Download
1 / 41

Billion global hectares - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 62 Views
  • Uploaded on

1. 4. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 8. 0. E. n. e. r. g. y. Billion global hectares. 8. 0. Number of Earths. 0. 6. 0. B. u. i. l. t. -. u. p. 6. 0. F. o. r. e. s. t. 0. 4. 0. F. i. s. h. i. n. g. 4. 0. r. G. a. z. i. n. g.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Billion global hectares' - clyde


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

1

4

.

0

1

.

2

0

1

2

.

0

1

.

0

0

1

0

.

0

0

.

8

0

E

n

e

r

g

y

Billion global hectares

8

.

0

Number of Earths

0

.

6

0

B

u

i

l

t

-

u

p

6

.

0

F

o

r

e

s

t

0

.

4

0

F

i

s

h

i

n

g

4

.

0

r

G

a

z

i

n

g

L

a

n

d

0

.

2

0

2

.

0

C

r

o

p

l

a

n

d

Assumed

Footprint

Number

of Earths

0

.

0

.

0

0

0

Population

6

1

6

6

7

1

7

6

8

1

8

6

9

1

9

6

1995

1995

1.3

r

Y

e

a

Wackernagel et al., 2002

1995

India

0.29

1995

Denmark

2.4

1995

USA

3.7

2 x 1995

Wackernagel & Rees, 1996

Denmark

4.8

Environmental “footprint”: Land area required to provide for resource consumption & waste assimilation on a sustainable basis (Wackernagel et al.)


The Next Industrial Revolution?*

Context

Resources plentiful, people scarce

Response

Dramatic increases in

Labor productivity (output/person/hour); 100-fold higher

Fraction of energy supply from non-sustainable sources (~0 to 80% higher)

Resource consumption per capita

Population

Level of services (mobility, housing, dietary variety, information) desired

Context

Resources scarce, people plentiful

Response

Population stabilization (appears to be happening)

Dramatic increases in

Resource productivity (service/resource invested)

Fraction of energy supply from sustainable resources

The first industrial revolution

The second industrial revolution

*Hawkins, Lovins, and Lovins, “Natural Capitalism”


Imagining a Sustainable World

Secondary Intermediates

Human

Needs

Sustainable

Resources

Primary Intermediates

Sunlight

Animals

Food

Energy

Wind

Organic

Fuels

Motors/

Lights

Ocean/hydro

Heat

Biomass

Transport.

Geothermal

Materials

Hydrogen

Nuclear

Organic

Electricity

Batteries

Minerals

Inorganic

The Environment

Nutrient

cycles

Wildlife habitat/

biodiversity

Air

Water

Soil

Climate

Sole Supply

Choices



• RBAEF Project

• Life cycle issues - a product non-specific framework for analyzing fossil fuel

displacement

• Resource issues - matching the scale of challenges & solutions

• RBAEF Mature Technology Scenarios

Prospects for Achieving Large Sustainability &

Security Benefits via Biomass-Based Processes

Lee Lynd

Thayer School of Engineering

Dartmouth College

Workshop on the Economic and Environmental

Impacts of Bio-Based Production

Chicago, Illinois

June 8, 2004


Sponsors

• Department of Energy

• The Energy Foundation

• National Commission on Energy Policy

Objectives

Identify & evaluate paths by which biomass can make a large contribution

to future demand for energy services.

Determine what can be done to accelerate biomass energy use and in what

timeframe associated benefits can be realized.

