The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, June 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Billion Ton Biomass Study: A 10-Minute Version

Jim Lane, Biofuels Digest
August 11, 2011  |  32 Comments

Print

A research team led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory projected that the U.S. would have between 1.1 and 1.6 billion tons of available, sustainable biomass for industrial bioprocessing by 2030. The finding was a highlight of the "2011 U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry." The report is an update of a landmark 2005 study undertaken by the DOE and ORNL in 2005.

The report examines the nation’s capacity to produce a billion dry tons of biomass resources annually for energy uses without impacting other vital U.S. farm and forest products, such as food, feed, and fiber crops. The study provides industry, policymakers, and the agricultural community with county-level data and includes analyses of current U.S. feedstock capacity and the potential for growth in crops and agricultural products for clean energy applications.

According to the DOE, “with continued developments in biorefinery capacity and technology, the feedstock resources identified could produce about 85 billion gallons of biofuels – enough to replace approximately 30 percent of the nation’s current petroleum consumption.”

Biofiel’s Digest presents a 10-minute reading version of the Son of Billion Ton. You can download the complete 180-page US Billion Ton Update here.

Key Shortcoming

Where are the micro crops -- specifically, algae, which rates exactly two mentions, one of which is to explain that algae is excluded from the study? Seriously, how can the US Department of Energy take on a survey of biomass available in 2030 -- with serious policy and public investment implications -- without taking into account a view of how much micro crop the U.S. will produce and harvest in 2030.

For sure, to many algae remains an experimental, futuristic technology for producing biomass. But, then, consider how futuristic a window into 2030 is, in any case. That’s the same as looking at today from the point of view of 1992 -- before, say, the World Wide Web, the rise in mobile communications and real-time in-field systems, 9/11, or the global financial crisis of 2008. We would be better off if the Son of Billion Ton has at least assessed, in a separate section, the potential impact of micro-crops in terms of contributing feed, fuel and food. It is like looking at the prospects for NASA, but excluding anything not propelled by existing rockets.

Key finding #1: Plenty of feedstock to meet Renewable Fuel Standard goals through 2022

The “Son of Billion Ton” report states: “In 2022…the feedstock shown in the baseline scenario account for conventional biofuels (corn grain ethanol and biodiesel) and shows 602 million dry tons of potential resource at $60 per dry ton….this potential resource is more than sufficient to provide feedstock to produce the required 20 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels.” 

Key finding #2: 2005 was correct, not overblown

“Overall, results of this update are consistent with the 2005 BTS in terms of the magnitude of the resource potential.” Critics of the Billion Ton Study had pointed to a sunny level of optimism in terms of available feedstocks, and had suggested that the truer number was somewhere in the range of 600 million tons of feedstock, by 2050.

Key Finding #3: Energy crops, baby

Dedicated energy crops are the way forward, producing as much as half the total biomass available by 2030. Volumes are highly impacted by price, with the $60 per ton figure teasing out three times as much energy crop biomass as a price of $40 per ton.

Key finding #4: Mixed prairie -- death of a dream

As attractive as the idea is of using mixed prairie instead of dedicated mono crops, the study identifies the central weaknesses. First, the yield are so low that the biorefineries become too small, or the biomes radius becomes unaffordably large. Two, the low yields require too much land, overall. According to the study, it would take nearly 600 million acres of LIHD prairie to produce a billion tons of biomass, compared to 110 million acres of hybrid switchgrass.

Differences between the 2005 Billion Ton study and 2011 Son of Billion Ton

2005 Billion Ton Study

• National estimates -- no spatial information
• No cost analyses
• Environmental sustainability addressed from national perspective
• No explicit land-use change modeling
• 2005 USDA agricultural projections and 2000 forestry RPA/TPO
• Long-term time horizon (2025–2050)
• Estimates of current availability
• Long-term projections involving changes in crop productivity, crop tillage, residue collection efficiency, and land-use change

2011 Son of Billion Ton

• County-level analysis with aggregation to state, regional, and national levels
• County supply curves for major primary feedstocks
• Environmental sustainability modeled for residue removal
• 2009 USDA agricultural projections and 2007 forestry RPA/TPO 2012–2030 timeline
• Land-use change modeled for energy crops
• Annual projections based on a continuation of baseline trends (USDA projections)
• Annual projections based on changes in crop productivity, tillage, and land use

Current usage of biomass

From the report: “Biomass energy consumption (excluding biobased products) was reported at 184 million dry tons in the 2005 BTS. More than 50 percent of this consumption was estimated to be in the forest products industry, with equal amounts used in other processing industries, electric power generation, and the residential and commercial sectors. A relatively small fraction (less than 10%) was used to make biofuels. Based on the most recent EIA data, current biomass energy consumption is nearly 200 million dry tons, or 4 percent of total primary energy consumption.

