Public Misled About What Studies Actually Say

By: Brooke Coleman

On February 8th, several major news outlets covered the emergence of two new studies about the “upstream” or indirect impacts of biofuel production. There was a clear disconnect between what the studies actually said,(1) and what was actually written. The general thesis of both studies is that using pristine lands to grow biofuel feedstock will have serious climate change impacts. Yet, most of the stories suggested or declared that today’s biofuels are worse than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Some of the misinformation is directly traceable to the author’s statements.

1. It is simply false to paint Searchinger’s study as a critique of today’s biofuels …
The Searchinger study assumes 30 billion gallons per year (bgy) of corn ethanol use. This is almost 4 times the current U.S. ethanol market (8 bgy), and 2 times greater than the 15 bgy of corn ethanol use required by federal law through 2022.(2)

2. It is misleading for the authors of both the Searchinger study and the Tillman study to claim that today’s biofuels are worse than gasoline with regard to GHG emissions …
Both studies seek to go beyond the current analysis by incorporating indirect “upstream” land use changes into the GHG profile of biofuels. But they fail to incorporate indirect impacts into the petroleum fuel baseline, resulting in a clear “apples to oranges” comparison.

3. The Searchinger study is very clearly a “worst case scenario” analysis, but the article has been promoted as an investigation into the way things are done today …
Among the worst case scenario assumptions are: (a) an inflated ethanol market size; (b) an inelastic supply/demand land use forecast in which one U.S. hectare used for corn results in one hectare planted elsewhere; (c) all new (displaced) hectares are cultivated in pristine ecosystems (prairie, rainforests, etc.) as opposed to some marginal lands.

4. The Searchinger analysis relies on a long series of highly subjective assumptions …
The string of assumptions: we will get to 30 bgy corn ethanol production; increased corn demand spikes corn, wheat and soybean prices, reducing exports of corn, wheat, soybeans, pork and chicken; 10.8 million hectares would need to be planted to fill the void; new hectares would be planted on pristine lands in four countries: China, India, Brazil and the United States.

5. It is misleading to refer to land use impacts as an “omission” from previous biofuel studies …
An upstream/indirect impact is a brand new field of research for any product with incredibly uncertain indicators. These are all “market mediated” effects with dozens of possible socioeconomic, environmental, policy and geopolitical variables. The indirect impacts of oil dependence are countless, and are also omitted.

It is unfortunate that a “worst case scenario” calculation, without a petroleum fuel baseline analysis, was portrayed as a fair and transparent comparison of a business as usual approach. The ongoing analysis of indirect impacts will be incredibly complicated but remains important. The American Biofuels Council and the New Fuels Alliance hopes that future studies will be more balanced and more accurately portrayed by all responsible parties.

(1) The “Tillman study” (“Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt”) focuses on the amount of carbon released by the initial cultivation of pristine lands. The “Searchinger study” (“Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change) attempts to predict the magnitude of the impact (i.e. how much land use change will actually occur and to what effect).
(2) The study also refers to a sensitivity analysis of slightly lower inputs, but the inputs are still inexplicably large.

Today I attended the Energy Forum and Expo in Grand Junction Colorado. Located in the heart of Western Colorado’s massive energy boom the energy titans were all represented. The event tended to point out the reality of the existing energy industry which is nearly all fossil fuel based. However there were a few renewable energy Representatives there as well.

 The morning lecture with Dr. Michael J. Economides was very entertaining and could have lasted another couple of hours. Dr. Economides is a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the University of Houston and is a world renowned expert on energy research and development. His speech was very sobering to say the least. As he sees it we are a fossil fuel based world, period. And when we want to discuss the issue from an American point of view we need to get our facts straight. This is about transportation energy, oil! Nearly 60% of our needs are shipped into the United States every year and it’s growing. However when we hear jargon about the idea of becoming energy independent by reducing our house hold usage he wants to make it very clear; that energy is produced with domestic supplies of fossil fuel. So in order to address energy independence we need to focus on the issue. Oil!

 According to Dr. Economides in 1973 the US was using oil to provide 86% of our transportation needs. Today we use 86% and everything is saying we will use 86% in 30 yrs. What? How can this be? Growing consumption needs will require larger amounts of oil to meet our needs and the notion of alternative fuels playing a large part of that are very minimal. He is very direct with the facts about corn based ethanol and biodiesel from oil seed crops stating that these sources represent a small percentage of our overall needs and they lack the ability to supply large amounts. And we need to wake up to these facts in a hurry. We are looking at a century of oil use with a best case scenario of several decades before we can walk away from it.

