Fermentation and Distiller Grant

3.3.2    R&R Other Project Information

Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, 4 of the CSREES Grants.gov Application Guide unless otherwise noted below.

Fields 1 – 5. Are Human Subjects Involved; Are Vertebrate Animals Used; Is Proprietary /Privileged Information Included…; Does this project have an actual or potential impact on the environment; Does the project involve activities outside the U.S… Applicants must reference the CSREES Application Guide for directions.

Field 6. Project Summary/Abstract – (PDF Format is Required)

1 PAGE is the Page Limit for the Summary/Abstract. 

In the technical abstract, include a brief description of the problem or opportunity, project objectives, and a description of the effort. Provide another paragraph discussing the anticipated results and potential commercial applications of the proposed research. The project summary/abstract of successful applications may be published by USDA and, therefore, should not contain proprietary information.

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO REVIEW ALL ATTACHMENTS FOR PAGE LIMIT AND PDF COMPLIANCE BEFORE SUBMISSION.

Field 7. Project Narrative – (PDF Format is Required)

16 PAGES is the Page Limit for the Project Narrative.  NOTE: The USDA SBIR Program encourages applicants to only include information pertaining to the items listed below.  Applicants must not include additional information such as cover sheets, table of contents, reference listings, budgets, and appendices unless the applicant intends for these to be considered in the page count. 

(1)   Response to Previous Review – This is only required if you are submitting an application in which the project described was previously submitted to the SBIR program, but not funded.  Please provide a clear statement acknowledging comments from the previous review, indicating revisions, rebuttals, etc. This response is a critical part of the screening criteria as noted in subsection 4.2(H).  Furthermore, the revised application should clearly indicate the changes that have been made in the project. Make sure to include the application number of the previous submission at the top of this section. 

(2)   Responsiveness to USDA SBIR Program Priorities – Please indicate if the application has a connection to agriculturally–related manufacturing technology or energy efficiency and alternative and renewable energy, see section 8.0.  Provide a brief explanation of how the application is related to the area indicated.

This project is an energy efficient, alternative and renewable energy process.  Rural towns can make transportation fuel from local feed-stock, by processing the feed-stock into ethanol.  Energy efficiency is increased because (1) trucks will not haul gasoline to the town (2) the process is carbon neutral by using renewable resources (3) neither feed-stock nor ethanol needs to be transported.  We research and develop a small and scalable distiller that is heated by an external heat source.   The equipment and the process that we research and develop are available to other small towns nationwide and worldwide. 

The agriculturally-related manufacturing technology we develop will move the feed-stock sucrose solution to the fermentation area, monitor and control the fermentation, and move the product, ethanol-water solution, to the distiller.  All these processes are monitored and controlled by a computer.  The distiller produces ethanol and returns the water from the towers and from the condenser to be processed. The hot water will heat the fermentation and feed-stock preparation area.  A greenhouse will use also use the hot water for heat.

.  The feed-stock preparation area and equipment are adaptable to a variety of crops: sugar beets, apples, pears, grapes, etc..  Sugar beets are a temporary feed-stock, to be replaced when a better feed-stock is available. This equipment and process can be used by other towns on the feed-stock available to them.

(3)   Identification and Significance of the Problem or Opportunity – Clearly state the specific technical problem or opportunity addressed and its importance.

Social, technical, and economic problems of Salmon and other communities are a result of a past timber or mine dependency, which has caused structural changes to these communities, persisting today.   (Lee, Field and Burch 1990).  These changes create vulnerability to sudden changes in policies, markets, or investment decisions, which were made by distant mining and timber corporations (Peluso, Fortmann, and Humphrey 1994).  The dependency on fuel coming from distant places is just as disruptive as the mine closing, or the saw mill closing.   This vulnerability is exacerbated by the geographic isolation and the absence of alternative employment that persists in these dependent communities (Carroll and Lee 1990; Machlis and Force 1988; Machlis, Force, and Balice 1990). 

This project is an opportunity to help solve the employment problem, the imported oil security problem, the high cost of fuel, the sending of money out of the town for fuel, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase.  This town and other towns can make a feed-stock to process into transportation fuel for our own use.  We research and develop the process and the equipment to produce a sugar solution, starting from a sugar beet seed.  The sugar solution will produce the transportation fuel ethanol. We show that a small community can become energy independent in our use of transportation fuel. The process and equipment that we research and develop can help other small communities become energy independent too. Small communities that are not on main transportation routes, pay 8-10 cents more per gallon of gasoline, because of the trucking cost.  This too will stop.

