Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil 06-24-2010Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 1 Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 BIODIESEL PRODUCTION FROM FISH OIL Introduction Biodiesel is produced through the “transesterification” reaction that occurs when a plant or animal oil is combined with specific amounts of an alcohol (usually methanol) and an alkaline catalyst (such as potassium hydroxide) in the controlled setting of a biodiesel processor. Specifically, biodiesel is a mono-alkyl ester of long-chain fatty acids that conforms to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6751 specifications for use in compression-ignition (diesel) engines. This renewable fuel can be burned in engines or in boilers on its own—a form commonly termed B100—blended with petroleum diesel, or used as a petroleum fuel additive for increased lubricity. The National Biodiesel Board (NBB) recognizes that biodiesel is the only alternative fuel that has fully met testing requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (2009). The majority of U.S. biodiesel is produced from soybean oil and is generally more expensive to produce than petroleum diesel. Due to biodiesel’s high production cost, it is usually blended in batches of 2-20% with petroleum diesel (B2-B20) in order to maintain some of the environmental and performance benefits of biodiesel at a reasonable sale price. As the total cost of the oil—the “biodiesel feedstock”—accounts for at least 70% of biodiesel production costs, the feedstock cost is a major factor in the market success of the final biodiesel product (Van Gerpen et al., 2006). A central goal of Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels’ (FDE) current alternative energy preconstruction project is to determine whether oil extracted from Juneau area commercial fisheries byproduct (largely salmon offal) is a viable biodiesel feedstock at a commercial scale. To this end, we studied the research of others focused on biodiesel production from wild salmon oil in a laboratory setting, and studied—as well as visited—sites where biodiesel is currently produced from fish oil at a large scale. We’ve included summaries of this past and present work with fish oil biodiesel below. Following our summaries of other researchers and entrepreneurs’ experience with fish oil biodiesel, we describe the tests we asked our consultants at Pacific Biodiesel Technologies to perform. As part of our assessment of the viability of wild salmon oil as a biodiesel feedstock, we felt it was critical to know whether a wild salmon oil-based “ester” [resulting from a salmon oil undergoing a transesterification reaction with methanol] meets ASTM D6751 standards—and can, thereby, be officially considered biodiesel. Whether or not salmon oil can be converted to biodiesel is an important question, as it determines the eligibility of a producer to receive federal Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 2 tax incentives and it likely determines the ideal end use of the biodiesel—and, hence, the final biodiesel sale price. Lastly, at the end of this report, we will estimate the total biodiesel feedstock cost of Juneau area commercial fisheries byproduct. In earlier phases of this project, we assessed the composition, quantity, location, seasonality and accessibility of fish offal in the Juneau area. Building on this information, we calculated the approximate cost to collect Juneau area fisheries byproduct in a centralized location prior to biodiesel production. In this final report, we will calculate the other costs, in addition to byproduct collection, that comprise the total Juneau area waste fish oil feedstock cost. This total feedstock cost, as well as the estimated revenue generated by fish oil biodiesel sales and sales of additional co-products derived from the byproduct, will allow us to determine whether biodiesel production from Juneau area waste fish oil is a feasible venture. Biodiesel Production from Salmon Oil in the Laboratory Researchers affiliated with the University of Alaska Fairbanks Fishery Industrial Technology Center (UAF, FITC) and with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) have conducted three studies of wild salmon oil as a biodiesel feedstock. These studies showed it is possible to produce biodiesel from salmon oil, but they did not demonstrate that biodiesel production from waste salmon oil at a commercial scale is economically and/or energetically feasible. In addition, the salmon oil “biodiesel” produced in small batches in these studies was not subjected to ASTM D6751 tests; therefore, it is unknown as to whether the esters produced from salmon oil in the lab was officially biodiesel (and, thus, suitable for use in compression-ignition engines and eligible for federal tax credits). UAF Assistant Professor of Seafood Processing and Engineering and FITC researcher, Subramaniam Sathivel, ran a number of tests to characterize several different fish oils (including salmon oil), post-rendering, and then converted small samples of these oils to biodiesel. The primary research objective of Sathivel, also an adjunct professor at Louisiana State University, was to identify how to prepare the salmon oil for transesterification. Sathivel found the central challenges salmon oil poses as a biodiesel feedstock is its tendency to oxidize and polymerize (dry out) rapidly and its high levels of free fatty acids [that cannot be removed by centrifugal or filtering mechanisms]. According to Sathivel, salmon oil’s rapid oxidative rate and high free fatty acid content necessitates the addition of anti-oxidants (such as citric acid or phosphoric acid) to the oil prior to transesterification—and in relatively high quantities if the oil is going to be stored even for just a few days prior to biodiesel production. Sathivel predicts the biodiesel produced from salmon oil will also oxidize rapidly and, thus, that salmon oil biodiesel may not pass at least one ASTM D6751 test, the Oxidative Stability Index (OSI) test. Although Sathivel did not perform any ASTM D6751 tests on the salmon oil biodiesel he manufactured in the lab, he performed a thermal analysis on the salmon oil biodiesel and he measured the viscosity of the salmon oil biodiesel. Despite the fact that salmon oil pre-transesterification processing steps may be costly, Sathivel ultimately feels that biodiesel production from waste salmon oil holds promise because the biofuel represents a use of a currently under-utilized resource—and salmon oil biodiesel burns more cleanly and efficiently than pure salmon oil (Sathivel, 2006). Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 3 In 2006, Hamed El-Mashad, a U.C. Davis researcher affiliated with USDA ARS, presented two studies focused on salmon oil-based biodiesel that he led with two research teams. In one study, El-Mashad’s team compared the required pre-treatment steps, production costs and biodiesel yields of two different biodiesel feedstocks: salmon oil extracted from acidified (ensiled) waste and salmon oil extracted from rendered waste. The researchers found virtually no difference between the two feedstocks; both salmon oils required a sulfuric acid pre-treatment to bring down the high acid value of the oil and both oils yielded approximately the same amount of biodiesel for the same cost. Based on the weight of the salmon oils prior to transesterification, a maximum 99% biodiesel yield was achieved. However, the researchers calculated that up to 15% of the esters were lost during the final washing and drying steps due to the formation of emulsion in the biofuel. Finally, a preliminary economic analysis revealed the cost of salmon oil biodiesel production was almost twice the cost of soybean oil biodiesel production (El-Mashad et. al.1, 2006). In a second study, El-Mashad et. al evaluated the thermal and rheological properties of salmon oil and salmon oil-based biodiesel. A central objective of the study was to compare the thermal and rheological properties of salmon oil and salmon oil biodiesel with the same properties of corn oil and corn oil biodiesel. With corn oil and its biodiesel serving as a representative of vegetable oils and vegetable oil biodiesels, the researchers hoped to gain more information about the engine performance and storage of salmon oil biodiesel in cold weather. El-Mashad and his team found that salmon oil biodiesel and corn oil biodiesel have similar rheological and thermal properties. Thus, the researchers concluded that salmon oil is a viable feedstock for biodiesel production (El-Mashad et. al.2, 2006). Large-scale Biodiesel Production from Fish Oil Unisea, Inc., based in Dutch Harbor, has processed and burned waste fish oil in its boilers for decades, as have other Pacific Rim seafood processors. Since 2001, Unisea, Inc. has also burned fish oil/petrodiesel blends in its electrical generators (Steigers, 2002). Additionally, as part of the Alaska Biodiesel Demonstration Project, Unisea Inc. shipped over 18,000 gallons of walleye pollock oil to Hawaii in 2005, and Pacific Biodiesel Inc. processed this fish oil into biodiesel before it was shipped back to Alaska for testing (Alaska Energy Authority, 2005). This project established fish oil-based biodiesel as a viable engine product for engine operability in Alaska, but also identified critical storage and handling problems with the fish oil-based biodiesel (Steigers, 2009, pers. comm.). Alaska Energy Authority and the EPA sponsored a pilot study to test the pollock oil biodiesel in diesel generator-sets at UAF. This pilot-scale test ended when all gen-sets eventually ceased to work due to failures in the fuel delivery systems. The study identified the two biggest issues with the pollock oil biodiesel were its strong tendency to oxidize and polymerize, and its relatively high cloud point temperature (34˚F,when solid, waxy crystals form in the fuel and clog delivery systems) (Holdmann, 2009, pers. comm.). Chemical engineer and FDE consultant, Will Smith of Pacific Biodiesel Technologies (PBT), assisted with the conversion of pollock oil to biodiesel at Pacific Biodiesel’s Inc. Oahu processing plant in 2005. Smith recalls that pollock oil had a relatively low acid value and that biodiesel yields of over 95% were achieved. Smith also Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 4 mentioned the rapid oxidation and polymerization of the pollock oil biodiesel was not apparent right away, but escalated quickly. According to Smith, no anti-oxidants were added to the biofuel as the biodiesel was produced before oxidation was known to be so critically problematic (indeed, the Oxidative Stability Index test was not one of the ASTM D6751 tests at that time). To combat oxidation, Smith and other PBT technicians now recommend adding powerful anti- oxidants used in the food industry specifically for oil preservation, T-butyl hydroquinone and citric acid. Meanwhile, on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, in Honduras and in Vietnam, tilapia-based biodiesel and catfish-based biodiesel are being produced at a large scale. Although biodiesel manufacturers in these countries also face known fish oil biodiesel issues like rapid oxidation and polymerization (drying), the temperature at which this fuel gels is not as much of a problem in these tropical locales. Aquafinca is a tilapia farm, rendering plant and biodiesel production facility located approximately 125 miles from San Pedro Sula, the administrative capital of Honduras. The farm currently harvests roughly 200,000 lbs. of tilapia a day, of which approximately 54% (108,000 lbs.) is waste—including viscera, heads, frames and skins. The skins are immediately separated from the rest of the byproduct, dried and sold to China for the production of gelatin. Viscera, heads and frames are ground and rendered at high heat to approximately 16,000 pounds of fish oil (8% yield) and 22,000 pounds of fishmeal (11% yield). Of the 16,000 pounds of fish oil, approximately 10,000 to 12,000 pounds (1,200 to 1,500 gallons) is converted to biodiesel on a daily basis. The biodiesel produced from the tilapia offal powers the tilapia farm and adjacent rendering plant’s ten generators and supplies electricity to the homes of the 50 Aquafinca employees who live on-site. Finally, the surplus biodiesel is sold at a single pump station at the plant for use in diesel-powered vehicles. The MBA student, Tony Piccolo, who conducted a case study of the Aquafinca operation, concludes that the entire operation is an unqualified success, whose biggest challenge is receiving a consistent, economical supply of methanol from the U.S. The Aquafinca business model is one he would like to see replicated in other parts of the developing world (Piccolo, 2009). Indeed, a similar operation is currently underway at a massive catfish farm and processing plant in Vietnam. Finland’s VTT Technical Research Center, the largest applied research organization in Northern Europe, and Vietnam’s Hiep Thanh Seafood are two principal partners in a coalition of many collaborators who recently launched “ENERFISH.” ENERFISH began biodiesel production from catfish byproduct in May 2009 and will run as a three-year experimental project through 2011. Those involved with the demonstration project hope the ENERFISH operation will eventually produce at least 3,000 gallons of biodiesel a day from the catfish byproduct (roughly 110,000 pounds per day) that is estimated to be an incredible 22% oil. Some of the biodiesel is used to produce electricity for much-needed cooling/freezing and heating energy at the processing facility and the surplus biodiesel generates electricity for local industrial use (Enerfish, 2009). Preseco Oy, based near Helsinki, Finland, designed and manufactured the biodiesel production equipment now in use at the ENERFISH site in Vietnam. Preseco Oy is also the alternative energy research and technology company with whom two FDE consultants, Juha Solio and Ari Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 5 Vihersaari, were affiliated for several years. The work of Mr. Solio, a chemical engineer, and Mr. Vihersaari, a design engineer and business management expert, at Preseco Oy helped to launch Finland’s first commercial-scale fish byproducts-to-biodiesel plant, Rovina Oy. Formerly known as Saaristomeren Kala Oy, and based in the coastal fishing town of Uusikaupunki, Rovina Oy is the only known company that produces biodiesel from waste fish oil at a commercial scale in a northern climate. Rovina Oy became a reality when its founder, a former fishermen and Atlantic salmon farm co-owner, teamed with Mr. Solio in 2004. The two men realized Atlantic salmon viscera (approximately 30% oil) held tremendous potential as a biodiesel feedstock. Rovina Oy’s founder had witnessed businesses that manufacture fox farm food from Atlantic salmon heads, frames and skin thrive while fish farmers like himself actually had to pay biogas plants to take their viscera byproduct, given that the discharge of any seafood waste into European Union waters is strictly prohibited (Poseidon, 2004). The innovative fisherman soon designed a “grinder-acidifier” unit to break down the viscera into tiny pieces while at the same time coating the ground waste with the proper concentration of formic acid, as Mr. Solio specified. Meanwhile, Mr. Solio—already known as Finland’s “Mr. Biodiesel”—set