The Role of Biomass in America’s Energy Future (RBAEF) Project

Multi-institutional

• Dartmouth • Natural Resources Defense Council

• Argonne National Lab • Michigan State University

• National Renewable Energy Lab • Princeton

• Union of Concerned Scientists • USDA Agricultural Research Service

• University of Tennessee • Oak Ridge National Lab


The Role of Biomass in America’s Energy Future (RBAEF) Project…

Task

Task 1. Biomass production

a. Technology analysis

b. Environmental evaluation

Tasks 2&3. Biomass power & biofuels

a. Technology analysis

b. Mobility chains

c. Environmental evaluation

Task 4. Coproduct analysis

a. Technology analysis

b. Environmental evaluation

Task 5. Biomass Resource Sufficiency

a. Sufficiency analysis

b. Environmental evaluation

Task 6. Transition Dynamics

Task 7. Policy Options & Evaluation

a. Policy Development

b. Policy Evaluation

Group Leader

Sandy McLaughlin (formerly of ORNL)

Nathanael Greene, NRDC

Eric Larson, Princeton; Lee Lynd, Dartmouth

Michael Wang, ANL

Nathanael Greene, NRDC

Mark Laser, Dartmouth; Bruce Dale, MSU

Nathanael Greene, NRDC

Lee Lynd, Dartmouth

Nathanael Greene, NRDC

John Sheehan, NREL

Nathanael Greene, NRDC

Nathanael Greene, NRDC


Diversity of participants Project…

• Technical

• Policy

• Environmental

Emphasis on mature technology

More important to know where we can get than where we are to evaluate

• The potential contribution of biomass to a sustainable world.

• Appropriate levels of research effort, policy intensity for biomass-based options.

Analysis of biomass energy within a framework that assumes innovation & change can happen.

Key Premise: Rational policy formulation is informed by a vision of what is possible.

The Role of Biomass in America’s Energy Future (RBAEF) Project…

Distinguishing features

Breadth of technologies (although not all) considered in a common framework.


• Net fossil fuel displacement Project…

(kg FFE displaced/kg product)

Life Cycle Issues

> 1: large benefits

< 0: no benefit

One figure of merit

• Seek to develop a product non-specific

framework to glean general insights

Whether large (per unit)

fossil fuel displacement can be achieved

Upon what this depends


LCA Framework for analysis of biologically-based processes Project…

Process

Activation

(wet milling,

pretreatment,

hydrolysis,

gasification)

Primary

Product

Biomass

Production

Biological

Conversion

Product

Recovery

Utilities

&

Residue

Processing

Coproducts

& Treated

Effluents

PA

PF

PPR

Energy

Supply

Of the parameters A, PA, PF, PPR, C, and hD, only PPR exhibits a strong functional dependence on the product made.

D

A

C


Fossil fuel displacement: Most of the story Project…

N-PR = net fossil energy input exclusive of product recovery (kg FFE/kg FC)

Utility of DP* (benefits of approximation)

Gain general insights into the importance of feedstock & process features

Fossil fuel displacement: The whole story

D= product displacement efficiency (kg FFE/kg primary product)

N = net fossil fuel input (kg FFE/kg fermentable carbohydrate)

YP/FC = product yield (kg primary product/kg fermentable carbohydrate)

Screen processes in the absence of product-specific information

Rapidly incorporate product-specific information into an existing rubric


Summary of Project…

S

cenarios and

C

orresponding

P

arameter

V

alues

kg FFE/kg biomass (A, PA , C); kg FFE/kg FC (PF, N-PR)

Scenario

A

P

P

N

C

A

F

PR

-

Corn

1.

Aerobic, no residue utilization

0.06

48

0.0943

0.238

0.0308

0.403

(0% stover used)

2.

Aerobic, current rotation

0.0648

0.0943

0.238

0.11

9

0.280

(13% stover used)

3.

Aerobic, high recovery

0.0648

0.0943

0.238

0.248

0.123

(46% stover used)

4.

Anaerobic, no residue utilization

0.0648

0.0943

0.0527

0.0308

0.218

(0% stover used)

5.

Anaerobic, current rotation

0.0648

0.0943

0.0527

0.119

0.104

(13% stover used)

6.

Anaerobic, high recovery

0.0648

0.0943

0.0527

0.248

-

0.062

(46% stover used)

Cellulosic

1.

Aerobic, base case

0.0190

0

0.192

0.0849

0.0784

2. A

erobic, advanced

0.0190

0

0.192

0.114

0.0613

3. A

naerobic, base case

0.0190

0

0.0071

0.0849

-

0.107

4. A

naerobic, advanced

0.0190

0

0.0071

0.114

-0.124

Lynd & Wang (JIE 04).