The technical problems we solve are

(1) Small, continuous-feed, and scalable distillers with an external heat source are not available.  Allard Research and Development has a small distiller that is not scalable and does not have an external heat source for the distiller.

            (2)  The control and management of the fermentation area must be researched and developed.  A continuous fermentation and distillation must be created.

(4)   Background and Rationale – Indicate the overall background and technical approach to the problem or opportunity and the part that the proposed research plays in providing needed results. As a part of this section, it is critical that applications adequately cite relevant scientific literature.  Moreover, all citations provided must be properly referenced in the Bibliography & References Cited attachment (see 3.3.3 – Field 8).

The needed results are the fastest fermentation, the appropriate rate of distillation, the maximum product at minimum cost, and a small, scalable distiller, with an external heat source.

Fastest Fermentation:

Temperature within the fermentation tanks must be controlled for maximum growth of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Turbo Yeast strain).  Techniques must be researched to determine the stage of the fermentation solution and when that solution will be moved to the next tank.  This research will develop the fastest and most efficient, continuous fermentation.   As the concentration of ethanol increases, the rate of fermentation decreases.  The final tank, which will be input to the distiller, will have the slowest rate of fermentation, the highest ethanol concentration, and the longest time to complete it, because the distiller is much slower than the yeast.    (Virginie Ansanay-Galeote_, Bruno Blondin, Sylvie Dequin & Jean-Marie Sablayrolles 2004)  Information on Turbo yeast culture and maximization are proprietary, not of scientific rigor probably, and are not available to us.  The scientific literature on the chemical properties of Saccharomyces is available to us.  This gives us a starting place for our kinetic studies.  The fermentation of the corn-ethanol industry is similar.  It is proprietary to that industry and not available to us.  The large scale of those corn-ethanol plants have requirements that differ from ours.

More Turbo yeast ethanol production from a higher dilution rate in a chemostat is not expected.  Surprisingly, that has been reported.  (Edwin Chiu, et. al.,2007).  The difficulties they encountered are typical of Turbo yeast work.  That is why we must do our own kinetic studies.  Besides, we do not have the luxury of standard glucose solutions.  We must work with sucrose solutions from feed-stock, which have other chemical species present.  Almost no information is available on sugar beet fermentation, which is of value to our project.

Small, scalable distiller, with an external heat source:

The distiller we research and design uses a boiler, similar to the Allard boiler.  The external heat source for the boiler and the heat exchange design must be researched and devised.  The boiler must be designed to accommodate up to four towers, to allow for economical scale-up. 

(5)   Relationship with Research or Research and Development

Phase I – Discuss the significance of the Phase I effort in providing a foundation for the follow-on Phase II R&D effort. State the anticipated results of the approach if the project is successful. This should address: (a) the technical, economic, social, and other benefits to the Nation and to users of the results, such as the commercial sector, the Federal Government or other researchers; (b) the estimated total cost of the approach relative to benefits; and (c) any specific policy issues or decisions that might be affected by the results. This section should constitute a substantial portion of the project narrative.

In phase I, we research and design an external heat source and a distiller that is small and scalable.  We research and design the fermentation area to be controlled by a computer.    In Phase II, we build the equipment and produce ethanol for transportation fuel. 

Allard Research and Development (http://www.allardresearch.com/) has built a small distiller, which is not scalable, is not heated by an external heat source, and does not use renewable energy.  Their distiller uses electricity for its heat source. 

Allard Distiller at the Project Director’s Home, More information is at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/Ethanol/AllardStill.html, which shows Allard’s Erik Bartleson.

Our design uses waste wood from the Lemhi land fill, from the QB Corporation, and from the beetle-killed trees from the nearby forest. Our design provides an economical scale-up to four times the output of ethanol, to about 100,000 gallons per year at full scale.

If this project is successful, the Nation will be one step closer to energy independence.  The commercial sector in the towns that make their own fuel will have fuel at a cost that does not vary as the cost of gasoline does now.  The Federal Government can support other energy solutions, using this project as an example.  Other researchers can improve on all aspects of our design and equipment to make it even better.  When cellulosic ethanol becomes competitive in price with sugar feed-stocks, these researchers can adapt the results of this project for the new feed-stock. Only the feed-stock process will change.  The fermentation, distillation, distribution, and customer use of the fuel will be the same.

The estimated total cost of the approach relative to benefits is small.  We hypothesize that the equipment and process that we develop can be made for about $70,000, after we complete the research and development and build the system.  Transportation fuel use is widely distributed and has a nearly inelastic demand.  Profit from the sale of the ethanol can be adjusted to pay for the equipment in a reasonable time. 