out to design a biodiesel processor specifically suited for the Atlantic salmon oil and its high acid value. In 2005, within less than one year of its inception, Rovina Oy began to sell its fish oil biodiesel to public and private entities for use as heating oil. Most Rovina Oy biodiesel consumers utilize pure biodiesel (B100) during the summer months and a 20% biodiesel/80% petrodiesel blend (B20) during the winter months. When Rovina Oy began producing biodiesel in 2005, the business manufactured approximately 1,500 gallons of biodiesel per week. When FDE visited Rovina Oy in 2009, the operation had just begun to manufacture over 1,500 gallons per day [from 50,000-100,000 daily pounds of viscera]. After touring Rovina Oy’s facilities, we felt two keys to the success of the business were that the biodiesel feedstock is located only a few miles from the biodiesel production facility (byproduct collection costs are very low) and energy- intensive, high heat rendering of the viscera is not necessary because the oil naturally rises to the surface of tanks holding acidified (ensiled) waste. Aquafinca, ENERFISH and Rovina Oy are able to successfully convert fish byproducts to biodiesel at a commercial scale. Their example demonstrates that this venture can be feasible under the correct circumstances. Obviously, the common denominator between the three operations is that biodiesel is produced adjacent to, or very near, a large, consistent and consolidated source of byproduct (at least 100,000 pounds per day) derived from the farmed fish industry. Additionally, the oil content of the biodiesel feedstock is high, as it reportedly ranges from 8% (farmed tilapia) to 30% (farmed Atlantic salmon). Through the remainder of our feasibility study, we aim to determine whether biodiesel production from wild salmon byproduct [that requires collection from inconsistent feedstock sources that are spread out spatially and temporally] is also a viable endeavor. Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 6 BIODIESEL PRODUCTION FROM SOCKEYE SALMON OIL Pacific Biodiesel Technologies Testing and Consultation As stated in our 2009 report about the availability of Juneau area waste vegetable oil (WVO), members of Taku Renewable Resources, Inc./Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels (FDE) consulted with Will Smith and Lee Litvin of Pacific Biodiesel Technologies (PBT) in Salem, Oregon, about biodiesel production from wild Alaska salmon oil. In advance of this consultation, FDE sent approximately 55 gallons of sockeye salmon oil—produced in western Alaska for Canfisco—to PBT labs in Salem for testing and conversion to biodiesel. Once testing and analysis of the oil and the resulting biodiesel were complete, Kirsten Walker, Len Peterson (regarding Task 2) and Winston Warr (regarding Task 2) visited PBT’s Oregon facilities on April 27, 2009, to review test results with Mr. Smith and Mr. Litvin, as well as to tour the PBT labs and biodiesel plant. During the visit, FDE delivered an additional pint of salmon oil produced by FDE in our Juneau lab for characterization. The information FDE gleaned regarding the salmon oil samples, biodiesel production from salmon oil and biodiesel production utilizing a combination of salmon oil and waste vegetable oil (WVO) is summarized below and in an attached report from PBT, “Production of Methyl Esters Using Salmon Oil, A Study for Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. dba Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels.” Salmon Oil Characterization Sockeye Salmon Oil Derived from Rendering As the PBT report describes, the 55 gallons of Canfisco sockeye salmon oil delivered to PBT was tested to determine the physical and chemical properties of the oil prior to biodiesel production. This large oil sample was extracted from sockeye offal, post high heat rendering. PBT identified two aspects of this salmon oil during the oil characterization that require additional measures to ensure the oil will be suitable for ASTM-quality biodiesel production: (1) water content and (2) Oxidation Stability Index (OSI) value. Any amount of water over 5,000 ppm hinders the transesterification reaction in the biodiesel production process (as the presence of water has a tendency to produce soaps that can trap the resulting ester and glycerin together and reduce overall biodiesel yields). When PBT staff discovered the Canfisco salmon oil was quite wet, they dried the oil immediately. Once dried, the water content of the oil was approximately a suitable 500 ppm. In addition, ASTM standards for biodiesel require an OSI value of three hours for the final fuel and the salmon oil tested at 1.65 hours. Thus, PBT technicians noted from the outset that oxidative stability agents will need to be added to the biofuel in order to potentially meet ASTM standards. More investigation is required to determine the exact loading for these agents. Sockeye Salmon Oil Derived from Ensiling The small sample of sockeye salmon oil given to PBT by FDE was oil we extracted from sockeye offal that we ensiled in our own lab. Through truncated oil characterization testing (due to the small size of the oil sample), PBT learned our sample of salmon oil extracted [without a centrifuge] from ensiled sockeye salmon waste possessed a water content of 2.6%--considerably higher than the water content of the Canfisco oil extracted from rendered sockeye salmon offal. Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 7 Furthermore, the FDE salmon oil sample possessed a free fatty acid content (FFA) of 5.5%, in contrast with the Canfisco oil’s FFA level of only 0.52%. According to Mr. Smith and Mr. Litvin, a FFA level of 2% is the highest allowable FFA content before an additional sulfuric acid pre-treatment step to reduce the FFA percentage is required prior to biodiesel production. The PBT tests highlighted that both the sockeye salmon oil from rendered byproduct and the sockeye salmon oil from ensiled byproduct are suitable feedstocks for biodiesel production. However, certain characteristics of the salmon oils, including higher-than-allowable water content, OSI index and FFA levels necessitate several additional steps to optimize ultimate biodiesel output and to increase the chance the final biodiesel product will meet ASTM D6751 standards. Canfisco’s rendered salmon oil requires two measures in the lab to ensure this oil is a viable biodiesel feedstock and FDE’s ensiled salmon oil requires three additional steps in the lab to ensure this oil is a viable biodiesel feedstock. Biodiesel Production from Sockeye Salmon Oil Protocol As stated in the attached PBT report, the Canfisco sockeye oil was converted to biodiesel in nine separate batches using the same transesterification process but three different purification methods: water wash, silicate wash and distillation. Results were very similar for all batches tested, with water purification being the most efficient of the three washes applied. ASTM D6751 To be considered biodiesel, the final methyl ester resulting from the transesterification reaction needs to pass all tests associated with ASTM D6751 (ASTM International, Standard D 6751-08 – Standard Specification from Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels). PBT performed all necessary ASTM testing on the final methyl ester except for Cetane Number and Distillation Temperature because a large enough salmon oil-based methyl ester sample was not available for testing. The methyl esters passed all tests conducted except for the Carbon Residue and Oxidation Stability Index (OSI). As the attached report details, OSI can be remedied with the addition of a commonly available oxidation stability agent. The