Biomass, part III

The most critical assumption on cellulosic biofuels: yields

Posted by Vinod Khosla (Guest Contributor) at 9:25 AM on 25 Jan 2008

Read more about: agriculture | biofuels | ethanol | cellulosic ethanol

My most critical assumption with cellulosic biofuels is on land efficiency: tons of biomass per acre, and hence gallons of fuel produced per acre, and more accurately, miles driven per acre. I believe biomass yields per acre will multiply by two to four times from today's norms.

The lack of genetic optimization and research on cultural practices, harvesting, storage, and transport with would-be energy crops -- miscanthus, sorghum, switchgrass, and others -- means that there is significant potential for improvement. The application of advanced breeding methods like genetic engineering and marker-assisted breeding, limiting water usage through drought resistant crops, and large-scale application of biotechnology (i.e., optimizing the process by which plants conduct photosynthesis, or reducing stress-based yield losses) will also contribute to increased yields with fewer inputs.

More importantly, different energy crops are likely to be optimal for different climates -- jatropha makes sense on degraded Indian land, but not in the American Midwest. Rather than a single dominant energy crop, we are likely to see a variety of feedstocks that allow specialization to local conditions, mixes, and needs, while mitigating the risks.

Some reported examples and datapoints of biomass yields speak to the reasonableness of our estimates of yields between 18-24 tons per acre by 2030 (e.g., Prof. Lee Lynd at Dartmouth):

Miscanthus averaged 16.5 dry tons per acre per year, where switchgrass averaged 4.6 at 3 Illinois sites, with data taken over 3 years. Research in Europe notes yields ranging up to 16 dry tons per acre (PDF).
Sugarcane ventures in Brazil (Allelyx is using GMO techniques, Canavalis is using more traditional plant breeding) are breeding energy cane that will likely result in a yield of 25 dry tons per acre/year of harvestable biomass. Similar progress is being made by USDA sugarcane geneticists in Louisiana.
Megaflora Corp. has measured productivities of 28 dry tons per acre per year from crossing North American hardwoods with the paulownia tree in North Carolina. Similar progress is being made by USDA sugarcane geneticists in Louisiana.
Anagenesis Corp claims of their trees, "one acre can yield 48x times as much ethanol as an acre of corn."
DOE estimates (PDF) suggest that collecting existing biomass with only a small change in agricultural practices could generate 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass in the U.S. (most of our biomass needs) and still be able to meet all food, feed, and export demands. This would be an alternative scenario to get biomass without energy crops.
According to Prof. Mark Holtzapple at Texas A&M, high-yield sorghum can be grown in 35 U.S. states and produce yields as high as 25 dry tons per acre/year with low water usage.
Researchers at Texas A&M have developed new "freakishly tall sorghum plants" that reach heights of nearly 20 feet -- more than double the height of regular sorghum and yielding double the amount of crop per acre. They use little water and have been bred to prevent flowering (thus trapping more energy), and can be grown on marginal crop lands.

A wide variety of crops have potential as feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol. Bical notes: "The criteria for the ideal energy crop are high dry matter yield, perennial growth, and efficient use of nitrogen, water, other resources, and pest and disease resistance." The previously cited Univ. of Illinois study compared corn, short-rotation coppice, and miscanthus versus a set of idealized criteria for energy crops and found miscanthus (and by extension, other C4 photosynthetic grasses) to meet most of the requirements (PDF, or see charts below). Of particular interest to me is miscanthus that "partitions nutrients back to the roots in the fall just before harvesting." I figure crops that provided (and survived) energy for mammals in the prairies can now provide energy for humans!

Many of the advantages of miscanthus are also applicable to some of the other proposed feedstocks. The new, higher-yielding strains of sorghum developed at Texas A&M use less water than conventional sorghum (making them more drought-resistant) and are sterile (not flowering prevents the escape of energy). Their 20-feet height means that yields have effectively doubled. The table below (from Ceres) highlights the advantages and disadvantages of various feedstocks -- however, it is notable that most noncellulosic sources (example, vegetable oils) would fail on the vast majority of the criteria.