EtOH, Project…hD = 0.78,

with product recovery

PHA, hD = 1, with

product recovery

Corn

Cellulosic

2.5

2.5

2

2

4

1.5

1.5

6

3

(kg FFE/kg product)

1

1

2

5

0.5

0.5

1

0

0

2

p

1

4

-0.5

-0.5

* or D

-1

-1

3

p

D

-1.5

-1.5

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Y

Y

P/FC

P/FC

1. Aerobic, base case

1. Aerobic, no stover utilization (0%)

2. Aerobic, advanced

2. Aerobic, current rotation (13%)

3. Anaerobic, base case

3. Aerobic, high recovery (46%)

4. Anaerobic, advanced

4. Anaerobic, no stover utilization (0%)

5. Anaerobic, current rotation (13%)

6. Anaerobic, high recovery (46%)

Numbers in parenthesis refer to % corn stover utilized


Fostered by Project…

Feedstock

Cellulosic

Corn with residue recovery and compatible harvest methods

Process

High product yield

Anaerobic rather than aerobic processing

Reasonable energy requirements for product recovery

Fossil Fuel Displacement via Biologically-Based Processes

(kg fossil fuel/kg product)

Can be very high if most of these features are favorable

Can be zero or negative if most of these features are not favorable

Processes can be rapidly screened in the absence of detailed, product-specific analysis


Resource Issues Project…

• Origin of sustainability &

security challenges

What do we need to impact?

• How big a role could

biomass play in meeting

these challenges?

Matching the scale of

challenges & solutions


2,000 Project…

60

1,747

51

Energy (MM Short Ton)

50

Energy (Quad BTU)

1,500

Non-Energy (MM Short Ton)

Non-Energy (Quad BTU)

40

1,081

23 [16 LDV; 7 other]

666 [459 LDV; 207 other]

27

1,000

30

20

570

505

20

347

500

8

10

6

68

2

35

1

0

0

Animal Feed

Transportation Fuels

Net Petroleum Imports

Fossil Fuel for

Electricity + Transportation

Fossil Fuel for Electricity

Lumber, Pulp, and Plywood

Annual Growth in Fossil Fuels

Organic Chemicals and Polymers

  • Notes:

  • Crude density ≈ 7.33 barrels/metric ton; natural gas density ≈ 48,700 ft3/metric ton; crude LHV ≈ 127,000 BTU/gal

  • “Other transportation” category includes: HDVs, airplanes, freight trains, public transit, water shipping

  • Annual fossil fuel growth = average from 1992 to 2002

  • Animal feed mass expressed in units of corn equivalents; corn kernel LHV ≈ 8,000 BTU/lb

  • Timber products LHV ≈ 8,000 BTU/lb

  • Organic chemicals LHV (ave) ≈ 18,000 BTU/lb

  • Primary organics include ethylene, propylene, methanol, benzene, toluene, 1,3-butadiene, and o-xylene

  • Primary organic chemicals used as polymer feedstock ≈ 46 MM ton/yr (assumes stoichiometric yields)

  • Sources:

  • Fossil fuels: 2002 data, EIA

  • Transportation fuels: 2001 data, BTS

  • Animal feed: 2002 data, USDA-NASS

  • Timber products: 2002 data, USDA-NASS

  • Organic Chemicals: 2000 data, C&EN, CMR

  • Polymers: 2003 data, APC

Market Sizes for Categories of Products Potentially Derived from Biomass

Annual U.S. Consumption

(millions of short tons)

(Quadrillion BTU/yr)


Biomass - A Credible Solution to Mega Challenges? Project…

If this were to change

Would provide a rationale for shifting into a new gear.

Our major sustainability & security challenges arise primarily from energy use

Sustainability: Fossil fuel utilization in all sectors

Security: Oil the dominant concern, transportation the dominant sector

If biomass is to play more than a minor role in responding to sustainability & security challenges, it must have a significant impact on energy utilization.

