Growing energy crops in Eastern Europe -

Ramko Rolland Associates
Contents of this proposal are Confidential and Proprietary (last edited 8/4/2010) Page 1 of 44
Corporate Finance and Operational Restructuring
40 East End Avenue, New York, New York 10028 12 Gotlieb Street, Tel Aviv
Tel: +1-914-595-6026 Fax: +972-77-524-2780 Israel 64-392
E-Mail: hbranisteanu@bezeqint.net Tel +972-3-523-2744
August 2, 2007
Executive Summary
for an Eastern Europe Agribusiness Project,
which will commercialize energy related crops
The project presented intends to buy globally undervalued agricultural land and cultivate energy
related crop, to be used as substitute to coal to power stations, and possible, on a later stage, to be
processed into a variety of substances which will be used as substitute of various plastic materials
solvents and liquids, including transportation fuels, which are now produced from crude oil.
The Opportunity
There is an attractive opportunity of buying farm land in the region of Eastern Europe and grow
energy crop which during the first stage of the project, will be co-fired with coal in Electrical Power
Stations who use coal as their energy feed. The concept was proven as economically viable, under
a multiyear program sponsored by the US Department of Energy and permanent co-firing operation
will start in 2008 in Iowa. Power Stations powered by straw are operational in the UK and Denmark.
Based on preliminary calculation the return on investment should exceed 30% a year after initiation
of the planting of the energy crop, not including farm land appreciation due to the low purchase
price. In addition to the revenue from selling energy related crop, there would be also income from
Carbon Credits whose prices now are around €24 per ton for Dec 2008 or around €380 per hectare.
Suited Countries
The targeted countries are Romania and Bulgaria who joined the EU and have several coal
powered electrical power station, and their country needs to lower their CO2 footprint to conform to
EU regulations. Other potential acquisitions could be in Moldova and Ukraine who have ample land
and underdeveloped agribusiness, with low crop yields and degrading quality of coal supply.
Prices for quality farm land are today around EUR1500 or $2,000 per hectare. We are interested to
slowly acquire at least 10,000 hectares of farm land, with a target of 50,000 to 60,000 hectares.
There is also the possibility to rent farm land for prolonged periods of time at attractive prices.
The table below reflects the anticipated investments and farm land appreciation including
investments in farm land improvements like irrigation. The assets value of the project include;
anticipated farm land appreciation of about 15% to20% a year and improvements depreciation of
15%. EU grants for farm land improvements are 50% and EU grants for renewable energy projects.
Values in 000 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Net investments land / year € 15,500 € 29,550 € 32,250 € 23,300 € 25,100 € 50
Total Revenue based on
Yield / HA (includes CO2 credits) € 4,800 € 21,000 € 49,280 € 73,600 € 102,600 € 117,600
Assets Value including
appreciation, EU Grants € 22,000 € 61,450
€
104,483 € 137,810 € 174,639 € 182,143
Assets value less Total
Investment. € 6,500 € 16,400 € 27,183 € 37,210 € 48,939 € 56,393
Capital Gain & Profits € 8,875 € 30,275 € 69,343 € 123,060 € 197,089 € 277,398
Total investments € 15,500 € 45,050 € 77,300 € 100,600 € 125,700 € 125,750
Project Stages

If stage one which will be limited to establish and grow energy crop, as a substitute to coal
consumption, will be proven profitable as expected, we intend to take advantage of the farm land
ownership and try to raise more funds via an IPO, or institutional convertible debt placement, and
proceed to stage 2 by building small regional co-generation units for small towns in need of hot
water and additional electricity, with the proper assurances. During this stage we will evaluate and
possible add cattle, swine manure, chicken droppings and algae as an additional energy feed.
In stage 3 we will proceed if warranted, to build a full fledged Vertically Integrated Bio Refinery
which will produce a group of base chemicals, to further produce lubricants, paints, detergents,
solvents, antifreeze, raw materials for the cosmetic industries, plastics, elastomers, bio degradable
materials and transportation fluids etc., which are presently manufactured form crude oil, by taking
advantage of the technological advancements of genetically engineered crops and industrial
conversion processes.
Response to our initiative
Presently we have received positive feedback form the present governments in Bulgaria Romania
and Ukraine who are willing to give their full support for the envisioned project and are prepared to
―talk business‖ including entering into negotiation for long term contracts of supply to their electrical
power stations. In general terms after adequate letters of intend or commitment will be received,
and seed money will be provided, we will approach the related ministries at the ministerial level to
receive the proper assurance and anticipated contracts (see below).
Available grants of up to 20% of the loan in Bulgaria and incentive from local governments, EBRD
and other Agencies are in ―Attachment B‖. Grants for R&D on renewable energy projects are widely
available if from US sources (DOE, USDA or similar EU sources who fund alternative energy R&D).
The initiation of the project will be organized under an LLC which will provide some seed funds for a
feasibility study and pay expenses related to the contacts with the related governmental offices.
Only after the proper feasibility study will be completed, the initiation of the land purchase will start.
Barriers of entry
In theory the barriers of entry are relative low as any one owning a piece of farm land can grow
those grasses with success, but without guarantied buyers or long term contracts.
The problems the small grower or individual farmer will face are;
 higher prices due to general economies of scale, and due to the size of his operation,
 the availability of latest technologies,
 availability of R&D results to increase the crop yield per hectare,
 the vertical integration of operation, rotational crop use of land and sales capabilities
 the willingness of utilities to enter into long term contracts with small suppliers who can not
guaranty their harvest volume.
One of the proposed solutions would be to consolidate small growers and sell the same crop under
a general contract with utilities or power the self owned cogeneration plants in stage 2
The only factor which can trump the project is cancellation of long term contract with the electrical
power generating utility or the market entry of one of the multinational companies like Cargill, Archer
Daniel Midland, Bunge or the like. The key difficulties for any large scale operation is the acquisition
and consolidation of small parcels of farm land into economically viable parcels of land of several
thousands hectares, and this will be one of the major barriers of entry for the big companies.

Summary Background
Due to the recent rise of energy prices and global warming there is a formal effort by governments
around the world to find substitutes to the expanding need of energy sources to a growing global
population and commercial globalization.
Present Global Energy Consumption Indication
Energy Consumption per capita in BTU equivalents is evaluated as follows;
US and Canada with a population of around 340 million around 25 to 28 barrels per capita
Europe and EU with a population of around 330 million around 18 to 20 barrels per capita
Indian Subcontinent with a population of around 1.3 billion around 1 to 1.2 barrels per capita
Republic of China with a population of around 1.3 billion around 3 to 4 barrels per capita
S. E. Asia and its surroundings with close of 800 million around 3.5 to 4 barrels per capita
(Source CIA Fact book)
From the information outlined above, it is obvious that there is a long term trend, of increased
energy consumption as the worldwide energy demand will grow more balanced.
As such, the continuation of development of the countries who consume energy well below EU or
the US will put further upward pressure on energy prices in accordance with their GDP and
population growth and on an another un-priced commodity which is potable or clean water.
As an example due to recent population expansion and industrialization the water table of the Indian
sub continent, receded substantially leaving hundreds of millions without proper water supply for
crop cultivation in a country with a population slightly over 1.1 billion. In China the water shortage is
best expressed by the flow of water of the mighty Yangtze River which does not reach the ocean.
The only ―water‖ reaching the ocean is residue water of treated sewage water. Those areas are not
only ―economically growth‖ areas but also ―population growth‖ areas, which will need more food and
energy and of course water, to sustain present level of living standards not to mention economic
growth and social advancement.
Availability of resources
The only regions were water is relative, still ample available, are North America, parts of South
America, Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Africa. Of more particular interests are countries such
as Bulgaria and Romania, who joined the EU in 2007 and Moldova and Ukraine which are the so
called ―bread basket‖ of Europe. Russia does have large expansions of land, but low sun energy.
In those countries population growth is mostly negative and urbanization is growing. As a result
many swats of agricultural land are not cultivated and later seized by land speculators. In those
countries agriculture is still not fully mechanized or modernized and output per hectare lags, by well
over 50%, the crop yields per acre or per hectare in the US or Canada.
Those factors presents the smart long term investor with an opportunity of buying quality agricultural
land, with the potential of similar crop yield, as is now available in the US or Canada and with
adequate water availability, at much lower prices. The lower farm land prices are due the crop yield
differential and ample availability of agricultural land. The prices of agricultural land are also affected
by the relative low income per capita and the work intensive process of growing commercial crops.
Exploiting the present low investment environment in agricultural assets in those regions is providing
a great investment opportunity for those capable and able to invest in modernization and advanced
processes such as the ―methane emission capture‖ form farm manure and agricultural/organic waste.

Evaluation of Primary Investment
Even that agricultural land prices have appreciate substantially after the liberalization of land
ownership by foreigners, trough local established corporation, from around EUR 380 to 400 per
hectare in 1998 / 1999 to EUR 800 to 1,200 in 2006, and more recently, at around EUR 1,500 per
hectare or around $825 per acre, there is room for agricultural land price appreciation to the levels
of Western Europe, US and Canada, with the improvement and mechanization of the agricultural
industry in those regions. Farm land prices, in the US averaged $2,700 per acre in 2007. The rise in
farm land prices around the world is due to the rise of the various grains and legumes prices (corn
wheat soy). According to USDA the average farm land prices increase by around 13% last year and
in the corn-belt up to 17% from 2006. (Source 2007 USDA report, see map on Attachment ―C‖)
The agricultural land appreciation in the proposed project in currency adjusted terms would be the
―icing on the cake‖ but due to the inflationary policies of western governments to keep economies
afloat and the growing global demand for grains, the agricultural land appreciation is a given.
The conversion of Sun Energy
As a general remark the sun radiates the earth with an intensity of close to 1.4 KW per square meter
(10 square foot) around the Equator. If this energy could be converted at rate of 100%, a modern
household of four will consume electricity absorbed by the earth on around 2.5 to 3 sq. meters.
The whole concept of Bio-fuels, or Bio-Energy is based on exploiting the sun energy absorbed and
stored in live mater – e.g. plants, algae and trees and convert it to other type of fuels or compounds
that we as humans can use (see Attachment “D” regarding cultivation of micro algae and energy content).
Advantages of proposed Bio-mass cultivation
Due to anticipated growing demand for energy products including crude oil and coal, the projects goal
is to grow on the acquired farm land, energy related crops which will change with the advancement of
the genetically induced technology which thrives to achieve crops with a very high input/output energy
conversion ratio (for example Switchgrass has a conversion ratio of 1 to 14.6).
Present transportation fuels efficiency and the effect on the food supply
At present time the production of fuel liquids for transportation as substitute for gasoline (ethanol) or
diesel (bio-diesel) are competing with the food needs of a growing population around the world,
resulting in the sharp rise in grain prices. This path taken for bio-fuels is only a ―quick fix‖ solution.
As an example the energy balance (input energy to output energy) of producing ethanol adds only
around 10% to 15% of energy per volume to gasoline. The actual savings in fossil fuel and gas
emission like CO2 for example will be only 15% lower if using 1 gallon of ethanol instead of 1 gallon
of gasoline, but will deprive the world of 10 Kg of corn or wheat or of around 2.2 kg of consumable
meat. The pressure from the consumption of the various alternative energy processing facilities on
the supply of grains and oily crops increased their prices substantially and directly affected the
prices of day to day food staples, in the world market. As such, the present bio technologies to
substitute transportation fuels are disadvantageous globally and are a closed ended proposition.
Energy content comparison between coal and energy crop
The proposed project in its first stage we will grow grassy crop which is at leas 4 to 5 times more
effective on an input to output energy ratio, than ethanol produced from corn. The energy content of
switchgrass is 1.4 to1 to a metric ton of coal whose spot prices on the NYMEX are now around $90
per MT (metric ton) @ $72 per barrel of crude oil. Carbon Credits are around €25/MT on ICE - ECX.

