and advanced gasification-based plants. When combined with pre- or post-combustion carbon capture technologies, co-feeding biomass 

offers a sound strategy to reduce the carbon intensity of existing and future coalbased energy systems. 

Coal-biomass systems could become part of an early compliance strategy, particularly in existing power plants. Further, coal-biomass systems can benefit from the 

economies of scale offered by large coal-based energy systems. Large biomass-alone 

power plants are constrained by low biomass energy density, feedstock water content, feedstock collection and preparation, and local/regional feedstock availability. 

Biomass can be used in economically available quantities as co-feed in large central 

coal plants, to realize the benefits of economies of scale. Coal can also serve to offset 

the seasonal and variable nature of the supply of biomass feeds.

CO2 Perspective of Coal-Biomass Systems 

CO2 reductions associated with using biomass in existing pulverized coal-fired 

power generation facilities is fairly straightforward. CO2 reductions from existing 

plants will be nearly equivalent to the amount of carbon in the biomass feedstock, 

less the amount of fossil fuel produced CO2 needed to harvest, prepare, and transport the biomass to be combusted in the boiler. Technology modifications needed to 

co-feed coal and modest amounts of biomass into existing plants available today and 

being adopted by industry. For example, First Energy is in the process of converting 

units 4 and 5 of their Burger Plant in Shadyside, Ohio, to produce up to 312 MWe 

firing up to 100 percent biomass. 

Gasification-based units, such as Tampa Electric, offer the opportunity to combine 

biomass offsets of carbon emissions from coal with CCS, resulting in near-zero overall plant carbon emissions. Recent NETL engineering analyses indicate that netzero life cycle carbon emissions can be achieved by co-feeding biomass into Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants with 90 percent carbon capture 

and sequestration. The quantity of biomass co-feed needed to reach net-zero emissions varies depending on the type and rank of coal utilized. Limiting issues for both 

combustion and gasification-based systems include biomass availability and cost, 

both of which must be overcome by the development of improved technology if we 

are to dramatically increase the amount of biomass deployed, and the associated 

carbon benefits in future power production systems. 

While biomass feedstocks are generally viewed as having a low-carbon footprint, 

a careful life cycle analysis must be performed to fairly characterize their true profile; this is especially true when considering cultivating new biomass crops that are 

to be dedicated to energy production. For example, some carbon capture processes 

can make large quantities of affordable fertilizer that could have beneficial effects 

when reclaiming mined or poor quality land, thus serving as a potential pathway 

for easing land-use considerations associated with biomass energy crops. The potential also exists for the beneficial reuse of CO2 recovered from coal-biomass power 

plants to produce and process algae for subsequent energy use. Such energy systems 

could be located near the markets they would serve. These two strategies could be 

useful to enhance overall plant economics by the value added from beneficial reuse 

approaches, thus helping to support the costs of deployment of the needed CO2 infrastructure—building CO2 pipelines and paying for transport and storage.

Global Perspectives and Experience with Coal-Biomass Operations 

Considerable experience already exists with a number of biomass to power production facilities that have been constructed and are operating, particularly in Europe. 

The International Energy Agency’s Bioenergy Task 321 compiled a database to provide an overview of this experience. It reports ‘‘Over the past five to ten years there 

has been remarkably rapid progress over in the development of co-firing. Several 

plants have been retrofitted for demonstration purposes, while another number of 

new plants are already being designed for involving biomass co-utilization with fossil fuels. . . . Typical power stations where co-firing is applied are in the range from 

approximately 50 MWe (a few units are between five and 50 MWe) to 700 MWe. 

The majority are equipped with pulverized coal boilers . . .. Tests have been performed with every commercially significant (lignite, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous 

coal, and opportunity fuels such as petroleum coke) fuel type, and with every major 

category of biomass (herbaceous and woody fuel types generated as residues and energy crops).’’
30

For IGCC power generation systems, tests have been performed successfully at 

the Nuon plant in the Netherlands that fed a mixture of 30 percent demolition wood 

and 70 percent coal by weight to a Shell high-pressure, entrained gasifier. However, 

only limited data and information are available from these tests. In the United 

States, Foster Wheeler has been active assessing various aspects of coal-biomass 

mixtures, with a focus on fuel selection, emissions control, and corrosion issues. Europe is most active in the area of coal-biomass co-firing, and their experience 

stresses the importance of biomass processing, to avoid slagging and fouling as potential issues to maintaining optimum combustion performance. In addition, there 

is presently much discussion of indirect CO2 emissions of biomass from a life cycle 

basis that arise from fertilization, harvesting, and transport of the biomass.

United States’ Perspectives and Experience with Coal-Biomass 

Between 1990 and 2000, research targeted at co-firing coal and biomass within 

combustion plants was strongly supported by DOE, industry, and academia, all of 

whom considered co-feeding coal and biomass in combustion power plants to be a 

technically viable option. Over 40 plants in the United States have co-fired coal and 

biomass over a period of several years. Operations have ranged from several hours 

to several years, with five plants operating continuously for testing purposes on either wood or switchgrass, and one plant operating commercially over the past two 

years on a mixture of coal and wood. 

While it is relatively easy to feed small percentages of biomass in co-firing configurations at power plants, care must be taken to specify the type and amount of 

biomass, and biomass-feed processing requirements that provide optimum carbon reductions with minimal reductions in plant efficiency. 

The information base for co-feeding coal and biomass in gasification technology 

settings in the United States is significantly less than that for combustion. Biomass 

has been successfully fed in low concentrations at Tampa Electric’s IGCC power 

demonstration in Florida, and biomass co-feeding and preparation tests are currently being conducted at Southern Company’s National Carbon Capture Center test 

center in Wilsonville, Alabama.

Current Office of Fossil Energy Coal-Biomass Activities 

Research is being conducted on biomass preparation and pretreatment requirements, feeding coal-biomass mixtures into high-pressure gasifiers at commercial 

conditions and characterizing the composition of the resultant gas stream to determine impacts on downstream components.

Algae Production as a GHG Reduction Strategy 

Biological capture of CO2 through algae cultivation is another CO2 reduction 

strategy that is gaining attention as a possible means to achieve reductions in GHG 

emissions from fossil-fuel processes. Algae, the fastest growing plants on Earth, can 

double their size as frequently as every two hours, while consuming CO2. Algae can 

be grown in regions, such as desert conditions, so as not to compete with farmland 

and forests; and they do not require fresh water to grow. Algae will grow in brackish 

water, plant-recycle water, or even in sewage streams, and, when cultivated within 

closed systems, these waters can be recycled, thereby minimizing further water use. 

While it is recognized that the greenhouse gases stored by the algae will ultimately be released to the atmosphere, there is a net carbon offset by more effectively using the carbon contained in the coal. The coal is used to produce power and 

then again for algae production, hence, a net-carbon offset is realized by an increase 

in the energy extracted from the coal, compared to that same coal being used for 

power generation only. 

A cost-effective, large-scale production system for growing algae using CO2 from 

a power plant has not yet been demonstrated. Using Recovery Act funds, DOE is 

sponsoring a project with Arizona Public Service to develop and ultimately demonstrate a large-scale algae system coupled with a power plant. The utilization of 

algae for carbon management is an integral part of the project. The project has already proven the process at a small scale using a one-third acre algae bioreactor, 

which has been operating for weeks using power plant stack emissions to produce 

sustained algae growth. Additionally, a prototype algae cultivation system is being 

evaluated for continuous operation. The project will ultimately assemble a fully integrated energy system for beneficial CO2 use, including an algae farm of sufficient 

size to adequately evaluate effectiveness and costs for commercial applications. To 

complement the engineered system in Arizona, DOE has solicited Small Business 

Innovation Research proposals to explore novel and efficient concepts for several 
31

processing aspects of CO2 capture for algae growth. The results from these efforts 

should prove useful to future algae farming applications.

Conclusion 

Prior to the current global emphasis on carbon reductions, coal-biomass research, 

development, and demonstration focused on waste utilization, e.g., demolition wood 

in the Netherlands and waste wood from the lumber industry in the United States. 

The major objective of those efforts was to reduce the amount of wastes going to 

landfills. More recent interests have also facilitated the use of coal-biomass mixtures, e.g., the co-firing of straw with coal at Denmark’s utilities. Now, with carbon 

reductions at the forefront, there is renewed interest and the possibility of realizing 

a double benefit to co-firing, particularly for those organizations that have been motivated solely by the benefits of reducing wastes (most of which are biomass-based). 

Additionally, algae production using CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants is 

gaining attention as another biologically based option to reduce GHG emissions. 

To establish a new and widely deployed industry, based on providing (growing, 

harvesting, processing) biomass fuel on a regular basis, there are key issues to address—the single most important of which is how much biomass can sustainably 

be made available to economically and reliably support a power or industrial facility, and enable that facility to reliably and economically achieve 

its goal for carbon reduction? This factor alone (i.e., biomass availability) will, 

in turn, dictate the scale of the plant or plants in a particular region. Also, experience dictates that the energy crop must not be competitive with the food chain, so 

land use and crop choices need to be carefully designed and managed. There are 

technical challenges to adding large quantities of biomass to our nation’s energy systems that must be overcome as well. Preparing the biomass before it is used in the 

plant, as well as potential slagging, fouling, and corrosion of downstream components and processes, must be addressed for both combustion and gasification systems.

BIOGRAPHY FOR SCOTT M. KLARA

Mr. Klara is currently the Director for the Strategic Center for Coal at the National Energy Technology Laboratory. Mr. Klara is responsible for overseeing the 

Department of Energy’s $500 million per year Coal R&D Program that consists of 

several hundred projects related to technology areas such as coal gasification, carbon sequestration, fuel cells, advanced turbines, and coal to liquid/gaseous fuels. Mr. 

Klara has over twenty years of diversified engineering and management experience. 

His experience encompasses a broad spectrum of technology areas including: electric 

power generation; advanced separation processes; process control; coal conversion 

processes; and simulation/systems analysis. Mr. Klara holds advanced degrees in 

chemical engineering and petroleum engineering. He is a certified professional engineer in the states of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Mr. Klara has more than 

sixty peer-reviewed publications and presentations.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Klara. Mr. Spomer. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ERIC L. SPOMER, PRESIDENT, CATALYST 

RENEWABLES 

Mr. SPOMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members. I appreciate this opportunity to share Catalyst Renewables’ operational lessons learned and insights on this 

important topic. I ask that my detailed written testimony be included in the record as I intend to share only a few key points. 

Catalyst was a successful green, renewable and sustainable energy company before being green was so popular. Our biomass experience originates with the Lyonsdale plant in Lyons Falls, New 

York. We purchased this 19 megawatt combined heat and power facility in 2003. At that time, the plant was in distress, but after significant capital investment and reestablishment of trust and confidence with the local forest community, we have been able to help 

Lyonsdale return to viability. 
32

Catalyst developed and deployed an approved sustainable forestry management plan in conjunction with its renewable energy 

credit from the New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard. 

Today, the Lyonsdale ‘‘wood basket’’ is considered the healthiest 

forest in New York State. Wood from the forest and purpose-grown 

woody biomass energy crops offers a significant renewable environmentally acceptable alternative to fossil-based energy supplies. 

The United States biopower effort is being led by renewable energy generation innovators like Catalyst, and our strategies can be 

applied to all our United States forests. 

Woody biomass holds significant revitalization potential for the 

rural economies of our forest and farm communities. Woody biomass is CO2-neutral. Woody biomass is sustainable and enhances 

forest health. 

So why does woody biomass, around for eons, merit your attention and inclusion in a research and development portfolio for the 

future? First, wood wins in every environmental, economic and effectiveness category. Using woody biomass offers a clear national 

security advantage for using clean, renewable, home-grown fuel for 

baseload thermal energy and electricity. Woody biomass has a 

proven, reliable national logistics handling system, but biomass is 

not just wood. Today we have new integrated biomass handling 

system for the efficient and effective inclusion of crop residues and 

livestock nutrients. So our first research and development suggestion is the design, development and operational tests and evaluation of regional logistic systems, including integration of rail transport and integrated staging areas for woody biomass, crop residues 

and nutrient feedstocks. Integrated handling systems must be designed and tested to be commercially and operationally effective 

and suitable with a minimum of handling ‘‘touches’’ as industry develops new facilities. A concerted effort to advance comingled biomass supplies would enhance resource use, reduce costs, and expand biomass availability for renewable thermal energy and electricity. We suggest multiple regional demonstrations suited to regional feedstocks are reasonable and prudent. 

Second, Catalyst is constantly seeking cleaner, more reliable production of renewable baseload heat and power. Our foremost concerns are efficiency, environmental suitability, and elimination of 

greenhouse gas emissions. Presently, our already permitted 37 

megawatt Onondaga Renewables plant under development in Geddes, New York, will be the cleanest woody biomass generating facility in North America. These bragging rights do not come cheap. We 

are commissioning a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) boiler. BFB technology is widely recognized as the most efficient combustion conversion device for biomass residues. However, the BFB boilers come 

with a significant associated energy penalty, pressurized air flow. 

Large quantities of air required to counterbalance the mass of the 

boiler bed and propel the mass into a fluidized state, and this results in a six percent penalty on efficiency. In the case of Onondaga, that is 21,000 megawatts-hours a year. 

Next, CO2-neutral woody biomass is also virtually sulphur-free, 

and our systems can already effectively eliminate particulate matter, leaving emissions of oxides of nitrogen, NOΧ, the most important remaining consideration. Today we use catalytic reduction sys-
33

tems, including selective catalytic reduction and regenerative selective catalytic reduction. 

Fresh catalytic units are capable of continuously reducing NOΧ

by more than 98 percent. At Onondaga, the catalyst will operate 

at high conversion efficiency for about 10,000 hours, but then it 

must be replaced and disposed of. Presently, NOΧ reduction catalysts cannot be regenerated. 

Finally, maintaining optimal chemical reaction temperatures in 

catalytic reduction units operated for the elimination of NOΧ and 

the elimination of use of fossil fuels as reheat or energy source is 

essential. Presently, oil or natural gas is burned to maintain flue 

gas temperatures to effect rapid and high NOΧ conversion. For a 

modern biomass conversion plant, the heat approaches 10 percent 

of the total biomass value. That is 3.7 megawatts of capacity at Onondaga. 

