1. food | energy | futureTM
Intro who we are,
Please for a copy of the Excel Model or
visit to download

2. 5-ton Challenge Purpose:
Provide tool for project developers to determine most economic biomass use
Provide Apples-to-Apples framework to compare ALL biomass options
Allow determination of the “best use” of biomass resources

3. Many Choices
Cellulostic biomass

4. Decision Process (Simplified)
Step 1: Opportunity Identification
Project Location & Feedstock Availability
Potential Technology Options
Step 2: Technical Evaluation
Technology Suitability
Operational Capability/Desirability Assessment
Step 3: Economic Evaluation
Capital Requirements
Operational Economics
Profitability Potential

5. INPUTS Apples – to –Apples Question:
What is the common element present among all potential biomass projects?
INPUTS

6. Processes Compared 5 General Classes of Biomass Processing Composting
Biopower (gasification)
Biochar Only
Energy & Char (optimized for Power)
Interra Energy w/Biochar (optimized for Biochar)

7. Decision Tool Design
Annualized costs
Please for a copy of the Excel Model

8. Relevant Assumptions 5 dry tons/hour or 37,500 dry tons/year
“Waste” feedstocks only
All products sold wholesale (no upgrading)
Biochar sale price = $500/ton
Electricity sale price = $0.10/kWh
Compost sale price = $15/ton

9. Results Interra Energy Energy w/ Biochar Biochar Only Composting
Biopower Only

10. Most Important Variables
Biochar sale price
Electricity sale price
Compost sale price

11. Sensitivity Insights Biochar Sale Price Electricity Sale Price
Interra Energy (Biochar Optimized) keeps the #1 most profitable position unless biochar price falls below $146/ton
Electricity Sale Price
Energy w/ Biochar best only at sale price of greater than $0.33/kWh
Biopower Only requires $0.78/kWh to generate highest profit
Compost Sale Price
Composting requires sale price of $54/ton to be most profitable option

12. Set on a One Acre Plot to Show Scale
Reactor & Dryer
Set on a One Acre Plot to Show Scale

13. Technology Comparison
Interra produces more biochar and electricity with less equipment.
Pacific Pyrolysis
Interra Energy
With capital costs at a fraction of the status quo and profit margin potential of multiple times the competition and a multi-trillion dollar market space, we have a unique opportunity to rapidly expand to build a first-class company before anyone can catch up.

14. Technology Comparison
Company
Throughput
Biochar
Electricity
Cost
Notes
Interra Energy
7200 lbs/hr
2443 lbs/hr
1,000 kW
1,000,000
Cheapest cost per amount of products
Genesis
Industries
660 lbs/hr
231 lbs/hr
No, a small amount if the feedstock is pure walnut shells
Likely 1,000,000
Burns its gas to heat itself
Pacific
Pyrolysis
200 kw
In Australia. Lots of equipment so likely very expensive
Solutions
500 lbs/hr
120 lbs/hr No
120,000
Non continuous and no useful gas
Alterna
Energy
4000 lbs/hr
1333 lbs/hr
No, excess gas available for heat
Up to 1,000,000 depending on size
In Canada. Only 3000 hrs/yr. 18 month installation. Continuous Batch
Diacarbon
2600 lbs/hr
In Canada
With capital costs at a fraction of the status quo and profit margin potential of multiple times the competition and a multi-trillion dollar market space, we have a unique opportunity to rapidly expand to build a first-class company before anyone can catch up.
Competitor
Averages:
1684 lbs/hr
479 lbs/hr
40 kw

15. Technology Comparison
Company
Pressure
Pyrolysis
Self-sustaining after start up
Methane rich gas
High continuous throughput
Internalgas cleaning
Excess heat used to dry incoming biomass
Off the shelf parts
Interra Energy
yes
Genesis Industries no
Pacific
Biochar Solutions
Alterna
Energy
Diacarbon
With capital costs at a fraction of the status quo and profit margin potential of multiple times the competition and a multi-trillion dollar market space, we have a unique opportunity to rapidly expand to build a first-class company before anyone can catch up.

16. Technology Technology Feature Operational Benefit Business Advantage
Relatively low-temperature, high-pressure slow pyrolysis.
Highest possible yield of biochar. Greater energy density of gas.
Highest total value of output products per ton of input.
Thermally self-sustaining reactor, after start up.
No combustion or heat input required after start up. Allows for electricity generation rather than using gas to heat biomass. No air emissions source from traditional heating methods.
Lower operational and capital cost. Removes a regulatory hurdle associated with traditional burners.
Methane rich gas created instead of syngas, producer gas, wood gas, etc.
Most energy dense gas possible from thermal biomass conversion. Gas can go directly into traditional power generation equipment without modification.
Lower operating and capital costs.
Gas cleaning within system.
Don’t need extra gas scrubbing/cleaning equipment. No tar to deal with.
Lower capital costs. Less operational cost from gas cleaning equip. maintenance.
Excess heat transfer system used to dry incoming biomass.
No need for outside heat to dry biomass. Quicker carbonization of biomass due to dryness upon entering system.
Lower operational costs.
Adjustable throughput and reactor pressure.
Control of operating conditions.
Product diversification variable gas and biochar properties.

17. Offering $620k Incentive to Funders of 1st System
Conclusion
Offering $620k Incentive to Funders of 1st System

18. Leadership Thomas Del Monte, J.D./MBA Eren Yar
President, Gen. Counsel
Eren Yar
V.P. of Tech. Development
Kenny Key, J.D.
Carbon Asset Mgr., Law Clerk
Deepak Prakash, M.S.
Mechanical Design Engineer
Joshua Stone
Webmaster, Art Director

19. Board of Advisors Paul Forgue, MBA Darius Sankey, Ph.D.
Sr. Director, global consulting firm.
Darius Sankey, Ph.D.
Venture Fund Manager
Tom Netzel
30 yr. vet. of energy project development.
Ricardo Cabra, Ph.D./MBA
Combustion and flow dynamics engineer.
Gene Hirschkoff, J.D./MBA, PhD
Special Advisor to the Pres.

20. The End Thank you for your time
Questions? Contact: