Eleven Leading National Experts Reach Consensus on Good Biofuels

“Recent analyses of the energy and greenhouse-gas performance of alternative biofuels have ignited a controversy that may be best resolved by applying two simple principles,” begins the summary from a new joint research paper entitled, “Beneficial Biofuels – The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma“. The paper was published in the July 17, 2009 issue of Science.

“In a world seeking solutions to its energy, environmental, and food challenges, society cannot afford to miss out on the global greenhouse-gas emission reductions and the local environmental and societal benefits when biofuels are done right. However, society also cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.”

Many people are quick to abandon all biofuels due to several of the challenges proposed with the production of first generation biofuels including indirect land use. However, science is developing solutions to these issues and the next generation of biofuels will have less negative impact. (Although the worst biofuel is better than the best gasoline in terms of negative impact.)

The authors note that done right, biofuels can be produced in large quantities and have multiple benefits, but only if they come from feedstocks produced with low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions as well as minimal competition with food production. No one can forget the “food versus fuel” debate that raged last summer only to discover that it wasn’t accurate.

The lead author of the paper was noted ecologist David Tilman with University of Minnesota. He says of the research, “The world needs to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, but recent findings have thrown the emerging biofuels industry into a quandary. We met to seek solutions. We found that the next generation of biofuels can be highly beneficial if produced properly.”

Additional authors include:

Jason Hill and Jonathan Foley, University of Minnesota
Robert Socolow, Eric Larson, Stephen Pacala, Tim Searchinger, and Robert Williams, Princeton
Lee Lynd, Dartmouth
John Reilly, MIT
Chris Somerville, University of California Berkeley

The paper was released in coincide with climate change policy debates in Congress and tackles land use issues that have generated a significant amount of controversy, specifically indirect land use.

Robert Socolow, co-director of the Carbon Mitigation Institute said in response, “It’s essential that legislation take the best science into account, even when that requires acknowledging and undoing earlier mistakes. Careful science reasoning revealed accounting rules that separate promising from self-defeating strategies. Future carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will tell us when we’re kidding ourselves about what actually works. For carbon management, the atmosphere is the ultimate accountant.”

The solution? To focus on five major sources of renewable biomass:

Perennial plants grown on degraded lands abandoned from agricultural use
Crop residues
Sustainably harvested wood and forest residues
Double crops and mixed cropping systems
Municipal and industrial wastes

These sources combined can provide more than 500 million tons of biomass per year in the U.S. without incurring any signifianct land use CO2 releases.

Jonathan Foley, director of the Institute on the Environment, concludes, “Technology experts, energy systems analysts, climatologists, ecologists and policy exeprts all agreed: Biofuels ‘done right’ have a bright future in solving our energy and environmental challenges.”

MAKE SOLAR WORK FOR YOU!

Next, use your Solar Report to get the best quote!

Tags: Biofuel Research, Biofuels, David Tillman, University of Minnesota

About the Author

Joanna Schroeder Joanna is a writer and consultant specializing in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture issues.

http://dotcommodity.blogspot.com Susan Kraemer

Great story, important debate – glad we are getting past the food/fuel thing and that Socolov (the 12 wedges) is involved.
http://dotcommodity.blogspot.com Susan Kraemer

Great story, important debate – glad we are getting past the food/fuel thing and that Socolov (the 12 wedges) is involved.
Aureon Kwolek

CRITIQUE of: “Beneficial Biofuels — The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma” (Tilman 2009)

David Tilman says that society “cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.” He is referring to Corn Ethanol. Tilman is Not speaking for everyone. He’s speaking for a minority. What we don’t need is, under-informed people in ivory towers dictating to farmers and biofuel producers what decisions they’re going to make in the field.

Tilman and his group advocate over-regulation of our biofuels industry. He and his associates are still pushing indirect land use change theory, even though it can’t be scientifically proven. Indirect land use change theory is based on false assumptions and inaccurate information.

Corn ethanol is NOT “done wrong”. It’s just learning how to walk – evolving almost faster than you can conduct a study on it.