To summarize, we must strongly suggest specific congressional 

direction to the U.S. DOE and funded research and development 

authorizations for appropriations: to design, test, and deploy integrated biomass logistic systems, to research, develop and test 

equipments to eliminate parasitic power loss and bubbling fluidized 

bed biomass boilers, to research, develop, test and deploy catalytic 

units that have extended operational lives and that can be regenerated in place, and to research, develop, test and deploy energy 

improvements able to eliminate the need for auxiliary fossil fuel 

usage in RSCR (regenerative selective catalytic reduction) and 

SCR–NOΧ control devices. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, thank 

you or the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spomer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC L. SPOMER

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment for the ‘‘Biomass for Thermal Energy and 

Electricity Through a Research and Development Portfolio for the Future’’ hearing. 

I appreciate this opportunity to share Catalyst Renewables’ operational lessons 

learned and insights on this important topic, which is a core area of commercial and 

environmental concern to Catalyst Renewables. Mr. Chairman, Catalyst was a successful ‘‘green,’’ renewable and sustainable energy company before being ‘‘green’’ was 

so popular. 

Catalyst Renewables develops and owns energy projects deploying leading-edge 

technologies using clean, renewable resources—woody biomass and geothermal—to 

produce power and thermal energy. Our goals include creating environmentally 

sound, renewable energy alternatives that can be sustained in current and future 

energy markets, and to actively engage the communities that we serve. Catalyst 

builds fiscally and environmentally responsible solutions that free us from the limited supply and unstable pricing of fossil fuels as we, in fact, build a new pathway 

to energy’s future. 

Our operational biomass experience originates with Lyonsdale Biomass at Lyons 

Falls, New York. We purchased this 19 MWe Combined Heat and Power (CHP) facility in 2003. At that time, the plant was in distress, but after significant private 

capital transfusions and re-establishment of trust and confidence with the men and 

women of the local forest community logistics pipeline, we have been able to help 

Lyonsdale Biomass return to viability. We were successful in competitive renewable 

energy credits auctions for the New York State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) 

. . . the only woody biomass facility ever to do so. In an important sidelight, to 

qualify for the RPS, Catalyst had to develop, prepare and deploy a New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)-approved sustainable forestry management plan, which became the first plan deployed in New York State. 
34

Today, we are anecdotally told by NYSDEC that the Lyonsdale ‘‘wood basket’’ is 

considered the healthiest forest in New York State. 

Wood from the forest and farmed purpose grown woody biomass energy crops offers a significant renewable alternative and environmentally more acceptable replacement options to diminishing fossil-based energy supplies. In our western forests, this energy harvested in a thoughtful management plan and released via controlled combustion or gasification instead of devastating forest fires, can produce significant distributive CHP that will spur economic vitality. Across the Northern Forest of New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine, our neighbors are equally 

embracing the challenge of energy from mixed northern hardwood trees produced 

in close proximity to urgent demand for renewable energy. This effort is being led 

by renewable energy generation innovators like Catalyst Renewables and their 

strategies can be applied to all our United States forests using the extensive renewable energy stored and continually produced by wood. 

Woody biomass from the forest and from farmed and purpose-grown woody biomass energy crops holds significant revitalization potential for the rural economies 

of our forest and farm communities by creating an alternative source of income for 

landowners and circulating wealth-creating energy dollars through the local economy. In New York, which is characterized by a fossil fuel-intensive power generation 

sector (∼51 percent of power generated), substituting woody biomass for coal-powered electrical generation significantly reduces imported energy costs. Naturally possessing a short supply chain, woody biomass is produced in close proximity to demand and the end-user. This provides an important link and business relationship 

between the power plant and local community. As these fuels are available locally, 

the financial resources are spent locally, thereby encouraging the local economy and 

providing income for local businesses. Wood energy adds financial value to the forest 

and supports critical restorations and improvements from timber-stand management thinnings. The sustainability of local woodsheds can be enhanced by the inclusion of purpose grown woody biomass on under-utilized or abandoned farmland including fast-growing Root Process Method ® (RPM) native hardwoods and short rotation woody crops such as shrub willows developed by SUNY–ESF and being commercialized by Catalyst Renewables. 

The energy life cycle analyses of the purpose grown woody biomass energy crop 

systems and subsequent conversion of biomass to electricity via combustion and gasification is positive in many ways. The net energy ratio for the production and conversion of purpose grown woody biomass is 1:11 for co-firing and 1:16 for a gasification system. This means that for every unit of nonrenewable fossil fuel energy 

used for growth and harvest, 11–16 units of usable energy are produced. In essence, 

forests and purpose grown woody biomass energy crops are large solar collectors 

that capture the sun’s energy and store it as woody biomass. The net energy ratio 

for woody biomass is far superior to the net energy ratio for electricity from a combined cycle natural gas system (1:0.4). Research directly correlates this data to wide 

scale energy applications of mixed northern hardwood feedstocks from our northeast 

states and feedstocks of western hardwood feedstocks. 

Woody biomass from the forest and from farmed and purpose-grown woody biomass energy crops are CO2 neutral, which means that energy and other products 

can be produced with no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Biomass for bioenergy including liquid transportation fuels can be drawn from a variety of feedstock sources including forests, agricultural crops, organic residue streams and dedicated woody or herbaceous crops. Research suggests development and deployment 

of woody biomass resources have distinct energy, economic and environmental advantages over traditional agricultural crop sources:

• Woody biomass is available year round and from multiple sources. End-users 

are not dependent on single source material.

• The net energy ratios for bio-energy and bio-products including liquid transportation fuels derived from woody biomass are large and positive, meaning 

that considerably more energy output is produced from these systems than 

is used in the form of fossil fuels to produce the woody biomass and generate 

end products.

• Woody biomass can be sustainably managed and produced, while simultaneously providing an array of environmental and socioeconomic benefits.

• The physical-chemical characteristics of woody biomass from hardwoods are 

fairly consistent even when supplied from multiple sources.

• The forest products industry and wood-based renewable energy generation 

firms have developed superior technical and engineering competencies to 

manage woody biomass.
35

USDOE/USDA estimates sustainably harvested forest woody biomass can nationally provide at least 368 million dry tons of wood per year. Nationally, the net annual incremental forest woody biomass growth on almost 500 million acres of U.S. 

timberland exceeds forest woody biomass removals by almost 50 percent. In the 

north-central states growth exceeds removals by 95 percent. This ratio is even greater in the northern forest of the northeast states, where growth exceeds removals by 

125 percent. In New York State, there are over 18.5 million acres of timberland with 

over 750 million tons of standing biomass. The net annual increment growth vs. removals on New York timberland is more than 300 percent. 

At a Catalyst Renewables facility, Lyonsdale Biomass, in Lyons Falls, woody biomass is being used to generate 19MWe of electricity for the grid and post-generation 

thermal power at 15,000 pph for the Burrows Paper Company. Catalyst Renewables 

is presently harvesting and installing planting stock at Catalyst’s commercial shrub 

willow energy crop plantations in and around Central New York. This 600-acre 

plantation is the first commercial shrub willow energy crop plantation in North 

America. For every MWe of renewable power produced, Catalyst off-sets 2,500 tons 

of coal and $90,000 of exported energy cost. This is very important because New 

York State imports over $2,500 worth of mostly fossil-based energy for every man, 

woman and child in the State. 

Consumers increasingly need base-load energy that is renewable, clean, and affordable from renewable sources like geothermal and biomass. One of the simplest 

and oldest of renewables is direct combustion of wood. Wood supplied more energy 

than fossil fuels in the United States until the 1880s, when coal superseded wood. 

Today, due to re-growth of forests and improved technologies, sophisticated thermal 

combustion is being used across Europe, supplying heat, cooling, and power and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A high-efficiency wood-burning plant was recently 

opened in Simmering-Vienna with total thermal capacity of 65 MW, delivering electricity to the grid and heat to the city’s district energy system. More than 1,000 

woody biomass facilities have been constructed in Austria, nearly all local community-based; more than 100 combine heat and electric power. The facilities emit remarkably low quantities of air pollutants, including greenhouse gases, and have 

thermal efficiencies across the system approaching 90 percent. Europe’s thousands 

of new community-scale woody biomass facilities clearly demonstrate that, woody 

biomass can be rapidly implemented, can reduce oil imports and greenhouse gas 

emissions, and can increase energy security with wood drawn from local woodsheds 

including purpose grown woody biomass from under-utilized or abandoned farmland. 

Regionally, areas with sustainable wood supplies need to deploy woody biomass 

CHP as new construction and renovated fossil CHP sites. Such initiative is well targeted to the Northeast United States, given the region’s abundant forest land and 

dependence on heating oil. Woody biomass CHP has great potential in the Southeast 

and West as well. Relatively rapid transitions to woody biomass CHP heating and 

cooling are technically and economically achievable in schools, municipal offices, 

hospitals, prisons, and industrial facilities. This includes better use of wood collected 

by municipalities from diseased and storm-damaged trees and from construction 

sites. The volume of safely combustible urban wood in the United States is nearly 

30 million tons per year. Often, local communities dispose of this wood at some expense and incurring negative environmental results while missing energy benefits 

that could come from its clean combustion. 

The potential thermal value of community-based CHP alone is significant. If New 

York were to commission one hundred community-scale 0.75 MW CHP projects per 

year over a five-year construction period at an incremental investment would be 

about $100 million for each of the five construction years. However, fuel savings 

would increase to at least $100 to $180 million per year, and emissions of fossil CO2

could decrease by 0.75 to 1.0 million tons per year. The woody biomass required by 

such an initiative totals less than 20 percent of a recent estimate of New York’s energy-wood supply. By increasing the purpose grown biomass component of the supply with fast-growing Root Process Method ® (RPM) native hardwoods and short rotation woody crops such as shrub willows developed by SUNY–ESF and being commercialized by Catalyst Renewables on New York’s abandoned and under-utilized 

farm land the pressure on the open-loop biomass supply could be reduced by 20 percent. 

Total U.S. energy consumption is presently about 100 quads [British thermal 

units (BTUs)] per year. U.S. wood delivers about quads per year and the national 

sustainable energy-wood supply potentially contains about five quads per year. Although these rates may seem small, they are enormous quantities of energy, comparable to power production from hydroelectric sources (∼3 quads per year) or the 

content of energy in the Nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (∼4 quads). Considering controversial plans to expand the Nation’s nuclear capacity, presently at 10 
36

quads per year, applying purpose grown woody biomass for future potential wood 

energy is reasonable and prudent as it enhances development from forests and 

woodlands with resources from low-productivity, abandoned and under-utilized agricultural lands and from urban brownfield sites. 

So, why does woody biomass . . . around for eons . . . merit your attention and 

inclusion in a Research and Development Portfolio for the Future? Wood wins in all 

the environmental, economic and effectiveness categories. Likewise, using woody 

biomass offers a clear national strategic advantage of a clean, renewable homegrown base-load thermal energy and electricity resource and woody biomass comes 

with a significant practical advantage: a proven, reliable national logistics handing 

system. We appreciate the value of crop residues as a potential biopower feedstock, 

but we are daunted by our national absence of an efficient and effective crop residue 

collection and delivery system. On the other hand, the Nation’s forest products industry’s logistics system is mature and readily adaptable to the demands of CHP 

systems. This asset is our first research and development focus suggestion: That is, 

design, development and operational test and evaluation of appropriate regional logistics systems including integration of rail transport and strategic staging areas of 

woody biomass and crop residue feedstocks. Such systems are not ‘‘chicken or egg’’ 

situations. Integrated handling systems must be designed and tested to be commercially and operationally effective and suitable with a minimum of handling ‘‘touches.’’ In addition, integrating woody biomass with other available feedstocks, such as 

livestock nutrients, biosolids, and similar products is problematic with currently 

available handling and processing equipment. A concerted effort to advance co-mingled biomass supplies would enhance resource utilization and reduce cost. We suggest multiple regional demonstrations suited to regional feedstocks are reasonable 

and prudent. Delivery system inefficiencies as dollars per ton of biomass, manifests 

throughout the CHP conversion process. Costs saved during biomass harvest, preparation and delivery multiple as costs savings to end-users of both electrical energy 

and thermal power. 

Catalyst Renewables is constantly seeking cleaner, more reliable production of renewable base-load heat and power. Presently, we have a 37MWe facility ‘‘Onondaga 

Renewables’’ under development in Geddes, New York. Already permitted, Catalyst 

Renewables asserts based on existing state-of-the art technology that ‘‘Onondaga 

Renewables’’ will be the cleanest woody biomass generating facility in North America. Employing a Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB) boiler, the technology is widely recognized as the most efficient conversion device for combusting woody biomass residue. The BFB’s tolerance for fuels having low heating density, having significant 

moisture content, are irregularly sized and potentially contaminated with miscellaneous inert materials such as soil and rocks make the BFB the premier system for 

efficiently and reliably converting loggings residues into useful energy. 

Owing to the relatively low operating temperatures of BFBs, they intrinsically 

thermally fix lower amounts of oxides of nitrogen (NOΧ) relative to conventional 

boiler systems. Owing to intimate commingling in the fluidized bed between fuel, 

hot bed medium and oxidizing gases, combustible material is combusted to completion. Additionally, alkali absorbent material within the fluidized bed can capture 

and control potential pollutants such as sulfur and acid gases. 

However, fluidization comes with a significant, associated energy penalty-pressurized airflow. Large quantities of air are required to counter-balance the mass of the 

boiler bed and propel the mass into a fluidized state. The associated fan and blower 

power demands result in a six percent system efficiency penalty as compared to less 

environmentally beneficial traditional, fixed grate boiler systems. As applied to Onondaga Renewables project, the annual power required for air handling is the equivalent of 21,000 megawatts-hours. Therefore, we suggest a second important research 

and development focus area is the mitigation of fluidized-bed parasitic power loss. 

Specifically, biomass CHP would significantly benefit from research and development of more efficient fans, blowers and electric motor drive units for all fluidized 

bed boiler systems. Likewise, research designed to achieve pressure drop reductions 

through air conveyance ductwork would reduce associated power requirements and 

significantly improve overall system efficiency. 

Based on Catalyst Renewables’ commitment to environmentally benign heat and 

power production is the elimination of Greenhouse Gas emission. Already CO2 neutral, woody biomass is also virtually sulphur-free, which leaves emissions of oxides 

of nitrogen (NOΧ) as the next major consideration. Modern combustion installations 

often reduce NOΧ emissions, by causing a chemical reaction between NOΧ and a reagent, typically ammonia or urea. The speed and completeness of the reaction is facilitated with catalyst. Popular catalytic NOΧ reduction systems include selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) and regenerative selective catalytic reduction (RSCR). In 
37

both systems, the catalyst is a ceramic matrix, often honeycomb like, contained 

within a housing comprised of several tons of catalyst. 