Case has not been articulated in any detail

Widely-accepted common wisdom: No. Not enough biomass/land


Approaches to Energy Planning & Analysis Project…

1. Bury our heads in the sand. Pretend that energy challenges are not real or will go away.

2. Extrapolate current trends. Often championed by “realists”.

3. Hope for a miracle. Acknowledge the importance of sustainable and secure energy supplies, but dismiss foreseeable options as inadequate to provide for the world’s energy needs & calls for “disruptive” advances in entirely new technologies.

4. Innovate & change. Define sustainable futures based on mature but foreseeable technologies in combination with an assumed willingness of society to change in ways that increase resource utilization efficiency. Then work back from such futures to articulate transition paths that begin where we are now.

#1 and #2 do not offer solutions to sustainability and security challenges.

#3 should be pursued but is too risky to rely on.

#4 is the most sensible choice if it is assumed that problems associated with sustainability and security are important to solve.


Radically different conclusions have been reached Project…

How big a contribution could biomass make?

• Biomass becomes the largest energy source supporting humankind in the Renewables-Intensive Global Energy Scenario of Johanssen et al. (1993).

• Biomass share of world energy supply will equal that of oil in 2050 and be as large as any other resource (Kassler, Shell Petroleum Ltd, 1994).

• Biomass will eventually provide over 90% of U.S. chemical and over 50% of U.S. fuel production (Biobased Industrial Products, NRC, 1999).

• To provide ethanol to replace all gasoline used in the[U.S] light-duty fleet, we estimate it would be necessary to process the biomass growing on 300 to 500 million acres. (Lave et al., 2002).

• Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of oil and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of it (Giampetro et al., ‘97).

Key variables impacting availability of biomass for non-food uses

Biomass productivity (tons/acre*yr)

Vehicle efficiency (miles/gallon)

Land use

Food production efficiency (calories, protein/acre)

Integrated production of feedstock production into existing activities (ag., forest products)


Cellulosic biomass (Pimentel group) Project…

Switchgrass or short rotation forestry,

simulated commercial ave., now

Corn kernels, US ave.

Switchgrass, projected 20-30 yr ave.

Corn - above-ground, US ave.

Switchgrass, mature

Biomass Productivity

12

10

22

8

Productivity (tons/acre*yr)

6

Productivity (Mg/ha*yr)

11

4

2

Future productivity important for evaluating feasibility of large-scale bioenergy

Relatively little effort put into development of high-productivity crops, cropping systems

for cellulosic biomass

If increasing the BTU productivity of cellulosic energy crops received an effort

comparable to that invested in increasing the productivity of corn kernels, what

would be reasonable to expect?


Land Area Required for Current U.S. Light Duty Mobility in Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

•LDV VMT = 2.5 trillion vehicle miles traveled

•Waste availability: 200 million dry tons

•Switchgrass productivity: 10 dry tons/acre/year (20 to 30 year projected average, tentative)

•Fuel yield: 100 gallons/dry ton


High Vehicle Efficiency Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Possible (2020 estimates from Friedman, 2003)

Today: ‘04 Prius (mid-size), 56 mpg

By 2020, fuel savings > added vehicle cost (hybrids + advanced technology)

Fleet average: 50 to 60 mpg.

A fleet made up only of pickups, minivans, and SUVs could still reach 50 mpg.

Desirable

Direct: Reduces GHG emissions, oil imports & depletion rate.

Indirect: Increases the feasibility of alternatives to petroleum

Difficult to imagine a sustainable transportation sector without it

Scenario High efficiency vehicles compensate for…

Renewable power/H2Otherwise low travel radius

Renewable power/batteriesOtherwise low travel radius

Biomass/fuel (several)Otherwise large land requirement

Implicit in transportation scenarios featuring energy storage as H2


Food Production Efficiency: Some Observations Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Strongly impacted by dietary trends - the amount and kind of meat consumed in particular.

