Sugar Beet Grant

(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 develop small-scale sugar beet harvesting and feed-stock preparation equipment, which is agriculturally-related manufacturing technology.  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 harvest small fields and prepare feedstock into fuel in the small quantities needed for small town use. We use land that is not used for food production and currently is non-productive farm land.  The harvesting equipment is specific to sugar beets.  The feed-stock preparation equipment is 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.

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

Social 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 SBIR grant is an opportunity for Salmon to overcome the vulnerability of absence of alternative employment and of geographic isolation.  People in Salmon have the talent to accomplish this project.  They don’t have the money to do it.

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.  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) Big sugar beet harvesting equipment will not work in small fields.  Sugar companies have different requirements and farmers need agricultural equipment that is big. This makes the equipment available for what we need non-existent.  To develop equipment for a small farm we need to research and examine older equipment and modify it to meet our needs. 

(2) To process the sugar beet into ethanol, we must research and develop the beet grinding and pressing equipment.  The work that Vincent Industries (2009) has done on this equipment is not appropriate for this project. 

(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).

That corn-ethanol production cannot produce the 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022 that congress has set is known.  20% of the corn made 2% of transportation fuel in 2008.  The danger, the 19.5% energy yield loss, and expense of using imported oil are also well-known.  Part of the solution to these problems is for small, rural communities to make the transportation fuel they use, from land that is not producing food.  By using feed-stock and fuel, which are in the community, or that we can produce, communities can (1) become energy independent, (2)  improve the social well-being of the people,  (3) create a carbon-neutral process, and (4) make fuel that costs less than the fuel being trucked to these communities. By making their own fuel, the profit from the sale of fuel, which the people buy, is returned to the farmers and other people, who are making the fuel for the town. 

Farmers can produce a sugar solution, with the land and tractors they have.  This sugar solution can be converted to fuel.  Farmers need equipment, which is not manufactured in the USA, to produce the feed-stock.  This project adapts smaller, older equipment to harvest the feed-stock and press it into a sucrose solution.  We research and develop farm machinery and sugar-beet grinding and pressing equipment to make the sucrose solution that can be processed into ethanol for transportation fuel. (Sucrose-water solution to ethanol-water solution to 95% ethanol.)

(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 the equipment and the process to produce a saleable farm product from land that is not producing food.  In Phase II, we build and employ the equipment that produces the saleable sucrose solution, which is used to produce fuel for this community. We require that our overall process is positive-energy-efficient and is carbon-neutral.  These self-imposed requirements are because we understand the urgency, based on the work of researchers like Nathan Lewis (2008) and Chris Somerville (2009).

Phase I produces schematics and retrofits that define the beet harvesting equipment and the beet grinding and pressing equipment.  In phase II, we complete and employ the small-scale equipment to farm the small fields that will foster community development. We complete and employ the beet grinding and beet pressing equipment that produces the sucrose solution.  This project does not disrupt the large-acre land that is productive for ranching operations.  This project helps develop small plots that are not productive now.  Our intent is to develop these small land plots into productive farming operations.

Because no small beet harvesting equipment is manufactured in the USA today, we must modify the older and smaller Stoll V202 beet harvester for this project. With its dual process capabilities (defoliating and harvesting) it can be modified to pick up the beet tops and the beets separately and load them into mobile carts.  Because it is small, the small tractors we have can pull it.  

Modification to this harvester includes: 1) Adding a lift system to lift the beet tops from the discharge at the header and dump them into a mobile cart. 2) Modifying the beet storage compartment and adding a delivery system that would load them into a mobile cart. The carts could be pulled in tandem beside the harvester by a small tractor or pickup.

The dual cart system could then be designed to dump the contents (by gravity) into a pile to be input to the processing equipment. A combination of multiple trains could be used in rotation to keep the harvester producing.

In Phase II, when we produce the sucrose solution, which the ethanol facility will ferment into an ethanol solution.  The distiller will produce ethanol from the ethanol solution.