The next “Big Bang for the Buck” is ALGAE Integrated into Corn Ethanol. Algae is Not on David Tilman’s recommended list of biofuel feedstocks. Imagine that. That ought to tell you something. Algae Integrated with Corn Ethanol will further invalidate Tilman’s slanted criticisms of the corn ethanol industry. Algae-Corn-Ethanol is a blockbuster that will also prove indirect land use change theory wrong.

Here are 3 possible ways for corn ethanol to evolve:

(1) Implement the “Farmer’s Ethanol” System, using manure, methane digesters, and CHP production power.

(2) Integrate Algae and-or Duckweed into the “Farmer’s Ethanol” System.

(3) Develop a sugary stalk for feed corn without affecting grain production.

This may give us a new generation of corn ethanol with a 5 to 10 fold return, a whole new spectrum of co-products, and the environmental footprint that is totally acceptable.

Ethanol engine technology has recently taken a giant leap forward, beyond flexi-fuel, and this will dramatically enhance the environmental impact of the fuel. “Ethanol optimized” engines are now being developed that get better mileage than gasoline, and also have all the power and efficiency of diesel engines, at a much lower cost and a much higher power-to-weight ratio. (Ricardo, Lotus, and others) This is made possible by exploiting ethanol’s 25% higher octane and faster flame speed than gasoline, even though it has 30% less btu’s. The old argument, that ethanol is limited by its lower btu content is invalid.

Biodiesel, a good alternative fuel, is oil based. In contrast, ethanol can be blended with up to 50% water and still combust. That is significant, because we have technology that can distill a gallon of ethanol with less than 3 kilowatts, use it half and half with water, and then combust it in a genset that produces 23 kilowatts per gallon, using a conventional small engine. (MicroFueler “grid-buster”) The output could be much higher using an “ethanol optimized” engine, an ethanol-water fuel reformer, a gas turbine, or a fuel cell. Ethanol-water fuel reformers not only strip all the hydrogen from the ethanol, they simultaneously strip half the hydrogen from the water. These new ethanol technologies are viable for charging batteries onboard the coming plug-in hybrids, and what you get is a vehicle design with the potential to eliminate imported oil entirely.

Self-powered corn ethanol refineries are also in the works. Onsite ethanol-water – vaporized or reformed into hydrogen – could also replace natural gas used for CHP production power at ethanol refineries. The ethanol-water fuel would be taken before distillation was complete. This would also generate extra hydrogen while disposing of waste water. By replacing newly mined CO2 in the natural gas – with recycled CO2 embodied in the ethanol, we can improve the environmental footprint of corn ethanol further. Surplus electric power will also be fed into the local grid.

There are plans to grow Algae on the corn ethanol refinery waste stream. Again, this would greatly improve the environmental footprint, while mitigating waste heat and nutrient-rich waste water effluent called “centrate”. Waste CO2 will be recycled into the algae, instead of releasing it directly into the atmosphere. This will likely be very concentrated heterotrophic algae grown in dark, insulated tanks, on a comparatively small footprint of adjacent land. The CO2, the sugars, and the nutrients in the waste water centrate will feed the algae, and what we’ll get is ONSITE algae biomass doubling every 6 hours under optimal conditions. Strains of heterotrophic chlorella have been documented to double every 5 hours. That is, if you grow it for maximum speed and biomass, rather than stressing it for oil production, which slows the growth rate dramatically. This obsession with oil is what’s slowing-down algae development. Instead, when algae is grown for maximum speed and biomass, we get a smaller overall percentage of oil, but from a much bigger volume of biomass. You come out way ahead, because you get massive quantities of starch and proteins for co-products, and you still get your oil. Five different companies are reporting algal biomass yields of 65-220-270-300 and 330 TONS per acre per year.