“About 17 percent of this consumption is space heating in the residential and commercial sectors. The source of this biomass is nearly all fuelwood. The electric power sector represents a small percentage of total biomass consumption (8 percent) and uses a variety of biomass feedstocks—fuelwood, MSW biomass, MSW landfill gas, and biosolids (or sewage sludge).

In 2009, nearly 60 percent of biomass-derived electric power consumption was from MSW sources. Transportation accounts for 31 percent of total consumption, with ethanol used in gasoline blending accounting for most (90 percent) of the total. Biodiesel accounts for 8 percent, and the remainder is E85 (85 percent ethanol fuel) and other biomass liquids. The industrial sector accounts for 44 percent of total biomass energy consumption. Most of this amount (nearly 90 percent) is wood and waste wood. MSW, landfill gas, and biosolids account for the remainder.”

Yield increases

From the report: “One of the more controversial decisions that modelers of biomass have to take into account is the amount of yield increase, due to improved farming techniques and plant breeds. In the report, the study used “an average annual corn yield increase slightly more than 1 percent over the 20-year simulation period…Energy crop yields assume an annual increase of 1 percent.” The study also used a “high-yield scenario more closely aligned to the assumptions in the 2005 BTS, with a projected increase in corn yield averages almost 2 percent annually over the 20-year simulation period. The energy crop productivity increases are modeled at three levels – 2 percent, 3 percent, and 4 percent annually. These gains are due not only to experience in planting energy crops, but also to more aggressive implementation of breeding and selection programs.”

The impact of price

From the report: “Up to 30 million acres of cropland and 49 million acres of pastureland shift into energy crops by 2030 at a simulated farmgate price of $60 per dry ton. At the lower simulated farmgate prices of $40 and $50 per dry ton, total land-use change is 33 million and 44 million acres, respectively.

Why so high? The cost of producing energy crops, for one, and the market prices from competing uses, such as combustion of biomass for power generation.

From the report: Discounted average costs of production for perennial grasses are $52-$80 per dry ton in the Northeast; $43-$68 per dry ton in Appalachia; $42-$91 per dry ton in the Southeast; $54-$89 per dry ton in the Delta; $53-$71 per dry ton in the Corn Belt; $70-$94 per dry ton in the Lake States. $47-$70 in the Northern and Southern Plains. Costs assume a discount rate of 6.5% and include all variable costs exclusive of land rent. Discounted average cost of production for annual energy crops range from $38 to $59 per dry ton.

Forest resources

From the report: “Over the estimated price range, quantities vary from about 33 million to 119 million dry tons currently to about 35 million to 129 million dry tons in 2030. Primary forest biomass (i.e., logging and fuel treatment operations and land clearing) is the single largest source of feedstock. The resource potential does not increase much over time given the standing inventory nature of the resource and how it is managed. Results also show that very little conventional pulpwood is available for bioenergy at prices below (about) $60 per dry ton.

“The agricultural resources show considerably more supply, with the quantity increasing significantly over time. This increase is due to yield growth, which makes more crop residue available. The increase is also attributed to the deployment of energy crops. Under current conditions, prospective biomass supplies range from about 59 million dry tons at a farmgate price of $40 per dry ton or less to 162 million dry tons at $60 per dry ton. The composition of this biomass is about two-thirds crop residue and one-third various agricultural processing residues and wastes.

“By 2030, quantities increase to 160 million dry tons at the lowest simulated price ($40 per dry ton) to 664 million dry tons at the highest simulated price ($60 per dry ton). At prices above $50 per dry ton, energy crops become the dominant resource after 2022.”

Agricultural residues and wastes

From the report: “Agricultural residues and wastes are about 244 million dry tons currently and increase to 404 million dry tons by 2030 at a farmgate price of $60 per dry ton. In 2022, the total agricultural resources (crop residues and energy crops) reach 910 million dry tons at the $60 price. Energy crops are the largest potential source of biomass feedstock, with potential energy crop supplies varying considerably depending on what is assumed about productivity. At a 2 percent annual growth rate, energy crop potential is 540 million dry tons by 2030 and 658 million dry tons if an annual increase in productivity of 3 percent is assumed. Increasing yield growth to 4 percent pushes the energy crop potential to nearly 800 million dry tons. Note that at the lowest simulated price of $40 per dry ton, however, the energy crop potential is only 69 million, 162 million, and 261 million dry tons in 2030 at 2 percent, 3 percent, and 4 percent annual yield, respectively. In general, the farmgate or roadside price for feedstock appears to be a larger driver of biomass availability than yield rate increases, although both are important.”

Energy crops

From the report: “It is important to point out the significant role of energy crops. In the baseline, energy crops provide about 37 percent of the total biomass available at $60 per dry ton and half of the total potential resource. Energy crops are a much smaller fraction of total available biomass at $40 per dry ton. Overall, energy crops become even more significant in the high-yield scenario -- providing over half of the potential biomass at $60 per dry ton.”