(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 are many.  The equipment and process that we develop can be used worldwide by small communities.  The commercial sector can replicate and improve on the small-scale equipment, which we develop.  The Federal Government can use the results of our Phase I research to guide future funding to other small towns.  Other researchers can use our data to improve on the process and equipment.  The benefits to the nation include that the small communities learn to use this alternative fuel in their cars.  This subtracts from the 140 billion gallons of gasoline and 60 billion gallons of diesel that we use annually in the USA.  The sister industries that this project facilitates include a dairy, with the beets, and a greenhouse, heated with the hot water from the distiller tower.

(b)

The estimated total cost of this approach, relative to benefits, is small.  Because no ethanol is produced from sugar beets in the USA, we have no real data to estimate the cost/benefit ratio accurately.  At least one benefit has no clear money value: Improving the social-well-being of the community.  Even at $2.34 per gallon, the ethanol we produce can equal expenses with a modest profit, which other communities could use to purchase the equipment, based on our design.  We expect to make ethanol for less than $2.00, when we are operational.  We use the excel file at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/Ethanol/MakingGasGroup.html to make these calculations.

(c)

Any specific policy issues or decisions that might be affected by the results. 

The effect of the incorrect information about ethanol will diminish, when communities learn to use this renewable fuel.  This can influence the federal government in their decision-making, concerning ethanol and other renewable fuels.  Energy from the sun is the only energy source that is of the magnitude that can provide energy for the world (14 TW) and that can reduce the carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere (385 ppm is in the air now).  If the government helps develop cellulosic ethanol then we can make a cellulosic hydrocarbon, much like gasoline, without the pollutants.  We can produce the energy that we use from plants, using land that is marginable for crop production.  The money the government spends on solar research in one year is less than the money we spend at the gasoline pump in one hour, according to Nathan Lewis (2008).

(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.

Objectives of this research are to research and develop beet harvesting equipment for small fields and to research and develop beet grinding and pressing equipment to produce the sugar solution, which can be converted to ethanol. The overall process must be carbon-neutral and be positive-energy efficient.

The beet grinding and pressing equipment will have a pulley drive, which can be driven by an electric motor or by an internal combustion engine, which runs on hydrous ethanol.  We research the parts of the small 4-cycle engine that must be changed to use hydrous ethanol.  This may include the use of a plasma plug.

Our research shows that we can produce ethanol for $2.00 per gallon.  Add 43.4 cents Idaho gas tax and cost of preparing ASTM standard fuel and we still are under $3.00.  As we learn more about hydrous ethanol, we can use hydrous ethanol at least as well as Brazil.

(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.

Explicit, detailed description of the research or research and development approach.

Our research and development approach is to research and develop a small beet harvester, beet grinder, and beet presser to produce a sucrose solution for fermentation.  The equipment to produce sucrose for ethanol production does not exist.  Requirements for the sugar industry are different and do not help with our project.  We must research and develop equipment that can function efficiently in small fields and process beets efficiently on a small scale to produce a sucrose solution for fermentation. 

Beet Harvester

Sugar beet harvesters in the sugar industry are too big for the small fields and small tractors in our community.  We must research and develop a small harvester that can dig and load the beets and the beet leaves in one pass.  The older Stoll V202 combined defoliator/harvester is a one person operation. The beet tops are cut and windrowed beside the machine. The beets were dug and put in a bin until full and then driven off the field and piled.  The beet tops were then picked up by manual labor, put onto a trailer and stacked to be used for agricultural feed. In order to load the leaves at the same time as the beets, we need to research how to modify this harvester.  This machine can be retrofitted and developed for a small scale, low cost production harvester.

This equipment retro-fit could be used as a guide to give future development of this idea. Other equipment modifications, from other crop harvesting technology could be used in this same retro-fit theory to develop other sources of useable machinery to further improve production for a small agricultural operation.

Tasks to be performed

Research:

Wages, Taxes and Benefits:

·         All wages are based on 480 regular hours through a 9 month period or 13.34 hours per week. Some weeks may consume more hours, some less, but never to exceed 40 hours in a week.