So security of our oil needs to be priority number 1. Then we need to do everything we can to domestically produce our energy capabilities in order to hold OPEC at least in check.

Hearing what he had to say and realizing this was a very pro fossil fuel event I had to take what he said with a view of disbelief.

However the next speaker was Anup Bandivadekar of MIT who has been studying “Transportation energy challenges and opportunities for the future.” He talked at length about our infrastructure and the cost associated to any major change in our transportation system. His numbers tend to back what Dr. Economides was saying. And when he took it out to 2035 oil is still our major contributor to our supply needs with conservative numbers for alternatives.

I left today realizing that we need to mobilize in a major way if we are going to find a renewable energy solution that will have any major effects in 30 years. We must also realize there is no possible way to turn off oil any time soon. Anup stated that the world is consuming 1,000 barrels of oil a second. Think about that for one second…. there goes a thousand barrels of oil just like that. WOW!

We must not be overwhelmed by this prospect, it took us a 100 yrs to get here and best case scenario it’s going to take that long to figure out a solution. So let’s be realistic and realize we are in this for the long haul and that there is no silver bullet to solve the situation. We need to be adaptable and creative in order to meet the challenge that lies ahead of us.

A research commitment on Renewable Biomass Energy & Global Warming by using Nature’s own Power Plants! Read the full article here In unique public and industry research and commercial demonstration partnerships, the Common Purpose Institute is working with the University of Florida, Florida Energy Office, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers, Power Providers, Industrial & Manufacturing Companies, Ethanol Biofuel Producers, and others to grow, harvest, and use fast growing crops (called energy crop or closed loop biomass) and also biomass waste streams (e.g., clean yardwaste, crop residues, etc.) as renewable energy biofuel or feedstocks for:

Biomass Energy & Global Warming:   By remembering the basic science of photosynthesis, a key aspect of our biomass research effort can be easily understood. Since plants and trees absorb and store atmospheric carbon as they grow, growing and using biomass energy crops reduces the level of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere — which may be creating Global Warming Climate Change on our planet.

The science behind this Strategy to reduce greenhouse gas levels is accomplished in two ways: First, biomass energy from crops is “carbon cycle neutral” just like other forms of renewable energy such as wind or solar power. Second, growing energy crops creates a “carbon sink” through terrestrial carbon sequestration by storing carbon underground through root systems and soil chemistry management practices (e.g., recycling bagasse). Because of this creation of a “carbon sink” (a component which solar and wind energy do not have), we believe that bioenergy from closed loop energy crops represents the most effective choice in “alternative energy” options to address Global Warming.

Also, it’s important to note that our biomass research and commercial demonstration is using environmentally damaged lands, such as closed mining sites. According to NASA Scientists, one-fifth of the carbon dioxide released annually from fossil-fuel emissions could be “sequestered” by planting energy crops on marginal lands of this type. Hopefully, our work can help create a “Global Model”, where thousands of acres now largely considered wastelands can have productive agriculture and environmental use.

For marginal lands such as mining (phosphate, coal, etc.), pre-mined lands were most likely in native forest for hundreds/thousands of years. As such, these sites’ soils were probably at carbon saturation. After mining however, empirical research is clear that post-mined lands often have little soil carbon.

Thus, any incremental build-up of carbon from post-mined sites (starting from a low percentage close to zero) to a carbon saturation level (present before mining) would be creating a permanent carbon sink. This concept of “incremental build-up” of carbon levels on mined lands is illustrated in the yellow bar of the graph below.

Carbon Saturation Levels of Pre and Post Mined Soils

Biomass Energy & Pollution:   Because energy crop fuel contains almost no sulfur and has significantly less nitrogen than fossil fuels — reductions in pollutants causing acid rain (SO2) and smog (NOx) may be realized — improving our air quality. An additional environmental benefit is in water quality, as energy crop fuel contains less mercury than coal. Also, energy crop farms using environmetally pro-active designs will create water quality filtration zones, uptaking and sequestering pollutants such as phosphorus from soils that leach into water bodies.

Biomass Energy & Agriculture: What if the next big oil or natural gas field wasn’t in places like the Middle East or Venezuela — but fields of energy crops (trees, sorghum, switchgrass) grown in Florida and the Southeastern U.S.?

In ongoing research and commercial demonstration (best management agricultural and environmental practices) efforts, an “energy crop farm” of non-invasive eucalyptus trees and various row crops (e.g., soybeans, sweet sorghum, sweet potatoes, energycane) has been established on closed phosphate mining marginal lands (non-irrigated) in central Florida.

