The document describes a proposed commercialization process for Miscanthus (Miscanthus x Giganteus) as a viable bioenergy crop in the United States. [1] It presents an integrated risk-balanced process model involving propagation of Miscanthus plantlets using automated nursery and greenhouse production, farming of the crop, and densification of the harvested biomass. [2] Key aspects of the model include using vegetative propagation to multiply plantlets at lower cost, implementing product mix strategies to reduce market risk during initial ramp-up, and precision planting techniques to reduce establishment costs. [3] The approach aims to make Miscanthus a profitable and scalable energy crop that can supply feedstock for cellulos

1. CONFIDENTIAL
Risk-Balanced Commercialization Process for Miscanthus
Inventors: David Russell Robbins, and Stephen SC Tam
1. Key Issue to be Addressed
Today, the Earth‟s atmosphere is heavily polluted with the various green house gases
released from the use of fossil fuels, e.g. powering automotives and feeding power plants.
With further increase in demand for energy to propel economic growth and the limited
but controlled supply of fossil fuels, the price of fossil fuels is expected to rise to new
levels.
Biofuels have been studied as an effective alternative to fossil fuels. For example, Brazil
has been producing bioethanol from its sugar cane plantations, and demonstrated 100%
self sufficiency in feeding its vehicles with bioethanol. The plants sequester carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere, and produce non-polluting products when combusted.
Biofuels are clean and renewable energy sources.
In the USA, significant attention has been paid to employ biomass as feedstock to
produce petroleum alternatives such as bioethanol (e.g. from sugar cane, corn, etc.) and
biodiesel (e.g. from jatropha). For example, Congress in December 2007 passed the
Renewable Fuel Standard that requires the production of 36 billion gallons per year
(BGY) of biofuels by 2022 [Ref. 1]. Different states respond by setting their own targets,
including farming subsidies and R&D grants [Ref. 2].
Miscanthus (Miscanthus x Giganteus or MXG for short) as a commercial energy crop has
been explored in Europe for two decades but has not been actively pursued in the USA as
of today [Ref.3, 4]. Many reasons can be cited, such as the lack of long-term yield data
of Miscanthus plantations in different regions of the USA, high establishment costs, and
the relatively inadequate yield from direct conversion of cellulosic biomass into
bioethanol. Lack of political support for green initiatives such as proliferation of carbon
credits adds to the woes for adoption of Miscanthus as a viable energy crop of the future.
Therefore, the key issue to address is that a self-sustainable economic ecosystem does not
appear to be possible, and the cost of going green via the Miscanthus route seems
exorbitant for the USA.
p. 1 of 12

2. CONFIDENTIAL
2. Prior Art
The concept of energy crop is not new. Growth of a particular agricultural species to
generate energy, or convert into a suitable intermediate form for storage of energy, has
been practiced for centuries. However, owing to scarcity of land, most „energy crops‟ are
by-products of food crops, e.g. corn stovers, sugar cane bagasse, and wheat stalks, as well
as other agro forestry residues. By definition, an energy crop should be one that is
dedicated for energy generation/storage only, and not for food or other uses.
One of the earlier candidates for energy crops in the USA is switch grass.
Commercialization studies at 19 research sites across Central and Easter USA show that
an average yield of 11.5t/ac over a period of 6 years has been obtained, yielding some
11,500 gallons of ethanol per acre. Top yield was 15.0t/ac. Effective growth period or
rotation time would be around 10 years. [Ref. 5]
Miscanthus, on the other hand, has received more attention in Europe for its higher yield
relative to switch grass. For example, Renewable Energy Crops, who has recently
acquired Bical, has promised to continue with the services rendered by Bical. Essentially,
the commercialization model is based on subsidized farming for co-burning with coal
feedstock at power plants [Ref. 6,7]. In the UK, MXG field establishment cost is also
heavily subsidized by the government.
In general, however, many studies have pointed to the fact that Miscanthus should be a
more suitable candidate to be developed as an energy crop for the USA, with dry mass
yield reaching twice of that of switch grass, and rotation cycle of up to 20 years.
Typically, dry mass yield can be 12–20 t/ac, with highest reported yield of 24 t/ac. [Ref.
8,9,10] Nevertheless, large-scale commercialization of MXG has not yet appeared, and
there remains very few if at all any economically viable integrated commercialization
process or business process approach to explore the use of MXG dedicated for bioethanol
production.
p. 2 of 12