Fresh catalytic units are capable of continuously reducing NOΧ by more than 98 

percent. In typical industrial/power generation application such as Onondaga Renewables, catalyst is expected to operate at high conversion efficiency for approximately 10,000 hours after which, the catalyst must be replaced and disposed of as 

a solid waste—presently, NOΧ reduction catalysts cannot be regenerated. As a third 

research and development focus, Catalyst Renewables suggests operational effectiveness and suitability at biomass conversion facilities can significantly benefit from 

research and development designed to extend the useful operating life of NOΧ reduction catalysts. Whether the deactivation mechanism be physical, thermal or chemical, the biomass conversion operator is focused on permit emission limits and 

whether the catalyst can produce the desired level of control. Catalyst recharge/replacement is a significant inefficiency; it requires the cessation of operations resulting in opportunity losses, capital expenditure for fresh catalysts, loss of un-reacted 

reagent while using aged catalyst with lower conversion efficiency, labor expense 

and disposal costs. For our Onondaga Renewables biomass facility, associated catalyst costs for typical life cycle amount to more than $1.00 per megawatt hour of generation. 

The final and most difficult research and development focus involves maintaining 

optimum chemical reaction temperatures in regenerative selective catalytic reduction (RSCR) units operated for the elimination of oxides of nitrogen (NOΧ), while 

eliminating the use of high quality fossil fuels as an energy source. Presently, distillate oil or more typically natural gas is burned to maintain flue gas temperatures 

to effect rapid and high NOΧ conversion. For a modern biomass conversion power 

plant, the heat input to a RSCR unit approaches 10 percent of the total biomass 

energy value. Although RSCR systems are designed to recapture and recycle heat 

between its multiple sub-units, the reliance on a continuous supplement of fossil 

fuel remains a substantial huddle to widespread use. Not only does RSCR auxiliary 

fuel use directly reduce the overall plant conversion efficiency, its emissions contribute to climate change emissions. Furthermore, fossil fuel use even at this relatively low level can ensnare most biomass electrical generating units in regulations 

for the control and reporting of greenhouse gases. For these reason we advocate for 

research and development energy improvements that would eliminate the need auxiliary fuel usage in regenerative-SCR NOΧ, control devices. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Subcommittee Members, thank you or the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment for the Biomass for Thermal Energy and 

Electricity: A Research and Development Portfolio for the Future hearing. I appreciated this opportunity to share Catalyst Renewables’ operational lessons learned 

and insights on this important topic.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ERIC L. SPOMER

Eric Spomer formed Catalyst Renewables (formerly known as NGP Power Corp.) 

with Natural Gas Partners VI, L.P. in 2001. Catalyst is now an independent renewable energy development company, and Eric manages a staff with expertise in 

project development, generation technologies, operations and financing. The company is focused on developing, acquiring and operating power generation facilities 

utilizing proven technologies and reliably available renewable fuels—primarily biomass and geothermal today. 

Eric earned BA and MBA degrees from Southern United Methodist University in 

1982 and 1992, respectively. From 1982 to 1986, he worked as an independent 

landman in the Rocky Mountain region. In 1986 he joined NCNB in Charlotte, NC, 

as a credit policy officer in the real estate lending group, later moving to Tampa 

and Dallas in the same capacity. After performing due diligence and transition tasks 

related NCNB’s acquisition of First Republic Bank, Eric joined the Energy Banking 

Group, where he handled large corporate credits through 1993. From 1993 to 1997, 

Eric was co-founder, COO and CFO for a natural gas marketing, gathering and 

processing company. Immediately prior to forming Catalyst Renewables, Eric was 

a principal in an energy merchant banking group, structuring transactions and assisting in bankruptcies and restructurings within the energy industry.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Spomer. Dr. Burns. 
38

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT T. BURNS, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL & BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. BURNS. I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide information today. It is a privilege to be invited. 

I was specifically asked to speak about research and development 

needs regarding the anaerobic digestion of animal manures to 

produce energy via biogas. 

Anaerobic digestion is the conversion of manure into biogas, 

which contains primarily methane, through a process that is without oxygen. It is a process that has been around for years, we have 

used for a long time and have a relatively good handle on. 

The biogas that is derived from animal manures can be used as 

a renewable energy source in various ways. It can be directly utilized on the farm for heat or other uses. It can be directly combusted in boilers to produce hot water. It can be cleaned and conditioned, what we call upgraded, and can be injected into the natural 

gas pipeline. It can be used to fuel engine generators or micro turbines for electricity generation or used as a fuel source for Stirling 

engine cycles, fuel cells and some other options. 

In addition to producing renewable energy, the anaerobic digestion of animal manures also provides some environmental options. 

It reduces odors, which in a farm setting is a very important situation. It reduces organic material, potentially reduces pathogens and 

generates marketable carbon credits for sale through the reduction 

of the base greenhouse gas emissions from those systems. The manure from dairy, swine, beef, feedlot and layer systems has been 

successfully digested in the United States and abroad, and some 

types of manure systems are more easily to install on digester systems than others. 

But if we took a look at the manure from all four of these species 

that I just mentioned: layers, beef feedlot, dairies and swine systems, and were to anaerobically digest all of that manure in the 

United States to produce electricity, we could generate over 20 billion kilowatt hours, which would represent about one half of a percent of the total United States electricity generation in 2008, or 

about 17 percent of the nine non-hydroelectric renewable provision 

in this country. 

But we have to recognize that we can’t necessarily digest all of 

that manure, we can’t get 100 percent market penetration. The 

U.S. EPA AgSTAR Program has done some very good reports that 

have looked at which systems are feasible. Specifically in the diary 

and swine industry, they believe that some of the larger systems 

are more feasible, and if we take that market share that they believe would be good candidates for digestion, this still represents 

about 6.3 billion kilowatt hours per year generated. 

The implementation of digestion within the United States has 

been very limited, however. Currently we have 135 operational manure digesters in this country. If we contrast that to the two leading countries in the world, China and Germany, China currently 

has 16,000 manure anaerobic digesters that are medium and largescale, similar to our concentrated animal feeding operation systems, or concentrated animal feeding operations I should say. Germany has approximately 5,000 systems that are manure-based or 
39

manure- and silage-based. The AD (anaerobic digestion) technology 

is proven, but what we have seen is that the AD energy production 

costs in this country are too high to compete in the competitive 

market. 

From a standpoint of going back on the grid, typically you are 

going to see wholesale rates in the United States average around 

three cents per kilowatt hour. It varies by location in the country. 

Germany is currently receiving 33 U.S. cents per kilowatt hour for 

that similar energy, and in China, nine to ten cents per kilowatt 

hour. 

The research and development needs then that I see are those 

that could reduce the cost of energy derived from manure anaerobic 

digestion systems so we can compete in the current energy market. 

Specifically, of some examples of these R&D gaps that I would like 

to share with the group, first is a low-cost biogas upgrading options. We have tried and true biogas upgrading systems, but currently the reported cost to upgrade biogas is equal to or greater 

than the current cost to purchase natural gas. So it makes it not 

economically feasible to pursue that option. 

The development of lower-cost systems, especially those that 

could be applied on farm and smaller systems, would be very useful. The development of additional direct use options would also be 

handy, as I mentioned. Because the cost for biogas upgrading is so 

high, if we could skip the upgrade costs and directly use 

unconditioned biogas, especially on the farm, it would give us a 

much more economical opportunity to do a cost avoidance situation. 

This is very basic research, but it is very practical in nature. It is 

something that would provide a lot of forward traction if we could 

come up with those systems. 

Next, the development of anaerobic digestion systems that are 

compatible with swine, deep-pit finish operations. Most of the pigs 

in this country, the majority, are finished in the Midwestern 

United States, and a majority of those finishing systems utilize 

what is called a deep-pit system. Manure is stored directly under 

the animals. Those systems are not directly compatible with anaerobic digestion systems, and the development of a system that it 

would allow the adaptation without large cost would bring that 

market sector into the game. 

The adaptation and development of high solid digestion systems 

to manure systems—there have been high solids or dry digestion 

systems in the municipal world for some time. To move those systems into manure would also provide benefits. 

Finally, the development of advanced, lower-cost NOΧ controls 

for biogas combustion and generation systems. In some parts of the 

United States, specifically in California, NOΧ limits lower than we 

can currently achieve are being written into permits with a lot of 

the technology that is out there, from a cost-effective standpoint, 

and that has limited some implementation. 

I would like to conclude by saying the number of manure digesters in the United States is increasing. I think this is primarily due 

to the fact that we see increasing grant support at the federal and 

State level to build digesters, so we are going to continue to see 

these systems come on line. We are not cost competitive in the energy market right now. This topic touches energy, environment, 
40

and agriculture, and I think it presents an excellent opportunity for 

DOE, EPA and USDA to work synergistically to help answer some 

of these gaps. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Burns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. BURNS

Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manures for Biogas 

Production 

DOCUMENT PREPARED BY

DR. ROBERT T. BURNS, P.E. AND LARA B. MOODY, P.E.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

OCTOBER 19, 2009

Overview of Manure AD 

While the anaerobic digestion of manure and other organic substrates is not a 

new technology, there has been a recent increase in interest regarding the production of renewable energy from the anaerobic digestion of manures. The primary 

drivers behind the renewed interest in biogas production from the anaerobic digestion of manures include an increased interest in producing renewable energy, the 

development and implementation of a viable carbon credit market in the U.S., and 

an increase in the availability of grant funding to support the development of renewable energy production systems, such as manure anaerobic digestion systems. 

Anaerobic digestion is a process for converting organic material into biogas, which 

is composed primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Because methane 

is an energy-rich compound, biogas can be used as a fuel. For this reason, anaerobic 

digestion is considered a means of extracting energy from animal manures and 

other organic residues. As is suggested by the word anaerobic, the digestion process 

is carried out by microorganisms that function in an environment without oxygen. 

Anaerobic digestion is used for processing and treating organic wastes from industry, sewage treatment plants, and animal feeding operations. This document will 

focus solely on its use at animal feeding operations for manure and process wastewater. 

The main gaseous emissions from anaerobic digestion of manure are CO2 and 

CH4; however, trace amounts of gaseous hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen can be present in biogas depending on the characteristics of the material being digested. The typical composition of biogas resulting from 

anaerobically digested manure is 60–70 percent CH4 and 30–40 percent CO2. Biogas 

should be at least 50 percent CH4 by volume to be effectively combusted as a fuel 

(USDA–NRCS, 2007). The volume of biogas produced for a given animal species is 

related to the organic content of the waste, the portion of organic material that 

could be converted by the digestion process, the fraction of the total manure that 

can be collected for digestion, and the conversion efficiency of the digester. 

Biogas can be used as a renewable energy source in various ways. It can be directly utilized on-farm for heat, light or other purposes, directly combusted in boilers to produce hot water, cleaned and conditioned and sold into a natural gas pipeline, used to fuel engine-generator or micro-turbines for electricity generation, or 

used as a fuel source for Stirling cycle engines or fuel cells. In each of these cases, 

the manure-derived biogas can offset fossil-fuel use, thereby providing reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions and generating marketable carbon credits. The use of 

biogas reduces methane emissions from stored manure, and this reduction from the 

base-line manure management scenarios determines the greenhouse gas emission 

credits that can be potentially marketed. It should be noted however that the 

amount of methane emitted by stored manure varies greatly with manure and storage conditions. 

In addition to producing renewable energy that can be used to replace traditional 

fossil fuels, controlled anaerobic digestion of animal manures reduces odors in manure management systems, reduces the organic strength of manures, and can potentially reduce the pathogen content of manures. Odor from stored animal manure is 

primarily the result of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and reduced sulfur com-
41

pounds that are produced due to the ongoing microbial processes in any manure or 

organic-waste storage system. In a digester with a biogas recovery system, both 

odorous (e.g., hydrogen sulfide & VOCs) and non-odorous (methane, hydrogen) compounds are collected and destroyed during combustion. The organic matter content 

in manures is reduced during anaerobic digestion; it is microbially degraded and 

converted to biogas. However, not all organic matter is converted to biogas, and the 

achievable anaerobic conversion efficiency is dependent upon digester operation and 

feedstock loading parameters. Anaerobic digestion is a nutrient-neutral process; in 

other words, you can produce energy but retain the fertilizer value of the manure. 

While the anaerobic digestion of manure does not remove macro-nutrients such as 

nitrogen and phosphorus, the digestion process does convert a portion of these nutrients into forms that are more readily available to plants. The anaerobic digestion 

process also reduces the total solids content of manures and thus makes them easier 

to land apply as fertilizer in regards to pumping and handling.

Estimated Energy Production Potential from Manure Anaerobic Digestion

Total Animal Manure U.S. 

Based on manure storage and handling methods at U.S. animal feeding operations, energy production via anaerobic digestion of animal manure is technically 

feasible at dairy, swine, beef feedlot, and caged layer facilities. At dairy, swine, beef 

feedlot, and caged layer facilities manure can easily be collected and handled as a 

feedstock for an anaerobic digestion system. Meat bird production manure (turkeys 

and broiler chickens) mixed with bedding is generally only removed from a production house at the end of one or more production cycles, therefore it was excluded 

from the calculated energy production potentials shown below. 

The energy production potential from manure anaerobic digestion can be estimated based on expected methane yield from various digested manure types based 

on their Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) content. Methane production is equated 

to the destruction of organic matter (measured as Chemical Oxygen Demand 

(COD) ), where every gram of COD converted, produces 395 mL of CH4 (at 35°C and 

1 atm) using anaerobic digestion (Speece, 1996). The energy production estimates 

presented in Table 1 are based on the on-hand inventory of animals by type in the 

U.S., the mass of organic matter (estimated via COD) excreted per day per animal, 

and the expected anaerobic digestion conversion efficiency for a given manure type. 

To provide a basis for comparison, the potential energy production from the anaerobic digestion of manure has been estimated and expressed in billions of kWh per 

year as shown in Table 1. These estimates assume that one cubic meter of methane 

contains 33,500 BTU and that engine generators with a conversion efficiency of 30 

percent are used. (Table 1).

Based on the number of dairy cows, swine, cattle on feed, and layers in the U.S. 

(USDA–NASS, 2009) and on manure excretion values (ASABE, 2006), the energy 

production potential from anaerobic digestion of manure in the U.S. is estimated to 

20.4 billion kWh per year. By comparison, in 2008 the total U.S. electricity generation was 4.1 trillion kWh (EIA, 2009). Approximately nine percent of the total U.S. 

electricity generation in the U.S. was from the renewable energy sector in 2008. 