In general long term contracts of various electric power stations are at a discount to spot prices, in
the range of 15% to 20%, adjustable every year, trough a negotiated price adjustment mechanism.
At the expected yields of 12MT to 18 MT of coal equivalents, of energy grasses, per hectare, the
revenue from this crop will be in the range of $1,000 to $1,350 per hectare, not including Carbon
Credits estimated at $300 to $420 per hectare, and with a production cost ranging from $700 to
$870 per hectare. Therefore the anticipated profit of selling alternative feed to coal will result in a
pretax profit of around 30% to 35% per year over a 4 to 5 year period.
The initiative of buying agricultural land with the purpose to grow energy related crop, is
based on the above mentioned information.
Investment’s economic viability considerations
The proposal to invest should be based on your decisions on your perceived expectation on future
energy prices and the estimated global food demand. Prices of various energy sources (such as
natural gas, coal or oil) are correlated and rise or fall in tandem. Present consumption of coal in the
US represents over 55% of the US electrical energy needs. Electricity from coal cost apx. 4.8 ¢/KWh
For example if your assessment is, that crude oil would return to around $40 per barrel for a
prolonged period of time, the project will be marginally profitable. Around those energy price levels
of $40 per barrel agricultural resources are marginally profitable (8% to 12%) if compared with fossil
oil or coal. * Prices of coal on May 23, 2008 CIF Rotterdam was $168 per MT from $80 a year ago.
Competition from Solar Energy
Solar energy which would satisfy most of our energy needs at a 100% conversion rate is not fully
utilized. Today solutions of using or converting solar energy have a much higher threshold of
profitability on a BTU per KWH basis and without a substantial break -trough in the efficiency of
solar collectors, solar energy conversion poses no real competition. The more popular available
systems run at 8% to maximum 15% efficiency, are very expensive if on solar silicon cells or direct
solar collectors and concentrators. Those systems still have a relative low conversion rate, are
highly capital intensive, with a recovery rate in excess of 15 years, and are not economically
feasible without substantial government subsidies and grants. Cost as per IEA is over 15 ¢/KWh(1)
.
Proposed Energy Crops – Switchgrass (a)
, Miscanthus (g)
, Canary or Sorghum / Sudan grass
Switchgrass - is a perennial grass with relative very low growing expenses which takes one season
to establish and reach full production within 2 years. Fields initiated with Switchgrass last for about
10 years without substantial re-seeding, low maintenance costs and its roots are frost resistant.
Heat content of 1 MT (Metric Ton) of harvested dry switchgrass contains around 18 million BTU.
Growing and harvesting this crop, will cost between, $45 to $55 per ton. In comparison, high grade
Anthracite sells at the time of writng, around $100 per ton, and has an average heat content of 25 to
29 million BTU/ton while the mining & selling cost, are around $35 to $43 per metric/ton.
(Reference - Fording Canadian Coal Trust (NYSE: FDG) just reported that in second quarter of
2007 the average realized coal price in the second quarter of 2007 was US $101 per ton)
http://cnrp.ccnmatthews.com/client/fording/n/release.jsp?actionFor=755987&releaseSeq=3
&year=2007
From an energy point of view around 1.4 metric ton of switchgrass or other dried grasses
mentioned above, contains the same energy as 1 Metric ton of high grade coal.
The other grasses, like miscanthus, canary grass or sorghum/sudan grass hybrids have similar
energy content, but differ slightly in growing cost, yield per hectare and adaptability to various soils.

Another way of calculating the advantage of growing those grasses as energy crop is the fact that
for example switchgrass with and energy content of 1 million BTU cost around $2 to $2.5, to grow
compared to the price of natural gas which is around $6 to $7, for the same energy content of 1
million BTU. Each type of grass grows optimally in various soils & yield, differ from 16 to 36 ton ha.
Biomass electricity cost may be produced around 5-6 c€/kWh for CHP plants or even to 2-4 c€/kWh
for co-firing with fossil fuel due to avoidance of investment costs on the power cycle (on page 29
(1)
).
Average yield of switchgrass per hectare is 16 to 22 metric ton dry matter and can reach 25
tons with proper rainfall or irrigation, at latitudes of 46o
to 34o
or in energy units 300 to 420
million BTU per hectare or the equivalent of energy contained in 12 to 18 metric tone of coal.
Based on recent Biotech developments miscanthus can achieve a yield of 30 to 40 ton per hectare,
but it takes 3 years to mature. In exchange EU grants up to EUR 1,450 per hectare for this crop.
Remarks on the CO2 Credits - The use of biomass as a substitute for coal provides direct carbon
emission reduction 0.5-0.6 tone of C per each of biomass used or 0.8 tone of coal substituted.
Assuming annual yield of biomass feedstock from dedicated plantations at 10 dry tones per hectare,
each hectare can save 5 - 6 tone of carbon or 18 - 22 tone of CO2. (Ref (1)
: Consideration on the
“optimal” use of biomass for energy in Europe - by Oleksandr Khokhotva, IIIEE, Lund University).
Methane gas is 21 times more potent as CO2 and carbon credits are paid accordingly.
Compared to all other bio-fuel production and energy transformation pathways currently proposed,
switchgrass pellet heating or co-firing with coal offers the highest net energy yield per hectare, the
highest energy output to input ratio, the greatest economic advantage over fossil fuels, and the most
significant potential to offset greenhouse gases (See Attachment A and miscanthus see Attachment G).
As a side remark - based on today‘s coal prices, consideration should be given to import dry
processed switchgrass or miscanthus as a supplement to Israeli coal power station, from an
ecological and also combustion point of view.
Side remarks and clarifications;
As related to Bulgaria, I do have the full support of the local Commercial Attaché who at the time
appointed a contact person within the Embassy to handle the projects proposed. Further I have a
team in Rouse Bulgaria and the full support of the local political establishment and the Minister of
Agriculture Mr. Nihat Tahir Kabil and Vice Premier Emel Etem. In the past I had very high level
dealings and good relation with officials at ministerial level within the Romanian Government and do
not see any reason why not renew them.
As to way of action;
1. An investors group must make an ―in principle‖ decision to get involved in alternative energy
from agricultural crop and by-products (e.g. including the possibility of processing energy
from cow and/or pig manure and/or poultry droppings and/or agricultural waste and
cultivation of duckweed and/or micro-algae – details at stage 2 of project (see Attachment ―D‖)
2. A new company or LLP should be establish with $100K to $200K in equity which will;
2.1 Establish a board of directors/ advisers for the new enterprise and a ―skeleton‖
management team to lead the project & funding preparation.
2.2 Initiate feasibility studies for the proposed projects if from inner resources or with help
of outside grants like SAPARD, EBRD, DOE, USAID USDA etc.
2.3 Establish research funding with Tel Aviv University related departments
2.4 Prepare preliminary business plan related to cultivating energy grasses etc.
2.5 Trying to bring additional partners to invest in the initiative to arrive to a commitment in
stages of an equity base of 25 to 50 million.
2.6 Process assistance request in funding of the feasibility studies and projects from
EBRD, OPIC USDA DOE and similar EU entities (see ―Attachment B‖).

2.7 Enter into negotiation with Bulgarian and Romanian Government entities related to
long term agreements of supplying energy grasses as supplement feed for their coal
fired power stations.
2.8 Evaluating the possibility of establishing local/regional co-generation power units of
several Megawatts to supply electricity to the national grid and steam or hot water to
the nearby communities (with financing from EBRD, EIB, OPIC etc.) possible also in
land exchange or lease transaction.
2.9 Continuous evaluation of new processes as they evolve in processing agricultural
products to substitute products manufactured today from crude oil or petrochemicals.
3. Initiative must be taken to purchase at least 100 hectares of land at and average price of
EUR 1000 to 1500 (investment of EUR 100K +) and possible rent another several hundred
for 25 years and start planting energy grasses and other crops not only switchgrass (time
frame preferable Oct. Nov. 2007 to March April 2008).
4. Evaluating the concept of two stage Anaerobic Digesters (Attachment ―D‖) with farm animal
manure in combination with energy grasses to produce methane gas and substitute for soy
feed by growing duckweed and a variety of micro-algae for protein and crude oil substitute.
Carbon credits for not releasing methane gas are up to 21 times higher than those for CO2
5. Based on the new business plan apply for funding for the proposed expansion and
construction of stage1 and later stage 2 and possible stage 3 - the Bio Refinery to the
various entities like OPIC or EBRD and if possible request equity participation form those or
their affiliated institutions. (at present time OPIC offers 75% financing from a credit facility of
$350 million, EBRD financed and also invested equity in related projects which were new in
their concepts to serve as a business model for further projects – see EBRD ―Tnuva‖ project)
6. Start efforts to raise additional equity or subordinated debt from overseas Europe and the
US to arrive at a critical mass of 50 to 60 thousand hectares of owned and leased land.
7. Enter into negotiations to buy know how and to build the Vertically Integrated Bio Refinery to
produce substitute products which are now produced from crude oil or petrochemicals.
The initiative financial risks are;
1. Loosing the start up funds estimated at 100K to 200K as nothing will come out of the project.
2. Getting ―stuck‖ for a year or two years with several hundred of hectares of farm land which
will depend on the income form carbon credits and land rent, or subcontract to grow grains
whose actual returns are now around 10% to 15%.
Anticipated returns at present time should exceed 30% to 35% on a “cash on cash” basis but
I anticipate that this return will diminish with time to more reasonable norms within few years
as the competition will grow and force lower prices due to adequate supply.
Best Regards
Haim R. Branisteanu, Partner
Hope the explanation is providing the necessary preliminary information
References upon request.