3. CONFIDENTIAL
3. Description of Innovation
An innovative pathway detailing various process steps for Miscanthus to be
commercially exploited as a viable energy crop is disclosed herein. The key features of
the integrated approach lie in balancing the business risks with collectively innovative
technology and business solutions, and imposing rigorous financial assessment of the
returns on investment in various segments of the process blocks. The innovative
application of vegetative propagation for MXG agronomy gives considerable competitive
cost and seasonal supply advantage over conventional rhizome field planting. The end
result is that a profitable and scalable business process model in using Miscanthus as
feedstock for cellulosic ethanol (c-EtOH) is plausible.
The methodology disclosed may also be generalized and/or extended by experts skilled in
the trade to find a robust commercialization pathway for any crop in any region/country.
3.1 Risk-Balanced Process Model
The risk-balanced process model for Miscanthus to be anchored as a commercially viable
energy crop to produce cellulosic ethanol is shown in Figure 1. While R&D for the
MXG species focuses on crop biology (e.g. genetic modifications, genotype selection,
rhizomes, seeds, tissue culture) and improvements on quality and yield (e.g. ash content,
agronomy), R&D activities are important for other process blocks for better profitability
and sustainability (e.g. yield, operational efficiency). Furthermore, the business process
model must be scalable to render MXG a real energy crop, covering millions of acres of
farm and marginal land, and contributing to a significant percentage of clean and
renewable energy consumption in the USA and other parts of the world.
Figure 1: process blocks for Miscanthus to be an energy crop for production of cellulosic ethanol
p. 3 of 12

4. CONFIDENTIAL
Some of the operational process steps are shown in Figure 2. Basically, the propagation
process block involves multiplication of the seeds/rhizomes needed for field planting. A
nursery cum greenhouse is always required for high multiplication source material, like
tissue culture and vegetative “root shoots”. The farming process block involves
establishment, irrigation, applying fertilizers, weeding, harvesting, baling, among others.
Densification is basically a compacting process. It eases packaging and transportation,
and provides high-quality feedstock for cellulosic ethanol conversion or for burning in
pellet stoves or power plants.
Pre-Harvest Crop Harvesting
Crop R&D Production  Methods
• Miscanthus  Location selection * timing (once-through, JIT)
• Switch grass  Crop establishment  Equipment
• etc.  Crop health monitoring * standard / dedicated
 Crop yield improvement  Harvest readiness
 Harvest scheduling
Nursery & Greenhouse Operation Informatics Storage
Production & Decision Making • Biomass physiology
 Location selection  Resource planning • Quality
 MXG agronomy  Quality * cleanliness + dryness
 Automated equipment  Logistics * energy content
 Cost • Baling
 Product mix planning • Control of storage
 Rhizome / seed planting  Strategy
environ
 Quality assurance
 Packaging + transport
 Yield improvement
Densification
 Transformation methods Downstream
* pellets / cubes • Cellulosic ethanol
* alternatives (slurry, gasify) • Co-fire with coal
 Eqpt capacity + cost • etc.
 Quality assurance
 Packaging + transport
Figure 2: typical process steps in integrated propagation, farming, and densification of energy
crops
p. 4 of 12