Tremendous potential elasticity

Land to feed U.S. population in the most land-efficient way possible:~ 20 million acres

Land currently used:> 400 million acres

Food production is usually assumed to remain static in analyses of the role of biomass as an energy source.

However, demand for cellulosic feedstocks due to cost-competitive processing

technology would very likely result in large changes in food production.

Farmers would rethink what they plant.

Coproduction of processing feedstock and animal feed is one likely change.

A similar argument can be advanced for the forest products industry.


Concept Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Feed Protein

Fuels/

Chemicals

Switchgrass

Protein Recovery/

(& Pretreatment)

Composition & productivity comparison

Crop

Mass Productivity

(tons/acre/year)

Protein

(Mass Fraction)

Protein Productivity

(tons/acre/year)

Switchgrass

5.0 – 10

.08 -0.12 (early cut)

0.4 – 1.2

Soybeans

1.1 – 1.3

0.36 (bean only)

0.40 – 0.45

• Consumption of calories and protein by livestock 10x that by humans in the U.S.

• Production of perennial grass could potentially produce the same amount of feed protein per acre while producing a large amount of feedstock for energy production

• Requires readily foreseeable processing technology to recover feed protein

Integrated Production of Processing Feedstocks and Feed Protein

Processing


1 . Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Vehicle Efficiency

1 .

Conversion Efficiency

1 .

Ag. Productivity

1 .

Nutritional

Productivity

Driving habits,

demography

Allowance for

residues

Distributional

losses

Calories, protein

per person

Sustainable

land base, w/

allowance for

nature

The Availability of Biomass for Non-Food Uses is a Much More

Elastic Quantity Than Usually Assumed

Land Required to Meet a Specified Need (e.g. Transportation)

Land Available

Would like to know:

= Population x mi/person x energy/mile x ton biomass/energy x (1 - fresidues) x acres/ton

Available land - Population x 1/hdistribution x nutrition/person x acres/nutrition

Considering the range of values these largely independent parameters might be assumed to take in a future scenario (e.g. several decades hence):

= 1.5-fold x 3-fold x 4-fold x 2-fold x 2-fold x 5-fold = 320-fold .

3-fold - 2-fold x 1.5-fold x 1.5-fold > 5-fold 3-fold - 20-fold


Calibration points Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Total U.S. cropland: ~400 million acres (162 million ha)

Land planted in soybeans: ~74 million acres (30 million ha)

Idled cropland in conservation reserve program: ~30 million acres (12 million ha)

Land required to satisfy current U.S. LDV mobility (~2/3 of total transport energy)

Biomass Productivity

tons/acre*year

[Mg/ha*yr]

Integrated

Feed/Feedstock

Coproduction

Additional Land*

Million Acres [ha]

Fleet mpg

Scenario

a. Status quo5 [11] 20 No360** [146]

* Land in addition to current cropland.

**(2.5x1012 mi/yr)*(1 gal gas/20 mi)*(0.0144 ton biomass/gal gas equiv.)*(1 acre*yr/5 ton) = 360 x 106 acres

Sample calculation for ton biomass/gal gas equivalent:

(1.55 gal EtOH/gal gas)*(1 ton biomass/108 gal EtOH) = 0.0144 ton/gal gas equiv.

Similar values are obtained for other biomass-derived fuels

Biomass Resource Sufficiency (the short version)

b. High productivity10 [22]20 No180 [73]

c. (b + high mileage)10 [22] 55No72 [29]

d. “Motivated”10 [22] 55 Yes Near zero


Biological processing Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Ammonia fiber explosion pretreatment

Consolidated bioprocessing (no dedicated step for cellulase production)

Energy-efficient distillation (intermediate vapor recompression heat pumps)

Extensive water recycle

Thermochemical processing

Pressurized oxygen-blown gasifier

Warm gas clean-up, integrated tar cracking

Power generation via combined cycle gas turbine

Features of RBAEF Mature Technology Scenarios

Feedstock production

Switchgrass @ 22 Mg/Ha*yr (10 tons/acre*year); 2x current average

Follow-on work on other feedstocks to be proposed

5000 Mg/day (14% of land in a 25 mile radius)


Hazards of driving with the low beams on Relation to Vehicle Efficiency


Hazards of driving with the low beams on Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