Market Trends – on Switchgrass (Year 2000/1) – Canada
(this report is brought as an example and the energy reference was made during years 2000/2001 at which time energy
prices were very low - crude oil below 30 per barrel and natural gas around $2 to $3 Exchange rate 1.5 CAD to $1)
At that time Canada was well ahead of the US in developing switchgrass as a Bio-fuel. Pellet
stoves were briskly selling to individual homeowners as supplemental heating sources. These are
similar to the "corn stoves" that burn waste or surplus corn or wood-waste pellets sold in the United
States. Donald Green, Forage Specialist, Manitoba Agriculture and Food, Soils and Crops Branch,
developed an economic analysis based on production in different soil types over a number of years,
coupled with additional data yielded baseline production data of 4302 kg/ha (3840 lbs/acre) to 5759
kg/ha (5140 lbs/acre) depending upon soil type.
From this research, as a fuel, it was estimated that the value of switchgrass pellets can be produced
and marketed for a price of CAD$150/MT ($100/MT). This price could include CAD$50/MT paid to
switchgrass producers for new baled switchgrass product, CAD $50 for transportation and pellets,
and CAD$50 for packaging and marketing of the pellets. Switchgrass pellets have been observed
to produce in the size of 18.5 GJ/MT for late fall harvested switchgrass and 19.2 GJ/MT for over-
wintered switchgrass. In comparison, wood has been reasoned as producing 19.8 GJ/MT and
wheat straw at 19 GJ/MT. If a final pelleted price of CAD$150/MT is considered, switchgrass pellets
as source of energy would cost in the range of CAD$7-8 /GJ.
Based on several prior years energy cost data, the researchers compared switchgrass pellets to
natural gas. Natural Gas prices have spiked to record levels in the past 12 months. Prior to
December 1999, natural gas prices have hovered between CAD$1 and CAD$3 per GJ since 1996.
Certainly the long term prospective for biofuels as an energy source needs to consider the
economic value for the alternatives in the energy market. Energy can be produced from
switchgrass for from CAD$7-8 /GJ, this must be considered the basement price for natural gas
below which switchgrass as an energy source will not be feasible.
The researchers concluded that bio-fuel production presents an alternative outlet for fiber
production from prairie agriculture. However, as time passes and traditional energy sources
become more expensive and become more cost competitive. Producers of bio-fuels are likely to be
the first to take advantage of these opportunities due to their lower GP relative to lower temperature
costs and on-farm use. With the most recent natural gas prices quoted in the range of CAD$7-8
(Cdn) per GJ, (or $4 to $4.5) it is doubtful that switchgrass will become a significant energy source
for homeowners in the near future because of convenience even that costs are well below of NG.
If industrial co-products are developed, several factors could change the economic picture. These
include large-scale co-firing of switchgrass with coal for energy production, and governmental tax
and conservation incentives.
Researchers at Iowa State University in producing estimates of the Carbon Sequestration Cycle,
determined that one pound of switchgrass contains 7,500 BTUs of energy. They further estimated
that 1,500 acres (610 Hectares) of switchgrass per year would be required per megawatt of
electrical generation capacity. Based on these figures, in Iowa, for example, if Iowa‘s 1.4 million
CRP acres were planted in switchgrass for use as an energy feedstock, the energy produced would
equal the electricity consumed by 800,000 homes annually, or the energy equivalent of three-million
tons of coal.
Additionally, switchgrass is well suited to co-generation schemes where other biomass material or
municipal wastes can be used as additional fuel sources. For instance, continuing with the Iowa
example, more than five-million tons of biomass from hybrid poplar trees and related "biomass-
generator" crops could be grown for energy purposes each year in Iowa, producing more than 92-
trillion BTUs of energy.

Relative to other biomass fuel initiatives, the production, pelletization and conversion of switchgrass
into heat using the close coupled gasifier technology appears to be a promising energy production
and transformation pathway. For instance, a 10 tonne per hectare yield of switchgrass produces
185 GJ/ha of energy (assuming a feedstock energy content of 18.5 GJ). Five percent of this
material is lost during the pelleting process, leaving 175.8 GJ of fuel pellets produced per hectare.
Using the energy output to input ratio of 14.6:1, 163.1 GJ/ha of net energy are gained per hectare, a
yield that favorably compares to other existing or demonstration level biomass energy
transformation pathways. For example, power generation from co-firing switchgrass with coal
produces a net energy gain of 47.2 GJ/ha, the production of switchgrass ethanol yields 57.1 GJ/ha
and the production of corn-derived ethanol yields 21.4 GJ/ha. Thus, the use of pelletized
switchgrass as a source of bio-energy is 3.5 times more land use efficient than the production of
electricity from co-firing switchgrass with coal, 2.9 times more efficient than the production of
cellulosic ethanol, and 7.6 times more efficient than grain corn ethanol production.
Cost of Growing Switchgrass and Reed Canary grass based on US Department of Energy
Economic Analysis, Soil Suitability, and Varietal Performance, Final Report Year 2000/1
prepared by E.C. Brummer, C.L. Burras, M.D. Duffy, and K.J. Moore of Iowa State University & University of Tennessee
Battelle. (it is a 66 page report parts of which are printed in this presentation)
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 ton/acre (T/A) = 2.24 Mg/ha = 2400 kg/ha Burning 1 Kg C = 1.82 Kg CO2 in weights ratio
1 Mg/ha = 1000 kg/ha = 0.45 tons/acre Energy Density of Coal @ 24 MJ/Kg is 6.67kWh
1 g/m2 = 10 kg/ha 1 Kg Coal = around 2.4 kWh @36% efficiency
1 g/kg = 0.1% NatGas emission 600g CO2 / kWh NG= 39MJ/m
3
1 mg/kg = 1 ppm (part per million) Coal Density = 830kg/m
3
The economic and agronomic analyses of bio-fuel crops–primarily switchgrass, secondarily reed canary grass
– are needed to determine the feasibility of growing these crops in southern Iowa. In this report, we discuss
preliminary research bearing on these issues.
The economic analysis of switchgrass production shows that yield and price are the determining factors for
profitability. With moderate yields (3 tons/acre) and price ($50 per ton), switchgrass could produce a
significant positive impact for the regional economy. Changing from a corn/soybean rotation to switchgrass
will not make a substantial change in energy usage to produce the crop.
In field level trials, we have found switchgrass (cultivar ‗Cave-in-Rock‘) yields to be relatively low when starting
from long-term, poorly managed stands. However, yields improved to nearly 4.3 Mg ha-1 (about 2 tons/acre)
after two years of fertilization with 112 kg N ha-1 and weed control. These yield levels are still low, but given
that the stands in which the initial work was conducted were thin and poorly managed, we expect that yields
can improve in well-managed stands. The one caveat is that the inherent productivity of some highly erodible
land is quite low, and high production in these areas, primarily sides-lopes, may not be realistic.
Additionally, we found evidence of substantial erosion in some established switchgrass stands, a result that
was unexpected.
Yields of various germ-plasm in small plot trials planted in 1997 ranged from 6.4 Mg ha-1 in 1998 to 11.8 Mg
ha-1 in 1999 as the stands matured and filled in gaps. The highest yielding variety in 1999 was ‗Alamo‘, at 17
Mg ha-1. Alamo and several other lowland ecotypes produced the most biomass, higher than Cave-in-Rock,
the normally recommended cultivar for southern Iowa. These trials suggest that higher yields are possible
under optimum management and with superior cultivars. A cautionary note is that the lowland cultivars have
not experienced a severe winter, and their winter hardiness may not be sufficient under those conditions. In all
cases, switchgrass quality appears adequate for a bio-fuel; variation among cultivars exists, suggesting that
further improvements in quality are possible.
Preliminary evaluation of reed canary grass suggests that two harvests, one in late spring and the other after
frost, yield the most biomass. Evaluation of a large collection of germ plasm in Iowa and Wisconsin shows that
higher yields are possible than those present in currently available cultivars. Quality of reed canary grass may

be problematic: ash, chlorine, and silica are higher than optimum. Further analysis of quality is needed,
especially because all data evaluated to date have been collected in central Iowa on soils quite different from
those in southern Iowa.
Marginal soils, widespread throughout southern Iowa, are unsuited to annual row crop—corn and soybean—
production. Much of the landscape in southern Iowa is characterized by heavy, wet soils and significant slopes
that allow substantial levels of erosion. On-farm integration of bio-fuel crops with grain and forage crops and
livestock may foster the long-term environmental and economic sustainability required for agricultural
systems.
Switchgrass has been chosen as the model herbaceous bio-fuel crop, and its adaptation to Iowa is well
known. Profitable use of biomass crops requires sufficient understanding of agronomic aspects of their culture
and economic realities of their production. We intend to assess the productive potential of switchgrass across
a range of soil types and landscapes, allowing us to more effectively pinpoint locations where it will perform
well.
Reed canary grass represents another potential bio-fuel crop, a cool-season grass alternative to switchgrass.
With its different growth pattern–it is most productive in spring and fall–and tolerance to both wet and droughty
soils, reed canary grass complements switchgrass in a diversified bio-fuel program. Its strongly rhizomatous
growth habit also make it appealing, particularly on soils on which switchgrass, a bunchgrass, does not form
thick stands and erosion is a problem.
The research reported in this report is part of an ongoing project to understand the constraints to biomass
production in southern Iowa and to develop production methods that will permit economically viable
production of bio-fuel crops. Although labeled a ―final‖ report, most of the experiments discussed are
continuing in the field for one to two more years. Thus, only tentative conclusions are possible at this point.
Similarly, the economic analyses are necessarily preliminary and could change as production parameters
developed in other phases of this program are implemented on-farm. In the report, tables for each section
follow immediately after the text for that section.
The most promising cool-season grass for bio fuel production is reed canary grass.
Because the most important restriction on cropland use in the Midwest after erosion is wet soils (USDA,
1987), reed canary grass appears to be an ideal species. Reed canary grass grows extremely well in wet
soils, even withstanding inundation for long periods (Carlson et al., 1996). Its wet soil tolerance often
overshadows its excellent drought tolerance, which makes it relatively more productive in the summer relative
to other cool-season species (Carlson et al., 1996). Biomass productivity of reed canary grass exceeded that
of switchgrass in northern Ohio (Wright, 1988) and occasionally in southern Iowa (Anderson et al., 1991).
Numerous other studies have also indicated that reed canary grass produces excellent yields of total biomass
(e.g. Smith et al., 1984; Cherney et al., 1986; Marten et al., 1980). on reed canary grass makes an appealing
biomass crop for several reasons in addition to its yield. As a cool season grass, it can be harvested in early
summer when warm-season grass biomass is not available, facilitating a constant feedstock flow to the
bioreactor (Cushman and Turhollow, 1991). Secondly, reed canary grass biomass increases linearly with
applied nitrogen (Anderson et al., 1991; Cherney et al., 1991).
The analysis based on heavier seeding rates and alternative assumptions regarding the probability of
reseeding do not change the basic conclusions from the initial work. Yield per acre has the greatest impact on
the costs per ton. The second greatest impact is attributed to the land charge per acre. With the highest yield,
6 tons per acre, the costs per ton vary from the low $50 range with a $75 per acre land charge to less than
$45 per ton with a $25 per acre land charge.
Examining alternative production techniques, reseeding rates, and other production aspects will not
appreciably impact switchgrass costs of production. The most important research must be on ways to
increase yields. This work has shown that the switchgrass at a 6 ton yield level can be cost competitive for
biomass production.
We have completed work on estimating the costs of production for reed canary grass. These initial budgets
will change as we learn more about production techniques and how to manage reed canary grass.