5. CONFIDENTIAL
3.2 An exemplary embodiment of the process model
An embodiment of the risk-balanced business process model to anchor MXG as a
commercially viable energy crop to feed cellulosic ethanol production is as follows. The
embodiment has been optimized iteratively, hence it is a preferred but non-exclusive
route. Currency used is in USD.
3.2.1 MXG Propagation
Some salient features, assumptions and process steps in this process block include:
(a) As MXG is sterile in nature, plantlets are generally produced by rhizome
propagation. Initial process steps will involve rhizome propagation. On the other
hand, there is ongoing research on the production of seeds as a propagation
technique. Our nursery and greenhouse process steps can be applied equally well
for seed propagation, and will get significant recognition from the genetic
suppliers presently performing R&D on seeded Miscanthus. Furthermore, our
plant multiplication rate surpasses rhizome multiplication rates and is only
matched by tissue culture propagation, which is very labor intensive, hence
driving the COGS upward significantly. Our propagation involves the sectioning
of vegetative “root shoots”, instead of stem vegetative collection or rhizome
collection and division. Additionally, we plan to conduct the R&D to replicate the
“Illinois” rhizome clone produced in seed form to gain credibility with the only
“proven” variety planted large scale in the world. We will invite the leading
genetic suppliers into our precision planting process, providing quicker and less
expensive field establishment costs.
Continuing, the use of nursery transplants facilitates the planting of transplants
year round, whereas rhizomes must be planted in a narrow planting window of
early spring, due to the perishability and “shelf-life” of rhizomes even in
controlled environment warehouses. We would follow the latitudes, planting in
late fall and winter in the southern latitudes, moving northward, as fields become
tillable, until early summer, so as to allow the transplants sufficient time to
develop into larger rhizomes to sustain the perma frost in the northern latitudes.
Millions of acres are available in the USA in the West, lower Midwest and most
of the Southeast between the 28 and 38 degree latitudes, and altitude below 2000
feet. This gives an advantage of scalability in field establishment which outstrips
the approach presently utilized in Europe.
p. 5 of 12

6. CONFIDENTIAL
(b) Automation as an enabling technology can greatly increase the productivity and
lower the cost of plantlets. It is fast becoming a standard for modern-day
nurseries and greenhouses [Ref. 11, 12]. Using automation, the cost of producing
a MXG plantlet is reduced from $0.15 to $0.05. This permits the MXG plantlets
to be sold at a sustainable average selling price (ASP) of $0.08. ASP at this level
is crucial as MXG plantlet price has been set at $0.35 in the USA for some time,
thus accounting for a very substantial proportion of the establishment cost, and
hindering the proliferation of MXG as a viable energy crop.
(c) To reduce the market risk of slow adoption/take-off of MXG, an S-curve ramp up
is implemented for MXG plantlet production. During the initial 3 to 5 years,
before MXG if widely grown as an energy crop, the production equipment is used
for the propagation of vegetables, fruits, or even high-end ornamentals/herbs that
have ready markets. The strategy of a product mix gives rise to reasonably good
gross profit margins at all times. It permits a nursery to transition from
traditional cash crops to MXG energy crop at very much reduced market risk. An
example is shown in Table 1, for staged development of a nursery and greenhouse.
(In this embodiment, the mixed nursery and greenhouse will be constructed on a
minimum of 24 acres of land to accommodate structures, frost protection, roads
and support systems, such as office buildings, germination chambers, tray storage
and sterilization and other auxiliary structures. Quantities shown in the table are
in number of trays per turn, considering that each tray occupies 2.5 square feet
and the nursery yields are based on 92.5% germination.
Table 1: S-curve ramp-up for MXG and capacity planning for product mix
Vegetable crops
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
(in Trays Per Turn)
Miscanthus 17,067 66,667 166,667 300,000 369,231 369,231
Mix lettuce 29,141 58,281 20,399 - - -
Broccoli 43,253 86,506 67,475 40,000 - -
Toms/Peps 43,253 53,969 33,721 19,514 - -
Watermelon 8,651 17,302 13,496 9,717 - -
Celery 43,253 86,506 67,475 - - -
Totals 184,617 369,231 369,231 369,231 369,231 369,231
% Occupied 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gross Profit Margin 39.4% 38.2% 31.3% 29.5% 31.8% 31.8%
(d) Presently, there are no known nurseries in the USA utilizing this technology of
automation from genetics to field planting of small plants. In fact, even when the
seed genetics are proven to have comparable yields, the precision planting of
p. 6 of 12