Municipal Solid waste

From the report: “Currently, about 254 million tons of MSW are generated annually, with slightly more than one-third of this quantity recovered for recycling or composting (EPA, 2008). Another 13 percent, or 32 million tons, is combusted with energy recovered. Containers and packaging are the single largest component of MSW, totaling some 78 million tons, or 31percent, of the total. Durable goods are the second largest portion, accounting for 25 percent of total MSW generated. Yard trimmings are the third largest portion and account for about 33 million tons, or 13 percent, of the total.”

Land-use change

From the report: “Under baseline assumptions, up to 22 million acres of cropland and 41 million acres of pastureland shift into energy crops by 2030 at a simulated farmgate price of $60 per dry ton. This land-use change is similar in magnitude to the 40 to 60 million acres in energy crops reported in the 2005 BTS.”

Risk mitigation: Sustainability, yield improvement challenges, solutions

From the report: “[Workshop] participants were asked to identify the environmental barriers, or “limiting factors,” constraining yield and possible solutions. Key considerations raised by participants included:

•    Implementing emerging concepts in management practices
•    Minimizing nitrogen use
•    Minimizing risk of new biomass crops becoming invasive or intercrossing
•    Developing improved carbon sequestration and methods for indirect monitoring of carbon accumulation in soil
•    Identifying ways to manage changes in land use for energy crop production with minimal soil carbon loss
•    Leveraging ecosystem services provided by perennial crops for environmental sustainability
•    Developing an integrated pest management (IPM) program for switchgrass and mixed perennial grasses
•    Developing management practices and technology for harvesting perennial energy crops.

Participants identified possible advances and approaches to overcoming these barriers, including:

•    New and improved varieties, lines, and families -- molecular genetics and breeding methods for productivity, frost hardiness, and drought resistance
•    Improvement in vegetative propagation and nursery production and bridging the gap between genetic breeding and application
•    Germplasm development, genome sequencing, and QTL trait identification
•    APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) permitting, gene escape controls, and sterility
•    New silvicultural and stand improvement practices for weed control, nutrients, and harvesting
•    Developing better yield and economic models
•    Trials on coppice, multicrop, spacing, rotation length, nutrient efficiency, and carbon pools
•    Developing business cases, how-to guidelines, and decision tools for landowners.

More discovery and analysis

The DOE’s Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework (here) provides complementary and reference materials, as well as additional data and explanations. The website also provides tools to help present the results in custom tabular, graphic, and spatial formats, as it is impossible to provide this in a reasonable length report.

32 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 25, 2011
Thanks for great discussions, all! If you're interested in following the latest in restoring our clean energy development to what we were advised to do 49 years ago, please check this draft mash-up of various recent conference & university presentations:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G5kd5fkvRM

Comments will be appreciated.
erich knight
erich knight
August 25, 2011
Soil Carbon Dream

I have a dream that one day we live in a nation where progress will not be judged by the production yields of our fields, but by the color of their soils and by the Carbon content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, a suite of earth sensing satellites will level the playing field, giving every farmer a full account of carbon he sequesters. That Soil Carbon is given as the final arbiter, the common currency, accountant and Judge of Stuartship on our lands.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made forest, the rough soils will be made fertile, and the crooked Carbon Marketeers will be made straight, and the glory of Soil Sequestration shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see a Mutually assured Sustainability.

This is our hope.

My apologies to Dr. King, but I think he would understand my passion
Erich
erich knight
erich knight
August 25, 2011
The Terra Preta Prayer

Our Carbon who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name
By kingdom come, thy will be done, IN the Earth to make it Heaven.
It will give us each day our daily bread and forgive us our atmospheric trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against the Kyoto protocols
And lead us not into fossil fuel temptation, but deliver us from it's evil
low as we walk through the valley of the shadow of Global Warming,
I will feel no evil, your Bio-fuels and fertile microbes will comfort me,
For thine is the fungal kingdom,
and the microbe power,
and the Sequestration Glory,
For ever and ever (well at least 2000 years)
AMEN


Soil Carbon Commandments:

1) Thou shalt not have any other Molecule before Me

2) Thou shall not make wrongful use of the name of Biochar, It will not acquit anyone who mis-charactorizes it's name

3) Observe the Fallow days and keep them, as Sustainability commands thou

4) Honor your Micro Flora & Fauna , as the Soil Carbon commands you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that High Soil Carbon has given you.

5) Thou shall not murder the Soil Food Web

6) Neither shall thou adulterate the Soils with Toxicity

7) Neither shall thou steal Biomass from the Soil Food Web

8) Neither shall thou bear false witness against your neighbors Biochar, or about Thy own

9) Neither shall thou covet your neighbor's Fertility

10) Neither shall thou desire your neighbor's house, or field, or Pyrolysis Reactor, or farm implements, or anything that belongs to your neighbor, as thou may Create thy Own

Soil Carbon Dream
erich knight
erich knight
August 25, 2011
Hear!..Hear! Dr Alex, A great discussion.