The most significant reed canary production practices are the following:
Land preparation is usually done through no till drill following crops and killed sod.
The seed variety commonly used is Palaton, and seeding rate is 10 to 12 pounds pure live seed per acre.
Spring or late summer seeding, but late summer (August) seeding preferred.
No nitrogen application in the establishment year and two nitrogen applications during production years.
Two harvests per year, in large bales, weighing 1,100 pounds on average.
Summary Table presents the estimated costs for establishing reed canary grass following cropland and
grassland. We assumed a $50 per acre charge for grassland and a $75 per acre land charge for cropland.
We assumed that the stand would last for 11 years. Further, we assumed there is no reseeding necessary.
Notice that there is no appreciable difference in the establishment cost estimates. This is due to the
assumptions used, especially regarding the herbicide choices. These costs would change depending upon the
production system chosen by the producer. The costs of producing reed canary grass follow a similar pattern
to switchgrass in that yield is the most important variable in determining the costs per ton.
It is strongly recommended to read the full report to ascertain the variables that will influence the actual yield
of the crop and it‘s suitability for various types of soils.
Switchgrass adds organic matter (as do the other grasses mentioned above) — the plants extend nearly as
far below ground as above and can be used for an efficient CO2 sequestration in his root system. With its
network of stems and roots, switchgrass holds onto soil even in winter to prevent erosion. Besides helping
slow runoff and anchor soil, switchgrass can also filter runoff from fields planted with traditional row crops.
Buffer strips of switchgrass, planted along stream-banks and around wetlands, could remove soil particles,
pesticides, and fertilizer residues from surface water before it reaches groundwater or streams.
Until the present rise in energy prices switchgrass and other grasses were used to improve marginal or
depleted farm land after intensive farming procedures.
Left - Switchgrass – or Panicum virgatum - Right – Sorghum Bicolor cross 59 days
see also (Attachment D-2)
On page 14, you will find a diagram outlining the
vision of the US Department of Energy of the future
pathway on renewable energy. This DOE report was
prepared in 2007. For further information on Switchgrass kindly ask for the Switchgrass supplement
and the related scientific articles from various universities and US Department of Agriculture.

Estimated establishment budgets for frost seeded switchgrass on croplands, and on grasslands.
Pre-harvest machinery operations Switchgrass on Switchgrass on
cropland grassland
Cost per acre* Cost per acre*
Disc $8.00 -
Harrow $3.85 -
Mowing - $6.80
Airflow spreader (seed and fertilizers) $4.50 $4.50
Spraying Roundup™ - $4.30
Spraying Atrazine and 2,4 D $4.30 $4.30
Total machinery cost $20.65 $19.90
Switchgrass Switchgrass
Operating Expenses Unit Price/Unit Amount cropland grassland
Cost Per Acre Cost Per Acre
Seed lb of PLS $4.0 10 $40.00 $40.00
Fertilizer (0-30-40)** $13.70 $13.70
Lime (including its application) ton $11.50 3 $34.50 $34.50
Herbicide
Atrazine qt. $2.93 1.50 $4.40 $4.40
2,4 D pt. $1.63 1.50 $2.45 $2.45
Roundup™ qt. $9.39 2.00 - $18.77
Total operating cost $/acre $95.04 $113.81
Land charge (cash rent equivalent) $/acre $75.00 (1)
$50.00(1)
Total establishment cost $190.69 $183.71
Prorated establishment costs (11 yrs. @ 8%) $26.71 $25.73
* Source: 2000 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey, FM-1698, March 2000.
** Phosphorus price = $.27/lb; potassium price = $.14/lb. (Reference Cost of Producing Switchgrass “Final Report Year 2000/2001” on page 9)
=======================================================================================================================
Estimated production year budgets for frost seeded Switchgrass (Yield: 6 tons/acre and 25%
probability of reseeding).
Switchgrass on cropland and grassland Cost per acre*
Preharvest machinery operations
Spreading liquid nitrogen $4.35
Applying P&K $3.15
Spraying chemicals $4.30
Total machinery cost $11.80
Switchgrass on cropland and grassland Unit Price/Unit Amount Cost per acre
Operating expenses
Nitrogen lb. $.21 100.00 $21.00
P lb. $.27 11.65 $ 3.15
K l lb. $.14 136.80 $19.15
Herbicide
Atrazine qt. $2.93 1.50 $ 4.40
2,4 D pt. $1.63 1.50 $ 2.45
Total operating cost $/acre $50.14
Interest on operating expenses (9 %) $/acre $ 2.26
Switchgrass on cropland and grassland Cost/Ton Cost per acre
Mowing/conditioning $ 1.45 $ 8.70
Raking $ .68 $ 4.10
Baling (large square bales) $16.34 $98.06
Staging and loading $ 6.51 $39.06
Total harvesting cost $24.99 $149.92
Switchgrass on Cropland Switchgrass on grassland
Land charge (cash rent equivalent) $75.00 (1)
$50.00 (1)
Prorated establishment costs (11 yrs. @ 8%) $26.71 $25.73
Prorated reseeding costs (10 yrs. @ 8%) $ 4.93 $ 4.00
Total production costs per acre $320.76 $293.85
Total costs per bale $22.91 $20.99
Total costs per ton $53.46 $48.97
Source: 2000 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey, FM-1698, March 2000. (1)
cost per acre in Eastern Europe is ¼ of the US price)

Estimated establishment budget of reed canary grass on grassland (2) (plow and disk).
Pre-harvest machinery operations Cost per acre*
Grass seed drill $10.85
Plowing $11.05
Disking $ 7.75
Mowing weeds $ 7.05
Spreading fertilizers $ 3.25
Spraying 2,4 D $ 4.60
Operating expenses Unit Price/Unit Amount Cost per acre
Seed lb of PLS $3.25 11.00 $35.75
Fertilizer (0-30-40)** $13.70
Lime (including its application) ton $12.00 3.00 $36.00
Herbicide (2,4 D) pt. $1.63 1.50 $ 2.45
Total establishment costs $180.85
Prorated establishment costs (11 yrs. @ 8%) $25.33
** Phosphorus price = $.27/lb; potassium price = $.14/lb. (Reference Cost of Producing Switchgrass “Final Report Year 2000/2001” on page 9)
Estimated production year budgets for reed canary grass on cropland and on grassland.
Expected Yield: 6 tons/acre, approximately 11large square bales: 1100 pounds/bale. .
Pre-harvest machinery operations Cost per acre*
Spreading liquid nitrogen (2x) $9.10
Applying P&K $3.25
Spraying chemicals $4.60
Unit Price/Unit Amount Cost per acre Cost per HA
Nitrogen lb. $.21 90.00 $18.90
P lb. $.27 30.00 $ 8.10
K lb. $14 40.00 $ 5.60
Herbicide (2,4 D) pt. $1.63 1.50 $ 2.45
Interest on operating expenses (9%) $/acre $1.58
Harvesting and storing expenses Cost/Ton Cost per acre Cost per HA
Mowing/conditioning (2x) $ 2.97 $17.80
Raking (2x) $ 1.30 $7.80
Baling (large square bales) (2x)*** $12.91 $77.45
Staging and loading (2x)*** $ 6.51 $39.06
Total harvesting cost $23.69 $142.11
Reed canary grass Reed canary grass on
on cropland grassland (1) and (2) .
$50.00 (1)
$ 50.00 (1)
Prorated establishment costs (11 yrs. @ 8%) $26.43 $26.20 $ 25.33
Total production costs per acre $297.12 $271.89 $271.02
Total costs per bale $27.01 $24.72 $ 24.64
Total costs per ton $49.52 $45.31 $ 45.17
** Phosphorus Price = $.27/lb; Potassium Price = $.14/lb.
*** The cost of baling is on per bale basis. For first baling, 7 bales (60% of production) and for the second baling, 4 bales
(40% of production). The staging and loading is on per ton basis. For the first staging, 3.6 tons (60% of production),for the
second staging, 2.4 tons (40% production).
(1)
cost per acre in Eastern Europe is ¼ of the US price)
<> - (also see recent information from the University of Tennessee in Attachment F)

US Department of Energy vision of the future pathway in renewable energy

Attachment A
THE USE OF SWITCHGRASS BIOFUEL PELLETS AS A GREENHOUSE GAS OFFSET STRATEGY
By R. Samson1
, M. Drisdelle2
, L. Mulkins1
, C. Lapointe, and P. Duxbury1
Energy inputs and outputs associated with of switchgrass as a ―pelleted‖ bio-fuel.
Process GJ/tonne
Switchgrass establishment a
0.028
Switchgrass fertilization and application 0.460
Switchgrass harvesting 0.231
Switchgrass transportation 0.072
Pellet mill construction b
0.043
Pellet mill operation 0.244
Management, sales, billing and delivery of pellets 0.193
Total Input Energy 1.271
Total Output Energy 18.5
Energy Output/Input Ratio 14.6
a
Switchgrass information derived from Girouard et al., 1999 and Samson et al., 2000
b
Pellet mill construction, operation, management sales, billing and delivery of pellets from King, 1999
Expressed in terms of recovered energy, the conversion of switchgrass into fuel pellets is a highly energy
conserving system, recovering 88% of the original energy stored in the switchgrass. Comparatively, the other
biomass energy transformation pathways recover less than 1/3
rd
of the original plant energy in a final usable
form. If the energy associated with the processing plant materials were included in the analysis, the energy
efficiency of the coal co-firing and ethanol plants would appear even less favorable. Moreover, the corn
ethanol chain is particularly inefficient given that high quality farmland is often used in its production. There is
no doubt that ongoing improvements can be made in coal co-firing and ethanol plants, and that they produce
a higher grade of energy than a fuel pellet. Nonetheless, using fuel pellets for heat related applications
remains the most viable entry point to displace fossil fuels, as the original energy quality of the biomass best
matches this end use, and little money or energy is dissipated through the transformation pathway.
Further work is now required to commercially test and optimize the switchgrass pelleting and close-couple
gasifier combustion systems. It is of paramount importance that policy makers are made aware of this energy
transformation pathway, and that research and development budgets and tax credits, such as those currently
oriented towards bio fuel power generation and liquid fuel transformation pathways, are also provided to
pelletized bio fuel development.
The energy analysis below, is similar for other grasses such as miscanthus, canary or sorghum-sudan grass
Conversions; Energy Electricity 1Kg = 2.2lb 1MgBTU = 1.055 G Joules
1 MJ = 947.8 BTU 1KWh = 3412.14 BTU Electrical output 1MWh = 3.6 G Joules
1Kg Coal @ 24 Mg Joules = 6.67kWh = 2.75 KBTU or = 2.4kWh @36% 1Kg coal= 1.83 Kg CO2