We seek to view the future with the high beams on…


Hazards of driving with the low beams on Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

We seek to view the future with the high beams on…

while avoiding invalid comparison


13% Process Steam Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Complementarity of Biological & Thermochemical Processing

Ethanol Production

41%

Residues

100%

(Biomass LHV)

Pretreatment

3% Process Power

Biological Conversion

Separation

99%

98%

56%

Ethanol

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.


Complementarity of Biological & Thermochemical Processing Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

DME Production

25% DME

100%

Biomass

Gasification

Gas Clean-Up

DME Synthesis & Distillation

GTCC

Power

85%

85%

50% Waste Heat

25% Power

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.


DME Production Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Ethanol Production

11% DME

13% Process Steam

41%

Residues

41%

Residues

Gas Clean-Up

Gasification

DME Synthesis & Distillation

GTCC

Power

35%

35%

100%

(Biomass LHV)

Pretreatment

3% Process Power

Biological Conversion

Separation

99%

98%

5% Power

56%

Ethanol

Complementarity of Biological & Thermochemical Processing

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.


Energy Output:Input Ratios Increase with Maturity Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

AFEX

CBP

No evaporation

GTCC

Power

IHOSR

Distillation

Integrated Steam

Drying of Residue

% of Feedstock LHV

External Energy Input

Internal Energy Input

Energy Output

Adv. Ethanol (B)/

Steam drying/GTCC

Adv. Ethanol (B)/

Steam drying/FT fuels

Current Cellulosic

Ethanol

Oil Refining

Corn Ethanol

Adv. Ethanol (A)/

Rankine Power

Adv. Ethanol (B)/

Rankine Power

Adv. Ethanol (B)/

GTCC Power

Adv. Ethanol/

H2

Energy Output

Energy Input

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.


100% Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

88%

90%

80%

80%

74%

75%

72%

70%

5%

60%

18%

19%

11%

24%

60%

52%

50%

50%

4%

Ethanol

25%

40%

Electricity

30%

56%

56%

56%

56%

TCF

20%

48%

Hydrogen

25%

10%

50%

EtOH +

Power

EtOH +

FT fuels

H2

EtOH +

H2

EtOH +

DME

Petroleum

Refining

FT liquids +

Power

DME +

Power

Power

Gasoline (38%)

Diesel (21%)

Jet Fuel (9%)

Residual Fuel Oil (5%)

Coke (4%)

Still Gas (4%)

Liquefied Gases (3%)

Chemical Feedstocks (2%)

  • Sources:

  • Overall petroleum refinery efficiency: GM, ANL, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, 2001.

  • Petroleum product yields: API

  • Product energy densities: EIA

Other (2%)

Co-Production Process Efficiencies

Energy Yield

(% of feedstock LHV)

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.


120% (HDF, Vehicular) Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

100%

100%

100

LDV

90

Electricity

80

77% (HDF, Total)

HDV

70

60

45%

50

40

30

20

10

LDF +

HDF +

(FT liquids)

EtOH (LDF) +

Power

  • Electricity (from fossil and nuclear)/LDF: 0.73 [11.9 quad BTU/16.2 quad BTU ]

  • Total HDF (and other)/Total LDF: 0.45 [7.3 quad BTU/16.2 quad BTU ]

  • Vehicular HDF/Total LDF: 0.29 [4.6 quad BTU/16.2 quad BTU]

Potential for Multi-Sector Impact

Percent of Demand Displacement

(Assuming 100% LDV Displacement)

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.