Let me share a paraphrase or two;

A Carbon-Based Religion

Carl Sagan's human connection to stardust leaves out a critical stage. We are stardust, bu only stardust transformed by life. Every time I look at an SEMs of Char, it strikes me, the perfect preservation of the base structures of life, a fractal vision, how life creates the greatest surface area with the least amount of material. The preservation of this structure, for return to the lowest order of life, seems almost a religious act. A perfect cradle to cradle recycling, biotic carbon should never be combusted and destroyed, be revered, as life is revered, be returned to the cradle of terrestrial life the Soil

Reading the Japanese work on adding char in animal feed, I thought of posting the Vatican, to lobby for a re-formulation of communion wafers. Communion is what I feel when I sequester carbon in soils. This feeling lead me to compose this paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer: [Our Carbon Who Art in Heaven]

In this Carbon based religion Burning is not the consequence OF Sin, Burning is the Sin.

Religious parallels:

1) About a central figure responsible for life, carbon.

2) Stewardship; living today in a way that protects the system for posterity.

3) About something in the heavens that need to manifest on Earth

4) The Golden Rule: Account external costs so they are not done unto others.
William Pearson
William Pearson
August 25, 2011
DrAlexC, I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed and appreciated your comments of this discussion. Your display of knowledge, not only surrounding the issues, but of relevant history is insightful and educational. And indeed, we suffered heavy losses when John and Robert Kennedy's lives (and Martin's too) were ended. Their visions and leadership began what could have been to this point a half century of remarkable environmental stewardship and progress, but which sadly ended with their demise as well.

And John, your contributions seem to reflect a practical, life long dedication to energy issues, which likewise provided an insightful perspective from your part of the world.

Hat's off to both of you!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 24, 2011
Steve, "pollution produced burning wood is so minor compared to burning fossil fuel it almost register.( no heavy metals,no sulphur, etc.)" simply shows you aren't a biological scientist.

Wood contains hydrocarbons with various elements such as Sulphur, Calcium, Phosphorous, Potassium.... Do you really not know the important function of sulphur bonds in cellular structures? Even our hair uses them (that's what perms deal with). Potassium is also an essential nutrient and one of the common isotopes in natural potassium (K) is 40K -- it's radioactive. It's in all our bones & teeth anyway, so no biggie, but burning wood let's us breath more. Wood smoke is notoriously polluting, which is why wood fires are banned in Calif. on many days. Cough your way through Grants Pass Oregon some autumn/winter eve though.

The bottom line with all biofuels, especially woody stuff, is it's less efficiently burned than oil or gas and its smoke contains more pollutants than either. Where do you think high-sulphur coal/oil came from anyway? Yes, plants.

And, biofuels consume over 100 times the fresh water to produce the same kWHrs as does drilling & refining an equivalent amount of oil.

You can burn your scraps, as my relatives in VT have done for 60 years in their kitchen woodstove & fireplaces. But when they finally got electricity and an oil furnace, they moved mostly to that, because they knew it was a better choice, for now.

"Split wood not atoms" is just a slogan, breathtakingly lacking in knowledge.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
August 23, 2011
DrAlexC,
With all due respect ; I disagree.
The pollution produced burning wood is so minor compared to burning fossil fuel it almost register.( no heavy metals,no sulphur, etc.) And we are not burning wood that is a million years old. It's been absorbing CO2 and many other pollutants while it grew recently. By the way, I'm an architect/ real estate investor. So, I've been building for years and burning my scraps because they were free and convienient. And in doing so, avoided a lot of fossil fuel use. NOW burning that is full of pollution.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 23, 2011
Indeed we've "lost opportunities" John. But the Chinese will clean up on them.

As for Steve's "split wood", if you do anything but build a house or furniture with it, you become part of the problem, not the solution.

By the way, Ma Nature split atoms for millennia, just in a natural Uranium deposit in Oklo Gabon -- several mountainside reactors operated there a billion or so years ago, throttling up and down with rainwater. The nice thing about the site is that it shows how wastes migrated over a billion years -- very little.

But, our future systems don't make much waste anyway, which is where the Chinese are going with our work.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
August 23, 2011
split wood
not atoms
John Giannasca
John Giannasca
August 23, 2011
EkoseaHomes...you just reminded me. During the 1980's I was working on a program of research for the safe disposal of nuclear waste. The program was call SYNROCK. The aim was to fuse waste with glass to create a non leaching compound. I recall it was to be buried somewhere in the middle of nowhere (and we have a lot of that here). Unfortunately nuclear at around that time was a popular as "turd in a picnic basket" (apologies for the language but I couldn't think of a better expression) as a result of a couple of mishaps (maybe too light a term). In the end the program was scrapped here and we have had no new meaningful research into the safe disposal of nuclear fuel in the land of Oz. I guess my point was that if we had of put a little (lot) effort into it we just may have licked the problem in 30 years and one reason not to deploy could have been eliminated. Oh for lost opportunities...
John Giannasca
John Giannasca
August 23, 2011
Hey, not quite a couple of hundred years old (although I feel it in our down under winter) and couldn't stand chemistry when I was a kid. Completely agree with the nonlinear bit. Makes sense. But what also makes sense is the sensible use of renewables. In the Chathams, given the specifics (525 people, nervous sheep and some other stuff), pellets work. Translate this into site specific application of renewables and you have a workable transition system. So come on...its only a few pellets and it keeps them really warm.
One day (and I don't know when that will be) I hope there will be no diesel power stations for me to work on. Until then...its a living!! Have a good one!!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 23, 2011
Gotta love all this "new" stuff, though: "the new science now shows a simple direct linear relationship between the CO2 levels & acidity," New, maybe to someone who flunked HS chemistry, or lived a couple hundred years ago!

Problem is, "linear" input changes often have nonlinear effects. So Nordic reaches of the Atlantic are already showing enough acidity to nearly halt plankton skeletal formation. Oops, they form the base of the oceanic food chain. Double oops, 70% of human food protein comes from sea life. Triple oops, 'renewables' can't begin to make up for any of it.

Glad to hear you cot rid of those diesels, though, John. Harks back to the generators farmers could buy from Sears in the 1920s. We're all just so 'new'.
;]
John Giannasca
John Giannasca
August 22, 2011
Hey Steve, put a trip down under on your bucket list and we will both have a drink to that!!
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
August 22, 2011
JohnG, Before coal, the only 'renewables' we had were hydro and biomass. Keep them coming. Until we have solar,wind and other Zero Carbon energy sources pushing 70% of our total energy portfolio we NEED good transition plans to first get us off of imported oil, then get us off of coal. If they both happen in my life time, I'll die a happier man. Heat with it, cook with it and burn it to POWER OUR CARS.
John Giannasca
John Giannasca
August 22, 2011
Steve I am with you. Corn for fuel...Naaah!!! While ever people go hungry it just makes me cringe a little. I just finished installing some wind to a diesel power plant in the Chatham Islands (900k east of New Zealand in the middle of the Pacific where the date line kinks). Cold windy place totally isolated. Their only source of heating is pellets. Heat with it, cook with it, hell I think they would shower with it if they could. Totally changed my view of how renewable energy in all its different forms could compliment each other.
erich knight
erich knight
August 22, 2011
Dr. Hansen's new plan for 100 GtC of afforestation, Biochar systems can even accelerate his time line through utilizing this substantial new addition to today's land-based Net Primary Production(NPP)of about 60 GtC/yr and Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, (living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

"The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future".
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf

The Ag Soil Carbon Standard
The Ag Soil Carbon Sequestration Standards; approved by the USDA & EPA. Reviewed by both Congressional Ag Committees, who have asked for expansion of this Soil Carbon Standard to ISO status, the application was denied under the USDA ISO Guide 65 Program, it is now in rewrite for resubmission. I savor the idea that the whole world could be on the same soil carbon page and get farmers payed for their good soil-C works.
Read over the work so far;
http://www.novecta.com/documents/Carbon-Standard.pdf

Soils Saves Seas, The new trump card in climate change will be ocean acidity, the new science now shows a simple direct linear relationship between the CO2 levels & acidity, building soil Carbon is the simple solution.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 22, 2011
Actually, Steve, we don't want to burn anything we don't absolutely have to. Biogas from a garbage digester, sure. Burning trash, no -- it's too valuable. We're at least a decade behind the goal of having no fossil-fuel generation by 2000 (as set forth to JFK in 1962).

Just to stop making things worse than about 20 ft of sea rise by 2100, loss of most food from the sea from acidification, and severe worldwide crop losses, we've needed new clean power at the rate of 1GWe per week since 2000. 52 weeks x 11 = ?

China, for instance, knows this and has over 30 nukes planned to be up by 2025, but it's far from adequate. The only modest 'renewable' help is efficiency plus DG solar.

To get an accurate perspective, consider that each NY resident generates 10 tons of CO2 per year now, and each major suburban resident about twice that, mainly due to driving. The need by 2020 is to reduce that CO2 output worldwide, to 1 ton per capita. That's what burning 100 gallons of gas/diesel produces. And even that limit is guessed as only endangering around 200,000,000 people worldwide -- in countries that didn't cause the bulk of emissions.

We're an order of magnitude away from the goal, with 9 years to go. Worse than playing roulette in US casinos.

