Presentation on theme: "food | energy | futureTM"— Presentation transcript:
1food | energy | futureTM Intro who we are,Please for a copy of the Excel Model orvisit to download
25-ton Challenge Purpose: Provide tool for project developers to determine most economic biomass useProvide Apples-to-Apples framework to compare ALL biomass optionsAllow determination of the “best use” of biomass resources
5INPUTS Apples – to –Apples Question: What is the common element present among all potential biomass projects?INPUTS
6Processes Compared 5 General Classes of Biomass Processing Composting Biopower (gasification)Biochar OnlyEnergy & Char (optimized for Power)Interra Energy w/Biochar (optimized for Biochar)
7Decision Tool DesignAnnualized costsPlease for a copy of the Excel Model
8Relevant Assumptions 5 dry tons/hour or 37,500 dry tons/year “Waste” feedstocks onlyAll products sold wholesale (no upgrading)Biochar sale price = $500/tonElectricity sale price = $0.10/kWhCompost sale price = $15/ton
9Results Interra Energy Energy w/ Biochar Biochar Only Composting Biopower Only
10Most Important Variables Biochar sale priceElectricity sale priceCompost sale price
11Sensitivity Insights Biochar Sale Price Electricity Sale Price Interra Energy (Biochar Optimized) keeps the #1 most profitable position unless biochar price falls below $146/tonElectricity Sale PriceEnergy w/ Biochar best only at sale price of greater than $0.33/kWhBiopower Only requires $0.78/kWh to generate highest profitCompost Sale PriceComposting requires sale price of $54/ton to be most profitable option
12Set on a One Acre Plot to Show Scale Reactor & DryerSet on a One Acre Plot to Show Scale
13Technology Comparison Interra produces more biochar and electricity with less equipment.Pacific PyrolysisInterra EnergyWith capital costs at a fraction of the status quo and profit margin potential of multiple times the competition and a multi-trillion dollar market space, we have a unique opportunity to rapidly expand to build a first-class company before anyone can catch up.
14Technology Comparison CompanyThroughputBiocharElectricityCostNotesInterra Energy7200 lbs/hr2443 lbs/hr1,000 kW1,000,000Cheapest cost per amount of productsGenesisIndustries660 lbs/hr231 lbs/hrNo, a small amount if the feedstock is pure walnut shellsLikely 1,000,000Burns its gas to heat itselfPacificPyrolysis200 kwIn Australia. Lots of equipment so likely very expensiveSolutions500 lbs/hr120 lbs/hrNo120,000Non continuous and no useful gasAlternaEnergy4000 lbs/hr1333 lbs/hrNo, excess gas available for heatUp to 1,000,000 depending on sizeIn Canada. Only 3000 hrs/yr. 18 month installation. Continuous BatchDiacarbon2600 lbs/hrIn CanadaWith capital costs at a fraction of the status quo and profit margin potential of multiple times the competition and a multi-trillion dollar market space, we have a unique opportunity to rapidly expand to build a first-class company before anyone can catch up.CompetitorAverages:1684 lbs/hr479 lbs/hr40 kw
15Technology Comparison CompanyPressurePyrolysisSelf-sustaining after start upMethane rich gasHigh continuous throughputInternalgas cleaningExcess heat used to dry incoming biomassOff the shelf partsInterra EnergyyesGenesis IndustriesnoPacificBiochar SolutionsAlternaEnergyDiacarbonWith capital costs at a fraction of the status quo and profit margin potential of multiple times the competition and a multi-trillion dollar market space, we have a unique opportunity to rapidly expand to build a first-class company before anyone can catch up.
16Technology Technology 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.
17Offering $620k Incentive to Funders of 1st System ConclusionOffering $620k Incentive to Funders of 1st System
18Leadership Thomas Del Monte, J.D./MBA Eren Yar President, Gen. CounselEren YarV.P. of Tech. DevelopmentKenny Key, J.D.Carbon Asset Mgr., Law ClerkDeepak Prakash, M.S.Mechanical Design EngineerJoshua StoneWebmaster, Art Director
19Board of Advisors Paul Forgue, MBA Darius Sankey, Ph.D. Sr. Director, global consulting firm.Darius Sankey, Ph.D.Venture Fund ManagerTom Netzel30 yr. vet. of energy project development.Ricardo Cabra, Ph.D./MBACombustion and flow dynamics engineer.Gene Hirschkoff, J.D./MBA, PhDSpecial Advisor to the Pres.
20The End Thank you for your time Questions? Contact: