please email [email protected] for a copy of the excel model [email protected] visit
TRANSCRIPT
food | energy | futureTM
Please email [email protected] for a copy of the Excel Model orvisit http://interraenergy.us/interra-preta-biochar-soil-store/ to download
5-ton Challenge
Purpose: • Provide tool for project developers to determine
most economic biomass use
• Provide Apples-to-Apples framework to compare ALL biomass options
• Allow determination of the “best use” of biomass resources
Many Choices
Decision Process(Simplified)
Step 1: Opportunity Identification• Project Location & Feedstock Availability • Potential Technology Options
Step 2: Technical Evaluation• Technology Suitability • Operational Capability/Desirability Assessment
Step 3: Economic Evaluation• Capital Requirements• Operational Economics• Profitability Potential
Apples – to –Apples
Question: What is the common element present among all potential biomass projects?
INPUTS
Processes Compared5 General Classes of Biomass Processing• Composting• Biopower (gasification)• Biochar Only • Energy & Char (optimized for Power)• Interra Energy w/Biochar (optimized for Biochar)
Relevant Assumptions
• “Waste” feedstocks only
• 5 dry tons/hour or 37,500 dry tons/year
• All products sold wholesale (no upgrading)
• Biochar sale price = $500/ton
• Electricity sale price = $0.10/kWh
• Compost sale price = $15/ton
Results
(5,000,000.0) 0.0 5,000,000.0 10,000,000.0
Receiving
Processing
Finalizing
Land & Building
Tipping Fees
Energy Revenues
Product Revenues
Assumptions: Interest Rate = 10%Loan Term: 20 years Biomass input: 7.15 tons/hrTipping Fees: $7/ton Electricity sale price: $0.10/kWh
All rights reserved. Copyright 2012 © Interra Energy, Inc.
19%
69%
52%
51%
4%
Profit Margins
Interra Energy
Biochar Only
Composting
Biopower Only
Energy w/ Biochar
Most Important Variables
• Biochar sale price
• Electricity sale price
• Compost sale price
Sensitivity Insights
• Biochar Sale Price – Interra Energy (Biochar Optimized) keeps the #1
most profitable position unless biochar price falls below $146/ton
• Electricity Sale Price– Energy w/ Biochar best only at sale price of greater
than $0.33/kWh– Biopower Only requires $0.78/kWh to generate
highest profit
• Compost Sale Price– Composting requires sale price of $54/ton to be
most profitable option
Reactor & DryerSet on a One Acre Plot to Show Scale
Technology Comparison
Interra produces more biochar and electricity with less equipment.
Pacific Pyrolysis Interra Energy
Technology Comparison
Company
Throughput Biochar Electricity Cost Notes
Interra Energy 7200 lbs/hr 2443 lbs/hr 1,000 kW 1,000,000 Cheapest cost per amount of products
GenesisIndustries 660 lbs/hr 231 lbs/hr
No, a small amount if the feedstock is pure
walnut shellsLikely
1,000,000Burns its gas to heat
itself
PacificPyrolysis 660 lbs/hr 200 kw
In Australia. Lots of equipment so likely
very expensive
BiocharSolutions 500 lbs/hr 120 lbs/hr No 120,000 Non continuous and
no useful gas
AlternaEnergy 4000 lbs/hr 1333 lbs/hr No, excess gas
available for heat
Up to 1,000,000 depending
on size
In Canada. Only 3000 hrs/yr. 18 month
installation. Continuous Batch
Diacarbon 2600 lbs/hr No In Canada
1684 lbs/hrCompetitorAverages: 479 lbs/hr 40 kw
Technology Comparison
Company
Pressure
Pyrolysis
Self-sustaining after start up
Methane rich gas
High continuou
s throughp
ut
Internalgas
cleaning
Excess heat
used to dry
incoming biomass
Off the shelf parts
Interra Energy yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Genesis Industries no yes no no no yes no
PacificPyrolysis no no no no yes no
Biochar Solutions no yes no no no yes no
AlternaEnergy no yes no no no no no
Diacarbon no no yes no
TechnologyTechnology Feature Operational Benefit Business Advantage
Relatively low-temperature, high-pressure slow pyrolysis.
Highest possible yield of biochar. Greater energy density of gas.
Highest total value of output products per ton of input.
Thermally self-sustaining reactor, after start up.
No combustion or heat input required after start up. Allows for electricity generation rather than using gas to heat biomass. No air emissions source from traditional heating methods.
Lower operational and capital cost. Removes a regulatory hurdle associated with traditional burners.
Methane rich gas created instead of syngas, producer gas, wood gas, etc.
Most energy dense gas possible from thermal biomass conversion. Gas can go directly into traditional power generation equipment without modification.
Lower operating and capital costs.
Gas cleaning within system. Don’t need extra gas scrubbing/cleaning equipment. No tar to deal with.
Lower capital costs. Less operational cost from gas cleaning equip. maintenance.
Excess heat transfer system used to dry incoming biomass.
No need for outside heat to dry biomass. Quicker carbonization of biomass due to dryness upon entering system.
Lower operational costs.
Adjustable throughput and reactor pressure.
Control of operating conditions. Product diversification variable gas and biochar properties.
Conclusion
Offering $620k Incentive to Funders of 1st System
Thomas Del Monte, J.D./MBA
President, Gen. Counsel
Leadership
Eren Yar V.P. of Tech. Development
Kenny Key, J.D.
Carbon Asset Mgr., Law Clerk
Joshua Stone Webmaster, Art Director
Deepak Prakash, M.S.
Mechanical Design Engineer
Paul Forgue, MBA Sr. Director, global consulting firm.
Board of Advisors
Ricardo Cabra, Ph.D./MBA
Combustion and flow dynamics engineer.
Tom Netzel 30 yr. vet. of energy project development.
Darius Sankey, Ph.D. Venture Fund Manager
Gene Hirschkoff, J.D./MBA, PhD
Special Advisor to the Pres.