Table 2 shows the renewable energy sources and their current electricity net generation. If all of the available manure from the U.S. dairy, swine, beef and egg-layer 

poultry industries were anaerobically digested it is estimated that 20.4 billion kWh 

could be produced per year, which would be equivalent to approximately 0.5 percent 

of the total 2008 U.S. electrical generation. The biomass renewable energy source 
42

category (consisting of waste, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, other biomass, and 

wood and derived fuels) is currently the greatest non-hydroelectric renewable energy 

source, with wind energy a close second, at 45 percent and 42 percent, respectively. 

Utilizing energy from anaerobic digestion of manure could potentially provide a significant renewable energy source, supplying as much as 16.5 percent of the current 

non-hydroelectric renewable energy capacity.

However, it must be recognized that anaerobic digestion is not a feasible option 

for every U.S. animal feeding operation. A study documented by U.S. EPA AgStar 

(2006) indicated that unit costs for construction and operation decrease significantly 

as digester system size increases. Specifically, the U.S. EPA AgStar report indicates 

that anaerobic digestion systems on facilities with milking herds larger than 500 

cows are more likely to have positive financial returns than facilities with less than 

500 cows. Similarly, confinement swine operations utilizing flush, pit recharge, or 

pull-plug pit systems with more than 2,000 animals (or deep-pit systems with more 

than 5,000 animals) are more likely to be economically feasible than operations with 

fewer animals. Using the constraints above, the U.S. EPA AgStar (2006) document 

provided an estimated electrical generation capacity of 6.3 billion kWh per year. It 

is important to note that this estimate does not include potential renewable energy 

production from U.S. beef or poultry production systems. 

The current manure based anaerobic digester electrical production capacity for the 

systems considered to be most economically feasible, can be derived from the U.S. 

EPA AgStar Anaerobic Digester Database (U.S. EPA AgStar, 2009). As of September 2009, manure based digesters in the U.S. with electricity and co-generation 

systems produced a combined total of 422 million kWh per year. Current manure 

based digesters in the U.S. utilize dairy, swine, beef, layer, and duck manure as well 

as other industry by-products as co-substrates. In the U.S., dairy and swine operations have the greatest energy production potential. Current manure-biogas-based 

electrical energy production is seven percent of the U.S. EPA AgStar potential estimated for dairy and swine production, and it is two percent of the potential when 

basing the estimate on all usable manure sources.

Dairy 

Utilizing the U.S. dairy cow numbers available from USDA–NASS (2009), the estimated energy production potential from all dairy cows is 9.6 billion kWh per year. 

However, recognizing that it may not be feasible to develop biogas recovery systems 

at all farm locations, U.S. EPA AgStar (2006) reports that there were 2,623 dairy 

farms with herd sizes greater than 500 animals with a potential energy production 

yield of 3.0 billion kWh per year. On the basis of animal numbers, California has 

the greatest energy production potential, with 963 farms maintaining herds greater 

than 500 animals (Table 3). However, on the basis of current electricity production, 
43

Wisconsin leads the country in dairy manure based anaerobic digestion energy by 

producing 30 percent of the current total anaerobic digestion based electrical production from U.S. dairies. The current U.S. dairy digester projects only produce 10.7 

percent of the ‘‘feasible’’ energy production potential reported by the U.S. EPA 

AgStar report.

Swine 

Utilizing the U.S. pork production numbers available from USDA–NASS (2009), 

the estimated energy production potential from all hogs is 5.3 billion kWh per year. 

However, recognizing that it may not be feasible to develop biogas recovery systems 

at all farm locations, U.S. EPA AgStar (2006) determined there were 4,281 swine 

operations utilizing flush, pit recharge, or pull-plug pit systems with more than 

2,000 animals (or deep-pit systems with more than 5,000 animals). Deep pit systems, common in the Midwestern U.S., would need to be modified to provide a 

means of frequent digester loading as well as a storage system for digested effluent 

before anaerobic digestion systems could be installed on these facilities. The U.S. 

EPA AgStar study (2006) estimated that it would be feasible for deep pit operations 

with greater than 5,000 head to undergo the expense necessary to modify a deep 

pit system for biogas production and recovery. On the basis of animal numbers, 

North Carolina has the greatest energy production potential (when Mid-western 

deep-pit systems are excluded), with 1,179 farms maintaining a feasible number of 

animals (Table 4). The current swine digester projects produce less than one percent 

of the ‘‘feasible’’ energy production potential.
44

Cattle on Feed 

Utilizing the U.S. beef production numbers available from USDA–NASS (2009), 

the estimated energy production potential from all cattle on feed is 3.2 billion kWh 

per year. Currently, there are two beef manure digester projects in the U.S. (located 

in Iowa and Pennsylvania) with a combined electrical generation capacity of 21.8 

million kWh per year, which is less than one percent of the production potential. 

The top five states raising cattle on feed include Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, 

and Colorado (USDA–NASS, 2009). Manure collected from cattle feed-lots for digestion needs to be relatively free from soil or other inert material. As such, concrete 

feed-lots or cattle house over slatted floors are better candidates for anaerobic digestion systems than earthen feed-lots.

Layers 

Utilizing the U.S. layer industry production numbers available from USDA–NASS 

(2009), the estimated energy production potential from all layers and pullets is 2.3 

billion kWh per year. Currently, there are three layer manure digester projects in 

the U.S. (located in Pennsylvania and North Carolina) with a combined electrical 

generation capacity of 2.4 million kWh per year, which is 0.1 percent of the production potential. The top five states in number of hens for egg production are Iowa, 

Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and California. Layer manure contains more COD 

(and thus more biogas production potential) on an as-is basis than many other manures. The lack of high-solids manure digesters, as well as concerns over ammonia 

toxicity and grit removal have limited the implementation of anaerobic digesters on 

layer farms in the U.S.

State of the Industry

Manure Digester Numbers & Trends 

There are currently 135 operational manure based digesters in the United States 

according the U.S. EPA AgStar—Guide to Operational Systems released in February, 2009. It is estimated that approximately 250 manure based anaerobic digesters have been built on U.S. farms over the past 20 years. Other countries, such as 

Germany and China, have rapidly adopted manure-based anaerobic digesters over 

the past decade, but the U.S. has been much slower to implement this technology. 

China currently has approximately 16,000 manure based digesters operating on medium and large-scale concentrated animal production facilities. The number of largescale manure-based digesters has increased six-fold in China over the past five 

years. Similarly, Germany has over 5,000 digesters in operation that co-digest manure and other substrates such as corn silage. Like China, the majority of German 

manure-based digesters have been put into operation in the last five years. Based 

on estimates made by Eurostat, The United States has approximately four times the 

number of dairy cows, beef cattle, and pigs as Germany, yet Germany has 37 times 

the number of manure based biogas plants. Likewise, China has approximately 
45

three times the number of dairy cows, beef cattle, and pigs as the United States, 

yet China has 118 times the number of manure based biogas plants as the United 

States. This data indicates that both Europe and China are ahead of the U.S. in 

implementing manure based anaerobic digestion systems for the production of renewable energy from animal manures.

Both China and Germany have government sponsored programs in place that provide a subsidized electrical purchase rate for electricity produced from manurebased anaerobic digesters. Currently, Germany pays $0.33 per kWh for electricity 

produced from manure and silage based anaerobic digestion, and China pays $0.09 

per kWh. The rate paid for electricity produced from manure-based anaerobic digestion in the United States varies by state. Some states have implemented green rates 

for electricity generated from renewable sources such as manure anaerobic digestion, but in most areas of the United States, the rate paid for electrical power produced from manure anaerobic digestion that is sold back to the utilities is the prevailing wholesale rate, which averages around $0.03 per kWh. A review of 38 U.S. 

manure-based digester case-studies suggests that the average cost to produce electricity using a manure-based anaerobic digestion system in the U.S. was approximately $0.10 per kWh in 2006 (USDA–NRCS, 2007). This data highlights the need 

to develop anaerobic digestion systems and associated technologies that can reduce 

the energy production cost using manure-based digester systems. 

Data collected by the US EPA AgStar program indicates that 78 percent of operational U.S. manure digesters are located on dairies. Additionally, 90 percent of all 

U.S. manure-based digesters are generating electricity. 

Manure based anaerobic digester numbers are increasing in the United States. 

The 2007 U.S. EPA AgStar—Guide to Operational Systems reported that there were 

42 operational manure-based digesters in the U.S. in 2007, while the 2009 U.S. EPA 

AgStar—Guide to Operational Systems reports that there are currently 135 operational systems. Additionally, the 2009 AgStar report indicates that there are currently 22 manure-based digesters under construction and an additional 65 more 

planned in the United States. This recent increase in interest in manure-based digesters is correlated to an increase in grant funding support for manure-based digester construction through State and federal programs.

Manure Anaerobic Digester Technology 

The anaerobic digestion process is well understood, and there are examples of manure digesters that have operated successfully for more than 20 years both in the 

Unites States and abroad. The overall success (defined here as systems remaining 

in operation) rate of manure anaerobic digestion has been about 50 percent over the 

past two decades in the United States. An analysis of the most recent U.S. data 

compiled in the U.S. EPA AgStar—Guide to Operational Systems indicates that approximately 250 manure anaerobic digestion systems have been constructed in the 

United States over the past 20 years. Currently, 54 percent of the total number manure digestion systems that have been constructed in the U.S. are still in operation. 

It is important to note that a lack of return-on-investment has been the driver that 

has lead to many decisions to stop the operation of existing manure-based anaerobic 

digestion systems rather than physical or technological problems with the digesters 

themselves. Like many alternative energy technologies, the development and utilization of manure anaerobic digestions systems on full-scale farming operations has 
46

historically been high-cost and high-risk compared to traditional manure management.

Technology Development Gaps 

The primary challenge to the wider adoption of manure anaerobic digestion on 

U.S. farms has been the lack of a return-on-investment from renewable energy sales 

from these systems. As such, research and development into technologies that will 

reduce the renewable energy production costs for manure-based anaerobic digestion 

systems is needed. Specific examples of research and development needs are listed 

and further explained below.

Low-cost on-farm biogas cleaning systems 

As indicated previously, biogas contains more than methane. Biogas consists of 

methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

and other components, such as small amounts of ammonia (NH4) and hydrogen 

(H2). Biogas produced from manures typically contains between 60–70 percent methane by volume. Carbon dioxide concentrations vary between 30–40 percent by volume. Biogas is also typically saturated with water vapor. Methane concentrations 

must be at least 50 percent for biogas to burn effectively as fuel. Varying levels of 

hydrogen sulfide and moisture removal are required before biogas and be utilized 

as a fuel in most applications. Carbon dioxide removal is not required for the direct 

combustion of biogas for on-farm heat or electricity production, but if a high BTU 

fuel is needed (examples would include direct sales of biogas to the natural gas pipeline and compression and storage of biogas as a vehicle fuel), CO2 removal would 

be required. Although the amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in manure-based biogas 

is small (typically measured in hundreds to thousands of parts per million), it must 

be removed prior to use for most biogas applications. If biogas will be sold to the 

pipeline as natural gas, it must be completely conditioned (moisture and CO2 removal) and cleaned (H2S) to very strict standards. 

There are proven and reliable methods for cleaning and conditioning (sometimes 

referred to as ‘‘upgrading’’) biogas. The cost of biogas upgrading is currently reported to range from $6 to $10 per MMBtu ($0.60 to $1 per therm) depending on 

the cleaning technology selected and the size of the installation. Typically, biogas 

cleaning and conditioning costs increase on a $ per MMBtu basis as installation size 

decreases. The current reported costs to clean and condition biogas currently exceed 

the commercial price of natural gas. As such, the development of lower-cost biogas 

cleaning and upgrading technologies are needed for the use or sale of upgraded 

biogas from manure-based anaerobic digestion systems to be feasible. For smaller 

on-farm applications, this need is even greater since the cost per MMBtu is typically 

greater than for larger systems.

Development of biogas Direct-Use options 

Biogas can be combusted and used to produce electricity in an engine generator 

or micro-turbine, cleaned and conditioned and sold to the natural gas pipeline, or 

used directly on the farm to produce heat. Engine generators and turbines used to 

produce electricity have been estimated to represent approximately 36 percent of the 

initial capital cost of farm-based anaerobic digestion systems (USDA–NRCS, 2007). 

Internal combustion electrical generation systems also represent a large fraction of 

the operation and maintenance cost of manure-based anaerobic digestion systems. 

The direct-use of biogas on the farm as an energy source provides a method for 

farms to produce and utilize renewable energy with a lower capital investment. Direct on-farm use options include use as a heat source for animal housing systems 

(either through direct combustion or using boiler based systems), as a heat source 

for grain drying or as a fuel for vehicles and equipment used on the farm. If biogas 

is well conditioned and cleaned, then the resulting methane can be used as a direct 

replacement for natural gas or propane on the farm. As noted previously in this document however, the current cost to upgrade biogas to natural gas quality currently 

equals or exceeds the cost to purchase natural gas. One option to avoid these currently economically unfeasible biogas upgrading costs is to develop on-farm direct 

use options that can operate on either raw or partially upgraded biogas. Examples 

would include the development of new, or modification of direct-combustion systems 

for heating animal housing or for drying grain that could reliably operate on raw 

(unconditioned and un-cleaned) biogas This is a very basic research and development need, but a very practical one.
47

AD systems for Mid-west Swine Finish systems (deep-pit systems) 

The swine finishing industry represents the second largest renewable energy production potential from anaerobic manure digestion in the U.S. Manure from U.S. 

swine finisher operations is estimated to have the potential to provide 3.53 billion 

kWh per year of renewable energy. The greatest concentration of swine finishing operations are located in the Mid-Western United States. Iowa produces more market 

hogs than any other state in the U.S., but currently no renewable energy is being 

generated from swine manure anaerobic digestion in the state. All swine systems 

types together (breeding/gestation/farrowing, nursery and finishing operations) in 

the U.S. produce less than one percent of the ‘‘feasible’’ energy production potential 

identified by the U.S. EPA AgStar program. While swine finishing operations represent the largest energy production potential within the swine sector, many finish 

operations utilize manure management systems that are not easily compatible with 

current anaerobic digestion technologies. Deep-pit manure management systems are 

the most commonly used manure management systems on Mid-western swine finish 

operations. In a deep-pit system the pigs are housed on a slatted floor and their manure is stored in an eight foot deep pit located directly under the animals. Since 

the manure management system is completely under roof, no rainfall is collected or 

comes in contact with the manure. Manure is typically stored for a one-year period 

in a deep-pit system and is then utilized as a crop fertilizer. With a deep-pit system 

there is no external manure storage, the manure is continually collected in the deep 

pit as it is excreted by the pigs since it is allowed to fall through the slatted floor. 