7. CONFIDENTIAL
seeded Miscanthus with our technology will be the lowest cost of any greenhouse
operator in the USA and the highest yielding Miscanthus fields in all locations in
the world. California regions in Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara
counties, for example, is known as the “salad bowl” of the USA and our
technology will allow for ease of entry into vegetable transplant markets, fully
utilizing equipment in the first two years, as the current plant suppliers are based
on labor-intensive operations.
3.2.2 MXG Farming
Some salient features, assumptions and process steps in this process block include:
(a) MXG takes a relatively long development cycle to full yield. While research in
the USA has demonstrated average full yields of 12 – 16 tons/acre, with peak
yield of 24 tons/acre, it will normally be the third year onwards that full yield is
attained. However, on a national scale, if millions of acre of land are used to
farm MXG, with a rotation period of 20 years and fractional yields over the first
two years, additional acreage to maintain a steady supply of MXG for cellulosic
ethanol will be typically around 5%.
(b) Establishment cost has been a road block for MXG to be cultivated as an energy
crop. With current price of $0.35/rhizome, establishment cost for planting
density of 5,000 pcs/acre is approximately $2,030/acre. With our integrated
approach using automation technology, the ASP of MXG plantlets will be held at
$0.08/pc. By introducing precision planting technology, we further propose to
use planting density of 8,000 plants/acre to ensure higher dried mass yield of at
least 15 tons/acre, the establishment cost will be approximately $920/acre. This
reduces greatly the capital expenditure (financial risk) on the millions of acres of
land for planting energy crops, while at the same time reducing the risk in getting
low average harvested yields from the MXG plantations.
(c) As there are no known alternative uses for MXG in bulk, not for medicinal/health
extracts but for ornamental use in small quantities, the best option for MXG
plantation owners will be to sell their crops to MXG densification plants.
Densification may also be integrated into the harvesting machines once MXG as
an energy crop has been developed into a fully integrated industry.
Major utilities within reasonable distance from Miscanthus fields may “retrofit” to
accommodate baled Miscanthus, thereby reducing raw material cost. However,
we propose to densify the bulk of the Miscanthus to lower distribution cost and
p. 7 of 12

8. CONFIDENTIAL
balance the market risk, by providing material suitable for coal-fired electric
utilities, industrial manufacturing (greenhouses, foundries), cellulosic ethanol
plants, pellet stoves in residences, to name a few. High-quality densified MXG
pellets/cubes also allow for high efficiency and consistency in burning and
bioethanol conversion.
(d) A typical well-managed and economically viable MXG plantation with 2,560
acres of arable land will be able to generate minimum gross profit margins for the
first five years of operations as shown in Table 2. Maximum crop yield is taken
to be at a modest level of 15t/ac. ASP for the harvested MXG dried mass is
assumed to be $70/t with an additional income of $3.50 per ton of carbon dioxide
sequestration (carbon credit). As carbon credit for green house gas sequestration
as a global trend is going to increase, it is expected that income from MXG
farming will be on an upward trend.
Table 2: projected revenue and gross profit margins for a typical MXG plantation
P&L (Forecast in USD) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
TOTAL REVENUE 596,800 1,989,300 2,983,900 2,983,900 2,983,900
TOTAL COGS 947,872 1,460,533 1,627,520 1,627,520 1,627,520
Gross Profit (351,072) 528,767 1,356,380 1,356,380 1,356,380
Gross Profit Margin -58.8% 26.6% 45.5% 45.5% 45.5%
p. 8 of 12