·         State Taxes are based on a 7.65% tax rate.

·         Federal Taxes are based on 15.65% tax rate.

·         Unemployment is based on a 1.5% tax rate.

·         Workers Compensation (construction/agricultural machinery MFG.350700) at the rate of 4.37%.

·         There is a 2$ per hour rate to be applied, by the employee towards a medical insurance policy or they can take it as a wage to be taxed accordingly!

Welder/ Labor 

Rate:  $13/ hr / 480 hrs                                                                                       $6,240.00

State Tax:                                                                                                                     477.36

Federal Tax:                                                                                                                 976.56

Unemployment Tax:                                                                                                   93.60

Insurance (medical):                                                                                                  960.00

Workers Comp Ins:                                                                                                    272.69

                                                                Total                                                       $9,020.21

Laborer

Rate: $10/ hr / 480 hrs                                                                                            $4,800.00

State Tax:                                                                                                                    367.20

Federal Tax:                                                                                                                751.20

Unemployment Tax:                                                                                                    72.00

Insurance (medical):                                                                                                   960.00

Workers Comp Ins:                                                                                                    209.76

                                                               Total                                                        $7,160.16

Total for 2 employees:                                                                           $16,180.37

Modifying the V202 requires that we research, design, and develop:

1)  A lift system to collect the beet tops from the harvester defoliator head and transfer them into a trailer, not on the ground. This eliminates the need to load the leaves by hand.

2)  A conveyor system to transfer the beets from the harvester to a trailer being pulled in tandem behind the trailer collecting the beet tops, reducing the transfer costs of the products from the field.

3) A trailer that can be pulled in tandem to collect the beet and tops that will use gravity to unload. These can be pulled by a pickup with no extra costs in extra machinery or added expense in unloading. Multiple trains can be used to in a cycle keep the harvesters production as efficient as possible in harvesting the beets.

Estimated Research Costs:

The costs of researching the farming operations on a small scale would include, but not be limited to:

1) Beet harvester/defoliator – purchase used                             $12,500

           A) Modifications (materials)                                           $6,000

            B) Overhead (shop, power, consumables and tools)       $4,500         

2) Ag Trailer for product haulage        (To build)                                                   

             A) Materials                                                                    $5,000

             B) Overhead                                                                    $1,550

                                                         TOTAL                              $29,550

The research that we must do can help other communities who may be limited to sugar beets for their feed-stock.  Other communities may want to use our design or find one of their own.  By studying our design they may be able to improve on it.  That is scientific method.

explicit, detailed description of the research or research and development approach

Efficient and expert production of sugar beets (seed-to-beet) and beet-to-sucrose are requirements of this project, which will produce ethanol for $2.00/gallon.  That means 35 tons per acre and 18%-20% sugar, efficient small-scale harvesting, and efficient beet-to-sucrose operation. Our research in (8) shows that this has not been done and that we can do this.  The other two sugar-beet-to-ethanol operations starting in 2009 are both large-scale with different requirements. No other operations are in the USA.

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

Building retrofit for sugar beet research: (25’ x 40’)

1) Electrical                                                        - $4,250.00

2) Dirt work                                                       – $800.00

3) Insulation                                                      – $2,418.00

4) Framing                                                         – $750.00

5) Materials                                                        - $1,930.00

6) Labor                                                              - $750.00

7) Building Permit                                              - $265.00

 __________________________________________________

                                      Total Building costs = $11,163.00

$74,913.58

We can lease a building (Twenty First Century Blacksmithing) for this project, which is near the fields that will grow sugar beets.

Obtain Stoll V202

Modify the V202: (1) Add a lift system to lift the beet tops from the discharge at the header and dump them into a mobile cart. (2) Modify the beet storage compartment by adding a delivery system that will load beets into a mobile cart.  (3) Devise a method for the carts to be pulled in tandem beside the harvester by a small tractor or pickup. (4) Devise a method for the dual cart system to dump the contents (by gravity) into an appropriate pile to be consumed into beet to fuel process. (5) Devise how a combination of multiple trains can be used in a rotation to keep the harvester in production.