Remember, we were told 49 years ago what to do to avoid our present, absurdly self-interested predicament.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
August 22, 2011
Corn crops should be keep as food : the world food prices are going nuts.
All those midwest ethanol plants need to add on the upfront biodigesting for cellulosic (and that's no easy feat)or close down.

But from here going forward : Doesn't it make more sense to burn trash biomass to generate electricity and cogenerate heat? To power our electric vehicles. So we can go to 0% oil.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 21, 2011
Russ, you might read the science evaluating 'biofuels' especially corn ethanol. It has the distinction of being the most wasteful source of vehicular motion (99.7% wasted), as well as turning subsidy into near tripling the price of corn worldwide and adding to present malnutrition & starvation.

Cellulosic is no better on inefficiency of solar input (1kW/sq meter) to engine output. And, the nasty secrets of soil depletion, vast water consumption, etc. make it all the more absurd.

It may be a surprise, in our self-involved times, but Ma Nature didn't invent photosynthesis to make energy for us.

The move to kill 'biofuel' subsidies is the first of some needed legislative steps to correct the path of 'greenness'.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
August 21, 2011
From Robert Rapier:

'..But how much of the 350 million total gallons of cellulosic ethanol that was originally scheduled to be produced by the end of 2011 has actually been produced? Actual qualifying production of cellulosic ethanol through June 2011 is zero gallons. ZERO...'


'...Corn ethanol producers-in another move that I have long predicted-have a different solution. They want an end to 'corn-discrimination.' They would like to step into that void and supply the missing ethanol, thus raising the 15 billion gallon corn ethanol mandate that they currently enjoy to potentially 36 billion gallons by 2022...'

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/08/15/cellulosic-ethanol-targets-mandating-the-nonexistent/

Biodiversivist
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 20, 2011
"New Age didn't end for lack of aphorisms either! Hold the stones, as the ad says.

Nothing wrong with some biochar & emitting N2. Plenty wrong with burning unless necessary, as for digestors needing to get rid of methane. We're planning such nearby now.
erich knight
erich knight
August 19, 2011
The Stone age did not end due to a lack of stones, and the age of combustion, millenniums longer, will not end for lack of stuff to burn. Controlling oxidation of carbon via thermal conversion is a bridge we need to end the combustion age

Dr. Alex, the nitrogen in manures goes up the Gasifier stack as N2, not NOX. Other wise the the nutrient credit market would not be paying $3-4/lb for removal from the watershed.
Phosphorous, in the char, receives credits if shipped out of the watershed

These 1-5 MW Ag systems are distributed base load, deification is 24/7, and the majority of these small systems are designed for continuous operation

My read of the agronomic history of civilization shows that the Kayopo Amazon Indians and the Egyptians were the only ones to maintain fertility for the long haul, millennium scales. Egypt has now forsaken their geologic advantage by building the Aswan dam, and are stuck, with the rest of us, in the soil Carbon mining, NPK rat race.

Added benefits are application for a host of toxcisity; heavy metals, dioxins, Atrazine, Endocrine disruptors, Peak Phosphorous, Dead Zones, and yes Radionuclides....we just need to put the management tools in place. Nutrient & waste management via thermal conversion for conservation of carbon and efficient nutrient recycling.

Short a nano material PV/thermoelectrical/ultracapasitating Black swan,
Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio research. Thankfully we can do Pyrolitic Biofuels now

Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc of virtually all things in the near future

This convergence of different technologies will end the Combustion age
Biochar Soils are the infrastructure for Husbandry of whole new Orders & Kingdoms of life as allies
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 19, 2011
Ekosea -- 1st the 'burning' issues -- Thermodynamics of basic heat-to-mechanical energy conversion is based on an ideal cycle called the Carnot cycle (for the French scientist). The energy we can get from burning something depends on two temperatures -- the temp of combustion inside the machine (Thot), and the temp of the exhaust leaving the machine after doing its work (Tcold). The very best hi-temp, inert-gas-turbine power plants get under 60% efficiency. A gasoline car gets 30%.

So apart from emissions, environmental damage, etc., all burning for power is inefficient, thus adding waste heat to global warming, if not needed for other purposes -- as burning digestion gas for up=stream process heat. Disney World will be doing this wise garbage handling.

So H2 fuel cells have the same issue of conversion efficiency (low) & fuel production energy (high), plus that H2 is very light so must be compressed to many thousand psi just to transport. That itself wastes some kWHrs/lb & is dangerous. So the 'Hydrogen highway' was and will be a fantasy.

Efficiency & local solar on rooftops is very good, because they & new storage systems create businesses & make the grid more robust (which will be important as this solar cycle heats up).

So for base-load, we have hydro, existing fossil (we wer supposed to be rid of decades ago) & present water/steam nuclear (LWR). We were supposed to be rid of LWRs by 2000, with 700GWe in the US coming from breeder reactors, as the Thorium MSR (LFTR). But, our politicians are so wise, eh? Read it & weep... http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa for us & the world.