Carbon Residue result is more concerning, however, as it cannot be improved. While the methyl ester Carbon Residue level is unacceptable on its own, blending the salmon oil feedstock with another feedstock with a lower Carbon Residue could effectively bring the Carbon Residue of the resulting biofuel down far enough to meet ASTM standards. Subsequent conversations in July with PBT technicians revealed that two feedstocks that result in low Carbon Residue are tallow and WVO. Tallow only requires a 3:1 blend of tallow to fish oil, but is difficult to acquire in Alaska. Meanwhile, PBT technicians estimate WVO would require a blend ratio of WVO to salmon oil that is between 13:1 and 20:1. Through our WVO availability study, we determined the Juneau area can supply an additional 30,000-40,000 gallons of WVO (approximately 22,500 gallons of biodiesel), in addition to what is currently utilized in the community. Unfortunately, though, this amount of WVO can only provide a blend ratio of roughly 0.2:1, given that we estimate Juneau area fisheries byproduct will yield almost 150,000 gallons of (mostly salmon) oil (approximately 113,500 gallons of biodiesel). Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 8 Recommendations In addition to the failure of the salmon oil-based methyl esters to meet Carbon Residue and OSI, technicians at PBT estimate that these esters would also not meet the Cetane Number and Distillation Temperature specifications—without further processing—because of the amount of unsaturation in the carbon chains of the salmon oil. Thus, PBT officials conclude that salmon oil is likely not suitable for on-road biodiesel production (for use in a combustible engine), but could be used for off-road purposes, such as a boiler fuel supplement. Such a biofuel product would still require transesterification of the salmon oil and, likely, treatment with antioxidants to prevent fuel degradation. We assume that a salmon oil-based, off-road boiler fuel supplement could be sold for $3 per gallon (slightly less than the $3.35 per gallon on-road biodiesel sale price we estimated in our recent economic and energetic cost analyses). JUNEAU AREA FISHERIES BYPRODUCT: AVAILABILITY & COLLECTION Availability Through our study of seafood company discharge records and our interviews with representatives from Juneau area seafood processing plants, terminal salmon hatcheries and a direct marketing firm comprised of several fishermen, we learned a great deal about the spatial and temporal availability of local commercial fisheries byproduct. We identified eight sources of sizable amounts of biodiesel feedstock (seafood waste) in the Juneau area, and we discovered through the interview process that just seven of these eight sites represent consolidated sources of offal and, thus, potentially feasible biodiesel feedstock sources. In our past and future discussion, we refer to the seven Juneau area biodiesel feedstock sources as Sites A, B, C, D, E, F and G. Sites B-G are feedstock sources in the City and Borough of Juneau and Site A is located approximately 107 miles from Juneau (by water). We calculated the seven Juneau area feedstock sources annually generate an estimated 12 million pounds of fisheries byproduct that is currently not utilized. Over 80% of this byproduct is wild salmon offal (heads, skins, frames and viscera) and the vast majority of Juneau area fisheries byproduct is produced by the seven feedstock sources from June through September, with a peak in July and August. Furthermore, more than 70% of the total Juneau area byproduct is generated at Site A in June, July and August. None of the feedstock sources currently separate byproduct by species or body part, but all offal is ground to less than 0.5 inches prior to discharge, as mandated by Alaska State law. Collection In our past cost analyses of Juneau area byproduct collection methods, we determined it is economically and energetically most cost-effective to pump fish offal generated by Site A to a stabilization/oil extraction facility immediately adjacent to Site A. Meanwhile, it is most cost-effective to transport the byproduct produced in the City and Borough of Juneau via truck to a stabilization/oil extraction facility near downtown Juneau. We also concluded that it is feasible to collect all of the byproduct annually produced at Site A for further processing Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 9 (8,498,229 pounds). However, we determined it is most cost-effective from economic and energetic standpoints to only collect the total byproduct annually produced by four of the six- feedstock sources (Sites D, E, F and G) in the City and Borough of Juneau (3,198,468 pounds). We estimated the collection of 11,696,697 pounds of byproduct from the five Juneau area feedstock sources (Sites A, D, E, F and G) will yield 113,929 gallons of biodiesel. Total Biodiesel Feedstock Cost As part of our economic and energetic cost analyses, we calculated the energy required to collect byproduct from Sites A, D, E, F and G is just 1% of the energy contained in the biodiesel ultimately produced. Similarly, we also determined the collection of fisheries byproduct from the five biodiesel feedstock sources will cost approximately $59,965—or $0.53 for every gallon of biodiesel produced from this offal. When waste fish oil is the biodiesel feedstock, the total cost of this feedstock is comprised of three individual costs: (1) byproduct collection costs; (2) byproduct stabilization costs (rendering and/or ensiling, including oil extraction) and (3) byproduct storage costs. Now that we have estimated the smallest possible expense to collect Juneau area byproduct for eventual biodiesel production ($0.53/gal.), we will next calculate the byproduct stabilization and storage costs to arrive at a total biodiesel feedstock cost. JUNEAU AREA FISHERIES BYPRODUCT: STABILIZATION & STORAGE Overview In our economic and energetic cost analyses of byproduct collection methods, we outlined some of the important facets of fish offal stabilization we learned from our consultants in Finland, Mr. Juha Solio and Mr. Ari Vihersaari of Preseco Oy. With the engineering expertise and leadership of Mr. Solio and Mr. Vihersaari, Preseco Oy has manufactured and installed equipment throughout Finland to stabilize and store farmed fish byproduct, as well as to convert this byproduct to biodiesel, biogas (methane), compost and fertilizer. We now continue to use the knowledge we gained through our consultation with Mr. Solio and Mr. Vihersaari, as well as through our guided tours of several fish byproduct processing facilities in Finland, to calculate stabilization and storage costs for byproduct collected in the Juneau area. Our knowledge of fish waste stabilization and storage has also been critically informed by our personal work with salmon byproduct in our own laboratory. Mr. Pete Nicklason, co- owner of FishTek Inc. and a researcher at the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center, guided us through our experimental salmon waste stabilization work. Mr. Nicklason and fellow researcher, Mr. Pete Stitzel, have developed an innovative salmon byproduct stabilization and utilization technique known as the “Montlake Process” that is currently being conducted at a pilot scale at the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Thus, Mr. Nicklason offered us valuable insight into salmon offal stabilization and storage Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 10 concerns in the context of the wild salmon fisheries and salmon hatcheries in Southeast Alaska. Stabilization Methods As we noted in our evaluation of potential byproduct collection methods, it’s vital to