The Project reflects decades of tree research conducted by the University of Florida and Shell Energy to produce “Super Trees” which may grow 20 feet a year (yielding 32 green tons and 16 dry tons per acre per year).

Also, significant collaboration is occuring with sorghum seed companies in the development of varieties (hybrids, cultivars) producing high yields (~30 green tons per harvest) and high Brix (sugar content) that can be grown year-round in Florida’s warm climate.

Another important aspect of “Energy Crops” is that they can also represent a sustainable renewable energy resource — since our trees and certain row crops like sugarcane will re-grow after each harvest (coppice, ratoon) — allowing multiple harvests without having to re-plant (called short rotation crops).

A key aspect of our agriculture research and demonstration efforts is the development of Strategies to vertically integrate Farming into Bioenergy projects — allowing Farmers to participate in a profitable “process end” (e.g., biofuel ethanol production) of agriculture rather than just selling a commodity based raw product (e.g., corn, soybeans, etc.). All of these Strategies have a common nexus to create “value added” products and services to become a low cost Producer.

If our team of scientists, engineers, farmers, and environmentalists are successful, energy crops could provide:

Biomass Energy Engineering: The power plant engineering behind the project is also innovative, using an approach called biomass co-firing. With co-firing, an existing power generation facility is modified to allow use of energy crop fuel — changing the fuel mix from a current 100% dependence on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, natural gas) to approximately 5% biomass fuel and 95% fossil fuels.

While displacing relatively small percentages of fossil fuel use with biomass energy crops may not sound like much, it is very significant when recognizing the tremendous size of electricity generation facilities. For example, co-firing energy crops at just one medium size power plant would be the equivalent of installing over 41,000 large solar panels — or in reducing CO2 emission levels, by removing approximately 17,000 cars off the road.

Co-utilizing “Energy Crop Fuel” especially with coal is both effective and economically promising because it doesn’t require major changes in existing technology at power plants.

Instead of building new power generating facilities, which would ultimately result in higher costs to the consumer, we are working with scientists and engineers to change the fuel blend. It’s a novel approach to creating Renewable Energy, and if it works, there’s potential for immediate commercial use by electric utilities offering their customers a low cost option to purchase “Green Energy”.

In biomass co-firing, there are three primary approaches to biomass fuel delivery into the existing power plant: Solid Fuel Blending; Solid Fuel Direct Injection; and External Gasification.

Examples include: (1) Blending coal and biomass fuel together for a cyclone coal unit; (2) Directly injecting only biomass fuel through dedicated fuel ports into a pulverized coal unit; (3) Creating biogas in an external gasifier and then piping the hot gas into an existing coal, oil, or natural gas boiler.

An intriguing aspect of this third option is the potential to use the biogas high in the boiler’s re-burn zone — possibly avoiding the need to install costly pollution control equipment (e.g., Selected Catalytic Reduction or SCR) at a coal unit. Engineering research suggests that the “hot tar” fraction in the “hot raw” biogas is particulary reactive and may reduce NOx emissions between 50% and 70%.

Working with Electric Utilities, U.S. Department of Energy Labs (NETL, NREL, ORNL), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Others — we have performed biomass co-firing engineering research (called “test burns”) on all major combustion technologies of cyclone, pulverized coal, and combined cycle gasification (IGCC) units.

The Biorefinery Concept: In addition to the above electric utility power plant project work, we are working with Industrial Companies to integrate a variety of biomass raw feedstocks (e.g., cellulose, sugar/starch crops or waste streams) and conversion processes (e.g., biotechnology) into a single facility called a biorefinery at an existing “host” industrial plant:

Our approach in creating a biorefinery is fundamentally the same as the approach used with electric utility power plant co-firing — where an existing industrial “host” facility is modified for biomass applications utilizing as much of the existing engineering infrastructure as possible (e.g., avoiding high capital costs of a new stand alone bioenergy or biorefinery facility).

From an industrial company’s perspective, the large economic incentive with this approach is the displacement of high cost natural gas (and in Florida, also oil) with lower cost biogas in the generation of steam/power (i.e., cogeneration) and/or process heat (i.e., product drying) for the industrial company’s “core market” products. An example would be the installation of a new external biomass gasifier to an existing industrial natural gas boiler package at a citrus juice processing plant — resulting in lower cost steam and power for both “core market” (e.g., juice processing) and biorefinery products (e.g., pyrolytic liquids).