Algae grown on the corn ethanol waste stream will provide additional onsite co-products: Throw it all in a gassifier, if the circumstances call for it. Or divide the algae into its components: The carbohydrates will drop-in to the fermentation process, providing additional onsite ethanol feedstock or biogas digester feedstock. Algal proteins are complete amino acids that will enhance animal feeds and complement corn ethanol distillers grains. Algae as a high-quality complete protein feed supplement, is also a green chlorophyll hemoglobin oxygen-carrier-booster that will improve the health and productivity of dairy cows, hogs, poultry, meat cattle, and farm-raised fish and “seafood”.

Chorella, a complete protein human food supplement, could also be grown at corn ethanol refineries. It’s currently selling in bulk on the internet for about $18 per pound. And medicinal and nutriceutical Omega 3 Oils derived from algae are now selling for up to $500 per pound. Nutritional supplements for humans may become another revenue stream for the coming algae-corn ethanol industry. Algae is also a candidate for the production of localized bio-fertilizer and bioplastics, that would replace conventional feedstocks, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels. Integrating algae production into corn ethanol production has a huge potential to enhance numerous branches of our economy and their respective environmental footprints.

Heterotrophic algae grown Onsite, on the waste streams of corn ethanol refineries, (and other waste streams) may trump cellulosic ethanol, made from biomass crops that are grown, harvested, and shipped – using fossil fuels – then stored, handled and processed at a central location. Onsite Algae-Corn Ethanol Integration also trumps remote waste that requires collection, shipping and handling using fossil fuels.

“Corn-cane” is also in the works. That is corn with a sugary stalk, like sweet sorghum or sugarcane. So far, crafting corn with a sugary stalk decreases the production of the grain. Researchers will fix that. It’s just a matter of time, before we have corn with all the sugar of sweet sorghum in the stalk and all the grain of our current corn crop. We will extract sugary juice from the entire feed corn crop, and we’ll still have all the grain. This will improve the footprint and also make corn-based ethanol competitive with next generation ethanol. The 15 billion gallon yearly restriction on corn ethanol should be removed, on the condition that corn acreage does not go over 100 million acres.

There is also a plan to purify corn ethanol byproduct distillers grains for human consumption, so you may soon see it mixed-in with other foods as a protein booster. Distillers grains purified for humans may also become a global food staple that will help to alleviate hunger. We are currently only taking the starch to make ethanol from 1 out of 4 bushels of corn. Every acre of corn used for ethanol also produces about 50 bushels of distillers grains, which goes to producing food. The fuel vs food debate has been debunked, and so has indirect land use change theory.

Look at biofuels in the context of how they compare with conventional petroleum based fuels. Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are derived from “recycled CO2” which is already in the air. Whereas burning petroleum based fuels continues to add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere. “Newly mined” CO2 released by burning fossil fuels has a far bigger environmental impact than burning cleaner biofuels made from “recycled” CO2. Yet the EPA does not credit biofuels accordingly.

Ethanol, biodiesel, and biogas burn cleaner. Whereas dirty fossil fuels, such as coal, heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, and the bunker fuel burned by ocean going ships – produce massive amounts of Black Carbon Soot. This black soot heats the air while it is temporarily suspended, and then it settles out on the surface of roofs, land, water, snow and ice – where it causes additional solar thermal absorption and acidity. This could be a much bigger climate change factor than CO2. Yet the EPA does not credit biofuels for having a much smaller footprint of Black Carbon Soot than petroleum based fuels.

You also need to accurately measure the impact of conventional fuels, before you go comparing them to biofuels. By omission, the EPA’s hidden agenda has been to make petroleum based fuels look much better than they actually are, and to make ethanol and biodiesel look much worse than they actually are:

The EPA low-balled the environmental footprint of petroleum based fuels, by excluding data on crude oil extracted from energy intensive tar sands, oil shales, and deep offshore oil production. These consume up to twice as much energy as a conventional oil well. The EPA omitted the deforestation caused by huge open strip mining and tar sands pits. The EPA omitted the environmental impact of shipping foreign oil thousands of miles using dirty bunker fuel, one of heaviest polluters of Black Carbon Soot. The EPA omitted the environmental impact of America expending 12-15% of our entire defense budget and the burning of billions of dollars worth of diesel fuel and bunker fuel, every year, in order to protect our foreign oil supplies. Next time you pull-up to the pump, add that to the cost of your fuel. Now tally the cost to protect domestic biofuel – Zero.