Specific policy issues or decisions that might be affected by the results of this project include the Energy Information Administration’s  projection that we will fall short of the targets for the use of ethanol and other biofuels, which Congress set in the 2007 energy law. By 2022, Congress has declared, biofuels production must reach 36 billion gallons.  In 2008, the corn-ethanol industry used 20% of the corn to make 2% of the Nation’s fuel.  If this project succeeds and Salmon produces its own fuel, we will not be contributing to the 60 billion gallons of gasoline that the USA uses. 

Put help on distiller from university and engineer here, as part of Phase I and Phase II.

(6)   Technical Objectives – State the specific objectives of the research or research and development effort. Include the technical questions needed to establish the technical feasibility of the proposed approach.

The objective of this project is to produce ethanol from a sugar-beet sucrose solution at a reasonable cost, which should be about $2.00 per gallon.  This involves the research to design a continuous fermentation that feeds a continuous distillation.

The technical questions are:

What parameters of temperature, pH, and concentration maximize the per cent of the sucrose that can be fermented in the shortest time? We hypothesize that we can allow the final fermentation solution to take weeks.  This final fermentation solution is fed to the distiller, which uses the solution at a much slower rate than the fermentation.

  What are the requirements for a small and scalable distiller with a heat source external from the boiler and to which we can add up to four towers?  Answers to the questions about the towers, the heat source, the furnace, and the heat-exchange from the furnace to the boiler will lead to the most efficient automated design to maximize efficiency and minimize cost on this small scale. 

Measurements of pH and density at various fermentation times and temperature must be made.

The research will find the pH, temperature, and density of solution that maximize the conversion of sucrose to ethanol.  The research will establish the efficiency of the distillation in terms of time and purity of the ethanol produced and energy consumed in this process.

 The savings that economic-engineering theory claims occur with increasing size do not apply here.  Transportation fuel use is widely distributed and immediate increases in shipping costs occur with scale-up.  The shipping costs for the corn-ethanol industry demonstrate this cost, about a doubling of the cost: $1 per gallon to $2.00 per gallon.

Hydrometer, specific gravity bottle, pH paper, thermometers,  

(7)   Work Plan – The work plan must provide an explicit, detailed description of the research or research and development approach. The plan should list the tasks to be performed, provide details of the methodology that would be used to research each task, including statistical analysis, if applicable, and indicate how and where the work will be carried out. The effort should attempt to determine the technical feasibility of the proposed concept. The work plan should be linked with the technical objectives of the research and the questions the effort is designed to answer. This section should constitute a substantial portion of the project narrative.

Fred may write this.

(8)   Related Research or Research and Development – Describe significant research or Research and Development (R&D) activities that are directly related to the proposed effort, including any conducted by the Project Director or by the proposing small business concern, how the proposed effort expands on the related work, and any planned coordination with outside sources. The applicant must persuade reviewers that he or she is aware of related research in the selected subject. It is critical that the applicant make a convincing case that the proposed research builds upon previous research and, if successful, will lead to the development of a new product, process, service, or technology or to substantial improvement of an existing product, process, service, or technology.

Because no ethanol is made from sugar beets in the USA, we must design the process and equipment, with little help from previous work.  Reliable data on sugar beet ethanol does not exist in the USA. We do have invalid data.  Two invalid reports say they estimate: The 2006 study THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION FROM SUGAR IN THE UNITED STATES by the USDA http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf

 and the 2009 study Potential for a Sugar Beet Ethanol Industry in Washington State, by Jonathan Yoder, Washington State University http://agr.wa.gov/AboutWSDA/Docs/Ethanol%20from%20WA%20Sugar%20Beets%20WSU%20Study%20March2009.pdf

We say these data are pencil-data not measured-data and have little to do with our project, which makes ethanol in Phase II.  Jonathan Yoder says ethanol production from sugar beets is substantially more costly than from corn, with absolutely no data on sugar beet ethanol.  The USDA says it costs $2.40 per gallon to make ethanol from sugar beets, with no data at all on sugar beet ethanol.  We say both studies used data from the sugar industry and from the corn industry.  That data has little to do with our project. Neither of these studies has data on the fermentation or on the distillation.  Our project eliminates the cost of shipping the crop and eliminates the cost of shipping the ethanol, as the Midwest corn-ethanol producers do.  Our costs to produce ethanol from sugar beets are less than the cost of ethanol from corn, even if we could grow corn in this northern latitude.  The cost to produce an acre of corn ($500) is about half the cost of sugar beets ($950), according to published data.  Even when we use these data, we can still make a profit by making ethanol from sugar beets for about $2.00 per gallon, according to our excel file, which is at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/Ethanol/MakingGasGroup.html

Use of Ethanol for Fuel in Salmon

A 2007 study of the Economic Impacts on the Farm Community of Cooperative Ownership of ethanol production  (Urbanchuk , 2007) assumes a 50 mgy plant costs $100 million to build and can produce ethanol for $2.00 gallon.  Add $1.00/gallon to transport that ethanol to market and the price is $3.00 / gallon. 