Energy analysis of biomass fuel transformation pathways
Switch-grass and
other grasses
fuel pellets
a
Co-firing switch-
grass and other
grasses with coal
b
Switchgrass
cellulosic ethanol
and electricity
c
Grain of corn to
ethanol
d
Biomass yield per
hectare (ODT)
10 (25 ton) 10 (25 ton) 10 (25 ton) 6.5
Direct biomass
energy yield (GJ/ha)
185 (462) 185 (462) 185 (462) 136.5
Energy yield after
conversion (GJ/ha)
175.8 (440) 58.3 (146 )
(assumes net
conversion to
electricity as coal)
73.0 (67.2 ethanol
+ 5.8 electricity) or
- (182)
64.2 and additional
Co-products
Energy consumed in
production &
conversion (GJ/ha)
12.7 (22) 11.1 (18) 15.9 (26.5) 42.8 and co-
products credits
Net energy gain
(GJ/ha)
e
163.1 (418) 47.2 (128) 57.1 (155) 21.4
Recovery of original
biomass energy (%)
88.2 % (90%) 25.5% (28%) 30.9 (33.5) 15.7
a
Assumptions: Pelletization of switchgrass preserves 95% of the biomass energy and consumes 0.79 GJ/tonne in
switchgrass production and 0.48 GJ/tonne in switchgrass pellet plant construction and materials, pellet processing and
marketing.
b
Assumptions: Switchgrass when co-fired with coal converts at 31.5% efficiency, switchgrass consumes 0.91 GJ/tonne in
the production process and 0.2 GJ/tonne during its conversion at the existing coal plant. See also DOE / Iowa Utility 19.6
MWH or 70.6 GJ from 15,647 tons of switchgrass or equivalent of 12,060 tons of coal or equivalent $1.22 million.
c
Assumptions: Switchgrass cellulosic ethanol production is a cogeneration process that produces per tonne 320 l ethanol
and 160 kwh electricity, the ethanol has an energy value of 0.021 GJ/l and the electricity 0.0036 GJ/kWh. Switchgrass
production consumes 0.91GJ/tonne and processing consumes 0.68 GJ/tonne (adapted from Levelton, 2000 and Wang et al.,
1999)
d
Assumptions: Corn yields 6.5 ODT (120 bushels/acre) of grain which has an energy content of 21.0 GJ/tonne. Ethanol
yields of 470 l/tonne are obtained, with all energy credits already assigned to coproducts. Corn production and ethanol
processing consumes 0.14 GJ/l of ethanol (57,000 BTU/gallon), including coproduct credits. The ethanol has an energy
value of 0.021 GJ/l (Wang et al., 1999)
e
The net energy gain values for cellulosic and grain corn ethanol do not include energy costs of materials used in the
construction of the processing facilities. For grasses results may differ based in the various yields and energy inputs.
CONCLUSIONS
Converting switchgrass pellets into heat using close coupled gasifier stoves and furnaces is proposed as the biofuel system with
the greatest potential to displace fossil fuels at this time. It is a sustainable energy transformation pathway that is relatively
environmentally benign. This system appears to accurately fit the definition of a „soft energy path,‟ as described by Lovins (1977),
due to its following characteristics:
1. It is powered by a renewable source of energy
2. It provides power sources which are multiple, small-scale and local, rather than few, large-scale and distant
3. It is a flexible and comparatively low technology system, facilitating its understanding and utilization
4. It is matched in terms of both scale and energy quality to its end-use application.

Attachment B
List of Government and Agencies grants and subsidies;
Modernizing farm land could entitle the owner to up to 50% in grants of the investment under SAPARD programs.
Senior and Mezzanine financing will be provided by EBRD, KfW, IFC and FMO at subsidized interest rates.
Power and energy efficiency - The EBRD will invest with the private sector in both energy generation and distribution in
conjunction with appropriate regulatory and institutional reform. Projects promoting alternative energy sources and energy efficiency
will be a priority.
EBRD Bulgaria EBRD Romania EBRD Moldova
17 Moskovska Street 8 Orlando Street 31 August 1989 Street 98
1000 Sofia Bulgaria Bucharest, Sector 1 Romania MD 2012 Chisinau Moldova
Tel: +359 2 9321 414 Tel: +40 21 202 7100 Tel: +373 22 210 000
Fax: +359 2 9321 441 Fax: +40 21 202 7110 Fax: +373 22 210 011
Country Director: James Hyslop Country Director: Hildegard Gacek Head of Office: Francis Delaey
EBRD Agribusiness Policy is found at the following links;
Agribusiness operations policy Agribusiness - Activities in 2006
http://www.ebrd.com/about/policies/sector/agri.htm http://www.ebrd.com/country/sector/agri/activity.htm
Project summary documents - Agribusiness Bulgarian Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Credit Line
http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/sector/agri.htm http://www.beerecl.com/index.htm
Renewable energy Approved Project Loans - 58,316,000
http://www.ebrd.com/country/sector/power/renew/index.htm http://www.beerecl.com/table_e.htm
More grant funds for EBRD-sponsored energy efficiency projects in Bulgaria
http://www.ebrd.com/new/pressrel/2007/010807a.htm
Bulgaria Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Credit Line
The EBRD has committed EUR105m to a Credit Line to Bulgarian banks specifically earmarked for on investment into
renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The credit line had funded 17 wind projects, 16 small hydro projects, 8
biomass and 5 geothermal projects as of June 07. The credit line is supplemented by grant funds from the Kozloduy
International Decommissioning Fund providing technical assistance to support project appraisal and incentive payments to
completed projects. Businesses use the BEERECL facility to improve energy efficiency with projects for co-generation,
process optimization, fuel switching, automation and control and heat and steam recovery and to promote the use of
renewable energy technologies. See http://www.beercl.com
Terry McCallion, Operation Leader
Stefania Racolta, Manager - Energy Efficiency & Climate Change
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
One Exchange Square, London EC2A 2JN, United Kingdom
Fax: +44 20 7338 6942 • Email: RacoltaS@ebrd.com
Structure of BEERECL loans - Under the BEERECL, the EBRD extends loans to participating banks (PB),
which on-lend to private sector companies for industrial energy efficiency projects and small renewable
energy projects. Upon completion of eligible projects, as verified by an Independent Energy Expert (IEE) hired
by the EBRD, the project sponsors (borrowers) receive the following incentive grant from the KIDSF:
Energy efficiency projects - 7.5% of the disbursed loan principal
Small renewable project s - 20% of the disbursed loan principal.
Projects eligible for loans from the participating Banks under the BEERECL Facility are:
Renewable Energy, such as:
- biomass
- biogas
- wind
- run-of-the-river hydro
- geothermal
- solar

http://www.beerecl.com/Bulgaria_map.htm Locations of BEERECL financed Projects

Attachment C

Attachment D
Substitute of Protein in Farm Animal Feed and substitute for Crude Oil
Vertically Integrated Anaerobic Digester and Production of Methane gas and CO2 feed for
aquatic cultures
The General Concept - Starting ingredients of the Anaerobic Digester process to produce
methane gas CO2 and fertilizers would be cow manure or other farm animal manure, waste-water
and energy grasses. Other manure of various farm animals and ―beddings‖ including residue of food
processing and metal free municipal waste water can be utilized as feed to produce bio-gas and
organic fertilizer for re-use in agriculture.
As a guideline, bio-gas is 55-65% methane, 30-35% CO2, with some hydrogen, nitrogen and other
gases with a heat value of about 600 BTU's per cubic foot. This compares with natural gas's 80%
methane, which yields a BTU value of about 1,000. About 225 cubic feet of gas equals one gallon
of gasoline. The manure produced by one cow in one year can be converted to methane which is
the equivalent of over 50 gallons of gasoline. Cow manure content is 6.5% methane and 3.5% CO2.
Methane gas resulting form decomposition of farm animal manure or any other organic decomposing
matter, is 21 times more potent in global warming than CO2. Therefore methane-capture credits,
given for saving methane gas emission, justifies payment of 21 times CO2 credits which are $7.5 in
the US and €26 in EU. (Methane gas produced by the manure of a typical cow translates into about five tons of CO2/year)
Below, a scheme of an agricultural bio-gas plant including slurry, energy grasses or crops
and organic residues as feedstock and including different pathways of bio-gas utilization
With the use of liquid-based systems, the primary method for reducing emissions is to recover the
methane before it is emitted into the air. Methane recovery involves capturing and collecting the methane
produced in the manure management system. This recovered methane (a medium Btu gas with about
500-600 Btu/ft3
) can be flared or used to produce heat or electricity.

Three methane recovery technologies are available:
 Covered anaerobic digesters are the simplest form of recovery system, and can be used at
dairy or swine farms in temperate or warm climates. In this system, manure is mixed with
water and pumped into outdoor lagoons. The covered lagoons are air-tight and provide the
anaerobic conditions under which methane is produced and recovered
 Complete mix digesters present a methane recovery option for all climates. They are
heated, constant-volume, mechanically-mixed tanks that decompose medium solids swine or
dairy manure (3-8% total solids) to produce bio-gas and a biologically stabilized effluent. The
manure is collected daily in a mixing pit where the percent total solids can be adjusted and
the manure can be pre-heated. A gas-tight cover placed over the digester vessel maintains
anaerobic conditions and traps the methane that is produced. The produced methane,
representing about 8 to 11 percent of the total manure, is removed from the digester,
processed, and transported to the end use site.
 Plug flow digesters only work with dairy scraped manure and cannot be used with other
manures. These are constant volume, flow-through units that decompose high solids dairy
manure (>11% solids) to produce bio-gas and a biologically stabilized effluent. The basic plug
flow digester design is a long tank, often built below ground level, with a gas-tight,
expandable cover. A gas-tight cover collects the bio-gas and maintains anaerobic conditions
inside the tank. The amount of methane produced is about 40 cubic feet per cow per day.
As noted, the amount of methane produced from aerobic decomposition (dry management) is small
in comparison to the emissions from liquid management. Currently, no feasible options exist for
reducing methane emissions from dry manure management.
The recovery of methane from manure management systems can significantly reduce the overall
emission of greenhouse gases. Utilities can work with large livestock producers to reduce overall
emissions of methane from animal waste lagoons by encouraging producers to cover their lagoons
and collect the methane for electricity generation or on-farm fuel.
Environmental Effectiveness of Manure Management Options cost range per 1,000 lbs/ live weight
Covered lagoon digesters with open storage ponds $150-400
Heated digesters (i.e., complete mix and plug flow)
with open storage tanks $200-400 €120-€240
Aerated lagoons with open storage ponds† $200-450
Separate treatment lagoons and storage ponds (2-cell systems) $200-400
Combined treatment lagoons and storage ponds $200-400