9. CONFIDENTIAL
3.2.3 MXG Densification
Some salient features, assumptions and process steps in this process block include:
(a) As the production of cellulosic ethanol is a continuous process, densification is
needed as a preparatory process to ensure yield and quality assurance. The
fibrous MXG can be mechanically chopped/ground before compacted into various
sizes and of different shapes such as pellets or cubes. While on-field dedicated
densification equipment may be more economical once MXG is proven to be the
feedstock of choice for the production of cellulosic ethanol, a risk-balanced
approach for an autonomous economically-viable business entity has to find
alternative biomass supply as feedstock for densification, as well as alternative
customers for its products.
(b) With a strategy of product mix and feedstock supply from MXG and other agro
forestry biomass, a typical well-managed biomass densification plant will be able
to generate an economically viable minimum gross profit margin of 27.7% from
its fourth year of operation onwards, as illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3: viability of a risk-balanced MXG densification plant
P&L (Forecast in USD) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Revenues
Domestic Pellets 300,000 1,600,000 4,800,000 6,800,000 6,800,000
Industrial Pellets 1,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000
Utility Biomass 260,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000
TOTAL REVENUE 1,560,000 10,250,000 14,450,000 17,450,000 18,450,000
TOTAL COGS 1,844,350 8,546,000 11,148,000 12,609,000 13,334,000
Gross Profit (284,350) 1,704,000 3,302,000 4,841,000 5,116,000
Gross Profit Margin -18.2% 16.6% 22.9% 27.7% 27.7%
(c) In the first 2 years of operation, the strategy is to place the focus more on
Domestic Pellets, to optimize gross profits, as the revenues from this market
segment are more than 2x of that of Industrial and Utility pellets/cubes combined.
We should be courting the larger and less capital intensive utility customers, but
focus on higher value-add retailers to also establish brand that can extend into
other product lines. Use “energy facts”, much like “nutrition facts” to compare
biomass energy content/cost to all fossil fuels presently used in the market. Apply
aggressive marketing to obtain contracts which outstrip Miscanthus production in
early years, but fulfilled by wood and agro-waste biomass. Sub-contractors could
be phased out to be supplanted with Miscanthus at peak capacity or continued to
proliferate brand recognition in the marketplace.
p. 9 of 12

10. CONFIDENTIAL
3.2.4 Viability of MXG Commercialization Model
The process blocks of MXG propagation, MXG farming, and MXG densification are
individually profitable. This is vital for free market force, The Invisible Hand, to excel
in driving for scalability and sustainability in MXG commercialization, which in turn will
enable the achievement of national targets set for biomass to replace fossil fuels as a
petroleum alternative. Typical ROIs for the integrated commercialization process and its
component process blocks are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: ROIs for integrated risk-balanced MXG commercialization process
MXG
MXG Nursery MXG Pellet Integrated MXG
Plantation
only Plant only Commercialization
only
investment (USD) 16,000,000 3,500,000 7,500,000 27,000,000
GP margin in 2015 31% 45% 27% 31%
EBITA 31% 41% 27% 31%
NPAT margin 16% 22% 14% 16%
ROI (CF) 2.1 3.3 6.3 5.0
ROI (PV @ k=10%) 1.3 2.1 4.0 2.9
IRR 15% 27% 47% 34%
p. 10 of 12