We calculate that a plant, for a small town like Salmon, which makes 500,000 gallons of ethanol (factor of 100 less) a year can make ethanol for $2.36/gallon.  Because no transport of the ethanol is needed, our cost of $2.36/gallon is less than the big plant in the study, $3.00/gallon. 

The plant in the study will add nearly $50 million more to the local economy and generate an additional $29 million in household income for a total of $79 million. Scale that down by 100 (Salmon size) and we get $790,000 added to the Salmon community by the ethanol plant.

A Federal Reserve Bank research study (Jason Henderson, 2009) shows the economic benefits of ethanol production on rural communities may not be as high as the industry says.  The reasons given are the large size of the ethanol plant and the sending of the ethanol to distant markets.  None of those factors are a part of this project, as we make only the fuel that the town can use.

(9)         Potential Post Application – Briefly describe the commercialization potential of the proposed research after Phase I funding. In addition, indicate whether there appears to be a potential use of the proposed research by the Federal Government. Include a brief description of the proposing company (e.g., date founded, number of employees, and its field of interest). What are the major competitive products in this field, and what advantages will the proposed research have over existing technology in application, performance, technique, efficiency, or cost?

Fred knows how to do this.

(10)     Satisfying the Public Interest – Specify how the proposed research will satisfy one or more of the following USDA strategic goals: (more information can be found at http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/usdasp/usdasp.htm)

a.      Strategic Goal 1: Enhance International Competitiveness of American Agriculture

b.      Strategic Goal 2: Enhance the Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Farm Economics

c.       Strategic Goal 3: Support Increased Economic Opportunities and Improved Quality of Life in Rural America

d.      Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

e.       Strategic Goal 5: Improve the Nation's Health and Nutrition

f.        Strategic Goal 6: Protect and Enhance the Nation's Natural Resource Base and Environment

(2)               Satisfying the Public Interest – Specify how the proposed research will satisfy one or more of the following USDA strategic goals: (more information can be found at http://www.usda.gov/ocfo/usdasp/usdasp.htm)

a.       Strategic Goal 1: Enhance International Competitiveness of American Agriculture

The small-scale fuel production equipment and techniques can work in developing countries. The feed-stock preparation equipment can be adapted to a variety of feed-stock.

b.      Strategic Goal 2: Enhance the Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Farm Economics

By farm communities producing the transportation fuel that they use, rural farm economics improves.  The sister industries created by this process (distiller hot water for greenhouse heating and feedstock for animal feed) improve the economics even more.

c.       Strategic Goal 3: Support Increased Economic Opportunities and Improved Quality of Life in Rural America

Jobs and industries created by this project show the increased opportunities.  The improved quality of life is a result of energy independence and entrepreneurs who make it happen.

d.      Strategic Goal 4: Enhance Protection and Safety of the Nation's Agriculture and Food Supply

The sister industry greenhouse helps people to produce their own food.  The industry created by this project has nothing as dangerous as gasoline.

e.       Strategic Goal 5: Improve the Nation's Health and Nutrition

Increase in small farms, increase in new business: these will help the people to obtain health care, promote better nutrition, and promote a healthy life style.

f.        Strategic Goal 6: Protect and Enhance the Nation's Natural Resource Base and Environment

This project requires the efficient use of farm land, makes transportation fuel from renewable resources, eliminates the need to transport fuel to this area, and is carbon-neutral. 

Field 8 Bibliography & Cited References – (PDF Format is Required)

Provide a complete list of all references cited in the application. For each reference, provide the complete name for each author, the year of the publication, full title of the article, name of the journal or book published, volume, and the page numbers. The references should be listed in alphabetical order using the last name of the first author.

Field 9 Facilities & Other Resources – (PDF Format is Required)

Describe the types, location, and availability of instrumentation and physical facilities necessary to carry out the work proposed. If university facilities, private facilities, or government laboratories are being used, there must be a letter in the application from the authorized organizational representative of the university, private facility, or government laboratory describing the arrangement and testifying that the facilities will be subject to the exclusive use and control of the applicant. This letter should be included as a part of Other Attachments, see Field 11 below.