Biomass Energy & Native Habitats:   Also included in this Research Effort are special project advisors from leading environmentalists, such as the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission — ensuring that natural wildlife habitats are preserved and enhanced. A key aspect of this environmental habitat work effort is using energy crops as “Bridge Crops” to reclaim/restore severely damaged closed phosphate mining sites.

Biofuels Initiative

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Office of the Biomass Program has implemented the Biofuels Initiative (BFI), with the goal of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by meeting the following targets:

• To make cellulosic ethanol (or ethanol from non-grain biomass resources) cost competitive with gasoline by 2012.
• To replace 30 percent of current levels of gasoline consumption with biofuels by 2030 (or 30×30).

Background and Basis for the BFI

During the 2006 State of the Union Address, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI). The AEI aims to reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign sources of energy by addressing two areas: 1) Changing the way we fuel our vehicles, and 2) Changing the way we power our homes and businesses.

The AEI goals that address the way we fuel our vehicles are:

• Develop advanced battery technologies that allow a plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle to have a 40-mile range operating solely by battery charge.
• Foster the breakthrough technologies needed to make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive with corn-based ethanol by 2012.
• Accelerate progress towards the President’s goal of enabling large numbers of Americans to choose hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020.

The Biomass Program adopted the President’s goal to make cellulosic ethanol technologies cost competitive by 2012. To assess the impact it could have in contributing to reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy, it analyzed the biomass resource potential identified in the DOE/USDA Billion Ton Study (PDF 8.5 MB). Based on that analysis, the Biomass Program set a goal to reduce 30 percent of our current transportation fuel usage by 2030. This goal is equivalent to 60 billion gallons of ethanol.

Implementing and Achieving the BFI

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required the Department of Energy to solicit proposals for the demonstration of commercial scale integrated biorefineries that convert cellulosic biomass resources into fuels, chemicals, and power. These projects will be play a large role in developing and validating the technology required to meet the 2012 goal of making cellulosic ethanol technologies cost competitive.

The Biomass Program has also undergone a number of planning efforts that will help contribute to meeting both the 2012 cost target and the 2030 volumetric target. In August 2006, the Program hosted the “30×30 Workshop”, during which input was collected from industry, academic, and other external stakeholders for the technology, policy, and infrastructure needs required to meet both goals.

In November 2006, the Program hosted the National Biofuels Action (NBA) Plan Workshop, during which representatives from all Federal agencies involved in biomass-related work came together to identify areas of overlap or gaps in their work. The Program is currently working with these agencies to develop the NBA Plan that will outline the strategy for meeting the goals of the BFI. The Interagency Biomass R&D Board will be primarily responsible for implementing the plan.

Many states have begun their own initiatives creating state incentives and actually funding projects. Here is a great example of a State program.

The Tennessee Biofuels Initiative
A Model for Tennessee’s Economic & Environmental Sustainability
Increased energy independence, economic development and environmental sustainability are the goals of a new initiative that is gaining traction across the state.
The Tennessee Biofuels Initiative is a research and business model presented by the University of Tennessee that may position the state as a leader in the nation’s efforts toward reduced dependence on petroleum.
The plan proposes the construction and operation of a pilot biorefinery to demonstrate and refine biofuels production technology as well as to work out issues related to continuous production streams, transportation of feedstocks like switchgrass, and distribution of products. The principal product of the refinery will be Grassoline™ – ethanol derived from cellulosic biomass. With continued improvements in production technology and economics, it is expected that government and private partners would invest in multiple commercial-scale biorefineries across the state.

Potential benefits from commercial implementation of the business model include:

1. 4,000 new jobs in rural Tennessee counties
2. $400 million in new state and local taxes annually
3. Satellite plants creating an additional 3,000 jobs and $1 billion in annual revenue from chemical coproducts useful in other manufacturing processes.
4. $100 million annually in new farm revenue to about 20,000 of the state’s producers
5. 1 billion gallons of Grassoline™ annually at a potential wholesale price of $1.20 per
6. gallon. This level of production would displace approximately 30 percent of Tennessee’s present petroleum-based consumption.

Principal feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol are switchgrass and woody biomass. Economists,
agronomists, and biochemists with the UT Institute of Agriculture and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are leaders in cellulosic production and conversion research, and Tennessee has an ideal climate for production of the feedstock commodities. The state’s extensive transportation system will also contribute to the development of commercial facilities. The Tennessee Biofuels Initiative outlines tremendous economic potential for the state. The vision is a vibrant, sustainable bioeconomy for Tennessee and the nation.