To get an idea of the size of an anaerobic digester, consider one designed for 200
milking cows with a 20 day retention time: Assuming each high-producing milking cow produces
2.2 ft
3
manure per day, the daily volume of manure from these milking cows would be: 200 cows x 2.2 ft
3
manure/day/cow = 440 ft
3
manure/day
If dilution water is needed for manure flow ability or added from the milking center at a rate of 3 gallons per
cow per day, the additional volume added daily would be: 200 cows x 3 gallons water/cow/day ÷ 7.5 gallons
water/ft3 water = 80 ft
3
water/day.
The total material added daily to the digester, therefore, would equal: 440 ft3 manure/day + 80 ft
3
water/day =
520 ft
3
material/day.
To hold 20 days worth of manure and water, the digester volume would need to be: 520 ft
3
/day x 20 days =
10, 400 ft
3
A digester with a rigid cover, a 3 ft head space for gas collection, and a material volume (no
bedding included) of 10,400 ft
3
, would be approximately 15 ft deep and 33 ft in diameter.
Different types of manures
Comparisons of different types of manures
Manure % Moister % Nitrogen % Phosphorus % Potassium
Human 66-80 5-7 3-5.4 1.0-2.5
Cattle 80 1.67 1.11 0.56
Horse 75 2.29 1.25 1.38
Sheep 68 3.75 1.87 1.25
Pig 82 3.75 1.87 1.25
Hen 56 6.27 5.92 3.27
Pigeon 52 5.68 5.74 3.23
Sewage --- 5-10 2.5-4.5 3.0-4.5
The Gas - Composition
The gas produced by digestion, known as marsh gas, sewage
gas, dungas, or bio-gas, is about 70% methane (CH4) and
29% carbon dioxide (CO2) with insignificant traces of oxygen
and sulfurated hydrogen (H2S) which gives the gas a distinct
odor. (Although it smells like rotten eggs, this odor has the
advantage of being able to trace leaks easily.)
The basic gas producing reaction in the digester is: carbon
plus water = methane plus carbon dioxide (2C + 2H2O = CH4
+ CO2). The methane has a specific gravity of 0.55 in relation
to air. In other words, it is about half the weight of air and so
rises when released to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is
more than twice the weight of air, so the resultant combination
of gases, or simply bio-gas, when released to atmosphere, will
rise slowly and dissipate.
As a general rule, pure methane gas has a heat value of about 1,000 British Thermal Units (BTU)
per cubic foot (ft3
). One BTU is the amount of heat required to raise one pound (one pint) of water
by 1°F (0.56°C). If you have a volume of bio-gas which is 60% methane, it will have a fuel value of
about 600 BTU/ft3
, etc. One tone of cow manure generates 1,100ft3
at 60% of market prices €4.3.
As an example, for each tone of processed manure we anticipate at today CO2 credits prices, of
€27 per MT of CO2, to receive around €18 to €24 in emission credits from the anticipated methane
capture and CO2 emissions savings. Similar credits would be achieved with other organic residue
which makes logistic a viable option (Prices are within the EU and priced on The ICE Exchange).
Additional feed to the anaerobic digester to balance out the pH level for optimal and high yielding
fermentation would be additions of energy grasses, metal enriched algae and corn stover /stalks.
General Composition of Bio-Gas
Produced From Farm Wastes
CH4 methane 54 - 70%
CO2 carbon dioxide 27 - 45%
N2 nitrogen 0.5 - 3%
H2 hydrogen 1 - 10%
CO carbon monoxide 0.1%
O2 oxygen 0.1%
H2S hydrogen sulfide trace

Fuel Value
x
Amount of Gas From Different Wastes
The actual amount of gas produced from different raw materials
is extremely variable depending upon the properties of the raw
material, the temperature, the amount of material added
regularly, etc. Again, for general rule-of-thumb purposes, the
following combinations of wastes from a laboratory experiment
can be considered as minimum values
Crude Oil Substitute - Micro-Algae Cultures
Micro-algae cultures have the capabilities of up to then times the energy production (biodiesel and
also ethanol and hydrogen) form the same acreage of land (the ability to harvest 5,000 to 10,000
gallons of biofuels per year per acre, compared to around 400 gallon for soy or sunflower or 600
gallon for palm oil). The culture are grown in shallow pounds feed with CO2 from an electrical power
plant or other sources. A typical algal mass has a heating value (heat produced by combustion) of
8,000-10,000 BTU/lb, (18 – 22,7 million BTU per MT) which is better than lignite. The heating value
of algal oil and lipids is 16,000 BTU/lb, (36,300 BTU/Kg) which is better than anthracite.
At present time the cost of harvesting micro algae is more expensive as other crops like vegetable
oil at $0.52 per liter v. 0.66 for palm oil and $1.50 for algae oil. Cost would be dramatically lower
when grown within a cogeneration operation with parabolic sun tracking mirrors (1)
and used as bio-
feed as a substitute for coal or crude oil in electrical power station or co-generation units.
Botryococcus braunii is a green colonial fresh water micro alga is recognized as one of the
renewable resource for the production of liquid hydrocarbons. B. braunii is classified into A, B and L
races depending on the type of hydrocarbons synthesized. Race A produces C23 to C33 odd
numbered n-alkadienes, mono-, tri-, tetra-, and pentaenes, which are derived from fatty acids. Race
B produces C30 to C37 unsaturated hydrocarbons known as botryococcenes and small amounts of
methyl branched squalenes, whereas race L, produces a single tetraterpenoid hydrocarbon known
as lycopadiene. Hydrocarbons extracted from the alga can be converted into fuel such as gasoline
and diesel by catalytic cracking. B. braunii (Races A and B) strains are also known to produce
exopolysaccharides up to 250 gm -3
, whereas L race produce up to 1 kg m -3
. However, the amount
of exopolysaccharides production varies with the strains and the culture conditions.
This is because the gases, other than methane,
are either non-combustible, or occur in quantities
so small that they are insignificant. Since tables
of "Fuel Values of Bio-Gas" may not show how
much combustible methane is in the gas,
different tables show a wide variety of fuel values
for the same kind of gas, depending on the
amount of methane in the gas of each individual
table.
Cubic Feet of Gas Produced by Volatile Solids (VS) of
Combined Wastes
Material Proportion
Ft3
Gas Per lb
VS Added
CH4 Content
of Gas (%)
Chicken Manure 100% 5.0 59.8
Chicken Manure &
Paper Pulp
31% 69% 7.8 60.0
Chicken Manure &
Newspaper
50% 50% 4.1 66.1
Chicken Manure &
Grass Clippings
50% 50% 5.9 68.1
Steer Manure 100% 1.4 65.2
Steer Manure &
Grass Clippings
50% 50% 4.3 51.1The fuel value of bio-gas is directly
proportional to the amount of methane it
contains (the more methane, the more
combustible the bio-gas).
Fuel Value of Bio-Gas and Other
Major Fuel Gases
Fuel gas
Fuel value
(BTU/ft3
)
Coal (town) gas 450-500
Bio-gas 540-700
Methane 896-1069
Natural gas (methane
or propane-based)
1050-2200
Propane 2200-2600
Butane 2900-3400

Algae differ in their adaptability to salinity and based on their tolerance extent they are grouped as
halophytic (salt requiring for optimum growth) and halo-tolerant (having response mechanism that
permits their existence in saline medium). Careful control of pH and other physical conditions
for introducing CO2 into the ponds allowed greater than 90% utilization of injected CO2
See U.S. Patent PP06169 - Nonomura May 3, 1988 (expired) Botryococcus braunii var. showa is chemo-
taxonomically distinct from previously cultured strains of the species in quality and quantity of hydrocarbons
produced in vitro. Morphological and cultural differences distinguish this variety from other cultured strains of
Botryococcus braunii. In particular, the variety is characterized by the ability to produce and secrete large
amounts of botryococcenes during all phases of its growth cycle. The algae is growing in an environment of
22
o
to 24
o
C with a mass doubling time of 40 hours or less under optimum conditions, resulting in a
botryococcenes yield equal to approximately 30% of the dry weight of the biomass.
Hydrocarbon oils of the alga Botryococcus braunii, extracted from a natural 'bloom' of the plant,
have been hydro-cracked to produce a distillate comprising 67% a petrol fraction, 15% an aviation
turbine fuel fraction, 15% a diesel fuel fraction and 3% residual oil. The distillate was examined by a
number of standard petroleum industry test methods. This preliminary investigation indicates that
the oils of B. braunii are suitable as a feedstock material for hydro-cracking to transport fuels.
NREL has selected approximately 300 species of algae, as varied as the diatoms (genera Amphora,
Cymbella, Nitzschia, etc.) and green algae (genera Chlorella in particular). These samples are
stored at the Marine Bio-products Engineering Center (MarBEC), where they are put at the
disposition of researchers from around the world. Both fresh-water and salt-water algae, particularly
rich in oils, were selected. Molecular biology technology is used to optimize the production of algae
lipids, as well as their photosynthetic yield. Other species, capable of synthesizing hydrogen, are
also the object of research.
Oil content of some micro algae Comparison of some sources
of biodiesel
Microalgae Type Oil content (% dry wt) Crop Oil yield(Liter/ha)
Botryococcus braunii 25–75 Corn 172
Chlorella sp. 28–32 Soybean 446
Crypthecodinium cohnii 20 Canola 1190
Cylindrotheca sp. 16–37 Jatropha 1892
Dunaliella primolecta 23 Coconut 2689
Isochrysis sp. 25–33 Palm Oil 5950
Monallanthus salina 20 Microalgae b
136,900
Nannochloris sp. 20–35 Microalgae c
58,700
Nannochloropsis sp. 31–68
Neochloris oleoabundans 35–54 b - 70% oil (by wt) in biomass
Nitzschia sp. 45–47 c - 30% oil (by wt) in biomass
Phaeodactylum tricornutum 20–30
Schizochytrium sp. 50–77
Tetraselmis sueica 15–23
Cultures of algae or duckweed cultivated in the waste water within an environment rich of CO2
resulting from the anaerobic digester, can be enriched with various chemicals to improve the
microbial fermentation efficiency of the process, and also used as a pH adjuster for optimization of
the microbial process.
Aside from methane gas, other microbial processes would break down the waste feed into
various chemical components such as hydrogen, butanol, acetone, succinic acid, ammonia etc
(1)
this concept is now in the process of an patent application by the writer.