address enzymatic and microbial decomposition of fish offal. The oil yield and quality of this byproduct decline extremely rapidly. Mr. Nicklason suggests that ground byproduct be stored on ice or in refrigerated seawater (RSW) in order to slow decomposition as much as possible en route to a byproduct stabilization facility for further processing. Furthermore, Mr. Nicklason and our Finnish consultants recommend that ground fisheries waste are stabilized within 30 hours of seafood processing and the byproduct generation. The two most common ways of stabilizing the byproduct—controlling decomposition of the waste and lessening unpleasant odors—are by high heat rendering (“wet reduction”) or ensiling (“acidification”). The high heat rendering of byproduct involves heating the offal to >160-180˚ for at least twenty minutes to break down the cellular structure of the byproduct. The heated slurry is then separated into high quality, clarified oil, fishmeal (“press cake” that is largely protein) and stick water with the use of machinery that includes at least one liquid press, centrifuge and dryer. Throughout the world, including in Alaska, high heat rendering is the chosen stabilization method for large amounts of byproduct (more than 50,000 pounds per day). Ensiling, meanwhile, involves the addition of a strong acid (usually the strong antimicrobial agent, formic acid) to the byproduct to counter bacterial production and to drive down the pH of the fish offal. At an ideal pH of 3.5-4.0, proteins become soluble enough that the byproduct autolyzes without spoiling. Within a week, proteins and bone sink to the bottom of the mixing tank and oil rises to the surface. This acidified waste, or “silage,” can be stored at room temperature for up to three months prior to further processing. Ensiling can be a means to extract the majority of lower quality, unclarified oil from byproduct prior to processing the liquid silage into compost, or using the silage as a liquid fertilizer. Ensiling for the purpose of rudimentary oil extraction and silage production requires the addition of formic acid at a concentration of 3-3.5%. In Europe, ensiling is also used as a storage technique; byproduct is stabilized for up to three months until it can be combined with larger amounts of waste for high heat rendering and separation into high quality, clarified oil and fishmeal. Ensiling for the purpose of storage requires the addition of formic acid at a concentration of at least 1.5-2.5% (although we dealt with extremely unpleasant odor issues in our lab when formic acid concentrations were less than 3%). Ensiling, the stabilization method of choice for smaller amounts of byproduct (usually much less than 50,000 pounds per day), is not currently employed at a commercial scale in Alaska. Alaska Protein Recovery (APR) has employed a third method of salmon byproduct stabilization in Southeast Alaska during the last several summers. Aboard the mobile processing vessel, Alaskan Venturer, APR personnel render salmon offal to high quality oil and hydrolyzed salmon protein concentrate (SPC) through enzymatic hydrolysis at low temperatures. Because neither high heat nor a strong acid is used to break down the cellular Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 11 structure of the byproduct, the nutritive content and digestibility of the SPC co-product is high. The protein-rich SPC is currently used as a pet food flavoring, an aquaculture feed additive and as a starter diet for weaning piglets and calves (Alaska Protein Recovery, 2010). Although the oil yields resulting from the low heat, “enzymatic” rendering may be higher than that achieved by ensiling, we do not consider this stabilization method in this study because we assume that APR has filled the regional niche market for a specialized “hydrolysate” product. We feel it is best for us to instead consider the more traditional stabilization techniques of high heat rendering and ensiling. High heat rendering results in the extraction of high quality oil and a fishmeal product for which there is growing demand on the world commodity market. Likewise, ensiling yields lower quality oil (still suitable for biodiesel production, as we’ve discovered) as well as silage that can be further processed and sold as specialized co-products, including liquid fertilizer and/or salmon compost for which there are not established niche markets in Southeast Alaska. Oil Extraction Byproduct stabilization techniques are employed [ideally within 30 hours of waste production] to control or stop the rapid decomposition of the byproduct. As mentioned above, byproduct stabilization methods are also a means to separate the oil from the rest of the offal (water, protein and ash). As we strive to determine whether biodiesel production from Juneau area commercial fisheries byproduct is feasible, anticipated oil yields resulting from rendering and ensiling are critical estimates. However, we feel it’s important to mention that estimating byproduct oil yields is difficult. Pete Nicklason echoes the comments of researchers involved with Juneau Economic Development Council’s Alaska Salmon Byproduct Utilization Project: the oil content of salmon byproduct varies wildly according to several factors, including species, time of year and body part (Wiese and Grabacki, 2004). Earlier in this feasibility study, we estimated that a 10% oil yield could be expected from Juneau area byproduct. Rendering equipment manufacturers that provided FDE with a 12- 14% oil yield estimate from wild salmon offal influenced this estimate, as did our experience in Finland in January 2009. Juha Solio and Ari Vihersaari estimated they obtain a 30% oil yield from ensiled farmed Atlantic salmon viscera. However, both Pete Nicklason and USDA’s Peter Bechtel have highlighted most recently that a 10% oil yield estimate is likely a bit too high. Both researchers explained that perhaps a maximum yield of 4-5% could be expected after proper ensiling, and the separation of oil from the silage via mechanical centrifugation. In order to release an additional 2-4% more oil, high heat rendering is necessary to break down the byproduct tissues [in the oil-rich head, in particular]. Therefore, overall, ensiling salmon waste can be expected to generate an oil yield of 4-5%, while high heat rendering of salmon waste can be expected to generate an oil yield of 6-9%. When we ensiled ground sockeye salmon offal over the course of two weeks in our lab, we experienced an oil yield of approximately 3%. After only two weeks of ensiling the waste [that was not ground within 30 hours of processing, but instead was ground and acidified after years in the freezer], we were pleased—and surprised—by a 3% oil yield. We are confident that an oil yield estimate of 4-5% after ensiling properly handled (mostly salmon) byproduct for several weeks is a good [albeit likely a maximum] yield estimate. Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 12 Finally, Pete Nicklason helped us to understand the extremely high (30%) oil yield the Finns achieve after only ensiling—and not rendering—farmed Atlantic salmon viscera. Because Atlantic salmon fed high-fat diets in their pens near coastal Finland, their organs are actually the oiliest parts of their bodies. In contrast, the viscera of wild Pacific salmon are usually the body parts with the lowest oil content. Moreover, Atlantic salmon viscera do not need to undergo wet reduction because there are no tissues in the organs that need to be broken down with heat. All oil is released relatively easily in the ensiling (and centrifugation) processes, especially as the naturally occurring enzymes in the viscera speed the rate at which protein, water and oil are separated. Stabilization and Storage of Byproduct at Site A Protocol As part of our economic and energetic cost analyses of potential byproduct collection methods, we concluded that stabilizing the waste generated at Site A through ensiling is cost- prohibitive. More than 50,000 pounds of salmon byproduct is generated virtually everyday at Site A in June, July and August (with a maximum daily waste production of over 115,000 pounds). Thus, our calculations reinforce the advice of our consultants and other fish waste utilization experts: stabilization via rendering is best when more than 50,000 pounds of waste are produced each day. Site A’s byproduct will be rendered with high heat to oil, fishmeal and stick water after the waste is pumped from Site A’s processing facilities to a nearby rendering plant. Total Feedstock Cost: Collection, Rendering and Storage As mentioned earlier, for the purpose of determining the total biodiesel feedstock cost of Site A’s waste salmon oil, we consider the cost to collect Site A’s salmon offal at a rendering plant adjacent to existing processing facilities to be $0. However, in order to render the amount of salmon waste available at Site A into high quality oil, fishmeal and stick water, a wet reduction plant valued at $1 million—and with annual operating costs of over $200,000—is necessary. Additionally, we calculate the ten 40-foot ISO tanks necessary to store the clarified oil prior to biodiesel production will cost close to $120,000. Thus, it is immediately apparent the projected revenue generated by biodiesel produced from the waste salmon oil at Site A will likely not offset the high rendering and storage costs required to refine this biodiesel feedstock. We estimate the 8,498,229 pounds of salmon byproduct generated at Site A will yield approximately 98,000 gallons of high quality oil (close to a 9% oil yield). In turn, we conservatively estimate a 75% biodiesel yield from this oil so we anticipate the byproduct from Site A could be converted to 74,000 gallons of biodiesel. When we look at annual operating costs of $200,000 for a rendering plant, and ignore the annual loan payments on rendering equipment and storage tanks, we calculate this cost alone equals $2.70 per gallon of biodiesel produced. This figure is 90% of the final biodiesel sale price of $3 discussed earlier. Ultimately, then, and without even considering the capital cost of $150,000-$200,000 for a biodiesel production plant that processes 98,000 gallons of oil a year, we find biodiesel production from Site A’s salmon byproduct is not feasible. Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 13 Post-rendering Potential Co-products Although FDE concludes biodiesel production from Site A’s salmon offal is not feasible, a rendering plant to produce high quality salmon oil and fishmeal may make sense for this salmon processor, given the potential to sell the fish oil as world commodity feed ingredient and given rising prices for fishmeal as a world commodity. Although prices vary from year to year, wild salmon oil of a consistent quality and supply may sell for at least $4 to $8 per gallon as a world commodity feed ingredient. Similarly, if fishmeal produced from wild salmon byproduct is of a reliable quality and supply, this product will likely sell for at least $0.45 to 0.55 per pound as a world commodity. Based on rendering equipment manufacturers’ estimates of a [minimum] 9% oil yield and a 14% fishmeal yield from the rendering of salmon byproduct, gross sales of at least $392,000 could be generated from Site A’s salmon oil each year and gross sales of at least $535,000 could be generated from Site A’s fishmeal each year. Furthermore, the processing of the stick water resulting from the rendering process into fish emulsion (a soil amendment) could generate a third revenue stream for Site A. Stabilization and Storage of Byproduct in the City and Borough of Juneau Protocol From the outset, we assume that stabilizing the byproduct produced by biodiesel feedstock sources in the City and Borough of Juneau (Sites D, E, F and G) via high heat rendering is not viable. At peak daily byproduct production in late July and early August, these four feedstock sources on the Juneau road system generate approximately 40,000 pounds of fish offal daily— and, for the majority of the year, the daily byproduct total is far less than 40,000 pounds. As expected, rendering plant manufacturers tell FDE that, for this relatively small amount of byproduct, a rendering plant would simply not be cost-effective. Thus, although ensiling is a less efficient means to extract oil from fish waste than rendering, acidification may be the best, and only, stabilization method for byproduct produced and collected in the City and Borough of Juneau. Knowing the byproduct from Sites D-G will be stabilized through ensiling, we find it necessary to slightly alter the byproduct collection protocol in the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ). In our cost analyses focused on potential byproduct collection methods, we assumed that three milk trucks would be an ideal way to transfer byproduct from the four feedstock sources on the Juneau road system to a waterfront stabilization facility just south of downtown Juneau. We now realize that three mixer trucks versus three milk trucks are actually the best modes of transportation. Formic acid (3% concentration) can be added to ground waste at the point of collection and mixed thoroughly while the mixer trucks are driven to the stabilization facility and allowed to remain running for several hours. We estimate the collection of byproduct via mixer trucks instead of via milk trucks slightly raises the annual collection cost calculated in our previous economic analysis from $59,965 to $69,700. We learned from our fish waste experiments in the lab, largely guided by Pete Nicklason, that the more thoroughly the formic acid is mixed with byproduct initially, the weaker the unpleasant odors and the higher the oil yield. Furthermore, in Finland, Juha Solio showed us a “grinder/acidifier” unit he helped to design that concomitantly macerates fish waste and gradually pours the proper amount of formic acid into the ground waste slurry. Both Mr. Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 14 Nicklason and Mr. Solio stressed the importance of mixing the ground waste and formic acid as thoroughly as possible in order to coat virtually all newly exposed fish offal surfaces before allowing the acidified waste—“silage”—to settle. Once the ground byproduct and formic acid have been mixed well in the mixer truck, the silage will be pumped into 35 40-foot ISO tanks for short-term storage and rudimentary oil extraction. The warmer the ambient temperatures, the faster the proteins and bone sink to the bottom of the tank and the faster the oil rise to the surface. Generally, this separation of protein/water, bone and oil begins to occur after just one week. This silage stored in full, mostly airtight tanks can be stored at room temperature for up to three months prior to further processing (such as the conversion of the oil to biodiesel). Total Feedstock Cost: Collection, Ensiling and Storage As mentioned earlier, through our past analyses, we calculated it would annually cost $59,965, or $0.53 for every gallon of biodiesel produced, to collect fisheries waste from the five Juneau area byproduct sources identified as potentially feasible biodiesel feedstock sources. Above, we raised the $59,965 figure to $69,700 to account for the use of mixer trucks instead of milk trucks in the collection of waste on the Juneau road system. We need to next recalculate a new cost to collect CBJ byproduct per