USDA and University of Nebraska research on switchgrass was expanded in 1990 to include development of switchgrass into a biomass fuel crop. Initial research evaluated all available cultivars and elite strains at three Midwestern locations and identified cultivars and strains that had the most potential for use as biofuel crops. The highest yielding strains produced over 14,000 kg/ha biomass per year and over 10,000 kg/ha of cellulose + hemicellulose which would yield over 5000 l/ha ethanol (500 gal/acre) with a conversion effeciency of 75%. Susequent research has focused on specific breeding, genetics, and production problems. Optimum stage of growth and time period for harvest of switchgrass biomass in the Midwest was a three week period after plants were fully headed (about July 20 to August 15) and the optimum fertilization rate was 120 kg N/ha. It was determined that switchgrass is a micorrhizae (VAM) dependent plant, but inoculation will not be necessary because of VAM levels in agricultural soils. Information was developed that will allow a new herbicide to be registered for weed control during the establishment year. Genetic information to develop switchgrass hybrids was developed as well as the first molecular genetic markers for switchgrass. The breeding goal is to develop cultivars that can produce annual yields of 22 Mg/ha in the Midwest.

Click here to read the full report 

As a leader in bioenergy research and development, the Noble Foundation is evaluating the agronomics and economics of switchgrass as a bioenergy crop. Switchgrass is a native range and pasture grass that has been identified by state and national leaders as a potential crop to be grown, harvested and converted into ethanol. Slow seedling establishment has previously limited adoption of switchgrass in forage production. Presently, scientists in the Noble Foundation’s Agricultural and Forage Improvement divisions are researching ways to improve switchgrass establishment. Here is what we know, and don’t know, about the process.

Seed Selection and Quality
Two types of switchgrass, lowland and upland, are available for planting. Lowland types tend to grow taller and more rapidly than upland types. Lowland cultivars adapted to the southern plains include Alamo and Kanlow. Adapted upland cultivars include Blackwell and Cave-In-Rock. Although forage quality differences may exist, all varieties are suitable for hay or pasture.

When choosing a variety, it is important to purchase high quality, certified seed. Freshly harvested seed can have a high percentage of dormancy. Seed dormancy is typically reduced if the seed is properly aged for one year. Seed older than two years may become less viable and have poor seedling vigor under field conditions. Check with seed companies on availability and quality of their seed before making purchases.

Planting Date and Methods
Current research shows that spring is the best time to plant switchgrass in Oklahoma. The average date of the last spring freeze in southern Oklahoma typically falls between March 22 and March 31. Switchgrass will germinate at soil temperatures of 50°F, although seedling growth is best when air temperatures reach 75°F to 85°F. When soil moisture and temperatures are good, average emergence will be 10-21 days after planting.

Planting methods include drilling or broadcasting into either tilled or no-tilled seedbeds. Drilling involves planting in rows using either a conventional or no-till drill. Broadcast seeding refers to techniques where seed is spread uniformly across the soil surface. Regardless of method, switchgrass should be planted at shallow depths, 0.25 to 0.5 inches, in seedbeds that are firm enough to allow good seed-to-soil contact, but not so much as to restrict root growth.

Research shows that switchgrass produces similar yields across a range of seeding rates and row spacings. At lower plant population densities, individual plants are able to exploit more space and soil resources, attain greater size and maintain biomass yields equivalent to those grown at higher plant population densities. Recommended seeding rates of switchgrass range from two to 10 pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre, with the higher rates applied to sites with poorer growing conditions. Generally, four pounds PLS per acre is sufficient. Second year stands of one to 1.5 plants per square foot (43,000 to 65,000 plants per acre or more) would be considered fully successful stands. Stands with less than 0.5 plants per square foot (22,000 plants per acre) may require partial reseeding to maximize biomass yields.

Soil Fertility and Weed Control
As with planting any crop, soils should be tested and phosphorus and potassium deficiencies be corrected before seeding. Lime is typically not required unless pH drops below 5.5. Because of slow seedling growth, nitrogen fertilizer should not be applied during the seeding year as it enhances weeds over that of switchgrass. Fifty to 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre typically maximize biomass yields of fully established second year stands. Currently, there are not proven weed control methods that consistently allow switchgrass stand development. The best form of weed control is to delay planting until “grassy” weeds emerge so they can be sprayed with glyphosate before planting. Broadleaf weeds can generally be controlled with 2, 4-D amine after switchgrass reaches the four-leaf stage.

MORE Range