Lobbyists planted a provision into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that required all new biofuel production to be at least 50% cleaner than petroleum based fuels – Yet the EPA sugar-coated the environmental footprint of petroleum based fuels, the measuring stick, became grossly over-rated.

This 50% requirement is also totally unacceptable. The biofuels industry needs a gradual time table. Take advantage of the numerous other benefits of biofuels, while the environmental timetable is being met.

Lobbyists also added another provision that biofuels would be subject to indirect land use change, even though it can’t be scientifically proven, and before legislators even knew what it was.

Now look at what Tilman says: “Specifically, it (indirect land use change) addresses concerns that clearing land to grow biofuel crops or to grow food crops displaced by biofuel crops can release more greenhouse gases than petroleum use.” The problem is that Tilman, along with the EPA, is low-balling the environmental footprint of petroleum based fuels, the measuring stick.

Consensus? What consensus? There is no consensus to over-regulate biofuels at the expense of undermining our Economy and our National Security. Especially while 500 Billion Dollars worth of assets are Leaving the Country every year – in the form of American stocks and bonds, real estate, and debt instruments – which we use to pay for imported oil.

Tilman says: “Accounting rules should consider the full life cycle of biofuels production, transformation, and combustion.” Then we must also hold petroleum based fuels to the same high standard – using complete and accurate data – not omissions.
Aureon Kwolek

CRITIQUE of: “Beneficial Biofuels — The Food, Energy and Environment Trilemma” (Tilman 2009)

David Tilman says that society “cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.” He is referring to Corn Ethanol. Tilman is Not speaking for everyone. He’s speaking for a minority. What we don’t need is, under-informed people in ivory towers dictating to farmers and biofuel producers what decisions they’re going to make in the field.

Tilman and his group advocate over-regulation of our biofuels industry. He and his associates are still pushing indirect land use change theory, even though it can’t be scientifically proven. Indirect land use change theory is based on false assumptions and inaccurate information.

Corn ethanol is NOT “done wrong”. It’s just learning how to walk – evolving almost faster than you can conduct a study on it.

The next “Big Bang for the Buck” is ALGAE Integrated into Corn Ethanol. Algae is Not on David Tilman’s recommended list of biofuel feedstocks. Imagine that. That ought to tell you something. Algae Integrated with Corn Ethanol will further invalidate Tilman’s slanted criticisms of the corn ethanol industry. Algae-Corn-Ethanol is a blockbuster that will also prove indirect land use change theory wrong.

Here are 3 possible ways for corn ethanol to evolve:

(1) Implement the “Farmer’s Ethanol” System, using manure, methane digesters, and CHP production power.

(2) Integrate Algae and-or Duckweed into the “Farmer’s Ethanol” System.

(3) Develop a sugary stalk for feed corn without affecting grain production.

This may give us a new generation of corn ethanol with a 5 to 10 fold return, a whole new spectrum of co-products, and the environmental footprint that is totally acceptable.

Ethanol engine technology has recently taken a giant leap forward, beyond flexi-fuel, and this will dramatically enhance the environmental impact of the fuel. “Ethanol optimized” engines are now being developed that get better mileage than gasoline, and also have all the power and efficiency of diesel engines, at a much lower cost and a much higher power-to-weight ratio. (Ricardo, Lotus, and others) This is made possible by exploiting ethanol’s 25% higher octane and faster flame speed than gasoline, even though it has 30% less btu’s. The old argument, that ethanol is limited by its lower btu content is invalid.

Biodiesel, a good alternative fuel, is oil based. In contrast, ethanol can be blended with up to 50% water and still combust. That is significant, because we have technology that can distill a gallon of ethanol with less than 3 kilowatts, use it half and half with water, and then combust it in a genset that produces 23 kilowatts per gallon, using a conventional small engine. (MicroFueler “grid-buster”) The output could be much higher using an “ethanol optimized” engine, an ethanol-water fuel reformer, a gas turbine, or a fuel cell. Ethanol-water fuel reformers not only strip all the hydrogen from the ethanol, they simultaneously strip half the hydrogen from the water. These new ethanol technologies are viable for charging batteries onboard the coming plug-in hybrids, and what you get is a vehicle design with the potential to eliminate imported oil entirely.

Self-powered corn ethanol refineries are also in the works. Onsite ethanol-water – vaporized or reformed into hydrogen – could also replace natural gas used for CHP production power at ethanol refineries. The ethanol-water fuel would be taken before distillation was complete. This would also generate extra hydrogen while disposing of waste water. By replacing newly mined CO2 in the natural gas – with recycled CO2 embodied in the ethanol, we can improve the environmental footprint of corn ethanol further. Surplus electric power will also be fed into the local grid.

There are plans to grow Algae on the corn ethanol refinery waste stream. Again, this would greatly improve the environmental footprint, while mitigating waste heat and nutrient-rich waste water effluent called “centrate”. Waste CO2 will be recycled into the algae, instead of releasing it directly into the atmosphere. This will likely be very concentrated heterotrophic algae grown in dark, insulated tanks, on a comparatively small footprint of adjacent land. The CO2, the sugars, and the nutrients in the waste water centrate will feed the algae, and what we’ll get is ONSITE algae biomass doubling every 6 hours under optimal conditions. Strains of heterotrophic chlorella have been documented to double every 5 hours. That is, if you grow it for maximum speed and biomass, rather than stressing it for oil production, which slows the growth rate dramatically. This obsession with oil is what’s slowing-down algae development. Instead, when algae is grown for maximum speed and biomass, we get a smaller overall percentage of oil, but from a much bigger volume of biomass. You come out way ahead, because you get massive quantities of starch and proteins for co-products, and you still get your oil. Five different companies are reporting algal biomass yields of 65-220-270-300 and 330 TONS per acre per year.

Algae grown on the corn ethanol waste stream will provide additional onsite co-products: Throw it all in a gassifier, if the circumstances call for it. Or divide the algae into its components: The carbohydrates will drop-in to the fermentation process, providing additional onsite ethanol feedstock or biogas digester feedstock. Algal proteins are complete amino acids that will enhance animal feeds and complement corn ethanol distillers grains. Algae as a high-quality complete protein feed supplement, is also a green chlorophyll hemoglobin oxygen-carrier-booster that will improve the health and productivity of dairy cows, hogs, poultry, meat cattle, and farm-raised fish and “seafood”.

Chorella, a complete protein human food supplement, could also be grown at corn ethanol refineries. It’s currently selling in bulk on the internet for about $18 per pound. And medicinal and nutriceutical Omega 3 Oils derived from algae are now selling for up to $500 per pound. Nutritional supplements for humans may become another revenue stream for the coming algae-corn ethanol industry. Algae is also a candidate for the production of localized bio-fertilizer and bioplastics, that would replace conventional feedstocks, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels. Integrating algae production into corn ethanol production has a huge potential to enhance numerous branches of our economy and their respective environmental footprints.

Heterotrophic algae grown Onsite, on the waste streams of corn ethanol refineries, (and other waste streams) may trump cellulosic ethanol, made from biomass crops that are grown, harvested, and shipped – using fossil fuels – then stored, handled and processed at a central location. Onsite Algae-Corn Ethanol Integration also trumps remote waste that requires collection, shipping and handling using fossil fuels.

“Corn-cane” is also in the works. That is corn with a sugary stalk, like sweet sorghum or sugarcane. So far, crafting corn with a sugary stalk decreases the production of the grain. Researchers will fix that. It’s just a matter of time, before we have corn with all the sugar of sweet sorghum in the stalk and all the grain of our current corn crop. We will extract sugary juice from the entire feed corn crop, and we’ll still have all the grain. This will improve the footprint and also make corn-based ethanol competitive with next generation ethanol. The 15 billion gallon yearly restriction on corn ethanol should be removed, on the condition that corn acreage does not go over 100 million acres.