Because, if we'd followed what JFK asked for, we'd not have the global climate & water problems we have, and we'd be enjoying fresh water as well as clean power, with little waste & no weapons from power plants: http://tinyurl.com/25mgqkd

Fortunately, China has committed $1B to finishing what we designed & ran 40 years ago. Hey, we can buy it back from them too!
William Pearson
William Pearson
August 19, 2011
DrAlexC, I'm with you as an advocate of solar PV (for the time being), and although I am not qualified to comment on the science of the biofuel issues being discussed, I also stand with you against the notion of biofuel as an environmentally and economically sound renewable source of energy.

However, I would be interested in your comments in support of nuclear energy. Safety and waste disposal related to nuclear power plants are huge issues, making these plants very unpopular and very costly to bring online, maintain, and decommission.

And what about the hydrogen fuel cell? DOE is pushing R&D of this technology for practical applications, which seems to be making significant progress.

Also, any discussion of the pros and cons of any technology related to energy needs to include the impact of human behavior on the sustainability of the earth's resources, renewable or otherwise to support an exponentially growing world population. Blind consumerism fostered largely by technological innovations has greatly contributed to the environmental mess we're in and can be seen as a wildly infectious and spreading decease. If it is not treated with massive doses of conservationism, along with careful scrutiny of the sustainability of technological progress, a path toward gloom and doom may never be averted.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 17, 2011
Stee & Erich -- Germans etc. hav little land & water to waste on fuel growing. And now that Germany is claiming to close nukes, they admit they'll wipe out all the GHG emissions reductions made in their history of 'greenness'. Burning any hydrocarbons makes that even a worse mistake.

Imagine, take a technology that's killed no one in its commercial history and substitute one that's already killing folks now and will kill even more as our naive emissions history catches up with us. Now there's a really expensive mistake.

Since over 70% of the air going into a furnace is N2, there's no logic to any "credit" because the heat of the reaction creates nitrogen oxides, all of which have problems, and not just due to acid rain and algae blooms in formerly clean lakes. We dealt with that in Calif. decades ago, so we should do it again somewhere else?

The thermodynamics though, is the real technical killer. Combustion in or out of an engine is breathtakingly wasteful..Even your 'efficient' BMW will take $.60 of every buck you put into its tank and spit it right out the exhaust as heat (which itself adds to global warming).

So however one tries to justify pyrolytic processes, including combustion & carbonization, science & engineering realities make it a fool's errand.

Don't mind the man behind the curtain!

Local solar PV + storage, efficiency, and improved nuclear are all we need, forever.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
August 17, 2011
This topic (biomass) seems to be the Red Headed Stepchild of renewable energy.And maybe the longest history in the renewable energy world. As a kid in rural Missouri, I grew accustom to filling the back of the family pick-up with the 'off-rounds' at the local lumber mill.Only cost $5.00 back then. Take them home and burn them in the biggest fire box we could find.(less cutting for us) I went to college in Boulder,CO to become an architect / developer.Built a lot of buildings since then. Brought home scrap wood (free) and burned it in the highest quality air-tight I could find. Now I'm an old guy that doesn't want to cut wood and have discovered the beauty of a pellet stove. 90%+ efficient. Very easy to use.and again renewable.

Now I hear that the biggest pellet factory in the world is in suburban Atlanta. And where is most of that fuel bought? Germany,Netherlands and the UK. People WAKE UP ! We can and must get beyond fossil fuel.Why do you think those Europeans are buying this? Wood is Good. They are a very crowded continent. They still burn 'wood'. We have more forests in America now than during the civil war. Why? We stopped burning wood.

To my friends above:

Bman, I read that if all cars were required to be FFV (Flex Fuel Vehicles) it would quickly get to $200 for the upgrades required.But we should skip this idea, and go to the eV sooner than prolong the ICE.

DrAlexC,What is proposed here is an alternative to OIL & COAL. A good thing for sure. The pollution is minimal by comparison. And it is RENEWABLE and domestic.

JohnG, I always like you comments. Keep it up. And keep pounding that eV drum. What most people don't get is how little work is required to maintain these babies. AND , remind people that 'fossil free' is the goal. There are many way to get there. There is no 1 silver bullet solution.
erich knight
erich knight
August 17, 2011
Dr. Alex, Yes combustion is bad, bur gasifiers send N2 up the stack for nutrient credit income plus CHP plus Biochar.

Pyrolysis, Gasification and Hydro-Thermal Carbonization are known biofuel technologies, What is new are the concomitant benefits of biochars for Soil Carbon Sequestration; building soil biodiversity & nitrogen efficiency, for in situ remediation of toxic agents, and, as a feed supplement cutting the carbon foot print of livestock. Modern systems are closed-loop with no significant emissions. The general life cycle analysis is: every 1 ton of biomass yields 1/3 ton Biochar equal to 1 ton CO2e, plus biofuels equal to 1MWh exported electricity, so each energy cycle is 1/3 carbon negative.