Substitute of Soy Protein in Farm Animal Feed
Characteristics of Duckweed - Duckweed is a small fast-growing, aquatic plant that floats on the
surface of ponds. Interest in duckweed has increased recently along with the realization that it can
extract unwanted minerals such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, aluminum, iron, magnesium
and sodium from polluted water (sewage, factory effluent). Duckweeds need to be managed,
protected from wind, maintained at an optimal density by judicious and regular harvesting and
fertilized with the byproducts from an anaerobic digester to balance nutrient concentrations in
water/waste water to obtain optimal growth rates.
Duckweed reproduction is primarily vegetative. An individual leaf may go through 10 divisions over
a period of 10 days to several weeks before the original plant senesces. Duckweeds can double
their mass in between 16 hours to 2 days under optimal nutrient availability, sunlight, and
water temperature. This is faster than almost any other higher plant. As a generalization,
duckweed growth is controlled by temperature and sunlight more than nutrient concentrations in the
water. At high temperatures, duckweeds can grow rapidly down to trace levels of P and N nutrients
in water. Under experimental conditions their production rate can approach an extrapolated 183
metric tonnes/ha/year of dry mater. When effectively managed in this way, duckweeds yield 10-30
tonne dry matter (DM/ha/year containing up to 43% crude protein (CP), 5% fat and a highly
digestible dry matter.
The intention of the proposed project is to use CO2 emission form the anaerobic digester and
burning of the resulting methane gas, as a growth enhancer in the hothouses designed for growing
duckweed in linear wastewater ponds also used for harvesting.
Size Comparison of Different Duckweeds.
Scale is 1mm
This photograph depicts three distinct duckweed plants. The largest duckweed shown is Spirodela. The
medium size duckweed is Lemna and the smallest is Wolffia (Photograph by Gerald Carr, University of
Hawaii).

Duckweed species - are small floating aquatic plants found worldwide and often seen growing in
thick, blanket-like mats on still or slow moving, nutrient-rich fresh or brackish water. They are
monocotyledons of the botanical family Lemnaceae and are higher plants or macrophytes, although
they are often mistaken for algae.
Summary
 Duckweeds of the family Lemnaceae are small, floating, aquatic plants with a worldwide
distribution.
 They are one of the fastest growing angiosperms and can double their biomass within 2 days
under optimal conditions.
 They have a high protein content (10 to 40% protein on a dry weight basis) although the
moisture content (is 95%) of fresh duckweed
 Modeling duckweed growth in wastewater treatment systems biomass is quite high as well.
 Potentially members of the Lemnaceae (of the genera Lemna, Spirodela, Landoltia and
Wolffia) can produce edible protein six to ten times as fast as an equivalent area planted
with soybeans.
Duckweed holds great promise as an alternative feed supplement. One of the smallest plants
known to man could help us produce cleaner water while at the same time providing a high quality
feed for domestic stock animals (poultry, swine, and cattle). The nutrient uptake ability possessed
by duckweed along with its fast reproductive rate and environmental requirements make it easy to
manage. The problem with duckweed is in the harvesting of the small plants and removing
the excess water. Assuming that can be done efficiently, we will be well on our way to making new
strides in the supplemental feeding of duckweed.
Management systems for duckweed - Duckweed species are able to survive extremely adverse
conditions. Their growth rate is, however, highly sensitive to the major nutrient balances in the
water. They can survive and recover from extremes of temperature, nutrient loadings, nutrient
balance, and pH. However, for duckweed to thrive, these four factors need to be balanced and
maintained within reasonable limits. Crop management and therefore the initial research
requirements are concerned with when to fertilize, harvest, and buffer; how much to fertilize and to
harvest; and which nutrients to supply.
Effluents from an anaerobic digester would provide the optimal fertilizer mix as any waste of organic
material can be used to supply duckweed with nutrients. The most economical sources are
wastewater effluents from homes, food processing plants, cattle feedlots, and intensive pig and
poultry production. Solid materials, such as manure from livestock, night soil from villages, or food
processing wastes, can also be mixed with water and added to a pond at suitable levels.
All wastewater containing manure or night soil must undergo an initial treatment by holding it for a
few days in an anaerobic digester, before using it to cultivate duckweed.
Using duckweed as a feed/supplement - Mature poultry can utilize duckweed as a substitute for
vegetable protein in cereal grain based diets. Pigs can use duckweed as a protein/energy source
with slightly less efficiency than soy-bean meal. Wastewater treatment by duckweed covered ponds
has been used in Taiwan, China, and Bangladesh. In the cities of Tainan and Chiai, Taiwan the
production of duckweed through wastewater is used to feed fish and ducks. This had been used for
30-40 years, until the ponds had to give way partially to urbanization (Iqbal, 1999).
Little work has been done on duckweed meals as supplements to forage given to ruminants, but
there appears to be considerable scope for its use as a mineral (particularly P) and N source. The

protein of duckweeds requires treatment to protect it from microbial degradation in the rumen in
order to provide protein directly to the animal. The combination of crop residues and fresh
duckweeds in a diet for ruminants appears to provide a balance of nutrients capable of optimizing
rumen microbial fermentative capacity. These diets can, therefore, be potentially exploited in cattle,
sheep and goat production systems particularly by small farmers.
Use of duckweed in fish nutrition - A major limitation to fish farming is that meals high in protein
with high biological value are expensive and often locally unavailable. Duckweeds grown on water
with 10-30 mg NH3-N/litre have an high protein content (around 40%) of high biological value. Fresh
duckweed is highly suited to intensive fish farming systems with relatively rapid water exchange for
waste removal and duckweed is converted efficiently to live-weight by certain fish including carp and
tilapia.
Unicellular algae are the primary competitors of duckweed for nutrients and are among the few
plants that will grow faster. One of the essential crop management techniques is to maintain a
sufficiently dense crop cover to suppress algae by cutting off light penetration into the water column.
Algae dominance will result in a swing toward high pH and production of free ammonia, which is
toxic to duckweed. While precise mechanisms are not known, there is evidence to suggest that
species of microscopic algae may also reduce duckweed growth by inhibiting nutrient uptake.
If duckweed is to be cultivated on salinized soil, then the best place to get seed stock is from a
brackish wetland. Frequently, two or more duckweed species will be found growing together in wild
colonies. Poly-culture increases the range of environmental conditions within which the crop will
grow.
Duckweeds grow at water temperatures between 6 and 33°C. Many species of duckweed cope
with low temperatures by forming a ―turion‖ and the plant sinks to the bottom of a lagoon where it
remains dormant until warmer water brings about a resumption of normal growth. Duckweeds have
structural features that have been simplified by natural selection. A duckweed leaf is flat and ovoid.
Many species have adventitious roots which function as a stability organ and which tend to lengthen
as mineral nutrients in water are exhausted.
Compared with most plants, duckweed leaves have little fibers (5% in dry matter of cultivated
plants) as they do not need to support upright structures. Roots, however, appear to be more
fibrous. As a result the plant has little or no indigestible material even for mono-gastric animals. This
contrasts with many crops such as soya beans, rice, or maize, where approximately 50% of the
biomass is in the form of high fiber, low digestibility residues. Duckweed species are adapted to a
wide variety of geographic and climatic zones. They are found in all but waterless deserts and
permanently frozen areas. They grow best in tropical and temperate zones and many species can
survive temperature extremes.
Crop management is concerned with when to fertilize, harvest and buffer; how much to fertilize and
to harvest and which nutrients to supply. Judicious management should be aimed at maintaining a
complete and dense cover of duckweed. Any waste organic material can be used to supply
duckweeds with nutrients. The most economical are wastewater effluent from homes, dairies,
piggeries, beef cattle feedlots, abattoirs and food processing plants.
Research on using the duckweeds in the rations of domestic animals has been surprisingly scarce,
perhaps because of the difficulties in growing sufficient quantities under experimental conditions.
Duckweed Wastewater Treatment System has the potential to reduce the usually high loadings of
mineral nutrients, particularly Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium and Sodium at dairies, piggeries,
beef cattle feedlots, abattoirs and poultry farms with processing plants, to levels that allow the
effluent to be re-used on a continuous basis for either land applications or for cleaning sheds. The
economic benefit to these industries would be enormous if they could produce re-usable wastewater

plus have a crop which could be used as a high protein feed supplement.
Duckweed protein (35-45%) has higher concentrations of the essential amino acids, lysine
and methionine than most plant proteins. It also has high concentrations of trace minerals and
pigments, and zanthophyll that make duckweed meal an especially valuable supplement for poultry,
fish and other animal feeds.
Drying - With the plant being approximately 94% to 95% water, an economical method of drying the
plant had to be found so that it could be turned into a feed for fish and animals. The one most suited
for drying duckweed was identified as a solar power drying chamber. When an heat exchanger is
connected to the drying chamber, the efficiency increases substantially. In the proposed project the
heat would be provided by the combustion of the methane gas from the anaerobic digester.
Depending on the amount of sunlight and the minimum and maximum air temperatures, it will take
between 5 and 8 days to dry the duckweed. The plant will be loaded on conveyers and spread out
on the movable floor mats of a tunnel house and if needed turned over twice a day. The only
operating cost is the labor required to turn over the duckweed to ensure that it dries out evenly.
When drying the duckweed in the winter months in a cold climate, it will probably be necessary to
use gas heating from an anaerobic digester to supplement the solar heat if drying large quantities of
the plant. The quantity of duckweed being harvested in the colder months will be substantially less
than what is harvested during the warmer months.
The drying of duckweed will be required when the plant material is used in a pre-mix application,
either as a dried plant material or incorporated into pellets. The drying trials emphasized the
significant time and cost savings that could be realized if the harvested duckweed could be feed as
a fresh plant. This is possible where the duckweed is cultivated on wastewater at a farm, such as a
piggery, dairy, beef cattle feedlots or on aquaculture farms.
Previous financial
calculations for
cultivating Duckweed
in independent pounds
are in “Attachment I”

Anaerobic Digesters - Economics
Important Nitrogenic Compounds Derived from Agriculture
 N2 - Molecular nitrogen deriving from de-nitrification in the earth and surface water. 78% of
the atmospheric gas is N2.
 NOx - Nitric oxides comprising NO, NO2 and NO3 (Nitrogen mono-, di- and trioxide) formed
during incomplete de-nitrification and during the combustion of biomass and fossil fuels.
 NO3 - Nitrate (in water HNO3: nitric acid).
 NO2 - Nitrite (in water HNO2: nitrous acid). NH3 Ammonia (in water NH4 +: ammonium)
formed during protein & urea degradation).
 (NH2)2CO – Urea, is excreted with the urine of mammals (Uric acid in poultry).
A problem that may result from applying animal manures is ammonia emissions. For example, more
mineral nitrogen than manure is still used as fertilizer in Switzerland and Germany. Yet, more
ammonia emissions are released from manure.
An almost equal amount can be lost during manure storage as during its land application. Nitrogen
released from manure into the atmosphere returns to ground by rain and wind. In countries such as
Denmark with steady winds, nitrogen losses from manure storage in open tanks or lagoons can be
as high as 70%.
In states such as North Carolina, scientists long ago determined that when livestock manure is
discharged into open lagoons, as much as 50% of the nitrogen is lost as the manure decomposes.
Concerns about the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen impacts in the United States are just
beginning.
For the purpose of estimating capital cost and energy production rates, the plug-flow digester was
assumed to be located in Tioga County, New York. The next step was estimating herd size, which in
this situation refers to the number of animals supplying the digestion system. The herd size was
assumed to be 500 Holstein dairy cows with a total LAW of 700,000 lb.

