The reviewer provided feedback on the Infrastructure Platform projects focusing on ethanol. Several projects tested intermediate ethanol blends and found benefits but some gaps remained. University research programs showed promise but needed refinement. The Biofuels Atlas was highlighted as a useful tool if data quality improved. Key recommendations included expanding work on other biofuels beyond ethanol, lowering distribution costs, and improving technology transfer and coordination across projects.

1. Infrastructure Platform – Reviewer Feedback
Biomass Program Peer Review
June 27-28, 2011 Albert M. Hochhauser, Lead Reviewer

2. Presentation Outline
• Review Panel
• Summary Observations/Impressions
• Project Review, Discussion
– Highlights, concerns and gaps
• Platform Review, Discussion
– Gap assessment
– Resource assessment
– Achievements and highlights
• Recommendations

3. Infrastructure Review Panel
Member Affiliation Expertise
Jason Bittner U. Wisconsin Vehicle Technology
Albert M. Hochhauser Consultant Fuels Technology
(ExxonMobil, retired)
Manoj Jha Morgan State U. Transportation Systems
Todd Potas U. S. Water Environmental
Engineering
George Parks FuelScience LLC Fuels Technology
(Conoco Phillips, retired)
Pam Serino U. S. DOD Logistics

4. Summary Observations/ Impressions
• Platform achieved a number of important technical goals
with respect to intermediate ethanol blends (IEBs)
• Projects to enable/increase use of E85 varied in quality
• University research programs are a good start but should
be upgraded
• Platform should add focus on
– technology transfer
– fuels beyond ethanol
• Need guidelines on who should generate needed data
• Overall program should conform to MYPP and roadmap.
Major goals of MYPP should be addressed more directly
– Reduce distribution costs
– Develop infrastructure for target volumes

5. Major Platform Areas Reviewed
• End-Use/Vehicles
– Intermediate Blends Testing (NREL)
– Center for Clean Fuels (U. Houston) [Includes alga effort]
– Feedstock to Tailpipe Initiative (U. Kansas) [includes alga effort]
• Transport/Storage, Fuel Dispensing
– Materials Compatibility, IEB (ORNL)
– Fuel Dispensing Infrastructure, IEB (NREL)
– Protec E85 station construction (Protec)
– MI E85 station construction
– MO E85 station construction
• Cross Cutting
– Improving Fungibility and Compatibility (ORNL)
– BioFuels Atlas (NREL)

6. Average Project Ratings
IEB Testing - Overview and Vehicles Testing
IEB Testing - Performance Testing
BioFuels Atlas
Protec Fuel E85 Infrastructure Projects
IEB Testing - Infrastructure Components Testing
Missouri Ethanol Blends Infrastructure Project…
Center for Clean Fuels and Power…
Michigan E85 Infrastructure Project
Fungibility and Compatibility of Advanced Biofuels
Kansas Biofuels Certification Laboratory
0 2 4 6 8 10

7. Intermediate Ethanol Blends
Vehicles Testing
Performance Testing
Infrastructure Components
Testing
0 2 4 6 8 10
• Excellent design and execution of projects
• Materials testing on components and functional parts did not
seem to match. Need to understand reasons. Scope/severity
of problems not clear.
• Concern about
– Baseline fuel: E0 or E10
– Testing severity for long term tests

8. E85 Service Station Construction
Protec Fuel E85 Infrastructure
Projects
Missouri Ethanol Blends
Infrastructure Project (MoEBIP)
Michigan E85 Infrastructure Project
0 2 4 6 8 10
• Goal should not be to build service stations, but to
– Sell E85
– Provide a good investment opportunity
• E85 retailer toolkit needed
• Protec had good coordination with Biofuels Atlas

9. University Research Projects
Center for Clean Fuels and
Power Generation, U. Houston
Kansas Biofuels Certification
Laboratory
0 2 4 6 8 10
• U. Houston
– Good suite of emissions, combustion projects
– Questioned pyrolysis of biofuels to produce gasoline, not diesel
– Should be coordinated with rest of MYPP
• Kansas U.
– Questioned need to build ASTM testing facility
– Engine/emissions facility may be too limited to provide meaningful research

10. Support Projects
BioFuels Atlas
Fungibility and Compatibility of
Advanced Biofuels
0 2 4 6 8 10
• Utility of fungibility study not clear
– How will DOE use the information?
• BioFuels Atlas has high potential if used appropriately

11. Platform Gap Assessment
• Not enough effort on reducing biofuel delivery cost
• Data on IEB use in small engines
• Data on fuels besides ethanol
• Long term effects, especially in infrastructure
• How to deal with product quality issues when scale of
production is small

12. Platform Resource Assessment
• Most effort has been devoted to ethanol, which is
appropriate. Going forward, DOE should focus on other
biofuels as well.
• Not clear how university research fits in with the rest of
the program
• Lack of IEB data in small engines could be a major barrier
to increasing ethanol use
• How to encourage customers to use E85? Is it just cost?

13. Platform Notable Successes
• IEB efforts were excellent
– Broad view of area led to a well rounded suite of projects
– Excellent planning and execution of individual projects
– Collaborative efforts among government agencies, automotive and
petroleum industry groups
– Still some gaps to be filled
• BioFuels Atlas has great potential
– Limited use to date
– Tool can be used in other platforms as well
– Only as good as the data behind it
• Synergy and continuity an important goal
– Build on Protec’s use of BioFuels Atlas
– IEB projects were well coordinated

14. Project Technical Highlights
• IEB projects
– Determined short-term and long-term emissions impacts with
high precision
• Biofuels Atlas
– Excellent visualization tool integrating large data base
– Great potential for many other projects
• Beneficial partnerships
– IEB projects benefited from participation of industry groups
– Additional sharing of information would be useful among E85
projects

15. Key Reviewer Recommendations
• Scope
– Need to address use of biofuels other than ethanol
– Additional work needed to lower distribution costs, a key goal
• Budget
– Critical that budget funds are available to address key goals and
issues
• Schedule
– Panel would like to see a match of projects with schedule for
biofuel volumes
• Program-related recommendations
– Define responsibility for solving key problems (e.g. IEB in small
engines)
– Improve technology transfer [aside from IEB programs]
– Biofuels versus biocrude seems to be a key issue. Is it being
addressed in a systematic way?