Field 10 Equipment Documentation – (PDF Format is Required)

Describe the types, location, and availability of equipment necessary to carry out the work proposed. Items of equipment to be purchased must be fully justified under this section. When purchasing equipment or a product under the SBIR funding agreement, the small business should purchase only American-made items whenever possible and should normally not exceed 10 percent of the budget request.

Field 11 Other Attachments – (PDF Format is Required)

   Additional documentation that may be required for your application should be grouped in this section.

(1)   Use of Facilities or Equipment – If university facilities, private facilities, or government laboratories are being used, there must be a letter in the application from the authorized organizational representative of the university, private facility, or government laboratory describing the arrangement and testifying that the facilities will be subject to the exclusive use and control of the applicant.

(2)   Outside Services – Involvement of university, government, or other outside personnel in the planning and research stages of the project as consultants or through subcontracting arrangements is permitted and may be particularly helpful to small business firms that have not previously received Federal research awards. Establishment of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with a USDA laboratory or other Federal laboratory may also be beneficial to proposing firms. If the application involves outside consultants, subcontracts, or involvement with a CRADA partner, these arrangements should be described in detail. Applications must include letters from proposed consultants, subcontractors or CRADA cooperators indicating their willingness to serve in order for such participation to be considered during the application review and evaluation process, see subsection 4.3 as appropriate.

(3)   Letters of Support –General letters of support from potential end-users of the technology or from individuals/organizations that want to express support for the application.

(4)   Duration Exceeds Normal Project Period – The proposed duration of Phase I projects should normally not exceed eight months, except in special, justified circumstances. Where a proposed research project requires more than eight months to complete Phase I, a longer project period, not to exceed twenty months, may be requested. An applicant of a Phase I project with an anticipated duration beyond eight months should specify and justify the length of duration in the application at the time of its submission to USDA.

(5)   Applicant is a Subsidiary – A potential grantee that is a subsidiary must show that the parent company is also a small business entity and the parent company must provide documentation supporting their small business status.

(6)   Statement as to Delinquency on Federal Debts by Applicants for Federal Assistance – An applicant that is delinquent on Federal debts must attach, in PDF format, explanatory information detailing all relevant particulars concerning the Federal debt.

(7)   Non-Domestic Performance Explanation – Requests for foreign travel or work are discouraged, but may be approved (e.g., applications submitted to the Marketing and Trade topic area that are focused on export issues) based on the justification provided in the application (see Field K. under 3.3.5 below).

Bibliography

ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON THE FARM COMMUNITY OF COOPERATIVE, OWNERSHIP OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION, John M. Urbanchuk, Director, LECG LLC, February 2007

The Impact of the Ethanol Boom on Rural America, Jason Henderson, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1 2009 73.

Potential for a Sugar Beet Ethanol Industry in Washington State, Report to the Washington Department of Agriculture, March 1, 2009 Jonathan Yoder, Project Leader, Washington State University, School of Economics, yoder@wsu.edu (509)335‐8596 http://www.ses.wsu.edu/People/Yoder.htm

http://agr.wa.gov/AboutWSDA/Docs/Ethanol%20from%20WA%20Sugar%20Beets%20WSU%20Study%20March2009.pdf

THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION

FROM SUGAR IN THE UNITED STATES, July 2006, http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf

This report was done through a cooperative agreement between the Office of Energy Policy and

New Uses (OEPNU), Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), and Louisiana State University (LSU). Principal authors of this report are Dr. Hossein

Shapouri, OEPNU/OCE, USDA and Dr. Michael Salassi, J. Nelson Fairbanks Professor of

Agricultural Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, LSU

Agricultural Center.

The effect of different dilution rates on the production of ethanol in a chemostat, Edwin Chiu, Gemma Fitzpatrick, Philipp Guthrod, Julius Kuah, Bastian Piltz, and Ewe Xjin Lim, Industrial Bioprocessing and Bioremediation, Murdoch University, 2007.

Stress effect of ethanol on fermentation kinetics by stationary-phase cells of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Virginie Ansanay-Galeote_, Bruno Blondin, Sylvie Dequin & Jean-Marie Sablayrolles

INRA, Institut des produits de la vigne, Laboratoire de Microbiologie et Technologie des Fermentations, Montpellier,

France

_Author for correspondence (Fax: +33 4 99 61 28 57; E-mail: ansanay@ensam.inra.fr)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m873h54222w45r70/fulltext.pdf?page=1