While this approach provides a system that is immune from weather related discharges, the lack of an external manure storage makes the application of current 

anaerobic digestion systems much more expensive. This is because the raw 

(undigested) manure and the digested effluent need to be stored separately and not 

co-mingled with current digester technologies. Research is needed to develop anaerobic digestion systems that can be utilized with current deep-pit manure management systems without the cost of constructing new external storage for digested effluent.

AD systems for Solid and Semi-Solid Manure Digestion 

Traditionally, manure anaerobic digestion has been confined to farming operations 

that generate liquid manures or liquid manure slurries. This is because traditional 

manure digester designs require manures that can be pumped and handled hydraulically. A large fraction (∼30 percent?) of manure in the U.S. that is handled as a 

solid or semi-solid. One example is layer manure: the estimated energy production 

potential from the U.S. layer industry through the anaerobic digestion of manure 

is 2.3 billion kWh per year. Currently, only 0.1 percent of this energy production 

potential from layer manure has been reached in the U.S. There are currently only 

three layer manure digester projects in the U.S. with a combined electrical generation capacity of 2.4 million kWh per year. The majority of layer manure in the U.S. 

is managed as a solid material in either high-rise or manure-belt housing systems. 

Since manure is collected on a regular schedule from the manure-belt housing systems, they would be very good candidates for anaerobic digestion systems. Additionally, solid-manure handling systems for beef and dairy are also potential candidates 

for high-solids digestion systems. Solid and semi-solid anaerobic digestion systems 

have been successfully utilized for nearly two decades on a variety of municipal organic wastes. The development of anaerobic digestion systems that are feasible to 

utilize with solid and semi-solid animal manure management systems would allow 

for the production of renewable energy from these animal production systems within 

the United States.

Advanced NOΧ controls for biogas engines and micro-turbines (CA issue) 

Dairy farms represent the largest potential for renewable energy production from 

manure-based anaerobic digestion in the United States of any given animal type. 

California is the state that has the greatest number of dairy farms with over 500 

head. The U.S. EPA AgStar program has identified dairies with more than 500 head 

as having the greatest potential for the economical application of manure digesters. 

Yet at present, only 3.3 percent of the potential renewable energy production from 

California dairies larger than 500 head is being generated. Biogas-to-energy systems 

in the central valley of California (where the majority of the larger dairies in California are located) must meet strict NOΧ emissions limits required by the California 

Air Resources Board and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District. A NOΧ

limit of nine parts per million has been established as the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) requirement for systems that combust biogas in this area. The 

engine generator systems commonly used to combust biogas and produce electricity 
48

will not meet the California nine-part per million BACT limit. NOΧ control systems 

such as selective catalytic reduction can be utilized on internal combustion biogas 

engines to meet the California BACT NOΧ limits, but the cost of adapting and utilizing currently available technology increases the cost of renewable energy production from these systems. Research into new innovative, lower-cost NOΧ control technologies as well as the development of lower-cost selective catalytic reduction systems targeted at farm-scale internal combustion generators for NOΧ removal options 

from exhaust gases generated from the on-farm combustion of biogas needs to be 

conducted. The identification and development of these systems would enable additional renewable energy generation from the dairy sector.

References

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. 2006. D384.2 Manure 

Production Characteristics. ASABE Standard, St. Joseph, MI.

Birkmose, T., H.L. Foged, J. Hinge. 2007. State of Biogas Plants in European Agriculture. Prepared by the Danish Agricultural Advisory Service for the European 

Parliament.

Burns, R.T. 2009. Current Status of Manure Anaerobic Digestion in the U.S. and 

Beyond. Presentation at the conference ‘‘Energy Production from Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure,’’ Sept. 28–29, 2009, Madison, WI.

Energy Information Administration. 2009. Renewable Energy Consumption and 

Electricity Preliminary Statistics. U.S. Department of Energy. Viewed on-line 

on 10/14/09 at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew¥energy¥

consump/rea¥prereport.html

Eurostat. 2009. European Union Agricultural Statistics. Viewed on-line on 10/6/09 

at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agriculture/data/

main¥tables

Speece, R. 1996. Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewaters. Archae Press. 

Nashville, TN.

United States Department of Agriculture—National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

2009. United States Agricultural Commodity Statistics. Viewed on-line on 10/

6/09 at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/indexbysubject.jsp?Pass¥

group=Livestock+%26+Animals

United States Environmental Protection Agency—AgStar. 2009. Anaerobic Digester 

Database. Viewed on-line on 10/16/09 at: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/operational.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency—AgStar. 2006. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems: A guide to Identifying Candidates for OnFarm and Centralized Systems. EPA–43008–06–004. Viewed on-line on 10/14/

09 at: http://www.epa.gov/agstar/resources.html

United States Department of Agriculture—Foreign Agricultural Service. 2009. Global Commodity and Products Markets. Viewed on-line on 10/6/09 at: http://

www.fas.usda.gov/commodities.asp

United States Department of Agriculture—Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

2007. Technical Note No. 1, An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems on U.S. Livestock Production Facilities.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROBERT T. BURNS

Robert T. Burns is a tenured Professor of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at Iowa State University with a joint extension/research appointment in the 

area of environmental management of agricultural systems. He holds a B.S. in Agricultural Engineering, a M.S. in Environmental Engineering and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Tennessee. He is a licensed Professional Engineer 

(P.E.). His research focuses on animal waste management and includes work air 

emissions monitoring and mitigation from animal production facilities, anaerobic digestion, solids separation and phosphorus recovery. His area of extension specialization is the design of animal waste management systems and nutrient management 

planning for livestock and poultry operations. Robert currently leads a national 

Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning (CNMP) certification program for 

USDA Technical Service Providers (TSPs). Robert has developed and lead 33 national and international training courses dealing with animal waste management 

topics. Dr. Burns manages the ISU Animal Waste Management Laboratory and 

leads a 25-person Animal Waste Management team composed of full-time staff, 

graduate students and undergraduate students. Dr. Burns’ Animal Waste Manage-
49

ment team is completely funded by external competitive grants, and has average annual competitive external support of over $1.5 million per year. 

Dr. Burns has sixteen years of experience working on environmental and agricultural engineering projects. During his professional career Robert has published over 

200 technical publications dealing with animal waste and air quality management, 

served as PI or Co-PI on 53 funded grants totaling over 6.8 million dollars and 

served as a major or co-major professor to 24 Master’s and doctoral students. Prior 

to joining the faculty at Iowa State University, Robert was on the faculty at The 

University of Tennessee for nine years where he served as the Water Quality and 

Waste Management specialist for the Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service. 

From May 15–November 15, 2006 Dr. Burns served a six-month assignment as a 

National Conservation Engineer within the Conservation Engineering Division of 

the Washington, DC National Headquarters office of the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. In this position he worked on alternative manure treatment 

systems and USDA Technical Service Provider Issues. 

Dr. Burns has worked on environmental and agricultural engineering projects and 

other consulting services with the USEPA, U.S. AID, USDA–NRCS, USDA–FAS, 

The Commonwealth Development Corporation of Great Britain, America’s Clean 

Water Foundation, Conestoga Rovers and Associates, Thoreau Environmental Capital and numerous State departments of agriculture and environmental protection. 

Robert has worked on projects in Armenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Romania, 

The Democratic Republic of Zambia, The Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom. Robert has designed over 350 animal manure management, irrigation and 

water supply systems. In 2003 Robert received the Nolan Mitchell Extension Worker 

Award from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers for distinguished educational programming in the areas of water quality and animal waste management. 

In 2008 Dr. Burns was appointed to the USDA National Agricultural Air Quality 

Task Force for a two-year term. This task force is charged with advising the U.S. 

Secretary of Agriculture with respect to the role of USDA to provide oversight and 

coordination related to agricultural air quality. Robert also serves as the Chair of 

the National Pork Producers Council, Pork Air Science Policy Advisory Committee 

(PASPAC) where he assists the U.S. swine industry to review and best utilize current scientific information in regards to air emissions from pork production systems.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Burns. An outstanding series 

of information from all of you. Thank you very much, and I will 

recognize myself for five minutes to ask questions and will be followed by my colleagues here. 

Thanks again to our honored guests. We appreciate your presence and wish you a good day and an enjoyable visit. Thank you 

very much. 

METHANE AS A GREENHOUSE GAS

Dr. Burns, I have a question—I have got a lot of questions for 

all of you, but let me just start with this one since you just spoke. 

It is my understanding that methane is a more potent greenhouse 

gas by quite a significant factor relative to CO2. I don’t know the 

answer to this, and maybe you don’t, either, but I am going to ask 

it. In the energy bill that has been kicked around in the House and 

what is working in the Senate, does reduction of methane through 

the kind of process you have described, do you get a greater credit 

for that than you would if you were reducing CO2 by volume? I 

don’t know that that is the case, but it seems like it might ought 

to be. 

Dr. BURNS. Let me see if I can rephrase your question to make 

sure I understand. Methane is recognized, depending on which protocol you are looking at and which time scale between——
50

Chairman BAIRD. You need to hit your mic again or move it. Is 

it lit up? There you go. 

Dr. BURNS. Yes, sir. Methane is recognized to be 21 to 23 times 

more potent than CO2, depending upon which protocol and time 

scale. Now, if I can rephrase the question, are you asking is the 

combustion of methane—obviously when we combust methane we 

also generate some CO2 in that process, and if I understand you 

correctly, you are asking if we receive a net gain from the combustion of methane as compared to the CO2 that is emitted from the 

process? 

Chairman BAIRD. That is part of the question, and then the other 

question would be this. If we are not in some way using the methane to generate energy, presumably some of that is just being released into the atmosphere. So should you get, under any of the energy bills that are moving, do you think you should get credit for 

reducing the methane that is going into the atmosphere through 

your kind of processes? 

Dr. BURNS. Yes, and I think the answer is yes, you should get 

credit, but it has to be recognized that the credit increment is tied 

to what was the existing system, i.e., if there had not been a digester at this location, how much methane would be generated? 

Chairman BAIRD. Right. 

Dr. BURNS. Because once the anaerobic digestion process is put 

in, we are going to greatly increase the methane production. So it 

is that differential between the two that should be credited. 

HOW DOE CAN DIVERSIFY ITS BIOMASS PROGRAMS

Chairman BAIRD. Got you. Very, very good point. One of the 

things that strikes me as I listen to the testimony of all of you really is that we have got this remarkable resource that can be used 

in a number of ways, and I really appreciate that. I think our staff 

has done an outstanding job of giving us diverse perspectives on 

ways things can be used. But as I look at the biomass program in 

DOE—and maybe I am wrong and maybe someone can correct me, 

or if not, help us figure out what we ought to do—but as I look at 

the biomass program, biopower, really like we are talking about 

today, it has really been neglected. It has mostly been fuels, and 

mostly frankly ethanol. I mean, we just put so much effort into 

that and it seems to me at the expense of much of what you are 

doing. 

And so what I would like to ask your comments—you have all 

actually given excellent suggestions for things DOE could conceivably do better. It doesn’t seem like it is being done now. It is almost solely focused on ethanol. Do you have some comments—if 

this committee or this Congress were to direct DOE and say, you 

know, ‘‘we want you to give more attention to biopower,’’ in any of 

the forms you all have talked about, how would that best be accomplished in your interaction with DOE? Some of you work for some 

of the labs that get funding for DOE. I don’t want to put you in 

a difficult spot there, but from your professional expertise, how 

would that—how could we best make sure that we are broadening 

the portfolio of possible uses of biomass? And I will just open that 

up to whomever wants to take a stab. Mr. Spomer, you look ready 

to go, so fire away. 
51

Mr. SPOMER. I think the first thing that generally exists today 

is there is a real bias against things that burn, in whatever form, 

whether it is gasification or direct combustion. Ultimately there is 

combustion of wood. If we can get past that bias and start to focus 

on the fact that, according to USDA, from the forest, there is 386 

million bone-dry tons a year from the forest alone. When you add 

in all these other factors, you start to get into 1.2 billion tons per 

year of biomass. We are talking about eliminating, whether it is 

biofuels or biopower, that would be a huge portion of our national 

need for power and for fuel. So first we have got to get the recognition that this is good for the forest. The methane question is an excellent one. If this stuff lies and rots on the forest floor or whether 

it is agricultural waste that is lying in the ditch, it is going to convert to 50 percent methane, 50 percent CO2. By combusting it, we 

may be carbon-neutral, but we are significantly greenhouse gas 

positive. The key thing is to use technology and advances in technology and support advances in technology to improve the efficiency of the conversion so we can compete economically. 

Chairman BAIRD. And as a businessman, and I don’t want to put 

words in your mouth, but from what I am hearing, it sounds like—

would it be fair to say that the bulk of the research that has been 

coming out of DOE in terms of how to deal with biomass as an energy source—has not been particularly beneficial to the kind of utilization that you do in your industry? 

Mr. SPOMER. Almost none. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. And here is an industry that is using 

wood products constructively and has revitalized a rural economy. 

Mr. James, if you wish to comment on that, please? 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It might be instructive for 

the Subcommittee to ask DOE to confirm or correct my understanding—and this is from hearing other scientists—that the combustion of biomass is a more efficient conversion of that material 

into energy than using it to make liquid fuels. I am not one to suggest we should not make liquid fuels with that material, but we 

should also be striving for, where we can, maximum utilization of 

maximum benefit. 

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that some investigation might be worthy. We are very fortunate to have a technology that is in demand internationally, and I can tell you that 

the Europeans, and particularly the British here lately, because 

they have developed some new incentives to use dedicated biomass 

if you will, are scouring around the United States locking up our 

biomass in long-term contracts. Now, I don’t want to hurt our business opportunities, but as a citizen I am concerned that there could 

be a point in the future where we have developed our technologies 

and we have committed ourselves with the appropriate climate legislation and we find out that our feedstocks are being exported in 

other places. I would urge that the Subcommittee might ask for 

some research in that particular area. 

Chairman BAIRD. Outstanding points. And you know, you said it 

more delicately than I might, but one of the sad things about I 

think the ethanol emphasis has been, and my understanding of the 

research on that, our net energy output is negative on that after 

a whole lot of work and investment. I mean, with corn-based eth-
52

anol at any rate, not to mention all the food impacts and the fertilizer and the water. 

I am particularly intrigued also, Mr. James, by this issue of onsite processing of materials. I have got timber communities now 

that have 20 to 25 percent or more unemployment. They have just 

been devastated, and the idea that when you go out there with 

your skidders and everything else, all the logging equipment that 

you could take out along as part of the contract, as part of the bid, 

take out equipment to process wood fuels in some fashion—it 

makes an awful lot of sense to me, especially with the economic implications and the energy implications. So I applaud you for that. 

Anyone else want to talk about this issue of DOE and ways they 

could maybe diversify the portfolio in a different way? 