Crop Traits	Energycane	Miscanthus	Poplar	Sorghum	Switchgrass
Efficient photosynthesis	■	■		■	■
Long canopy duration	■	■	■	■	■
Nutrients recycled to roots		■			■
Low crop inputs		■	■	■	■
Low fossil fuel inputs		■	■		■
Adapted to marginal land		■	■	■	■
Minimal pests/plant diseases		■			■
Non-invasive or sterile	■	■	■	■	■
Easily removed	■	■		■	■
Winter standing		■	■		■
High water-use efficiency	■	■		■	■
Planted by seed				■	■
Harvest first year				■

Examples abound of people in action on energy crops. Ceres has been attacking the problems from a multitude of angles, and is utilizing biotechnology in combination with better crop practices (such as those highlighted earlier).

Firstly, they are attempting to increase the usable land available, by working on crops that can deal with problems such as drought tolerance (and recovery), heat tolerance, salt tolerance, and even cold germination. They are also working on increasing yields with plants that have shorter flowering times, greater photosynthetic efficiency, and greater shade tolerance.

Additionally, they are attempting to reduce the costs per acre by increasing the efficiency of nitrogen utilization, improving the efficiency of photosynthesis with lower nitrogen usage, increasing the biomass present in the root of the plant, and reducing costs through enzyme production while working to increase the gallons per acre that result from various feedstocks.They are also proposing better agronomy techniques like polycultivation (plots of monoculture crops interleaved together) as opposed to a polyculture (mixed crop cocktails).

As a whole, the company is developing genetically modified, commercial energy crops, and expects to have proprietary commercial varieties ready for market in two to three years and transgenic varieties in five to seven years. There are others with similar efforts.

Summary

I have highlighted some of the feedstocks that (I believe) are likely to meet feedstock needs, but there are many other potential sources not yet researched (or discovered!). In time, some feedstocks may prove to be more efficient than others, but local needs and transportation costs mean that cellulosic biofuels (utilizing local feedstocks) can be produced in many locations in the U.S. and worldwide.

The innovation ecosystem will ensure that, over time, new ideas will continue to be developed -- the better ideas will persist as more and more intelligent people, resources, and capital join the field, and the best ideas will eventually rise to the top. Of course, traditional oil interests will continue to fight this trend with the hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal, especially the national oil companies that own 80 percent of the world's oil resources.

There is plenty of biomass available (computed here for the U.S., but similar calculations are possible for other world geographies). Biomass from energy crops can replace oil while improving traditional agriculture and biodiversity while reducing needs for chemicals and water for both the energy crops and the row crops that we use today. Far from being a "food versus fuel" battle, as many tunnel-vision critics have imagined, biomass-based income may be one of the few fundamental economic tools we may have to solve poverty issues in Africa.

Of course, biofuels can be produced as defined above, or we can produce biomass on land from cut-down rainforests. They can be done well or done poorly. It behooves us to regulate each biofuels facility and qualify its feedstock sources as being eco-qualified (a LEEDS-like rating for each biofuels factory).

For story: Biomass, part III
14 Comments | Post a Comment

Truckloads of BS

Vinod you are still totally clueless about energy issues. You may have made money in other areas but you will loose on this one unless you wake up and question the assumptions.
The flawed assumption is that it makes any sense to transport 150 lbs humans in 2 ton 10% machines. Most of the flaws in biofuels become obvious when you change the system to one that is over 90% efficient. There is no ICE vehicle that can compete in the marketplace with EVs on Miles Per Dollar(MP$). If your car gets 10mpg and gas is $3/Gal you are getting 10MP$. Any electric car will get you 100MP$. Wake up Vinod!
As for celuosic ethanol its total BS and thats not just for the fertilizer.
There is no solution in crops for machines that are so inefficient that they require 10 million barrels a day for the US. To produce the equivalent of 1 million barrels of ethanol fuel from something solid and woody like switchgrass would require hundreds of thousands of truck transporting the switchgrass to the processing plant every day. That simply is not possible in areas where you could grow that much switchgrass on marginal land there aren't enough people to drive the trucks. Do a well to wheels calculation and you will see its simply unworkably inefficient.

by Solarspike at 2:03 PM on 25 Jan 2008

When??

It is lovely to say that the poor will benefit, but as usual, no one ever says "when". It reminds me of the old song "There'll be pie in the sky by and by."

It is certainly true that some farmers will benefit from biofuels. It is also true that right NOW, the urban poor are beginning to hurt.

