Burning Bio News

Rutgers University professor Clinton Andrews and colleagues ran the numbers on land required to implement a renewable energy strategy. They identified clear limits on some technologies, notably biofuels, but concluded that the bigger challenges to renewable energy and land relate to siting energy facilities, particularly transmission lines. –mj: This report contains some interesting information, but the extension of supplying 100 of world energy by individual technologies is puzzling. Presenting extraneous information just because it can be calculated clouds the discussion.

Todd Neeley, DTN, interviews Princeton Professor, Timothy Searchinger regarding his views on agriculture and ethanol. Agriculture sees Searchinger as a biofuels opponent. While DTN is rooted in agriculture, it is a very interesting read. It sounds like in the end, Professor Searchinger and commercial agriculture will likely agree to disagree. They are motivated by different aspects of biofuels and appear to be speaking English regarding two completely different views.

A new generation of biofuels, meant to be a low-carbon alternative, will on average emit more carbon dioxide than burning gasoline over the next few decades, a study published in Science found. – mj: Any study that reports that gasoline is better for the environment than advanced biofuels has conducted their research incorrectly. The underlying assumptions of this study are not based on reality. At some point the scientific community is going to have to take responsibility for reporting this kind of misinformation.

A project in Pennsylvania seeks to determine if abandoned and active mine lands can be reclaimed and used to grow biofuel crops such as switchgrass and other warm-season grass species. Penn State professors, Rick Stehouwer and Marvin Hall have been researching switchgrass, big bluestem and other crops and are looking at tapping into Pennsylvania’s 180,000 acres of abandoned mine lands.

This issue contains a US map of cellulosic ethanol developers, discussions on weekly energy values and comparative residential heat energy values, continued discussion of US carbon policy priorities, and a brief discussion about the new NREL/EPA biomass mapping tool.

With funding from the U.S. EPA’s Blue Skyways Collaborative, the U.S. DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., has developed a Web-based, interactive geospatial application that allows users to view biomass resources, infrastructure and other relevant information, as well as query specific data and conduct initial screening analyses. The link to the mapping site is at: http://rpm.nrel.gov/biopower/biopower/launch

This article in a recent Wall Street Journal highlights the land use issue of dedicated energy production (or energy spraw). Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recently announced plans to cover 1,000 square miles of land in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah with solar collectors to generate electricity. He’s also talking about generating 20% of our electricity from wind. This would require building about 186,000 50-story wind turbines that would cover an area the size of West Virginia—not to mention 19,000 new miles of high-voltage transmission lines. – mj: The premise is based on a Nature Conservancy report on “Energy Sprawl or Energy Effiiciency.” The EISA legislation does not want use to expand the shrinking farmland acres. Maybe new uses for land for solar collectors and wind turbines is acceptable? Using land, however, is not an evil.

After reviewing and discussing these proposed rules for most of the last nine months, we have submitted our comments to EPA. Basically it came down to a choice that EPA made to focus on setting Renewable Fuel Standards for the four categories set forth in the EISA statute in the manner in which the statute prescribed, or honoring the objective of creating an energy independence by building a market for renewable fuels — which EPA did not choose. I hope now that it is clear that the two can not co-exist as the ESIA and EPA currently stand, that we can move toward two renewable fuel categories (starch & other) with transparent and efficient standards that allow economically driven, energy independence to happen.

The Minnesota Project released a study titled “Transportation Biofuels in the United States: An Update,” which details the progress made in cellulosic ethanol and corn ethanol research, and discusses biofuels generally. The study focuses on four main cellulosic feedstocks, including: corn stover, miscanthus, switchgrass and wood. –mj: I haven’t read the report, but the summary in Ethanol Producer Magazine indicates they conclude indirect land use in important to consider, but I don’t think they realize how imaginary the estimates are. The full report can be found at http://www.mnproject.org/pdf/TMP_Transportation-Biofuels-Update_Aug09.pdf

At the request of Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) two high-ranking EPA officials came to Iowa Thursday to learn first-hand how their agency’s rules could affect farmers and the biofuels industry. Gina McCarthy is EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. With her was Margo Oge, who heads the office of transportation and air quality. The tour was part of a high profile, high stakes renewable fuel standards regulatory ‘discussion.’ After billions of dollars of USDA and DOE investment in biofuels research and development, the EPA is on the verge of changing directions.

The U.S. EPA recently announced that the peer review of the life cycle analysis component of the second stage of the renewable fuels standard (RFS2) is complete. The peer review documents are now available on the EPA Web site.

