Bio Torrefaction

Agri-Tech Reaches Significant Milestone

2009-07-20T07:05:00.000-07:00

Agri-Tech, a SC start-up that has licensed technology from NC State, today announced that it had reached an agreement with Kusters Zima Corporation to manufacturer torrifaction equipment under license.

The first units are scheduled to be in the market in around a year, and pre-production orders are now being taken.

The technology is believed to be highly scalable -- with initial units targeted in a mid range of around 10 tons per hour. People interested in pricing should contact the company directly.

This is no small milestone. Without significant outside investment, Agri-Tech has been able to fund the placement of the initial units into the market by leveraging the Intellectual Property they have under contract.

This is one to watch.

Biomass to Electricity is 80% more efficient than Biofuels

2009-06-21T06:05:00.000-07:00

Biomass to Electricity (and torrefaction as a densification and logistics strategy) continues to make more and more sense.

A recent study published in Science concludes that using biomass to produce electricity is 80 percent more efficient than transforming the biomass to biofuels and 200% more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

While I understand our infatuation with creating liquid fuels, if biomass is more effective in generating electricity in the near term (and it is) we should apply more funds and political support for biomass combustion (the "burn baby burn" strategy).

Every year we put off addressing global warming in a meaningful way just increases the hole we have to eventually dig out of, and the cost of doing so.

Biomass to electricity is today's solution -- it costs less to implement than the alternatives and it reduces the amount of carbon we pull out of the ground.

I think Ethanol did the industry a huge dis-favor. The numbers on it were just horrible yet it got over-promoted. Now, I'm afraid that we threw the 'baby out with the bathwater' and for a period of time "Ethanol" became synonymous with "BioMass" .

The good news is that time and data are changing that perception. This study is just one more example on how the United States is coming around to what much of Europe has already figured out -- Biomass is the lowest cost, most practical way to make meaningful progress on global warming. It is the most Intelligent Carbon Strategy.

Duke University Grad Students Complete Torrefaction Business Plan

2009-06-07T06:52:00.001-07:00

I recently mentored a Duke Graduate Engineering group in an Entrepreneurship Studies Class. The topic was Torrefaction (this surprises you!).

These students developed a full blown business plan for a torrefaction mini-mill (regional plant) in North Carolina.

When the cost of the plant was $ 600/Ton hour of production, and there was a mix between initial equity and convertible debt ($ 3 Million), and $4 Million downstream debt their business plan calls for a 25 Million dollar revenue company generating 31% EBITDA by year 5 . I actually think that they grow the business too fast in the early years. It may be more capital efficient to take on less capital up front, grow a little more slowly until the intial units are generating cash, then use debt if you can get it, or higher priced equity later to ramp up the buisness quickly.

They assumed Green Credits starting at zero in year one, and ramping to $20 per ton over time, which is anyone's guess. They also did not do a sensitivity analysis to the carbon spread (the difference between the price of raw biomass and the displaced coal on a BTU basis), which is key to the analysis which I held out as an 'advanced assignment' if they had time. I will either do this analysis or have it commissioned and will post next on this issue).

But overall, it provided two really valuable things:

1) Another set of eyes and spreadsheets working independently on the analysis of the underlying business model.

2) Another business plan which independently tries to concisely communicate the value proposition, market and risks associated with torrefaction. (I ghost wrote a plan for another company to try and help them move forward -- so now that's two plans from which to draw from the future).

Torrefaction plants are one block in the value chain and a necessary part of the development of the industry.

The recent downdraft in coal prices in the US, coupled with a lack of green credits right now, has hampered the development of the industry in the US. Yet these business plans show that there is promise in the US, and explain why this industry is developing more quickly in Europe.

Next, I'm going to apply option pricing models (talk about geeky!) to determine the volatility weighted coal price at which torrefaction makes sense. The model is still most sensitive to carbon spreads. The notion would be that if an investor wanted to, they could build a plant and hedge against downdrafts in coal prices. Then the question is would it make economic sense when you put the cost of the hedge on top? Stay Tuned.

Another set of Bio Char Test Results

2009-05-17T08:52:00.001-07:00

We can probably call the "biochar debate" with the number of precints that have already reported.

Yet each study is helpful as it adds to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Now Blue Leaf in Canada has reported the results of a recent study.

Results include:

Crop Yeild Range: +6% to +17%
68% greater root length
24% increase in plant density

The Study is worth reading.