Mr. SPOMER. Just one thing. I would like to give DOE some credit for. They supported our effort at developing plantation fuel purpose-grown biomass in New York. We have done some interesting 

work with the State University in New York, Environmental 

Science and Forestry College, on purpose-grown dedicated woody 

biomass. I think that that, in addition to the existing portfolio that 

was described, could really make a difference. It takes fallow farmlands, otherwise not useful. This is not a competitor with food. It 

is an opportunity for people to get a revenue stream, and that is 

particularly good because it acts as a carbon sink in addition to 

being carbon-neutral on the generating side. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Inglis for five minutes. I apologize to my colleagues. I went over a little bit. 

ACTIVITIES AT AGRI-TECH PRODUCERS, LLC 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So show and tell, Mr. 

James. Do you have any of the product with you? I was hoping so, 

because I saw it in Spartanburg, and I thought that—will you get 

it, Katrina? 

Chairman BAIRD. Is this product placement? 

Mr. INGLIS. Yeah, it is. Have you seen what it looks like? 

Chairman BAIRD. Has anybody got a match? 

Mr. INGLIS. A pipe might be appropriate. If you could light it in 

a pipe—maybe not. 

Chairman BAIRD. We don’t deal with that in this committee. 

Mr. INGLIS. So anyway, it is really interesting. 

Chairman BAIRD. Sometimes people on this committee, I think 

they have been smoking something. So we are going to leave that. 

Mr. INGLIS. I just thought my colleagues would be interested in 

seeing it because I got to see it in Spartanburg. It is a very interesting product. You can see how it could be fed immediately into 

the—mixed with the coal, right? That is what we are looking at 

here? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, Congressman. I have given you two samples, 

one is torrefied wood chips, and the other is semi-torrefied or a 

mixture of torrefied——

Chairman BAIRD. You have not mixed up Dr. Burns’ substance 

with this? Before I pass this down, I want to——

Mr. JAMES. Although we are exploring whether the process can 

be helpful there. 

Dr. BURNS. Yeah, sure. 
53

Mr. JAMES. But you also have some torrefied switchgrass condensed into a pellet—excuse me, a briquette. So you have got two 

forms of samples there. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. So this is efficient to burn as an 

energy source? 

Mr. JAMES. It is extremely efficient, much more efficient than untreated wood or cellulosic material. 

Chairman BAIRD. And would you burn this—I am sorry. I am 

jumping into your time. 

Mr. INGLIS. No, it is all right. You can smell—it smells sort of 

like charcoal or something like that. 

Chairman BAIRD. Pass this down to Roscoe. He will be wanting 

some of this on his farm. 

Mr. INGLIS. So yeah, by looking at it, you can see how easily it 

could be co-fed with coal, I guess, because it has sort of the look 

and feel of coal, pulverized coal. It has less energy density I guess 

because it is less dense stuff. 

And also, I have got one of these brochures, I will show it to the 

Chairman, of what it looks like out in the field, the machine out 

in the field so that you can basically at the location get rid of some 

of the water and thereby reduce the transportation costs if you 

move it on to where it is going to be burned, right? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, the picture you are referring to is the prototype 

on campus at North Carolina State University. And we are developing, with the help of Kusters Zima, your constituent company in 

your district, larger units that are fixed units that will be placed 

close to forest areas or agriculture areas. But thanks to DOE support, we are also looking at developing mobile units which will be 

on wheels, we hope, and be able to actually go from logging deck 

to logging deck, maybe from community to community, in order to 

process material as close to the point of harvest as possible. 

Mr. INGLIS. It is very interesting. 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, you and your Committee Members or 

Subcommittee Members are certainly welcome to come and take a 

look at the prototype as some point in time if you choose to do so. 

We would be glad to make arrangements for you. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. 

Mr. INGLIS. Do you have any wipes for everybody up here now? 

They have got it all over their hands. The Chairman was just wiping his hands all over my papers, I want the record to show. Anyhow, I guess I asked for it. So it is very helpful. 

LANDFILL BIOGAS PRODUCTION

Dr. Burns, the BMW in Spartanburg, South Carolina, gets more 

than 50 percent of its power from a trash dump, takes some methane, runs it through a 10-mile pipeline and powers north of 50 percent of the power needs of the plant. And the interesting thing 

about that, there are a number of wonderful things about it, but 

one of them is that they have speculated in the future perhaps 

rather than the ‘‘not in my backyard’’ (NIMBY) principle, they 

might actually be saying, here, put your trash right here in my industrial development. I want a big trash dump right here. So instead of a 10-mile pipeline, we have a half-a-mile pipeline to a 

bunch of industrial facilities that are using. Similar problem I 
54

guess for siting hog farms and things like that. If they become an 

energy producer, then it is less hard to site those, I suppose, right? 

Dr. BURNS. There is certainly an economy of scale that is associated with energy production through anaerobic digestion. Landfill 

biogas production systems are typically much larger in terms of the 

generating capacity than manure systems would be. My understanding is landfill systems are currently—the electricity generated 

from those systems is probably done so at a cost that is a third or 

so of the cost of what we are currently seeing as generation costs 

from manure digestion systems. Again, they are larger systems, 

typically three to four megawatt generating capacity, and they are 

very predictable systems. With the landfill operation, the materials 

there, it is in tune, and there is a very predictable life expectancy. 

You are going to be able to draw a curve that says what the gas 

yield is going to be. It is going to exponentially come up, it is going 

to level off, it is going to decay. So you know that yield. And there 

are other factors that make manure digestion a little tougher. I 

mean, animals are not coming in and out of the landfill. There is 

not potential changes in your biomass generation capacity in that 

landfill because the gas yield in the landfills occur generally after 

they are closed, and then you yield that gas toward energy. 

So they have been very successful. It is a model that can be 

looked at but there are some differences; primarily scale, I think, 

would be the one that would be different from what we see in ag 

systems with manure. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. Dr. Bartlett. 

THE ENERGY NEEDS OF BIOPOWER FUEL PRODUCTION

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. You mentioned that you get more energy from burning this than if you burned wood. But unless we are 

going to suspend the law of thermodynamics, you won’t get more 

energy from it than you would have gotten if you burned that wood 

because you have some energy invested in creating this product. So 

really, you are trading convenience for energy because you are 

going to get less energy out of your wood eventually if you go 

through this process and then burn it than you would have gotten 

if you had burned it initially. So you are trading energy for convenience here, are you not? 

Mr. JAMES. Congressman, of course, you are correct. However, 

the systems, boilers and otherwise, that burn material, burn more 

efficiently with higher BTU and less moist material. There is a lot 

of energy lost if you were to burn greenwood. You have got to use 

a lot of energy to evaporate the water off of that, and you are sacrificing some of the efficiency of your boiler——

Mr. BARTLETT. So that helps offset your loss here? 

Mr. JAMES. Exactly. 

FOREST HEALTH

Mr. BARTLETT. Let me ask you a question about forest health. 

Absent fires, how does removing biomass from forests make them 

healthier? If we look at a tropical rainforest, if you remove the biomass, you have removed essentially all of the nutrients because 
55

they are all in the cycle of life. That has to be somewhat true in 

our temperate forests, although nowhere near to the extent of the 

tropical rainforest. I am having trouble understanding how removing biomass, absent fires, how removing biomass makes the forest 

healthier. 

Mr. SPOMER. I can use the example of upstate New York and 

really the whole northeastern, mixed northern hardwood forests. 

Absent an active—typically what happens in New York, for example, absent a low-grade biomass market, loggers—there is active 

logging going on up there. They are taking maple, the cherry, the 

best wood, and with no market for anything else, they take that 

out, turn it into furniture, tabletops, and they leave the stuff that 

you really don’t want, diseased trees, unmerchantable timber, 

sometimes non-indigenous species, and then they also leave the 

junk on the floor. And what happens in the area around, say, our 

Lyonsdale plant, is that there is active forest thinning because 

there is a market for the low-grade material. When pulp and paper 

was active, there was a market for that low-grade material. The 

pulp industry has basically dried up in the north, and absent a 

market for that, you have got a changing nature of the native forest in New York and in Maine and in other places, more so in New 

York. And those forests tend to be less healthy——

Mr. BARTLETT. Less healthy? You mean that they don’t have the 

kind of trees growing there that you would like to have growing? 

So when you take the trash trees out as biomass, that permits the 

maples and cherries and so forth to be more competitive? 

Mr. SPOMER. Right, and also thinning the forest allows new 

growth. In a mono-aged forest where you have got a big canopy and 

you are not getting new growth, you are not as efficient at consuming CO2. A forest fires is nature’s way of fixing that problem. 

It is not a big problem in the Northeast where it is particularly 

damp. It is worse in my home State of Colorado where the whole 

forest can go up in a hurry. Being able to thin the forest and allow 

new growth, diverse growth, is good. The Audubon Society tells us 

it is good for habitat, and the Department of Environmental Conservation says it is critical for forest health in New York. 

Mr. BARTLETT. That helps me understand what you mean by forest health. It doesn’t mean you are growing more forest, it means 

you are growing the kind of forest you would like to grow. 

PROTECTING TOPSOILS AND SOIL QUALITY

I have questions for the second round, and let me just introduce 

it now, in that I have a huge concern for sustainability. Even with 

no-till farming, for every bushel of corn we grown in Iowa, three 

bushels of topsoil go down the Mississippi River, and topsoil is topsoil because it has organic material in it. We can rape our soils for 

a few years, and then we will not have the quality of soils—we are 

fighting very hard today to maintain the fertility of our soils. I am 

having trouble understanding how we can take very much biomass 

off our soils and still maintain that fertility to the soils. 

Let us come back for a second round to a discussion of this because I think that experiments in sustainability are the most needed experiments in this field. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
56

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. I am going to go 

ahead and let you follow up on that if you like because I went over 

a little bit as did Mr. Inglis, and I think it is an important line of 

questioning. So if you are interested, let us follow up on that. 

Mr. JAMES. Congressman, if I could respond to your earlier question about forest health, the natural course is for a forest to have 

fires every several years which thin out the underbrush. That is 

the naturally occurring thing. 

Mr. BARTLETT. You are from what state? 

Mr. JAMES. I am from South Carolina. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. That is different than up here. I cannot remember a forest fire up here. It just doesn’t happen in our temperate forests, at least none that I am familiar with. Once in a 

while you have a little dry litter burn, but a real forest fire, we just 

don’t have them. I never heard of a forest fire here. It is really different than your pine forests down there and in the west. We don’t 

have them here. 

Mr. JAMES. My point is, to go onto forest health issues, to the extent there is a lot of underbrush and small diameter trees that are 

crowded against each other, the rapidity with which disease and infestation spreads in the forest is accelerated. So being able to mechanically thin those, since in most forests we live and we run 

highways through and we do other things that don’t allow prescribed burns to take place, mechanical thinning is what is happening to the extent there is budget for it. 

For example, the Forest Service has a limited budget, and one 

of the reasons that they have developed the Woody Biomass Utilization Program was to try to generate a cash stream off of that biomass that would allow them to treat additional acreage in the forest. 

The other thing I would say is that the process that we have, the 

living parts of the tree, which are the bark and the leaves, tend to 

turn into a fine powder whereas the corpus of the tree turns—you 

know, when you feed chips in, you get chips out. That fine powder 

tends to have more minerals in it, and we are looking to see whether that can be a biochar or soil application material that could go 

back into the forest or back on the farm to enhance soil health. 

Chairman BAIRD. Do other panelists want to address the broader 

issues of soil quality and the loss thereof in regard to biomass? Dr. 

Burns. 

Dr. BURNS. Yes, sir. I think it is an excellent comment, and I 

would just like to comment on when we look at manure anaerobic 

digestion to point out that those manurers will still be land applied 

as fertilizers. Digestion, it is important to understand, is a nutrient 

neutral process. The amount of nutrients removed through the anaerobic digestion process for the obligate requirement of the microbes is very, very small. So those macro nutrients are going to 

be utilized by crops. The nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and the potassium (K) are still going to be there, and farmers that utilize anaerobic digesters are still going to have to have the same land base 

for their nutrient management plan, and that manure is still going 

to go to the field. It is true, however, that it will go to the field 

with less carbon content than it contains prior to digestion. For 

beef and dairy systems, we can expect to see 30 to 40 percent of 
57

that organic carbon being converted over to methane and CO2 in 

the process and for swine and layers, we are more in the 60 to 70 

percent range. But those nutrients from a fertility standpoint will 

still be there, and the benefits of the fiber, and a lot of that carbon 

is still going to be there from building the soil till. 

MANURE METHANE PRODUCTION

So in that system, we are still going to see manure go into the 

ground as a fertilizer and be utilized that way. 

Mr. BARTLETT. If manure is spread on the field and you go 

through sheet composting, there is little or no methane produced 

by that? 

Dr. BURNS. In a composting process——

Mr. BARTLETT. If it is sheet composting, you spread the manure 

on the field so that there is no anaerobic activity going on. It is 

very thin, then you shouldn’t get methane, should you? 

Dr. BURNS. No, sir, if we keep the system aerobic in nature, we 

will not generate methane. It will go through aerobic respiration. 

It will generate CO2. There will still be carbon loss there and also 

unfortunately with that aerobic process, we are probably going to 

lose nitrogen out of the system as gaseous ammonia. 

Mr. BARTLETT. You have to incorporate it into the soil to avoid 

that? 

Dr. BURNS. Incorporation of solid manures is recommended to 

avoid that gaseous ammonia loss, yes, sir. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett, important line of 

questioning, and I think especially regarding what we have seen 

with ethanol which you have talked about with great eloquence in 

the past in this committee. 

SITING BIOMASS RESEARCH WITHIN DOE 

Continuing on the theme I began earlier, it seems apparent in 

a number of areas of additional research and government activity—

whether it is intellectual property or targeted research on catalysts 

and a host of areas where we could be doing things—if DOE were 

to spend, give more attention to biopower broadly, from your gentlemens’ perspective, what office of DOE would be technically 

equipped to do that? Where would we best go within DOE to make 

this happen? Mr. James and then Dr. Stevens? 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I will try to take a stab at that. The 

answer to your question is I am not exactly sure. However, the Office of Biomass certainly comes to mind. If I could also go back to 

an earlier point that you made, we participated with others in our 

region in one of the last solicitations for a biomass supply chain, 

and as I recall, the language in the solicitation did not exclude 

making solid fuels, but there may have been a bias toward liquid 

fuels. I think your staff might wish to analyze the awards that 

came out of that solicitation. It may make sense for whatever part 

of DOE that is going to take on this assignment to have a very specific solicitation for solid fuels or some other types of activity that 

supports some of the testimony that you have heard today. So 

there is not an ambiguity and then I guess some opportunity for—
58

I don’t want to use the word bias but some opportunity for not fully 

exploring that opportunity. 