Beyond Rectifying the Carbon Cycle;
Biochar systems Integrate nutrient management, serving the same healing function for the Nitrogen and Phosphorous Cycles. A 50% reduction of NH3 loss when composting. Ag manure char absorbs phosphorus for nutrient credit income, CHP, Biomass Crop & energy grants and when carbon comes to account, another big credit. The compounding soil benefits; reduced nitrogen loss & soil Nitrous-oxide
emissions and a 17% increased water efficiency are documented in trials across soil types and climates

The production of fossil fuel free ammonia & char from gasifing biomass (SynGest, http://www.syngest.com/ ) and
Many third generation pyrolysis companies are aiming for Drop-in fuels. A leader in this sector, supported by GE, Google & Conoco is CoolPlanet Biofuels
http://www.coolplanetbiofuels.com/

Farm Fossil Fuel 7% Solution;
it could take anywhere from 50 to 70 acres for a farmer with 1,000 acres to produce the fuel needed to run on-farm operations.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-advancing-biocrop-alternatives-pacific-northwest.html

Since we have filled the air , filling the seas to full, soil is the only beneficial place left. Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Steve Fortuna
Steve Fortuna
August 17, 2011
Most environmentalists would agree that, long term, we should be pushing for the death of the internal combustion engine instead of seeking new fuels to burn. However, with hundreds of Multi-National companies protecting thousands of patents and billions in investment, affordable, practical electric transportation is decades away. The mandate for a 50 mpg CAFE ratings will force the automakers to include electric in their portfolios. We can solve the problems of stored energy weight and charging times (BetterPlace anyone?) with enough time and investment, however the markets are not kind to disruptive technology right now. If I were the President, my emphasis on job growth would be in stimulating a new energy and transportation industry that takes the heavily subsidized fossil fuel monkey off our backs. Less of our tax dollars to Exxon and Chevron means more R&D for companies like Coulomb, Tesla and Azure Dynamics.
John Giannasca
John Giannasca
August 17, 2011
DrAlexC with you 100%. I am a huge fan of all electric cars. Solon set up a solar filling station for electric cars an bikes in Germany. It was never meant to be commercial but used to demonstrate what is possible. Electric vehicles would do wonders to shift the total energy picture of this world.
I get where your coming from as my background is process control. If the permise is to clean up a method as we transition then I agree. Its not however the future. The future (I hope) is fossil power free. Yuo see there are more and more of us every day and we need more and more energy. By 2050 we are expected to have another 4 billion people in this world...Scary!! If we are all driving fossil powered cars by then it will be a mess. Hopefully fuel cells can hit the mark and help pick up some of the slack.
E.Patrick Mosman
E.Patrick Mosman
August 17, 2011
Obviously Mr. Lane and other biomass promoters should get the August 11, 2011 edition of Scientific American and peruse Mr. David Biello's article" The False Promise of Biofuels". It should end the massive taxpayer subsidies going to support an uneconomic program where bankruptcy seems to be the end result.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 17, 2011
Blinders, where are my blinders?! Oh well, let's see burning plants (biofuels) does what again? Oh yes: a) emits CO2; b) emits sulfur (acid rain) compounds; c) emits Nitrogen oxides (greenhouse gasses and ozone killers); d) consumes fertilizers that soil bacteria convert to N2O -- far worse than CO2; e) wastes >60% of thermal energy, just like any fuel burning; f) consumes food farmland; g) encourages field expansion into buffer zones; h) incurs transportation & refining losses; and i) nets 0.3% conversion of sunlight into vehicular/generator motion.

Sure, sounds like a plan -- for folks wanting us all to pay them subsidies again.

No wonder so many environmental groups are moving away from such silliness to solar PV on existing structures. At least they only waste 80% of sunlight, rather than >99%.
Bman Bman
Bman Bman
August 15, 2011
It all seems very uncertain whether cellulosic ethanol can succeed.

There is a technology that is proven: methanol from syngas via Fischer-Tropsch. Syngas can be made from anything with carbon and hydrogen in it.

We must force all new gasoline powered cars to also run on up to 85% (by weight) of any mixture of methanol, ethanol, methane, propane, and hydrogen.

This would require a gas mixing valve ready for connection, higher-quality rubber seals and hoses to cope with the methanol, and the necessary modifications to the car computer. The added cost might only be $350 for the car maker.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Jim Lane

Jim Lane

Editor & publisher of Biofuels Digest, the most widely-read biofuels daily and newsletter. The Digest covers producer news, research, policy, policymakers, conferences, fleets and financial news. It is home to the Biofuels Digest Index™,...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 6
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 4
    Women in Power – It’s a Natural Fit
  • 4
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Natural Power
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Rotork plc
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information