In addition, some of the best work has been done at Cornell.

Biochar for carbon sequestration has the potential to instantaneously ignite (maybe not a good word when talking about torrefaction) the torrefaction industry, as well as being a viable solution to cost effective global warming. So we'll continue to track it.

More on the BEPEX Project

2009-05-12T02:45:00.000-07:00

I've been contacted by several people for more information on the Bepex project, asking for more information.

I think the most interesting thing about the Bepex project is its use of corn stover. While removing corn stover requires that you add nitrogen back into the soil, that cost can be covered if coal prices rise or carbon credits kick in the right way.

The pilot plant is very small in volume compared to the expected production plant.

Interestingly, Bepex calculates that the larger production plant (100 KT per year) can support a 11.3 MW plant or 10% co-firing for a 113 MW plant.

The corn stover would be sourced from a 30 mile radius using only 3% of the available stover. That gives you an idea of just how much stover exists in the corn belt! That's a pretty reasonable plan.

Bepex plans a co-firing trial in August. That should be pretty interesting, and they will capture emissions. If the co-firing trial goes well it could be an accellerant for the industry. I will, of course, follow up and post what I learn.

The price of coal (which is very low in the corn belt) and the uncertainty of Carbon Credits are the main hurdles. Bepex has the technical expertise and corporate size to pull this off. At $ 1,000 per installed ton/hour of production, Bepex is getting close.

I've been asked to update and compare Bepex to Agri-Tech. The Agri-Tech solution continues to make progress, and I think that it will more likely be targeted at what I refer to as a Mini-Mill. Not field deployable in the first iteration, but a small community plant that farmers could own in a co-op arrangement. The visionary founder has a clear idea of how torrefaction could help rural communities. Bringing both these solutions to market would be great for the industry.

Alterna --Another Report from International BioMass Conference

2009-05-03T18:42:00.001-07:00

Torrefaction vs. Carbonization:

Alterna Energy of Canada presented on their carbonization program. (Charcoal)

An inspiring presentation. The business is up and running and generating revenue, with two plants in operation. The plant in South America is co-located with a nut processing facility so they have access to shells as a low cost waste steam. In South America, they sell charcoal as a retail cooking fuel. (higher price). Unfortunately, high priced cooking fuel or sales of industrial charcoal do not a large scale renewable energy business make.

However, Alterna Energy may be able to get there first because part of their plant cost is covered by sales of industrial charcoal. This is one to watch.

100 Torrefaction Geeks in the Same Room!

2009-04-30T07:29:00.000-07:00

The International BioMass Conference is this week in Portland Oregon.

At a breakout session over 200 Torrefaction Geeks sat glued to the presentations by Integrow, Bepex and Pellet/Briquette manufacturers.

Kevin Grotheim from Bepex gave an excellent update on thier research and provided much needed specific numbers to help our understanding of torrefaction. (of course I kept wondering if he should change his name to GroTherm).

Contact me if you want all the data, but the most interesting to me was the capital cost they are projecting:

15 Million to 25 Million for a plant with a capacity of 100Ktons to 150 Ktons per year. Thats $ 1,000 per ton of capacity. That's not too bad, especially for the first version of the project.

Walt Dickenson of Integro Earthfuels gave a clear, realistic overview of why torrefaction is ideal for co-firing. Integro is now targeting year end for their plant.

Everyone at the conference commented on the need for Cap&Trade to add at least $ 20 per ton of value for the models to work. Coal price volatility is the killer. Hard to shoot at a moving target.

Yet I think the industry is not focusing hard enough on getting the capital cost down through really creative engineering. Bepex's work is quite encouraging. Topell was often mentioned as the lead horse in the global race.

Great conference by the way. Ya'll come!

Close.... But we need $ 500K per ton hour of Capacity

2009-04-12T20:03:00.000-07:00

The drop in the price of coal has gotten the attention of everyone following Torrefaction .

From an investment viewpoint, part of the challenge with Torrefaction is the sheer number of variables involved; price of feedstock, price-to-compare for delivered coal, impact of Carbon Credits, and what the cost of processing equipment will be.

When you stack probabilities on top of probabilities, the percentages are not your friend.

When coal prices were above $ 120 a short ton, Torrefacton made economic sense without Carbon Credits with plenty of headroom for increases in feedstock prices, and a wide range of prices for equipment and operating costs.