There is also a plan to purify corn ethanol byproduct distillers grains for human consumption, so you may soon see it mixed-in with other foods as a protein booster. Distillers grains purified for humans may also become a global food staple that will help to alleviate hunger. We are currently only taking the starch to make ethanol from 1 out of 4 bushels of corn. Every acre of corn used for ethanol also produces about 50 bushels of distillers grains, which goes to producing food. The fuel vs food debate has been debunked, and so has indirect land use change theory.

Look at biofuels in the context of how they compare with conventional petroleum based fuels. Biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, are derived from “recycled CO2” which is already in the air. Whereas burning petroleum based fuels continues to add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere. “Newly mined” CO2 released by burning fossil fuels has a far bigger environmental impact than burning cleaner biofuels made from “recycled” CO2. Yet the EPA does not credit biofuels accordingly.

Ethanol, biodiesel, and biogas burn cleaner. Whereas dirty fossil fuels, such as coal, heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, and the bunker fuel burned by ocean going ships – produce massive amounts of Black Carbon Soot. This black soot heats the air while it is temporarily suspended, and then it settles out on the surface of roofs, land, water, snow and ice – where it causes additional solar thermal absorption and acidity. This could be a much bigger climate change factor than CO2. Yet the EPA does not credit biofuels for having a much smaller footprint of Black Carbon Soot than petroleum based fuels.

You also need to accurately measure the impact of conventional fuels, before you go comparing them to biofuels. By omission, the EPA’s hidden agenda has been to make petroleum based fuels look much better than they actually are, and to make ethanol and biodiesel look much worse than they actually are:

The EPA low-balled the environmental footprint of petroleum based fuels, by excluding data on crude oil extracted from energy intensive tar sands, oil shales, and deep offshore oil production. These consume up to twice as much energy as a conventional oil well. The EPA omitted the deforestation caused by huge open strip mining and tar sands pits. The EPA omitted the environmental impact of shipping foreign oil thousands of miles using dirty bunker fuel, one of heaviest polluters of Black Carbon Soot. The EPA omitted the environmental impact of America expending 12-15% of our entire defense budget and the burning of billions of dollars worth of diesel fuel and bunker fuel, every year, in order to protect our foreign oil supplies. Next time you pull-up to the pump, add that to the cost of your fuel. Now tally the cost to protect domestic biofuel – Zero.

Lobbyists planted a provision into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that required all new biofuel production to be at least 50% cleaner than petroleum based fuels – Yet the EPA sugar-coated the environmental footprint of petroleum based fuels, the measuring stick, became grossly over-rated.

This 50% requirement is also totally unacceptable. The biofuels industry needs a gradual time table. Take advantage of the numerous other benefits of biofuels, while the environmental timetable is being met.

Lobbyists also added another provision that biofuels would be subject to indirect land use change, even though it can’t be scientifically proven, and before legislators even knew what it was.

Now look at what Tilman says: “Specifically, it (indirect land use change) addresses concerns that clearing land to grow biofuel crops or to grow food crops displaced by biofuel crops can release more greenhouse gases than petroleum use.” The problem is that Tilman, along with the EPA, is low-balling the environmental footprint of petroleum based fuels, the measuring stick.

Consensus? What consensus? There is no consensus to over-regulate biofuels at the expense of undermining our Economy and our National Security. Especially while 500 Billion Dollars worth of assets are Leaving the Country every year – in the form of American stocks and bonds, real estate, and debt instruments – which we use to pay for imported oil.

Tilman says: “Accounting rules should consider the full life cycle of biofuels production, transformation, and combustion.” Then we must also hold petroleum based fuels to the same high standard – using complete and accurate data – not omissions.
Don Steinke

What about algae farms??
Don Steinke

What about algae farms??