Chairman BAIRD. And to follow up, Mr. James, obviously you are 

in the industry that would deal more with the solid rather than the 

liquid. Would there be a counter-argument that would say, well, 

the reason they are biased, if there was a bias, the reason they favored—let us not deal with predilection, but maybe they just made 

an empirical scientific judgment that there is more bang for the 

buck, so to speak, or better return on investment in liquid fuels. 

Is that the case or do you think it was more—I am not trying to 

put you on the spot, but the question for me is, we should be looking at all our options, but we have to look critically at those options. 

Mr. JAMES. I think we should look at all options, and we support 

all options. However, the understanding that I have from the scientists that I am talking to, suggest that direct combustion, whether treated or untreated, of biomass gets more—you end up with 

more energy on a net basis than you would by converting it into 

a liquid fuel. 

Chairman BAIRD. Partly because of Dr. Bartlett’s repeated observation of the second law of thermodynamics. 

Mr. JAMES. I am sure he is right again on that, sir. 

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you. So your point would be, whichever 

branch of DOE is focused on this, we want it to be a focus that it 

is not just in name only and we are going to go right back to the 

liquid results? 

Mr. JAMES. The other thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the 

electric utilities and other coal users are great collaborators, and 

we have had, you know, good luck in working with a variety of utilities. So there is an opportunity to leverage some of the users, including coal suppliers, if you will, into this process because we all 

need to figure out, how do we work together? How do we use existing distribution and supply chains that are already in place in 

order to make a system work? 

So I think if a solicitation could be a little more specific in our 

case on solid fuels and encourage collaboration between users and 

suppliers and other members of that value and supply chain, then 

we could come up with a very robust solution. 

Chairman BAIRD. It will be my intention following this hearing 

to actually inquire precisely of these kind of issues of DOE in writing. We will drop them a note. 

Dr. Stevens, I want to applaud PNNL for its work on forest products, obviously given our region, and PNNL has really been a pioneer. 

What insights can you offer on this question? 

Dr. STEVENS. Well, I am not in the position to recommend where 

you put your money, but I would simply comment that Office of 

Biomass Program has had active biopower programs several years 

ago. And several of the people who worked on those then are still 

there. The expertise is resident, and the capability exists there 

today for applications-oriented work, and of course Office of 

Sciences are capable of doing very basic work as well. As a recommendation it would be very useful to bring together the two to 
59

solve both the very fundamental problems and the applications 

problems in a meaningful way. 

Chairman BAIRD. That is very, very useful. Maybe we should 

move the first presidential caucus to a timber state, and we would 

have a different focus on the products. 

Anyone else wish to comment on this? Mr. Inglis? 

BIOPOWER IN URBAN AREAS

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Dr. Burns, I 

am very interested in what you are talking about and how it may 

apply to human waste as well as animal waste. I was in Mumbai 

a while ago, and we were traveling through the city at 2:00 or 3:00 

in the morning, and I really thought if we struck a match we might 

have exploded. And we were told, and I don’t know if it is correct, 

but we were told it is because they discharge the effluent into the 

bay at that time of day. So it was 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, and 

it was just an amazing amount of methane aroma, having grown 

up on the coast and knowing what marsh gas is like. So it really 

struck me that a country like that that has so many people and has 

to come up with some way of coping with that waste problem, if 

you can turn waste into something good, it sure is a win-win proposition. Actually, while there we visited a place where they are 

doing that. They are taking food waste from a dormitory and turning it into methane that then powers the kitchens. And I asked 

them about actually not the scalability, it is the opposite of 

scalability, keeping it small enough that you could actually do a 

neighborhood that way, and they said that is the challenge. You 

don’t want to, in the case of such a system, you don’t want to build 

it so large because you lose some of the benefits. If you can do it 

much more locally, you have this great benefit of being able to have 

a relatively small system that takes a great deal of waste and then 

turns it into something useful. 

Is that something that, as we develop things on the farm, is that 

a possibility of moving into the city with those kind of lessons 

learned on the farm? 

Dr. BURNS. I think there are great examples around the world 

of where that has already been done, and I think whether you are 

going to see that implemented or not is going to depend on where 

you are in the world, i.e., what is the relative cost of energy. For 

example, the largest number of manure digesters by far are in the 

class of what we call ‘‘domestic digesters’’ where human excrement, 

not soil, is mixed with household waste and some animal manure. 

Specifically right now there are over 37 million of these household 

digesters in China, and they have been growing significantly because the central government of the People’s Republic of China has 

put a great amount of funding into supporting their construction. 

I have done work with these systems outside of Tianjin and some 

watershed projects where they are using them to try to reduce 

pathogens and so forth. But what you see is it is a very quicklyadopted system, and the biogas that is generated is used for heat, 

for light in these systems. India has four million of these systems. 

Nepal has 140,000. You see them in locations, again, where the relative cost of energy, if you were to look at the cost of, say, purchasing propane or natural gas in those communities, versus the 
60

cost of going out and picking up wood to build a fire in the corner 

of your home, those costs are such that it makes a lot of sense to 

generate biogas. If we look at the relative cost of energy in this 

country, you don’t see those systems adopted because energy from 

a relative cost, from our income, is so low that we are going to purchase it rather than pick up wood to cook. 

There are, though, examples of a lot of biogas being generated 

from municipal wastewater treatment plants in this country. It is 

very common, it has been done for years, it is very successful. 

Those facilities, however, are typically aerobic treatment plants because, recall that we mentioned anaerobic digestion is nutrient 

neutral, so we will go through the tertiary treatment process and 

use an aerobic step where we will biologically remove nutrients, 

and it may also be with some combinations of some chemical steps 

as well. But then the solids that are generated off that other primary clarifiers are typically digested anaerobically, and that biogas 

yield will then be converted through either IC (internal combustion) engines or microturbines into electricity production. So we do 

see it come from that standpoint. 

Mr. INGLIS. Interesting. Anyone else want to add anything to 

that? If not, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Bartlett. 

THE SUSTAINABILITY OF BIOPOWER SOURCES

Mr. BARTLETT. Methane is the coal miner’s black banth, is that 

true? Explosive gas in coal mines is methane, is it not, which is 

odorless, isn’t it? So the odor you get from the swamp is not the 

methane. It is something that goes along with the methane. Our 

irrational exuberance over bioenergy has resulted in two bubbles 

which have burst. The first was the hydrogen bubble, and nobody 

talks about hydrogen anymore because I think they finally figured 

out that hydrogen is not an energy source. You will always get less 

energy out of the hydrogen than it took to make the hydrogen. The 

second bubble that broke was the corn ethanol bubble, and I and 

one of my staff people did some early, back-of-the-envelope calculations and reached essentially the same conclusions that the National Academy of Sciences reached. They said if we turned all of 

our corn into ethanol, every bit of it, and discounted for fossil fuel 

input, it would displace 2.4 percent of our gasoline. They said you 

could save more gas than that by tuning up your car and putting 

air in the tires. They further said that if we took all of our soybeans and converted them into soy diesel, a more efficient process 

by the way than corn ethanol, that this would displace 2.9 percent 

of our diesel. Now, most of our arable land, our farmland, is planted to corn and soybeans. So just as an old dirt farmer being very 

practical, when I note that if we took all of our corn and converted 

it to ethanol, discounting for fossil fuel input, you would displace 

2.4 percent of our gasoline, and if you did the same thing for all 

of our soybeans for soy diesel, you would displace 2.9 percent of our 

diesel, and noting that corn and soybeans are grown on almost all 

of our land that is good enough to grow crops on, I am wondering 

sustainably how much we should really expect to get from our 

lands that are not good enough to grow either of these crops on. 

I just think that the third bubble that is going to break is the cel-
61

lulosic ethanol bubble. I think we will get something there. I think 

we will get nothing like the potential that many people feel. Am 

I wrong? 

Mr. SPOMER. This is a topic that I know something about, and 

you have asked a number of questions in there. First, on the purpose-grown portion of it, let us use the State of New York, for example. We are looking at getting five bone-dry tons per acre on 

about, up to an available two million acres of fallow farmland that 

is perfect for fast-growing woody biomass willow. And that is a 

copus crop. We don’t till the soil. You will go through 21 years of 

life before you have to replace it, harvesting every three years. 

That five tons per acre—let us assume we just get a million of it 

planted—is 600 million, potentially, based on a process that we are 

working on, roughly 600 million gallons of year of petroleum products, not ethanol. The conversation, as I used to say, if it was easy 

to turn wood into alcohol, some guy in Tennessee would have figured out how to do it a long time ago. 

The fact is, though, it is not a stretch to turn it into hydrocarbons, and it is being done, it can be done. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Now, what about sustainability, though? 

Mr. SPOMER. Well, the sustainability side of it is your harvest 

plan. Are you taking biomass, which by definition in a forest sense 

is the waste, not the—you never go down and cut a tree down just 

for biomass in the Northeast. They are going to go in and do their 

normal logging thinning process——

Mr. BARTLETT. But if you leave that on, those trimmings, in the 

forest, it then contributes to the humus in the forest and therefore 

the nutrients which helps additional trees grow. At least to some 

extent, our forests have to be a bit like tropical rain forests. When 

you remove the tropical rain forest, you have laterite soils that 

bake as hard as a brick and you have essentially no good agricultural land. 

Mr. SPOMER. Okay, and the worst thing you can do to the forest 

is put a farm on it. The best thing you can do for a forest is keep 

it thin because for example, in New York, it takes up to 60 years 

to grow a harvestable tree. You have got 60 years of leaf shed from 

that tree that is putting nutrients back into the soil. When you 

take down a typical northern hardwood, up to 50 percent of that 

tree is not going to be turned into furniture. That remaining top 

and limb is going to rot in the form that you would see it in the 

forest, and it is not going to necessarily turn into nutrients. It is 

going to be turning into methane and CO2. That is the stuff that 

we clean up. Those leaves that shed every year are going back to 

put nutrients back into the soil. 

So from a sustainability perspective, it is at least demonstrated 

in New York specifically that thinning the forest properly increases 

the total rate of growth of that forest and therefore the CO2 intake 

of that forest. You are giving it more room to move, you are allowing younger trees to grow. So from a sustainability perspective, at 

least—and we are not the experts. We rely on experts who have 

told us this, that it is truly sustainable and truly good for the 

health of the forest long-term. So if you just assume that on a national basis, assume that is true on a national basis, and we are 
62

talking about half of the hydrocarbon fuel use in this country could 

come from sustainable forest biomass. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I am still skeptical and I look at 

what we could get from all of our arable land, and we expect to get 

many times that from this land that is not good enough to grow 

either corn or soybeans on. I still remain skeptical of what the real 

sustainability is going to be. Even though those limbs and top rot 

and the CO2 and methane goes off, you have still got humus there. 

That is what holds water, that is what holds nutrients in the forest. So you still have something very valuable that is left after 

that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FOREST PRODUCTS FROM FEDERAL LANDS AS BIOMASS

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. And I can speak just 

briefly about the—I will get to you in just a second, Dr. Burns. In 

the Northwest, one of the challenges we have is we have got literally millions of acres of disease, and this is really true in the 

Rockies, of diseased trees which are tinder dry and are ready to go 

up in smoke. Now, admittedly, not the entire tree burns unless it 

is a really bad fire, and what is happening in the northwest is we 

are actually thinning some of those out for forest health in two 

ways. The forests are overgrown, and that increases the fire risk, 

but also if you have got insect-infested trees you need to get those 

out. 

Here is the sad part from a global overheating perspective, we 

are actually taking that wood out, stacking it up, and burning it. 

Now, if you care about CO2, which I know you do, the paradox for 

me is we are actually spending good money for the sake of forest 

health to get this stuff out, but we actually are not using it for energy. And sadly the initial draft of the energy bill that passed the 

house, prohibited, expressly prohibited the use of forest products 

from federal lands to count as biomass. Not only did it prohibit 

that, it so severely restricted private lands that that became impractical. And then the down waste stream. So then let us say you 

process the byproducts to pulp and paper, then you get black liquor 

out as a byproduct. The only way you can count black liquor, according to the initial bill, a renewable fuel source, was if every 

shred of fiber upstream came from a renewable source as defined 

by this. It was a ludicrous approach, and actually I got that fixed 

in the energy bill. It was myself and a coalition of others. But it 

was maddening to see a bill that was supposedly designed to diversify our energy portfolio and reduce greenhouse gases basically giving no credit for using greenhouse gases for fuel and leaving it instead on the ground to rot or burn up. 

So your point is absolutely well-taken. I think it absolutely does 

apply if we were to just say we were going to grow huge forests 

and we are going to cut them down and never replenish that soil. 

I think you would have some adverse impacts. But when we are 

taking byproducts out from the normal harvest process or from 

dead and diseased trees, I think we can use it actually pretty productively, not that it is a panacea as some looked at I think ethanol. 

Dr. Burns, you had a comment? 
63

MORE ON SITING BIOMASS RESEARCH AT DOE 

Dr. BURNS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wondered if it were possible to 

circle back to your question on what office in DOE would be best 

equipped to provide broader assistance in the R&D area. 

Chairman BAIRD. Not just possible, desirable. 

Dr. BURNS. Okay. Thank you, sir. Perhaps the Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy (EERE) Office might be the correct office to 

look at some of this. They have been involved in fuel cell work and 

advanced conversion of electricity work and I believe they might be 

the appropriate people to take a look at some of the R&D needs 

that were identified earlier in the hearing. 

Chairman BAIRD. Share with me your insights on why that 

would be superior. I don’t have a dog in the fight. You say the biomass activity? 

Dr. BURNS. I don’t have experience with the Biomass Office, and 

I am just simply familiar that the Renewables Office has been 

doing some work that fits closer to this category, or closely with 

this category. I don’t know compared to the Biomass Office. 

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. We have gone a long time today. Did you 

have another follow-up question, Dr. Bartlett? Mr. Inglis? 