Plug-Flow Digester Air Emissions Estimator for a herd size of 500 Holstein dairy cows
PARAMETER QUANTITY
Biogas Produced 35,700 SCF/day ($245.30 @ $11 per 1000 cf3
)
System Operation 365 days/year
Annual Biogas Production 13,030,500 SCF Year
Biogas Specific Volume 13.429 SCF/lb
Biogas Density 0.0745 lb/SCF
Annual Biogas Production 485 tons/year
Methane Content 62.3%
Annual Methane Production 303 tons/year (generating over $250K in CO2 Credits)
Carbon Dioxide Content 37.6%
Annual Carbon Dioxide Production 182 tons/year
Hydrogen Sulfide Content 1,500 ppm
Annual Hydrogen Sulfide Production 0.94 tons/year
Sulfur Dioxide Emission from
Hydrogen Sulfide 1.78 lb/lb H2S
Annual Sulfur Dioxide Production
from Hydrogen Sulfide 1.67 tons/year
Sulfur Dioxide Emission Rate per AP-42 0.60 lb/million SCF
Sulfur Dioxide Emitted Rate per AP-42 0.00 tons/year
Total Sulfur Dioxide Emitted 1.67 tons/year
Particulate Emission Rate per AP-42 13.70 lb/per million SCF
Annual Particulate Emissions 0.09 tons/year
Nitrogen Oxides Emission Rate per AP-42 140.00 lb/million SCF
Total Nitrogen Oxides Emissions 0.91 tons/year
Carbon Monoxide Emission Rate per AP-42 35.00 lb/million SCF
Total Carbon Monoxide Emissions 0.23 tons/year
Plug-Flow Digester Capital Budgeting Plug-Flow Digester Economic Summary
Summary Plug-Flow Digester
Energy Plant 109,684 (not needed) NPV $35,852
Digester Plant 97,825 IRR 16.6%
Solids Recovery Plant 31,000 SPP 5.3 years
Engineering Fees 23,851 CCF $626,200
Contingency 23,851 Cumulative $375,720
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 286,211 Taxes Paid
Electricity production costs for AD case studies with reported biogas production
Manure AD system $/GJ $ per No. of $/GJ $ per 1000
type by species kWh systems O&M kWh O&M
Mixed—Swine 20.11 0.07 2 0.80 2.90
AD covered anaerobic
lagoon—Swine 25.62 0.09 5 2.09 7.57
Plug flow—Dairy 25.78 0.09 9 2.69 9.74
Electricity 25.88
AD—Other swine 27.16 0.10 1 1.61 5.82
Mixed—Dairy 52.39 0.19 4 3.54 12.79
AD—Other dairy 79.33 0.29 1 12.07 43.64
* Average U.S. retail costs taken from DOE
* A thermal efficiency of 30 percent was assumed for biogas to electrical energy conversion

The recovery of Solar Energy & the Bio-Mass Carbon Cycle and Nutrients
A centralized Danish digester processing manure, organic industrial residue, and bio-waste
Parallel plug-flow digester cells under
construction prior to cover installation

Summary manure Anaerobic Digester (AD) systems
Most manure AD systems built to date in the United States have included electrical generation
capacity with the intent of enabling the producer to directly sell electricity to a utility company.
Historically, high up-front capital requirements and O&M costs required to reliably produce
electricity coupled with the low wholesale electricity rates has resulted in a choice by many
producers who have installed anaerobic digesters to discontinue their use within 2 to 3 years
following installation.
An analysis of 38 existing U.S. AD systems indicates that the omission of electrical generation
equipment would lower the initial digester capital cost by approximately 36 percent. Given the
increase in natural gas prices over the past 5 years, the direct use of biogas as a replacement for
natural gas or propane for on site for heating purposes (e.g., heating water, heating animal housing,
etc.) would provide economic benefits to animal producers with a consistent year-round
requirement for the biogas.
When generator sets are removed from the digester system design, costs, as well as maintenance
measures, are reduced. The cost analysis presented in this document suggest that the lower cost
AD systems currently employed on U.S. farms can provide biogas that is competitive or lower in
cost than the current $0.12 per cubic meter ($11.60/1,000 ft3) U.S. natural gas price if the biogas
can be used directly in space heaters or boilers without excessive gas cleaning costs.
The total costs and projected benefits of an AD system should be fully considered before making a
decision to install an anaerobic digester. The required capital cost of an AD system and the amount
of biogas produced will vary based on livestock production facility type and the digester technology
selected.
System success rates and operation and maintenance expense are dependent upon digester type
and technical knowledge of the operator. Typically, the value of the energy alone produced by a
manure anaerobic digestion system will not provide a positive cash-flow given current U.S. energy
costs.
The combination of multiple benefits including energy value, odor control, by-product sales, carbon
credit value, and possible tipping fees for taking other materials (such a food waste) is the best
approach to operating a manure digestion system with overall benefits that exceed system
installation and operation costs.
Producers should also consider the use of cost-share, grant monies, or other support for the
development of renewable energy sources that may be available to assist with the installation of
manure AD systems. The offset of a portion or all of the digester capital costs can result in the
ability to operate a digester system with a positive cash-flow from energy sales alone. Based on the
analysis completed in this study, the direct use on the farm for biogas produced via a manure AD
system appears to be economically feasible when the on-farm heating requirements are high
enough to utilize the biogas produced by the system.

Biogas upgrading
Biogas consists of CH4, CO2, and trace amounts of H2S, and other components. The composition is
determined by the raw material being digested. The higher the degradable carbon content of the
raw material, the higher the CH4 concentration in the biogas and consequently the more energy
produced.
Digester temperature and retention time also affects biogas composition to a lesser extent
(Marchaim 1992). Biogas produced on agricultural facilities typically contains between 60 to 70
percent CH4 by volume. CO2 concentrations vary between 30 to 40 percent by volume. CH4
concentrations must be at least 50 percent for biogas to burn effectively as fuel.
In addition to CO2, biogas also contains moisture and smaller amounts of H2S, ammonia (NH4),
hydrogen (H2), nitrogen gas (N2) and carbon monoxide (CO). For direct use, only H2S and moisture
require some level of removal. CO2 will not cause complications during combustion. However, if a
high Btu fuel is needed, CO2 removal may be considered to increase the percentage of CH4 in the
gas and thereby increase the Btu value of the biogas.
Biogas produced from swine and dairy manures has been reported to contain from 300 to 4,500
parts per million of H2S (Chandrasekar 2006; Safley 1992). Moisture is present as both water vapor
and water droplets.
H2S removal is usually referred to as “cleaning” the biogas, while “conditioning” is used to describe
the removal of the moisture and CO2, as well as possibly compressing the gas if required. Adjusting
BABA’s 1987 biogas cleaning costs to 2006 values, it is estimated that the cost to clean biogas
ranges from $0.03 to $0.14 per cubic meter ($0.88–$3.88 per 1,000 ft3) of biogas (BABA 1987). For
the on-farm use of biogas to be economically feasible, the biogas must be used directly or the cost
of any required biogas cleaning and conditioning prior to use must be less than the incremental
difference between the biogas and natural gas cost. Depending on the planned use for the biogas,
different cleaning options may be feasible.
Contaminants in biogas can be reduced through several different methods including physical and
chemical absorption, adsorption, conversion to a different chemical form and membrane
separation (Walsh et al. 1988). Other contaminants found in biogas: particles, halogenated
hydrocarbons, NH4, nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), organic silicon compounds, etc., can be removed
through available commercial processes using filters, membranes, activated carbon, and absorption
media.

Attachment D-2
Comparative advantages of sweet sorghum
 Growing period (about 4 months) and water requirement (8000 m3 over two crops)
are 4 times lower than those of sugarcane (12 to 16 months and 36000 m3 crop-1
respectively)
 Cost of cultivation of sweet sorghum is 3 times lower than sugarcane Seed
propagated
 Suitable for mechanized crop production
Sweet sorghum scores over sugarcane and maize
Parameter Sweet
sorghum2 Sugarcane2 Maize3
Crop duration 4 months 12 months 4 months
Water requirement 4000 m3 36000 m3 8000 m3
Grain yield (t ha-1) 2.0 - 3.5
Ethanol from grain (l ha-1) 760 - 1400
Green stalk cane yield (t ha-1) 35 75 45
Ethanol from stalk cane juice (l ha-1) 1400 5600 0
Stillage/ stover (t ha-1) 4 13.3 8
Ethanol from residue (l ha-1) 1000 3325 1816
Total ethanol (l ha-1) 3160 8925 3216
Corn oil (l ha-1)4 - - 140
Income from corn oil (US$ ha-1) - - 61
Cost of cultivation (US$ ha-1) 220 995 272
Cost of cultivation with
irrigation water cost (US$)5 238 995 287
Ethanol cost per kilo liter (US$)6 69.6 111.5 65.6
1. Processing costs assumed equal and excluded from the estimates; does not take into account water needs and crop duration
2. Sorghum grain ethanol: 380 l t-1; sorghum stalk juice ethanol: 40 l t-1; sorghum or sugarcane stillage ethanol: 250 l t-1 [Ref. Badger
(2002) Trends in New Crops and New Uses];
3. Corn (grain) ethanol: 400 l t-1; maize stover ethanol: 227 l t-1 [Ref. Badger (2002) Trends in New Crops and New Uses];
4. Oil produced from corn: 40 l t-1; oil cost of production: Rs 15 l-1; oil sale price: Rs 35 l-1;
5. Sorghum needs two irrigations and maize four each @ the cost US$19 ha-1 per irrigation in rainy season
6. Without accounting for water cost; 7.After accounting for water cost
Hybrids (form ICRISAT - www.icrisat.org )
 Photoperiod and thermo-insensitiveness is essential to facilitate plantings at different dates.
This will ensure year-round supply of sweet sorghum stalks for ethanol production.
 Hybrids are relatively more photoperiod- and thermo-insensitive besides being earlier than
pure-line varieties.
 Research on hybrid parents is given a high priority at ICRISAT
 Promising hybrid seed parents are: ICSB 264, ICSB 293, ICSB 321, ICSB 401, ICSB 405,
ICSB 472, ICSB 474, ICSB 722 and ICSB 729.
 A sweet sorghum hybrid, CSH 23 (NSSH 104), developed by the National Research Center
for Sorghum (NRCS), Hyderabad, India using ICSA 38, an ICRISAT-bred male-sterile line
and SSV 84 (sweet sorghum variety bred and released by the Indian national program in
1992/93) was released for commercial cultivation during 2005.
Sweet Sorghum can be grown with waste waters irrigation and used as cattle feed or cattle bedding
and also increase the methane output and balance the pH in the anaerobic digester.

Growing energy crops in Eastern Europe -

Growing energy crops in Eastern Europe -

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Growing energy crops in Eastern Europe -

Similar to Growing energy crops in Eastern Europe - (20)

More from Haim R. Branisteanu

More from Haim R. Branisteanu (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Growing energy crops in Eastern Europe -