gallon of biodiesel produced, for we are now only considering the oil yield from CBJ byproduct (and not the oil yield from Site A’s byproduct, as well). Assuming a 5% oil yield, ensiling the 3,198,468 pounds of byproduct available in CBJ should generate over 20,000 gallons of oil. Next conservatively assuming a 75% biodiesel yield, this oil will be processed into more than 15,500 gallons of biodiesel. In gross terms, we estimate that ensiling all of the Juneau road system fisheries byproduct (from Sites D-G) with a 3% formic acid concentration will cost at least $511,800 per year, including equipment and storage. Formic acid costs approximately $30 per gallon. Thus, acidifying 3,198,468 pounds of waste each year requires the addition of approximately 12,800 gallons of formic acid at a cost of $384,000. Furthermore, the necessary storage containers to hold the silage will cost at least $120,000 per year (loan payments for 35 ISO tanks over five years at 8% interest). Finally, a centrifuge to separate oil from the silage (protein, water and bone) is an additional larger equipment piece required at the end of the ensiling process prior to biodiesel production. This centrifuge requires loan annual payments of $7,800 for five years (8% interest). By not including Site A’s byproduct and by choosing to ensile, and, therefore, factor in the use of mixer trucks versus milk trucks in the calculations, the cost per gallon to collect the CBJ waste year-round increases from $0.53 to approximately $4.25 per gallon of biodiesel produced. If collection takes place from June through September only (highest production months), the City and Borough of Juneau byproduct collection cost per gallon drops to $2.67. While this high figure certainly does not appear to indicate biodiesel production will be feasible, we nevertheless proceed to add in ensiling and storage costs to calculate a total feedstock cost for CBJ byproduct. By adding our calculated annual collection cost ($65,700) to our annual calculated stabilization (ensiling and oil extraction/mechanical centrifugation: $384,000 + $7,800 = $391,800) and storage costs ($120,000), we obtain a total feedstock cost of $577,500. Assuming that 15,500 gallons of biodiesel will be produced from the waste fish oil extracted from CBJ byproduct, the total feedstock cost for waste generated by sites on the Juneau road system is a whopping $37 Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 15 per gallon of biodiesel ultimately produced. Obviously, we conclude that biodiesel production— and, really, production of oil generally—from byproduct within CBJ is not a feasible endeavor. Post-ensiling Potential Co-products The above cost analysis revealed the collection of City and Borough of Juneau byproduct has a reasonable annual collection cost of $59,965 (collection via milk trucks). However, ensiling even the relatively small amount of CBJ byproduct (just over 3 million pounds) is cost-prohibitive. Ultimately, then, because we already know that stabilizing and extracting oil from this volume of waste via high heat rendering is also cost-prohibitive, we conclude that oil extraction from CBJ waste is not feasible. Stabilization and oil extraction through ensiling could have allowed the production of co-products from the silage, including liquid fertilizer or compost, but these products are not a reality when it’s not feasible to ensile in the first place, of course. Pete Nicklason and Pete Stitzel’s byproduct utilization protocol called the “Montlake Process” combines both high heat rendering (with steam) and ensiling (at low acid concentrations) techniques to produce some salmon oil, high protein/low ash meal and gelatin. We did not consider this waste stabilization method in this study because the Montlake Process has not yet been demonstrated beyond a pilot scale. Additionally, the Montlake Process is predicated on the separation of salmon heads and on the removal of bones from all waste. As mentioned earlier in this study, none of the Juneau area byproduct sources currently separates fish offal by species (and much less by body part) and only some of the Juneau area feedstock sources have de-boning capabilities. DISCUSSION This study of the feasibility of biodiesel production from Juneau area waste salmon oil has yielded several useful takeaway points for future byproduct utilization and energy studies in the region: 1. FDE’s survey of Juneau area seafood processing plant managers, a salmon hatchery director and an owner of a direct marketing firm comprised of several drift net fishermen revealed a high level of interest in the utilization of currently discarded byproduct for uses that either generate revenue or result in no additional costs. This interest extended to renewable energy production, in particular. 2. The Juneau area byproduct estimates FDE gleaned from our analysis of 2007 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) seafood discharge permit reports, as well as through interviews with representatives from byproduct sources, are a little lower than estimates calculated by Juneau Economic Development Council (JEDC) researchers for the Alaska Salmon Byproduct Utilization Project (Bimbo, 2003). JEDC researchers estimated that 46% of the average annual salmon landings (1994-2002) for a particular region like Juneau is waste. We feel the data collected as part of this study reveals a clearer, much more detailed picture of the amount of byproduct that is readily collectible at this time in the Juneau area. A substantial Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 16 portion of the byproduct estimated from the landings data is widespread temporally and geographically and is, thus, very difficult to collect efficiently. 3. Our analysis of byproduct collection methods revealed that it is cost-prohibitive to collect byproduct from all seven consolidated sources of fish offal in the Juneau area at one centralized location. Indeed, we found two of the byproduct sources are too isolated to merit collection at all (from both economic and energetic perspectives) at this time. In order to keep the economic and energetic costs of byproduct collection at reasonable levels, we determined that byproduct at Site A (approximately 107 miles from downtown Juneau, by water) must be processed separately from the fish offal collected from four byproduct sources on the Juneau road system. 4. The high volume of byproduct generated in just over three months at Site A dictates that Site A’s byproduct is stabilized (and oil is extracted) via high heat rendering (wet reduction). However, there is currently no cost-effective method for oil extraction and stabilization of the much smaller amount of offal generated year-round by the byproduct sources in the City and Borough of Juneau. As we discuss briefly in the final section of this report, further stabilization methods are currently under development and we are hopeful that either they, or an alternative use for City and Borough of Juneau commercial fisheries byproduct, will prove feasible. 5. The total feedstock cost for (mostly salmon) byproduct includes (1) collection cost, (2) stabilization (including oil extraction) cost and (3) storage cost. The byproduct collection cost at Site A is negligible and reasonable in the City and Borough of Juneau (approximately $60,000 annually). However, stabilization capital and operating costs at both Site A and in Juneau were too high to justify biodiesel production—especially given the fact that, with current technology, it’s not possible to convert salmon oil to a methyl ester that is officially biodiesel (meets ASTM D6751 standards). Thus, the biofuel produced through transesterification of [mostly] salmon oil cannot command as high a price as on-road biodiesel, nor is the biofuel producer eligible for a critical $1 per gallon federal tax rebate. Stabilization costs appear to be low enough at Site A that sales of high quality oil and fishmeal from Site A on the world commodities market would likely be feasible. However, stabilization costs in Juneau are so astronomical that the stabilization of all City and Borough of Juneau waste via ensiling with formic acid (3% concentration—the minimal strength required for decent oil yields and tolerable odors) just doesn’t pencil out. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Because we have determined it is not feasible, both economically and biochemically, to convert Juneau area waste salmon oil to biodiesel, FDE will not proceed to our planned final task (Task 5) of designing the ideal biodiesel production facility. However, we do hope to build on the knowledge we’ve gained through our research and continue to investigate whether the renewable energy in Juneau area commercial fisheries byproduct can be cost-effectively harnessed. As one way forward, we recommend that considerable resources support research focused on byproduct stabilization possibilities for processing facilities and communities that generate less Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 17 (or much less) than 50,000 pounds of byproduct per day. Researchers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service at the Subarctic Agricultural Unit (USDA, ARS - SARU) and at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Fishery Industrial Technology Center (UAF, FITC) appear to be looking at just this question for we understand that ARS and FITC scientists plan to conduct a small-scale rendering pilot study in 2010. Additionally, at least one USDA, ARS scientist is currently studying alternative forms of byproduct stabilization in addition to wet reduction and acidification techniques (Pantoja, 2010, pers. comm.). Immediate salmon offal stabilization capabilities are necessary—at least to allow short-term byproduct storage—because of the short seasons and inconsistent volume that characterize the commercial salmon fishing industry. Innovation in byproduct stabilization could allow communities like Juneau to develop unique products derived from salmon waste that can fill potentially lucrative niche markets. We also recommend further study into the utilization of Juneau area fisheries byproduct as a feedstock for biogas (methane) production. As this study identified high costs to extract oil from relatively small quantities of byproduct as the major hurdle to biodiesel production, biogas presents a promising alternative use for the salmon offal. From what FDE witnessed in Finland, biogas production can be scaled to the level of the available waste, and the production of methane (for both heating and electrical generation) and fertilizer (a byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process), are two potential revenue streams. Furthermore, byproduct collection for the eventual placement of waste inside an anaerobic digester isn’t limited by the short 30-hour timeframe discussed in this study. Not needing to transport and stabilize waste within 30 hours of byproduct generation should dramatically reduce byproduct collection and stabilization costs. The high capital and operating costs for a rendering plant are also not required for bacteria to digest byproduct (and form methane) in anaerobic conditions. Some ensiling of the offal for short-term storage may be useful in order to produce lower quality, unclarified oil, however, for we understand that some oil in the sealed digester helps to speed the microbes’ conversion of organic waste to methane. Energy is the issue of our time, and a serious issue in Alaska’s rural areas, in particular, where energy costs are extremely high. We would like to be a part of future emerging energy technology research that focuses on the conversion of commercial fisheries byproduct to methane as a potential source of renewable energy for many of Alaska’s small, coastal communities. Not only would such a venture realize a more efficient economic conversion of the fish resource, but it also promises to improve the health of Alaska’s marine ecosystem through reduced overall waste discharge and an eventual reduction in hydrocarbon emissions. Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 18 REFERENCES Alaska Energy Authority. (2005). Fish Oil & Biodiesel in the Park. Brochure. Alaska Protein Recovery. (2010). Information from homepage. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from: http://www.alaskaproteinrecovery.com. Bimbo, A. P. (2003). Alaska Seafood By-products: Potential Products and Markets and Competing Products. Juneau, Alaska. Report for Juneau Economic Development Council. El-Mashad1, H.M., Zhang, R. and Avena-Bustillos, R.J. (2006). Salmon oil as a feedstock for biodiesel production via transesterification. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting. Portland, Oregon. Paper No. 066144. El-Mashad2, H.M., Chiou, B., Avena-Bustillos, R.J., Bechtel, P.J., Mc Hugh, T.H. and Zhang, R. (2006). Rheological and thermal properties of salmon processing byproducts. Proceedings of the 2006 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting. Portland, Oregon. Paper No. 066157. Enerfish. (2009). Information from homepage. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from: http://www.enerfish.eu/p-techno-techno_id-1/fish-wastes-to-fish-oil.html. Holdmann, G. (2009). Personal communication. Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska. National Biodiesel Board. (2009). Information from fact sheet (PDF) linked to homepage. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from: http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf. Pantoja, A. (2010). Personal communication. Research Leader, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service – Subarctic Agricultural Research Unit. Fairbanks, Alaska. Piccolo, T. (2009). Framework Analysis of Fish Waste to Bio-Diesel Production-Aquafinca- Case Study. Master of Business Administration (Energy and Sustainable Development) thesis, University of Malta. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from: http://aquaticbiofuel.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/fishwaste-biodiesel.pdf. Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. (2004). Evaluation of Fish Waste Management Techniques (Contract Reference 230/4198). Final report for Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Feasibility of Biodiesel Production from Juneau Area Waste Fish Oil Taku Renewable Resources, Inc. (Fishermen’s Daughters Ecofuels) June 24, 2010 19 Sathivel, S. (2006). Oil from Fish Processing Byproducts and Underutililized Fish as a Viable Renewable Resource for Biodiesel Production. Presentation posted on University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Fisheries & Ocean Sciences website. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from: http://www.sfos.uaf.edu/directory/faculty/sathivel/. Steigers, J.A. (2002). Demonstrating the Use of Fish Oil in a Large Stationary Diesel Engine. Report for Alaska Energy Authority. Steigers, J.A. (2009). Personal communication. Former Alternative Fuels Project Manager, Alaska Energy Authority. Anchorage, Alaska. Van Gerpen, J., Pruszko, R., Clements, D., Shanks, B. and Knothe, G. (2006). Building a Successful Biodiesel Business (2nd edition.). Iowa State University: Biodiesel Basics. Wiese, C. and Grabacki, S. (2004). Salmon Byproduct Utilization Project. Retrieved August 14, 2009 from the Juneau Economic Development Council website: http://www.jedc.org/salmon/.