Obtain and modify beet grinder:

Sugar Beet Facility:

The sugar beet is harvested starting in early October. This gives the processing plant five months of cold weather to sufficiently store the beet with no loss of size or sugar content without increasing any storage costs. The beets are stored in a pile with perforated corrugated metal pipe, with fans in them, running through the middle of the pile controlling the internal temperature of the pile.  The pile is allowed to freeze, because this causes an increase in the sugar content of the beet.

The beet enters the processing plant through a beet wash system. It is cleaned just enough to remove and dirt or rocks that would damage any of the other equipment in the process. It then goes through the slicer or shredder to reduce the size to a pulp. The pulp is then run through a press to extract the juice. The pulp is then removed from the plant to be made into agricultural livestock feed. The juice then goes to the fermentation process.

Sugar Beet Processing Equipment:

Since there are no sugar beets being used in the US to develop ethanol today, the equipment required to process the beet to sucrose needs to be developed. There is equipment in other industries that could be retro-fitted to develop this process. This could include but not be limited to:

       1) A beet washer                            $4,500 Built locally

       2) A slicer/shredder                      $5,900   Lease from Vincent Corp/includes shipping (9   months)

       3) A screw press                KP-6    $8,200   Lease from Vincent Corp/includes shipping (9 months)

                                              TOTAL   $18,500

Research:

The modifications to the equipment available needs to be further developed. Since the only research that has been done on processing equipment only proved that the beet could be ground up and juice squeezed out of it. The research never developed the feasibility of the extraction process or what combination of equipment it would require to be most efficient the first time through.

The process could include grinding the beet through a grinder at five different sizes (controlled by screen size on the discharge side of the grinder). Then combined with three different back pressures, (when its ran through the press) the results can be evaluated for the best results. The highest sucrose content for the lowest costs, with the rest of the sucrose being evaluated in the livestock feed.   

The Sucrose Analysis

This research is to accurately measure the sucrose from an adaptation and extension of the Vincent process (2009) and develop methods to extract the remainder of the sucrose in the beet pulp, a product of the first pressing. Vincent Corporation (2009) has pressed sugar beets and has sent us an excel file and video of that process.   When cellulosic ethanol becomes economical, we will have the experience to use it.

Technologoy:

We will vary the abrasion of the beet, vary the psi and rotation speed of the auger, and analyze the solution and the solid from the pressing.   From these data, (1) we will design a process to extract with hot water to set up a concentration difference between the cell solution and the hot water and analyze the resulting solution for sucrose; (2) treat the beet pulp with Saccharomyces cerevisiae  and analyze the solution for ethanol; (3) carry out extensive abrasion and pressing and analyze the solution.  Then calculate the cost of each step and determine if these steps are economically useful.  We will determine if it is more economical to buy the equipment for this analysis or if we can build the equipment in Salmon more economically. 

The Vincent study is the only work about sugar beet to ethanol that we have found.   Their work shows about 80% of the sucrose in the beet was in the solution from the first pressing.  Vincent did no further analysis and even pressed beet leaves to see if sucrose was there.  Their analysis was not accurate enough to answer the questions that we propose to answer.

USDA has used the sugar industry and corn-ethanol industry in their analysis of sugar beet ethanol.  Only large scale facilities were analyzed and none of them showed the pathway of sucrose to ethanol from sugar beets or cellulosic ethanol.

attempt to determine the technical feasibility of the proposed concept

The proposed concept is that we can make ethanol for $2.00/gallon.  Our research shows that this is technically feasible, when we assume (the industry estimate) that 2/3 of the cost of ethanol is production of the feed-stock and 1/3 of the cost of the ethanol is for the beet preparation, fermentation, and distillation.