11. CONFIDENTIAL
4. Summary
As of today, MXG has the highest potential of becoming USA‟s energy crop of choice.
We have developed an integrated MXG commercialization methodology that mitigates
various risks that include but are not limited to the following:
 Slow market adoption, e.g. mitigated by using an S-curve for MXG adoption; product
mix for nursery business during demand ramp-up phase for MXG plantlets; product
mix for pellet plant before demand ramp-up by c-EtOH refineries
 Low productivity and high cost in producing MXG plantlets, e.g. use of the latest
enabling technologies in automaton and propagation to reduce reliance on labor-
intensive operations thereby cutting COGS for producing MXG plantlets in nurseries
and greenhouses
 Demand variation for MXG plantlets, e.g. engaging customers for different types of
nursery and greenhouse products to ensure 100% capacity utilization and hopefully a
healthy cash flow
 High cost for MXG field establishment, e.g. set a relatively low target selling price for
MXG plantlets to reduce financial risk by farmers/investors in sunk cost
 Uncertain MXG harvested yield, e.g. use precision planting technology for MXG at
high density to ensure high tonnage yield per acre
 Quality variation in densification feedstock, e.g. developing different densification
product lines with different qualify requirements for domestic heating, commercial
heating, co-firing with coal, etc. apart from conversion to cellulosic ethanol
In addition to using various technology and business processes to mitigate risks, as
described above, a key innovative contribution to the success of the integrated MXG
commercialization model resides in our knowledge and experience with MXG agronomy,
e.g. the plantlet multiplication rates and the environmental conditions suitable for
planting MXG:
 Experimentally, it is established that the multiplication rate of vegetative propagation
can reach 60:1 while that for conventional rhizome field planting can only reach
plantlet multiplication rates of up to 20:1.
 The use of transplants of Miscanthus can facilitate planting in periods of the year that
rhizomes are not available (due to Spring harvest of rhizomes when maximum
scenesis has occurred), whereas plantlets can be regenerated continuously and planted
in times that precede Spring.
By balancing the business risks and imposing rigorous financial assessment of the returns
on investment in the various process blocks, it is viable to build a profitable, scalable and
p. 11 of 12

12. CONFIDENTIAL
sustainable ecosystem to use Miscanthus as feedstock for the production of cellulosic
ethanol.
The commercialization process blocks are each economically viable without government
subsidies. Nevertheless, state grants will be most helpful in supporting the MXG field
establishment years before MXG crop yield stabilizes. Government support for more
attractive and sustainable carbon trading, for example through the Chicago Climate
Exchange or some federal institutions, will help stabilize/enhance the income of MXG
farmers, allowing them to stay in the MXG commercialization process. Government
grants for R&D for each process blocks will help generate innovations and lower the cost
of production of MXG for biofuels production in the long run.
References
1. Biomass Research and Development Board, National Biofuels Action Plan, Oct 2008.
Downloadable from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/.
2. Rob Williams, ‘State and Federal Bioenergy Initiatives’, Agronomy Continuing Conference,
Jan 2007. Downloadable from http://agric.ucdavis.edu/AgCCPPT2_3551.ppt.
3. http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/miscanthus/miscanthus.html extracted on 03 Jan 2010.
4. Reference on Miscanthus can be found on websites such as
www.earthsenseenergyusa.com/
5. http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html extracted on 03 Jan 2010.
6. http://www.recrops.com/ extracted on 03 Jan 2010.
7. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/a-versatile-solution-
growing-miscanthus-for-bioenergy-51557 Jonathan Harvey, ‘A versatile solution? Growing
Miscanthus for bioenergy’, 17 Jan 2007.
8. http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3334&q=&page=all Susanne Retka
Schill, ‘Miscanthus versus switch grass’, Ethanol Producer Magazine, Oct 2007.
9. Emily Heaton, ‘Feedstock for fuel’, 28Aug2006. downloadable from
http://www.bioeconomyconference.org/images/Heaton,%20Emily.pdf
10. http://www.extension.org/pages/%E2%80%9CFreedom%E2%80%9D_Giant_Miscanthus_is_
Viable_Biofuel_Feedstock Chase Kasper, ‘“Freedom” Giant Miscanthus is Viable Biofuel
Feedstock’, 07Dec2009.
11. Paul O'Neill, ‘Automation Leading Technology in Nursery Production’, May 2005.
downloadable from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-841283971.html
12. Please refer to http://fieldtransplantsystems.com.au/content/view/27/59/ for some
examples of commercial automatic transplanters.
p. 12 of 12