Now that coal is way down we've rerun a lot of numbers (I'll share you the geeky probability trees) but the result is pretty clear.

We Need the Price of Torrefaction Equipment to be $ 500,000 per ton hour of capacity for Torrefactoin to develop pre Carbon Credits. This is the price at which an investor can reasonably take the gamble on the ups and downs of coal prices and the other variables.

Unfortunately, this is about twice the low end of the range of prices we're getting. When we have greater clarity on Carbon Credits, the industry may be able to afford higher equipment prices. Carbon Credit clarity is the case in Europe right now and Torrefaction makes great economic sense for biomass serving that market. So maybe Torrefaction will develop for the export market first (just as Green Circle is exporting the pelletized woody biomass from Florida.

However reaching the magic number of $ 500K per ton hour of capacity is quite achievable and a much closer putt than .50 cents (installed) per watt of solar energy, or $ 500 per kw (installed) for Wind. Not that these are bad technologies -- they're not and we support all renewables in a multi-technology strategy to get us to 20% renewable; but here's the point:

Biomass, and Torrefaction in particular are a shorter putt. Reaching $ 500 per Ton Hour of Capacity is just not that far off, and the industry develops at that price because that price can support all the variabilities in other inputs.

Lets go sink that putt.

Georgia Power's Intelligent Carbon Strategy

2009-03-22T06:50:00.000-07:00

Georgia Power (part of Southern Company) announced that the PUC has approved the conversion of the Mitchell Plant to a 100MW biomass plant.

That's not surprising. What is surprising is that through the analysis, no one has seriously questioned the size of the plant! 100 MW is just too large for a cost effective biomass plant without torrefaction -- and Southern Company has no known plans for torrefaction.

According to one estimate, the plant will require 160 Chip Trucks a day. Given an economic distance of 25 miles, consuming 3,520 tons of chips a day will create a regional biomass black hole pretty quickly.

Now lets look at the other side: Three things are true.

A) The amount of woody biomass available is generally underestimated and Georgia is rich in aging woody biomass due to the downturn in paper and housing

B) Depending on how Cap-&-Trade comes down, the value of biomass could make bringing chips in by rail from further distances economic.

C) Georgia does not need to run the plant at capacity nor do they really have to commission it

What you say? Since they are retrofitting an existing mothballable plant, they can move the process forward and see how Cap-&-Trade comes down. If biomass gets calculated right (carbon neutral) and it looks like the price of credits are going to soar, they can press forward quickly and get this plant into production quickly. If they create a black hole for local biomass, at least they have bought time and avoided buying into a short term carbon credit bubble.

Hmmm... Some smart thinking going on at Southern Company.....

Of course the "Right" answer long term is:

1) Build plants in the 30MW to 40MW -- this is the optimal size for green chips

2) Invest in Torrefaction! Stretch the economic range of delivery to 100 miles by rail or more!

We'll continue to work on #2.

Its Time for a Conversation about BioChar -

2009-03-12T02:56:00.000-07:00

BioChar is basically taking torrefied wood and tilling it into farmland. Why would you do that?

1) Because it would sequester the carbon -- it doesn't break down quickly
2) It is reported to be quite helpful to the soil (and this is where the debate seems to be)

But here's the important thing. If BioChar gets legislated as an acceptable form of carbon sequestration.......... Watch out!

Torrefaction will soar. The existing nasiant industry will explode and existing players will either take off or get blown away by savvy investors that bet big bucks on a 'better machine'.

A lot of smart, knowledgable people point to science that says it really helps soil quality. I recently learned that a Duke Professor has a trial patch in NC (the southeast has a lot of marginal farmland). I'll track that particular experiment.

Althought the science seems compelling, the press and industry are not all over it. I'm not sure why. If short rotation crops were turned into biochar and tilled under the soil of nearby food production acreage we might get a win win. Cornell and Duke are deep into the subject.

If you want to do your own reading click on any of the following:

Cornell work on biochar

Biochar.org -

terrapretasoils.blogspot.com (a really thoughtful blog)

Terra Preta

WikiPedia Publish Post

Peak Energy

If you know why biochar is not getting more attention in the discussions on carbon sequestration please update our growing audiance by commenting below.

New BioCoal Plant Construction Starts

2009-02-02T14:23:00.001-08:00

Energy Invest, the Belgian renewable energy company focused on valorising biomass into energy, announced today the start of a construction of the biomass torrefaction unit that will produce torrefied wood pellets (biocoal) for co-firing with pulverised coal in electricity generation facilities and charcoal for barbecue purposes.