Assume that 35 tons per acre with 18% sucrose, and that $950 cost is 2/3 the cost of the $2.00 ethanol.  The profit for each acre is $435.24 or $960.63 with the $.51 subsidy, according to our excel file at http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/Ethanol/MakingGasGroup.html

The work plan should be linked with the technical objectives of the research and the questions the effort is designed to answer

(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.

The Project Director’s research shows that sugar beet is the best feed-stock for our project area, until cellulosic ethanol is competitive. We need to change only our feedstock preparation to make ethanol from cellulose. The fermentation, distillation, and distribution stay the same for cellulosic ethanol.  The use of ethanol by the community stays the same.   Farmers are the key to producing 35 tons of sugar beets per acre with 18%-20% sugar. 

No ethanol is being produced from sugar beets in the USA.  This is not because sugar beets use too much water.   Sugar beets really use less water than corn to make ethanol.  Field corn uses 27.5 acre-inches and sugar beets use 29.8 acre-inches of water, according to the Idaho Snake-Payette Rivers Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA)  http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/wq/wqbr/wqbr26.html

One acre of corn produces 439 gallons of ethanol.  One acre of sugar beets produces 552 gallons of ethanol.  Corn and sugar beets use about the same water per gallon of ethanol produced.  Now consider that the sugar beets per acre are 30 tons, not 20 tons, as was compared to corn.    At 30 tons per acre the water per gallon of ethanol is less for sugar beets.  Greg Cameron (2009), sugar beet farmer in Rupert, Idaho said we can expect 30 to 38 tons per acre in our project area.

Water use is not the reason for corn producing 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 and sugar beets producing 0 gallons in the USA.  http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/2008_Speeches/PDFPPT/Durante.pdf

Published data shows that ethanol from corn costs about half as much as from sugar beets.  That data does not include the cost of transporting corn-ethanol to market, which is about $1.00/gallon.  That makes the cost for sugar-beet ethanol and corn ethanol about the same, 7% difference, within the error of the data.

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.  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

Bob Johnston, (209) Engineer, Vincent Corporation sent us a video and an excel file (Analysis of Sugar Beets Excel File )of their beet grinding and pressing test.  Their work is inconclusive concerning the sucrose solution that they pressed by their method.  They did not vary the pressing pressure or the beet grinding process.

In a telephone communication with Paul Wheaton (pwheaton@atlantecbioenegry.com ) and (http://atlantecbioenergy.com/index.htm ) from Lancaster, PA, Paul explained that they simply pressed the beets and sent the beet pulp to an electricity generating process.  He said their process is proprietary but said if we signed a non-disclosure agreement, we could see his method.  Because we have to find the sucrose using scientific study, which only we can do, apparently, we chose not to go to Lancaster. 

The other company (http://www.usfarmsinc.com/ethanol/index.html ) starting a sugar beet to ethanol business is large scale and has little in common with our small-scale project.

Our Project Director has (1) four rows of sugar beets growing now and will carry out the first test this fall (2) arranged for Allard Research and Development to bring their ethanol distiller to Salmon and demonstrate it to all in town who were interested.

Project Director’s Sugar Beet Test Plot July 27, 2009

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

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?

The proposing company is Commander Chassis.  Charlie Thornton, the awardee of this grant, may establish a coop of farmers, ethanol facility workers, and sister industry workers to produce the ethanol.  He may assign the machinery fabrication and retrofit to another small business or provide a license for that business to do the work independently. 

No competitive products in this field exist in the USA.  In fact, no company has been producing ethanol from sugar beets.  Neither of the two projects that are starting in 2009 has the requirements or objectives of this project.  Neither is to benefit a community, but rather to build a for-profit company.  Neither is small scale. 

The Federal Government may use the success of this project to encourage other projects.  The performance, technique, and efficiency of the business created by this project may be a model to duplicate in small communities worldwide, because this project shows how to make a small community independent in its use of transportation fuel.

Commander Chassis may contract with industry in the town to build all or part of the equipment that is developed with this grant (beet harvester, grinder, and presser).  Commander Chassis may sell license for another town to build their own equipment from the schematic.