The formal independent expert peer reviews were conducted in four primary areas:
1. The use of satellite data and land conversion greenhouse gas (GHG) emission factors in land use modeling
2. The methods used to account for the variable timing of GHG emissions
3. The modeling and data used to account for GHG emissions from foreign crop production
4. How the models utilized by EPA are used together to provide overall lifecycle estimates

–mj: This is an interesting exercise in futility. The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) just hosted an excellent conference in St. Louis, Missouri on indirect land use in the RFS2. Experts and practitioners from around the country and Brazil reported that the science is not mature enough to accomplish the legal objectives it is being forced to achieve. More to come…

John Maday, Drovers, summarized several reports on barriers to ethanol expansion. Two articles in the USDA, ERS, ‘Amber Waves’ publication discuss the impact of market standards and land use. Results from an additional study from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and ERS continued the discussion on land use and emissions. –mj: It seems a lot of important facts are lost in the current debates. Every bushel of yield increase per acre represents fewer acreage required and less diesel fuel required in land treatment and harvest. …but I am only an economist…

USDA’s annual survey of farmland prices and cash rental rates reported a wide range, from no drop to an 11% decline based on regional dynamics. Nationally, USDA says average farm real estate values at the outset of the year were $2,100 per acre, a 3.2% decline from 2008. And that is the first decline in more than 20 years. This is an extensive report. If you want more than this summary by Tom Ellis, the original report can be found at usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriLandVa/AgriLandVa-08-04-2009.pdf

Soy biodiesel’s carbon score came in disappointingly low for preliminary scoring done for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, but California’s new regulation may not all be bad news for the biodiesel industry. –mj: This Biodiesel Magazine review of the biodiesel impacts from both the EPA, RFS2 rule and the CARB Low Carbon Fuel Standard is illuminating. It indicated California may be more adaptable to new information than EPA. It is worth a read.

City officials (Corona, CA) are considering a plan to remake the 80-acre, capped Corona Landfill as an open-air bazaar that could hold hundreds of vendors and be used for community events, festivals and concerts. Officials had expected to see the land developed into an office and entertainment complex, but the economic slowdown put the brakes on that idea, Corona Redevelopment Director Darrell Talbert said. –mj: In the global discussion of land-use impact on greenhouse gases and increasing land values, it makes perfect sense to find alternative uses for closed landfills. They are increasingly becoming sites for energy projects. This is the first shopping use I have seen. There are limits. The idea of cigarette lighters at a concert on top of a semi-permeable methane container might be a bad idea.

USDA is revising the CRP regulations to implement certain changes to CRP as required by the 2008 Farm Bill. The purpose of CRP continues to be to cost-effectively assist producers in conserving and improving soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources by converting highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive acreage generally devoted to the production of agricultural commodities to a long-term vegetative cover. As CRP’s purpose and goals have changed over time, it is possible that unintended barriers to enrollment may exist. Therefore, we request comments on any barriers to enrollment and what steps should be taken to remove them. –mj: CRP is generally used to describe potential biomass production acreage. It appears that USDA is beginning to adjust their rules to accommodate this without compromising conservation goals.

Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday said they had reached a deal on difficult agriculture issues in a climate change bill, clearing the way for a vote and probable passage in the chamber this week. It appears that USDA is going to take the lead on emission oversight for agriculture — as it should. It appears that indirect land use issues are on hold as is the EPA Proposed RFS2. – mj: Let us recall that this “deal,” important as it is, represents a proposal for a new law that has yet to be seen in the Senate. It is a long way from actually being a law. Which likely means the EPA will continue to move forward with its proposed rule. This House Deal may never become law. EPA can not just stop. The other fact here is that ‘deals’ trump ’science’ in statutory law. This is a new definition of “political science.” It is science by consensus. Science by deal negotiation. …which disturbs me in no small way.

RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen said what has been lost in the debate is that statute requires EPA to look at direct effects but not indirect land use changes. “We think EPA has overstepped its mandate from Congress and has abandoned consideration of sound science,” he said. An example of the theory of indirect land-use effects is that corn acres used for ethanol displace soybean acres, which boosts acres of soybeans in Brazil. Those increased soybean acres in Brazil displace pasture land, prompting cattle producers in Brazil to take down more rainforest land. Therefore, corn-based ethanol is a cause of rainforest depletion. A December 2008 study conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago in conjunction with the Illinois River Energy ethanol plant in northern Illinois, found that satellite imagery is often inaccurate in determining land use changes.

The House Committee on Agriculture held a hearing May 21 regarding proposals for a low carbon fuel standard. Representatives of the American Coalition for Ethanol, Growth Energy, the Renewable Fuels Association and Verenium Corp. testified at the hearing and shared their concerns regarding the inclusion of international indirect land use change effects in state and federal regulations. – mj: while I am glad to see the ethanol industry weighing in on some really bad policy, I didn’t see much in this article that made it clear how bad it is. At a waste-to-fuels conference earlier this week in San Diego, I heard reference to the total land clearing mess associated with the tar-sands oil project in Canada. Talk about release of surface soil carbon in addition to release of fossil carbon… Putting crude oil on the same plane as biofuels is more constructive than cries of ‘fairness’ — or a lack there of…

Sen. Charles Grassley said today that he didn’t think the land-use issue “was a big deal” when Congress approved an energy bill requiring the EPA to measure the greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels. –mj: This admission really turns my stomach. I spent 10 years providing technical ’solutions’ to political agriculture. It was a great job, but the hard reality is that DC (and other political bodies) make policies on the deals. Laws with million- and billion-dollar impacts are relegated to a game similar to ‘Go Fish’ that we used to play when I was a kid. “Got any 3’s?” “Go fish!” “I’ll trade you an ‘emissions pass for agriculture’ if you give me land-use impact credit for foreign lands.” “Go fish!, … No, on second thought… Ok.” This concerns me significantly more than the long-run damage to our planet from releasing too much carbon.