The biomass torrefaction unit will be built in collaboration with Stramproy Green Technology, the Dutch-based engineering contractor and technology owner.

The total investment program launched by 4Energy Invest for the biomass torrefaction unit and a biomass storage platform results in capital expenditures of about 13 Million Euro. 9.3 Million Euro will be provided by the banks and the difference will be funded out of the proceeds that 4Energy Invest raised through its IPO in June 2008. 12 additional direct full time jobs will also be created.

Laying another cobblestone on the path to Torrefaction

2008-12-30T20:24:00.000-08:00

Pennsylvania recently came up with a $1 Million Dollar grant for A merican Refining and Biochemical, Inc.

The race for which region will control the torrefaction development within the US is heating up.

From Integro Fuels, to Agri-Tech, to American Refining, to Topell, to NewEarth... it seems that a number of companies and states are seeing the potential of Torrefaction.

You know what's wrong with Torrefaction? Its not the science. Its not the economics. Its the NAME. Seriously, how do you sit around a holliday party and say "I'm into Torrefaction!".

As a community, we need to think about coming up with a better name for this process (bio-coal is the best alternative out there right now).

While we work on that, its good to see investment by PA, SC, and NC as well as the growing ranks of entrepreneurs focusing on the very pragmatic potential of bio-coal or torrefaction or what ever we can come up with to call it!

The long and Winding Road

2008-11-25T07:17:00.001-08:00

Well, my journey to figure out the economics of biomass and torrefied biomass continues with twists and turns.

Seems to me it should be a simple task. But it turns out that the answer is a big "Depends".

That indicates to me that there is at least an 'expertise barrier' to success which might be a good thing.

Here is a summary of the data I have:

1) Torrefaction at the point of harvest could yield a cost of $ 80 to $ 85 per ton. However it has not been proven that the model scales, and the field deployable units are not coming to market quickly.

2) Regional Units (or mini-mills as I refer to them) can produce biocoal at $ 110 to $ 130 depending on who you talk to and the underlying price of the feedstock. Obviously folks can play with the depreciation schedule to make the number better or worse. The technology for mini-mills is either A) expensive and proven or B) not quite to the point of mass commercialization.

3) Green Chips (which is what I understand the recently announced biomass power plants are based on) are economical when the feedstock can be harvested within about 25 miles of the plant. Green Chip prices range from $ 20 to $ 40 depending on the location. A high percentage of the cost is transportation. My guess is that the utilities are trying to lock up local supply before they start building the plants. From what I understand from a forestry expert, forestry land is starting to rise but I haven't seen it yet in stump prices.

4) Pelletization (without torrefaction) only makes sense because torrefaction has not yet developed. It has a relatively high capital cost and uses a lot of energy to deliver its densification benefits. Also, depending on the climate, you have to worry about pellets absorbing moisture during transport. But it is the best the industry has today and it is currently a thriving business based on high prices.

Can't we solve the technical problems and deliver a torrefaction unit that is reasonably low cost and reliable? From my current vantage point that seems to be the barrier to development of the industry. The thing that is so frustrating is that if one posits a viable biomass industry worldwide the benefits are so huge -- greater energy independence, jobs, the environment, a path to help developing countries,etc.

BioMass Business Model Update

2008-10-05T06:59:00.000-07:00

So we now have a reasonably good idea on when torrefied wood is economically viable: When it can replace coal priced above $ 80 per short ton.

Now we have to compare the cost of torrefied wood against the cost of wood pellets, because a power plant could always just decide to buy pellets or wood chips.

From prior research, we know that biomass from wood chips is "transportation sensitive" -- the economics start degrading pretty quickly after about 25 Miles of transportation because you're moving a lot of water in those chips. And the higher the price of oil, the worse the economics become. (we want the inverse)

But wood pellets get rid of between 85 to 93% of the moisture and are more compact thus driving up the all important energy density and BTU/mile of transportation metrics.

We're going to run models on where pellets make sense, and where torrefaction makes sense.

But also of keen interest to us is blended pellets. Torrefied wood is hydrophobic which means it repels moisture. Moisture is the enemy of wood pellets. Perhaps a hybrid pellet (50% wood, 20% torrefied wood, 30% switchgrass) or something like that will optimize the enconomics of long haul biomass.