(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

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. 

Bibliography People

Personal communication with Paul Wheaton (717-898-0881), CEO of Lancaster Propane Gas, who is starting an energy beet to ethanol project in Lancaster, PA in 2009.  Paul said Energy beets will grow in rocks and clay but not in hard pan.  Their prototype squeezed the beet pulp only. He estimates he will need between 20,000 and 30,000 acres of beets to produce the 40 million gallons of fuel annually at the plant. Atlantec BioEnergy Corporation, PO Box 129, aHave, Nova Scotia B0R 1C0, www.atlantecbioenergy.com, info@atlantecbioenergy.com, 1-866-720-2338 (BEET), pwheaton@atlantecbioenegry.com

Bob Johnston, 2009, Beet Grinding and Squeezing
Engineer
Vincent Corporation
2810 E. 5th Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33605
Office: 813-248-2650
Cell: 813-334-7194

http://www.vincentcorp.com/

Anne Krysiak, 2009, Ethanol biofuel

Research Administration Manager

Energy Biosciences Institute

University of California

120 Calvin Lab, MC 5230

Berkeley, CA  94720

Phone: 510-643-6304

Fax: 510-642-1490

energybiosciencesinstitute.org

Chris Somerville, 2009, Director of the Energy Biosciences Institute, Cellulosic Biofuel

130 Calvin Laboratory
MC 5230
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-643-6302

energybiosciencesinstitute.org

http://votingpeoplehelpingpeople.com/Ethanol/Somerville.html

Nathan S. Lewis, 2008, George L. Argyros Professor of Chemistry, Carbon Dioxide and World Energy Source
Mail Code 127-72, Pasadena, CA 91125
Phone: 626-395-6335, Fax: 626-395-8867
nslewis@caltech.edu,  http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html

Dontech Industries, Inc., Screw Presses

76 Center Drive Gilberts, IL 60136

Phone: 847-429-8222 Fax: 847-428-6855

www.dontechindustriesinc.com

Genemco, Inc. Screw Presses
4455 Carter Creek Pkwy.
Bryan, TX 77802 USA
Phone: 979-268-7447
Fax: 979-268-0102
cameron@genemco.com
www.genemco.com

Steve Libsack, Betaseed National Marketing Director

Betaseed, Inc.

1788 Marschall Road

P.O. Box 195

Shakopee, MN 55379

952.445.8090

1-800-428-8455

http://www.betaseed.com/

595 Onion Avenue

Ontario, OR 97914

(541) 889-2174
FAX (541) 889-7831

Greg C Cameron, farmer 35 years in Ruppert, Idaho

949 N Meridian

Rupert, ID  83350

 (208) 532-4565

Serban Marinescu Holly Hybrids Regional Sales Rep.

Email: serban.marinescu@beetseed.com

Office: 209-835-3210 ext 276

Cell: 209-481-7911

 http://www.beetseed.com/

Bibliography Books

Lee, Robert, Donald Field, and William Burch.  1990.  Community and Forestry.  Boulder, CO:  Westview Press.

Peluso, N.L., C.R. Humphrey, and L.P. Fortmann.  1994.  The Rock, the Beach, and the Tide Pool:  People and Poverty in Natural Resource-Dependent Areas.  Society and Natural Resources 7:23-38.

Carroll, Mathew S., and Robert G. Lee.  1990.  "Occupational community and identity among Pacific Northwestern loggers: implications for adapting to economic changes."  In:  Robert Lee, Donald Field, and William Burch (eds), Community and Forestry.  Boulder, CO:  Westview Press.

Machlis, Gary E., and Jo Ellen Force.  1988.  "Community stability and timber‑dependent communities." Rural Sociology 53(2):220‑234.

Machlis, Gary E., Jo Ellen Force, and Randy Guy Balice.  1990.  "Timber, Minerals, and Social Change: An Exploratory Test of Two Resource‑Dependent Communities.  Rural Sociology 55(3):411‑424.

References on Internet

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.

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.