I am not going to ask you to do this on the record, actually on 

the record if you want to, but I am not going to ask today, but if 

any of you want to comment at some point about how DOE can be 

more responsive. It is not just about what entity is there, but you 

all have given us very good suggestions for everything ranging 

from intellectual property rights as mentioned earlier, catalysts, et 

cetera, to technologies to logistical flow of materials. I don’t know, 

I am not experienced enough or knowledgeable enough, to know—

you talked about DOE drops down requests for proposals or grant 

opportunities, et cetera. To what extent is there a bottom-up process? In other words, where you call could talk—actually, I am going 

to ask you to answer that, where you folks are, people in the industry, not just you here, but others who may be in the audience or 

doing other things who can say to DOE, hey, here is what we really 

need, not you telling us what you think we need but this is what 

we need. Can you conduct some research or create proposals? What 

mechanisms exist or have you been able to, both pro and con, if 

there are both and then we will finish up if my colleagues will indulge that question, please? 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any specific mechanism at the moment. We do have relationships with USDA, and 

they have created conferences and other kinds of get-togethers that 

allow us to have some dialogue with them. I remember doing a 

webinar with USDA staff where several dozen of them were on the 

line with us talking about torrefaction. Thank you for having the 

hearing. It turns out that some DOE folks that I have been trying 

to talk with for the last month are here, and we are going to get 

together and do some chatting after this meeting. 

Chairman BAIRD. We will bring donuts to the next one and really 

get something done. 

Mr. JAMES. But you know, I think there needs to be more mechanisms that allow us to get together and have some dialogue, and 

I am sure the agency will do that. 
64

I want to compliment Secretary Chu and the energy that he has 

brought to the agency. I see a lot of difference in the agency now, 

and we are looking forward to finding ways to collaborate with 

him. 

CLOSING

Chairman BAIRD. Great. Anyone else wish to comment on that? 

If not, I want to bring the hearing to a close. I want to thank our 

witnesses for testifying before this subcommittee. I want to thank 

particularly my colleagues for their insightful and informative 

questions and comments. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional statements for the Members and for answers 

to any follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses. 

Witnesses are excused with our gratitude, and the hearing now 

stands adjourned. Thank you all very much and thanks to the 

guests in the audience as well. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(65)

Appendix: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
66

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Don J. Stevens, Senior Program Manager, Biomass Energy & Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Department of 

Energy

Questions submitted by Representative Paul D. Tonko

International Activities

Q1. You mentioned international research activities around biomass pyrolysis in 

your oral statement. Please provide us more information on this research and 

the interests of the countries funding it.

• Of the countries you are working with, which one is leading in the area of biomass pyrolysis for power production?

A1. There is International recognition of the potential for pyrolysis to meet a variety of fuel and electricity needs. Interest in pyrolysis is strong in European countries including Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and the United Kingdom. Canada also has significant, long-standing programs in pyrolysis, and more recently, Australia, Malaysia, China, and other countries have also expressed interest. 

The interest in producing electricity is particularly strong in European countries, 

where renewable energy policies have created markets for high priced biopower. By 

comparison, policy incentives of similar magnitude do not exist in United States. 

Some countries see biopower as the earliest use of bio-oil, with transportation fuels 

being viewed as an attractive alternative as the upgrading technology advances. 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is involved in several collaborative research programs with international groups. Douglas C. Elliott, an international expert on biomass pyrolysis at PNNL, leads the International Energy Agency’s Bioenergy Agreement’s Task 34, Biomass Pyrolysis. This Agreement promotes information exchange, exchange of researchers, and production of joint scientific reports. 

The activities of this group leverage the resources of all participating countries. 

DOE’s Office of the Biomass Program represents the United States at the IEA Bioenergy Agreement’s Executive Committee. 

PNNL is also working in two international collaborations, one with Canada and 

one with Finland, to examine the extent of stabilization and upgrading needed for 

utilization of bio-oil for either electric generation or biofuel applications. This work 

is examining the characteristics of bio-oils produced from a range of biomass feedstocks, including beetle-killed pine, with the intent of matching those with end-use 

requirements. The work leverages DOE–OBP’s funding with equivalent amounts 

from Canada and Finland to organizations such as Finland’s VTT Laboratory, Natural Resources Canada (Canmet) Laboratory, and the University of British Columbia. 

Based on their long-standing interests and also their current RD&D activities, 

both Finland and Canada can reasonably be considered leading international countries in the area of using pyrolysis for biopower.

Is Additional Biopower RD&D Needed?

Q2. In 2002, the Biomass Program was formed to consolidate the biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower research efforts across DOE into one comprehensive RD&D 

effort. It is my understanding that the Office of Biomass does little, if any 

biopower research anymore. Given the pending Renewable Electricity Standard 

legislation in both the House and the Senate, what would a Biopower Initiative 

look like at DOE?

• What kind of goals and RD&D would you recommend?

• How much would it cost to implement a strategic biopower program to meet 

pending Renewable Electricity Standards?

• Under a new biopower initiative what is the best way to organize the RD&D 

activities?

• If yes, what office at DOE is technically equipped to conduct this RD&D?

• What activities is the Office Fossil technically suited to conduct?

• What activities are EERE technically suited to conduct?

A2. With finite amounts of biomass available annually, our nation must make informed decisions about our priorities for using this resource. To help make these decisions, we need a solid scientific basis to show where the greatest impact can be 
67

obtained between the options for power, fuels and chemicals. The scientific basis requires some analysis be conducted. 

If this information concludes that biopower is a priority for biomass utilization, 

then RD&D needs to be focused on technologies that offer high-efficiency electricity 

generation. Advanced technologies such as gas turbines or fuel cell systems offer potential electric generation efficiencies in the range of 30–40 percent. This compares 

with typical wood-fired combustion/steam-cycle systems which have electric generation efficiencies of approximately 15–25 percent. By focusing RD&D on the high-efficiency generation technologies, we can achieve the highest impact from the finite 

biomass resource. 

The cost of such a program will depend on many things including the relative levels of research and demonstration activities, as well as other factors. PNNL, as a 

government Laboratory, is not in a position to recommend a specific funding level. 

The organization of such a program will depend on the types of research being 

conducted, and particularly if co-firing with coal or other fossil resources is included. 

PNNL conducts research for both DOE–EERE and DOE–FE, and believes that both 

organizations have relevant capabilities. The DOE Biomass Program had an ongoing 

biopower program several years ago, and the technical capabilities to conduct such 

a program still exist there. OBP has a solid understanding of biomass reaction behavior and biomass sustainability, both of which are crucial to a successful program. 

Likewise, DOE–FE has important capabilities around co-firing biomass with fossil 

resources. In addition, the efforts of DOE’s Office of Science may also be necessary 

to solve fundamental scientific questions that arise. A successful RD&D effort would 

likely include all of these organizations.
68

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Scott M. Klara, Director, Strategic Center for Coal, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. Is Additional Biopower R&D Needed?

A1. In 2002, the Biomass Program was formed to consolidate the biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower research efforts across DOE into one comprehensive RD&D effort.

Q1a. It is my understanding that the Office of Biomass does little, if any biopower 

research anymore.

A1a. The Department’s Office of Biomass Program (OBP) has funded biopower related programs since 2000.

In previous years:

Æ 2000–2001: Awarded several co-firing and gasification-for-power projects 

(eleven awards made)

Æ 2002: Directed by the Administration and Congress to reduce emphasis on 

biopower and/or co-firing

Æ 2002-Present: Shifted emphasis to develop gasification and pyrolysis-based 

technologies for transportation biofuels production

Current activties:

Æ Suny Cobleskill, Biowaste to Bioenergy, FYO8–FY1O, up to $1,279,200—a 

program to determine the efficacy of a bench-scale prototypic rotary kiln gasification system for the conversion of biomass into a clean energy. Sponsored 

by Congressman Paul D. Tonko (D–NY 21st District).

Æ Raceland Raw Sugar Corporation, Bio-Renewable Ethanol and Co-Generation 

Plant, FY05–FY10, up to $3,557,000—a program to identify, determine, and 

understand fundamental burn characteristics and properties of alternative 

fuel sources to replace coal for energy generation, with emphasis on impacts 

in cement processing. Sponsored by Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D–LA) and 

Senator David B. Titter (R–LA).

Æ The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, UOP, and Ensyn Technologies have a project ‘‘Biomass Pyrolysis’’. In the project’s second phase, pyrolysis oil produced in the study will 

be upgraded to varying degrees and tested for power generation, to establish 

the level of upgrading required and any cost advantages.

Æ The Program is involved in several feedstock activities that have relevance 

to biopower production (although not conducted specifically for this purpose), 

for example:

i. The Program is currently updating its 2005 report ‘‘Biomass as Feedstock 

for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a 

Billion-Ton Annual Supply.’’ This report assesses the forest-derived and 

agriculture-derived biomass resources of the U.S.

ii. The Program is working with the Sun Grant Initiative to address barriers associated with the development of a sustainable and predictable 

supply of U.S. biomass feedstocks, including woody feedstock.

In addition, EERE’s Office of Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) is funding 

two biomass-related projects:

Æ Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, RD&D of Biomass Boiler Applications for the Food Processing Industry, up to $ 1,999,963—Demonstrates use 

of a biomass (wood waste and tire-derived fuel) boiler system to offset natural 

gas consumption at the facility.

Æ Fiscalini Farms L.P., Renewable Energy Power Generation Project, up to 

$779,300—Measures and analyzes a biogas energy system for power generation. The system will use digester gas from an anaerobic digester located at 

the Fiscalini Farms dairy for power generation with a reciprocating engine.

Q1b. Given the pending Renewable Electricity Standard legislation in both the 

House and the Senate, what would a Biopower Initiative look like at DOE?
69

A1b. During December 2009, OBP is conducting a Biopower Technical Strategy 

Workshop to identify the technical and economic hurdles of biopower deployment. 

This knowledge will aid OBP’s strategic planning for biopower together with three 

regional workshops on biomass feedstocks. A draft report of the biopower workshop 

will be made available.

Q1c. What kind of goals and RD&D would you recommend?

A1c. During December 2009, OBP is conducting a Biopower Technical Strategy 

Workshop to identify the technical and economic hurdles of biopower deployment 

which could be used to identify appropriate goals and any RD&D needed to achieve 

them.

Q1d. How much would it cost to implement a strategic biopower program to meet 

pending Renewable Electricity Standards?

A1d. The cost of a strategic biopower program is dependent upon the final renewable electricity standards and policy.

Q1e. Under a new biopower initiative what is the best way to organize the RD&D 

activities?

A1e. During December 2009, OBP is conducting a Biopower Technical Strategy 

Workshop to identify the technical and economic hurdles of biopower deployment 

which could be used to identify appropriate goals and any RD&D needed to achieve 

them.

Q1f. If yes, what office at DOE is technically equipped to conduct this RD&D?

A1f. The OBP within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) 

is technically equipped to conduct this RD&D in coordination with the Office of Fossil Energy’s Clean Coal and Natural Gas Power Systems Program.

Q1g?. What activities is the Office Fossil technically suited to conduct?

A1g. The Office of Fossil Energy’s Clean Coal and Natural Gas Power Systems Program is technically suited to conduct coal combustion and gasification at scale, and 

power generation from the gasified stream. Additional RD&D into gasification/co-firing could bring cost reductions and greater acceptability of the technology in the 

electrical utility industry.

Q1h. What activities are EERE technically suited to conduct?

A1h. Within EERE, the OBP believes that it currently has the capabilities to manage an RD&D program that would cover the breadth of activities which may be suggested by the Biopawer Technical Strategy Workshop.
70

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Robert T. Burns, Professor, Department of Agricultural & Biosystems 

Engineering, Iowa State University

Questions submitted by Representative Paul D. Tonko

Q1. In your testimony, you mentioned that a 2006 U.S. EPA AgStar report indicates 

that anaerobic digestion systems on facilities with milking herds larger than 500 

cows are more likely to have positive financial returns than facilities with less 

than 500 cows. There are many of these small and medium sized dairy farms 

in my district in Upstate New York. In light of this fact, what federal policies 

do we have in place, or do you think we should have in place, to incentivize and 

entice smaller farms to use anaerobic digesters?

A1. The current dis-incentive for both small and large farms to invest in manure 

anaerobic digestion is the lack of financial return from the sales of either methane 

or electricity from these systems. Due to economies of scale and increased efficiency 

with larger internal combustion generator systems, the larger farms may be able 

to produce power at a lower cost than smaller farms, but the cost is typically greater 

than the rate they can sell the power for. Currently there are Federal grant programs that dairy producers can apply to for funds to support some portion of digester construction costs. Specifically the USDA Rural Energy for America (REAP) 

program can be applied to for a 25 percent construction cost grant with a $500,000 

cap, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Section 1603 program can be applied to for a 30 percent construction cost grant with no cap. While 

these funds do provide an incentive to dairies that successfully apply for and receive 

the grant funds, they do not address the fact without grant support, the cost to 

produce renewable energy through manure anaerobic digestion typically exceeds the 

current market value of that energy. Countries that have effectively incentivized the 

construction of manure anaerobic digestion systems on farms of all sizes include 

Germany and China. In both cases they have provided a government subsidized rate 

for electrical power produced using manure digesters. In the case of China, both 

grant funding for the construction of anaerobic digesters and a subsidized renewable 

energy rate have been provided.

Q2. You also mention that the current U.S. dairy digester projects only produce 10.7 

percent of the feasible energy production potential reported by the U.S. EPA 

AgStar report. We all recognize that dairy farmers are faced unprecedented and 

challenging economic times. However, when the industry stabilizes for a bit, 

what barriers currently exist to enabling a greater number of dairy digester 

projects to come online? How can we fix these barriers? What can we learn from 

Wisconsin, where 73.9 percent of the potential for this technology is implemented, versus just 23.5 percent for the United States?

A2. I believe that primary barriers to bringing more dairy manure anaerobic digestion systems online in the U.S. are 1) lack of return from renewable energy sales 

and 2) lack of a well-developed manure digester support industry in the United 

States. I also believe that when producers become able to earn a sufficient rate of 

return from renewable energy production with manure digesters that a sustainable 

manure digester support industry will develop in the United States. Historically, 

dairy farmers in Wisconsin were more successful in receiving USDA–9006 funding 

support for digesters than other locations in other states. I believe this is why Wisconsin has been more successful that other states in terms of achieving a larger percentage in terms of dairy manure digester implementation compared to potential.

Q3. Your testimony suggests that other countries, such as China, which has approximately three times the number of dairy cows, beef cattle and pigs as the U.S. 

but 118 times the number of manure biogas plants as the U.S., have more favorable policies towards electricity rates for this type of technology. Do you believe 

a federal policy is necessary to advance this technology in the U.S., as opposed 

to a piecemeal state-by-state policy?

A3. Countries that have provide a nationally subsided price for renewable energy 

that is significantly higher than the current market price of energy have many more 

operational manure anaerobic digesters that the United States. The most notable 

examples are China and Germany, with over 16,000 and 5,000 operational manure 

based anaerobic digesters respectively. I believe that if a similar policy were adopted 

at the Federal level, that it would stimulate the implementation of farm based anaerobic digesters in the United States.