Busienss Model Update: Clearing the first hurdle

2008-09-10T03:27:00.000-07:00

Clearing hurdle #1.

We have struggled to find the hard data necessary to determine the equivalent price of coal at which torrefied wood is economic, without subsidies or a premium for the derived carbon benefits.

We now have a model, and our first answer to the question.

$ 80 dollars

(Actually a range of $ 70 to $90 depending on certain conditions).

This is a key advancement. It helps explain why torrefaction has not taken off previously (Coal has historically been below this level) and provides a benchmark for assumption refinement.

Would you build a business and an industry off an assumption that Coal will stay above $ 80? In fact many coal companies are making just that bet in their capital ex investments. In fact, with the current price of coal, one could invest in biomass torrefaction (or torrefication depending on your preference) coupled with hedges against a precipitous decline in coal and still make money.

It’s getting interesting folks…..

It all comes down to this......

2008-08-09T19:10:00.000-07:00

At what equivalent price of coal will biocoal make sense?

I'm really trying to get my hands around this rather simple question. Question Simple. Answer, not so simple.

So in an attempt to see through the noise, I developed a simple 'inverse calculation' to figure this out. View, and comment if you want, on my spreadsheet.

It appears to come down to three variables:
1) The long term underlying price of Coal
2) The fully amortized cost of converting biomass (woodchips) to Bio Coal through the nitrification process
3) The premium you think utilities or other buyers would pay for "green" fuel (which in a pure sense would be approximated by the value of any carbon credits, assuming the Bio Coal would qualify

The result yields a "cost per ton of biomass" that you would be willing to pay.

My numbers say that that the value is somewhere around $ 10 per ton on biomass.

Now I'll go on and see if biomass can be harvested for this amount.

Stay tuned. The puzzle is getting interesting...

New research - Still no conclusive answers: BioTorrefication, reality or blue sky

2008-07-27T04:03:00.000-07:00

New study from England focuses on bio-torrefication of crops specifically grown for BTU content.

This study reports a 20% reduction in mass, which is less than the 40% figure that has been thrown out. What this industry really needs is a set of verifiable data from a large scale pilot project!

The report also points to a benefit of bio-torrefication that is under appreciated --

"Most interestingly, torrefaction also makes biomass more friable, making it far easier to grind. This opens the prospects of using existing coal pulverizers and of considerably lowering costs of co-firing biomass to generate electricity"

I'm tracking two things to help address the fundamental question: At what price does BioCoal become broadly economic:

The underlying business model (I'm circulating a draft to people in the inudstry). Let me know if you want a copy
What is the potential for co-firing milled tottefied biomass in an existing coal fired power plant.

IF ..... you can co-fire the stuff in a power plant then the price of torrefied wood or other biomass competes with the peak price of coal not the average price of coal and utilities can use it as an easy way to promote their environmental agendas without having to make large capital investments.

http://bioenergy.checkbiotech.org/news/2008-07-25/Torrefaction_gives_biomass_a_20_energy_boost,_makes_logistics_far_more_efficient/

Largest US Pellet Project - Revealing Economics

2008-06-20T01:36:00.000-07:00

Green Circle Bio Energy Inc. has announced the opening of what they consider to be the largest wood pellet plant in the world. It is located in the panhandle of Florida and has an operating capacity of 550,000 tons a year.

The pellets will be shipped overseas to be used.

Huh? Why would you ship biomass half way around the world when the US is interested in increasing energy consumption through renewables? Can this be right?

What this says, is that the displaceable cost of energy in the consuming country is high enough to make this renewable source economical even when you factor in the cost of transportation or the consumer is a "renewable at any price" buyer.

I'm going to try and find out because:

1) The cost of electricity in the target country, minus the cost of transportation will give us an idea of the economical price point for large scale biomass.

2) This company must have compared the cost of torrefaction to the cost of just pelletizing the wood. One of the key advantages of the torrefaction process is that it dramatically reduces the size and weight of the biomass thus reducing transportation costs. Given that they have chosen to simply pelletize, one might conclude that the economics of torrefaction over pelletizing are not there. If torrefaction doesn't pay when you are shipping half way around the world......

I'll report back. Stay tuned.