Switchgrass (10 tpa 2-cut) Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Ethanol ($0.10/lb)

$1,216

Electricity ($0.04/kwh)

Switchgrass (10 tpa 1-cut)

Protein ($0.33/lb)

$936

Oil ($0.27/lb, corn; $0.33/lb, soy)

Switchgrass (5 tpa 2-cut)

HFCS ($0.13/lb)

$608

Dextrose ($0.20/lb)

Switchgrass (5 tpa, 1-cut)

$468

Corn Starch ($0.13/lb)

Corn + Stover

$873

Corn Gluten Feed ($0.03/lb)

Corn Gluten Meal ($0.12/lb)

Corn

$754

Soybeans

$374

$0

$1,000

$1,500

$500

Product Value per Acre

Product Value ($/Acre)

  • Notes:

  • Switchgrass protein recovery assumed to be 80%

  • 2-cut switchgrass assumes 67% of total yield harvested in early cut

  • Corn + stover scenario assumes 50% stover collected

  • Ethanol price assumed to be $0.64/gallon (energy equivalent of gasoline at $1.00/gallon)

  • Sources:

  • Corn yield: 2002 U.S. average, USDA-NASS

  • Corn product yields: CRA

  • HCFS, glucose, and dextrose prices: 2003 U.S. average, Milling & Baking News

  • Starch, CGF, CGM prices: 2002 average, USDA Feed Situation and Outlook Yearbook, 2003

  • Corn oil price: 2002 average, USDA Oil Crops Situation and Outlook, 2003

  • Soybean yield: 2002 U.S. average, USDA—NASS

  • Soy product yields: 2002 U.S. average, USDA Oil Crops Situation and Outlook, 2003

  • Soy oil and protein prices: March 2004, Chicago Board of Trade

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.


Atmospheric CO Relation to Vehicle Efficiency2

2.47

3.09

0.42

Soil

6.56

Ethanol

TCF

(sequestered, 27%)

(avoided, 56.3%)

5.56

Ethanol

Photosynthesis

Conversion

End Use

2.05

Power

X

X

0.43

(avoided,

2.08

5.1%)

0.19

1.0

Fossil Carbon

Reservoir

X

TCF

Power

(avoided, 11.5%)

Soil Carbon

Reservoir

Carbon cycle for switchgrass processing (carbon-poor soil, 30 year period)

Flows are tonnes of carbon per hectare per year

Soil carbon: McLaughlin et al., 2002

Processing: In-progress RBAEF analysis

In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized, may change.


But is taking a close and fresh look, and revising their assessment…

Joint NRDC, UCS statement at the Feb. ‘04 public meeting of the RBAEF project

“Cellulosic ethanol is at least as likely as hydrogen to be an energy carrier of choice for a sustainable transportation sector.”

Finding Common Interest with the Environmental Community

Two of the largest environmental advocacy organizations are involved

Natural Resources Defense Council - Nathanael Greene

Union of Concerned Scientists - Jason Mark

The environmental community has generally been largely ambivalent

relative to biomass energy and biobased industrial products.


An Evolving Vision for Long-Term Impact assessment…

Nathanael Greene, NRDC (Draft)

350

300

250

200

Billions of Gallons of Gasoline Equiv.

150

100

50

0

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Savings due to efficiency

Cellulosic ethanol

Gasoline

Incorporates: UCS Aggressive MPG Increase Scenario

Does not incorporate: VMT reduction


Life Cycle Issues (Benefits/Unit) assessment…

Resource Issues (Units)

Challenging, even with

positive per acre effects

• Very large fossil fuel displacement can be achieved by some biomass-based products

• A product non-specific framework identifies

feedstock, process, product features that foster this outcome

• Near zero net greenhouse gas emissions for

many bioenergy scenarios

• Requires innovation & change,

efficient resource utilization

Perennial grass compared to row crops

Crops & feedstock production

• 100-fold less erosion

Processing

• 7 to 10-fold less herbicides, pesticides

Utilization (vehicles)

Agricultural integration

• Much higher nutrient capture efficiency

• Increased organic matter, soil fertility

even w/ aggressive harvest

• Potential for N recycle

• Very large fractions of LDV

& HDV mobility requirements

could be met from biomass

within existing ag land base

… not the path we are on but

the only sensible way to pursue

a sustainable & secure future


ad