Here's a link to the full article

http://www.wmbb.com/gulfcoastwest/mbb/search.apx.-content-articles-MBB-2008-06-10-0006.html

US MicroGrid seeks to Fund Torrefied Wood Absorption Chilling Application

2008-05-26T06:51:00.000-07:00

We're busy sifting through all the data and opinions to come up with (and publish) the reality behind the economics of Torrefied Wood.

Absorption Chillers are amazing things. They might represent the best first application for Torrefied Wood. For more about how they work you can read http://tristate.apogee.net/cool/ccaa.asp.

They take in relatively low grade heat, and produce chilled water while displacing electric chillers that consume peak load electricity

We've had some experience with absorption chillers on the back end of a cogen project we developed. They work as advertised however it is difficult to find skilled maintenance workers (outside of the NYC area where they are more prevalent because they run off the underground steam loop).

Torrefied Wood input to a boiler which creates hot water or steam to drive an absorption chiller would have the following benefits:

1) Friendly conversion efficiencies: Electric chillers have an average efficiency of around 75%. When you compare full system efficiencies of biomass in a cooling application (vs. producing electricity) you pick up this 25% and that's significant. For more specifics, see and please feel free to comment on the attached spreadsheet.

2) Good scale of operation for a demonstration plant: We've learned to "learn small then scale".

So we are actively looking for a host industrial or commercial project to run the numbers on a torrefied wood boiler driven absorption chiller. Our company would fund the project and own and operate the equipment for a client who would agree to buy the chilled water at the then current equivalent cost of electric cooling.

In the first phase, we would probably purchase torrefied wood and/or pellets from an existing supplier to fully field test the system. With economic success, we'd purchase equipment and generate our own fuel. The benefit of a couple of torrefied wood absorption chilling clients would be that we could have captive demand for part of our torrefied wood production bringing in our break even point and reducing overall business model risk.

If you know of a company or institution that would be interested in the 'offtake' agreement (agreeing to buy the chilled water) please let us know. Contact info is on our website www.usmicrogrid.com.

Excellent Overview of Chemical Process of Torrefaction

2008-05-25T08:45:00.000-07:00

Kristoffer Persson, Ingemar Olofsson and Anders Nordin from Umea University in Sweden have started publishing on the topic of Torrefaction.

Click on the Title of this Post or the link below for a good explanation of the chemical process, it's advantages, and some preliminary evaluation of biomass stocks.

http://www.techtp.com/Biomass%20Refinement%20by%20Torrefaction.pdf

Link updated 9/04/2009

Agri-Tech Producers Demonstration Plant

2008-05-25T06:18:00.000-07:00

The SC Biomass Council http://www.scbiomass.org/ announced that Agri-Tech Producers has been awarded a grant to develop a demonstration project of portable bio torrefaction unit.

By moving 'the factory to the field' the benefits of torrefaction are amplified.

By removing the moisture and reducing the mass through torrefication, the economics are improved over approaches which truck green chips to a torrefaction facility.

Two test burns of torrefied wood are scheduled for this year. Stay tuned.

Torrefied wood chips project, Sumter National
Forest - Agri-Tech Producers, LLC ($200,000)

Bio Torrefication

2008-05-25T05:21:00.001-07:00

Through all the noise out there right now, we look for ideas that could truly make a difference. Our criteria is:

1) The technology must be at least 35% Carbon Positive

2) The potential scale of operation must be large enough to deliver 10% of the current US Demand for electricity

3) The cost, post inflection point, must be 20 cents per kWH or less Without subsidies and tax credits (because the government can't afford to subsidize all our consumption).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One that has real potential is Torrefied Plant Material. New work out of NC State is showing some interesting numbers for a unit which converts plant material into a powdery charcoal like material in the field.

The numbers look promising, because the cost of material handling is significantly reduced. In most waste-to-energy applications, the cost to move and handle low BTU material creates the barrier to economic viability.

Furthermore, the resulting fuel (think charcoal chips and powder) can theoretically be co-burned with coal in existing power plants. This is what makes it exciting. A power producer could have a renewable fuel which could be added based on the relative cost of delivered Torrefied BioMass to Coal.

Two 'test burns' are scheduled for 2008. We'll be monitoring this space. Check back or contact us for updates.

If current Torrefied Pine Wood can be utilized in a coal fired plant, the next step to viability would be developing plant species for BTU value vs. food value or fiber strength. The ideal feedstock would be the kind that grows on marginal land, avoiding the current ethanol "Fuel at the expense of Food" debate.