Of course, police agencies will benefit (more police needed to control starving rioters), arms manufacturers (they ALWAYS benefit... funny, eh?), oil companies (they will buy up the production and distribution systems when it becomes worthwhile).

And some day.... (when, oh, when??) the poor will somehow (how, oh, how???) benefit.

In all of this Mr. Khosla has never answered the critics (look at the UN) who point out that biofuels are causing serious food inflation already, BEFORE they are a massive part of the energy equation.

They are a dangerous choice.

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 5:56 PM on 25 Jan 2008

Biomass Part iii

Whilst agreeing with much in this article, the genetic improvement possible is currently based, by researchers, on being able to sell SEED. With rhizomatous crops like Miscanthus, this will not compete, and creates issues about longer term infield crop structure. Having to buy new seed and resow regularly (which is want the breeders want, of course) will also reduce energy and carbon balances and increase costs.
We believe that rhizome production delivers cheaper establishment costs of such crops, and at a superior energy balance. Breeding companies therefore need to focus their strategy on earning their returns from other than easy to manage seed.

Bical Miscanthus

by MissCanthus at 10:23 PM on 25 Jan 2008

The poor will never benefit...

I suggest you look at Miscanthus. Currently, anyone can plant and multiply planting stock. When land and costs are low (as is the case with poor communities) this crop CAN be established at very low cost. Furthermore, it produces its highest yields in tropical climates, with no need for fertiliser and sprays. The barriers to preventing this?? Politics and big business interests.
With support from humanitarian organisations and govt, we plan to introduce planting programmes into suitable areas to trial in the third world in the next year or two.

Bical Miscanthus

by MissCanthus at 10:31 PM on 25 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Interesting ...

The barriers to preventing this?? Politics and big business interests.
With support from humanitarian organisations and govt, we plan to introduce planting programmes into suitable areas to trial in the third world in the next year or two.

... politics and big business are already preventing the planting of miscanthus, for a hypothetical fuel of all things?

Of course, traditional oil interests will continue to fight this trend with the hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal, especially the national oil companies that own 80 percent of the world's oil resources.

Fight what trend? Oil companies will own all biofuel refineries in the end, or companies that look and act just like them.

Of course, biofuels can be produced as defined above, or we can produce biomass on land from cut-down rainforests. They can be done well or done poorly. It behooves us to regulate each biofuels facility and qualify its feedstock sources as being eco-qualified (a LEEDS-like rating for each biofuels factory).

If we don't eco-qualify biofuels today, what makes you think we would for cellulosic fuels should they ever arrive? How would eco-certified refineries be able to sell for less than those who are not? How would a refinery buying its stock from a "good place" be able to prove that they did not simply force a competitor to buy theirs from a "bad place?" And if the cost of producing ethanol, cellulosic or otherwise, is much lower in South America, how do you control how they produce what they ship here for us to use? How do you prevent them from shipping cheaper fuel here?

Let's hypothesize that South America can produce ethanol for half the cost of North America (because they have mowed down the Amazon and Cerrado to plant cane and process it with cogeneration of burned bagasse to further lower costs). Let's say the cost of North American ethanol, using corn and cellulosic, is about $3 a gallon. How long will consumers allow politicians to force them to pay an extra $1.5 a gallon by keeping foreign supplies out? Today we pay about an extra buck a gallon for ethanol via taxes and subsidies.

Now let's hypothesize that instead of cutting down rainforests to grow biofuels, as is being done today, farmers simply decide to grow it on their prime land instead of food, or log the back forty as they are doing today to grab corn ethanol profits? Hmmm. "What should I plant this year, food or fuel, food or fuel, food or fuel ..."

There are a lot of unanswered questions awaiting the arrival of this hypothetical fuel.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:50 AM on 26 Jan 2008

Can't get past it

Vinod can't get past the first built in fallacy of biofuels bio-d. So he uses self delusion and expands that into mass delusion. Hiding the mistake with the diversion of over complication.

The mistaken notion is that growing fuel and burning it provides a closed cycle for carbon/CO2. The biomass fuel is burned, the CO2 is absorbed to make more biomass fuel, and so forth. Over and over, the CO2 released into the atmosphere, is extracted by the plants producing the biomass.

But he forgot that the land used to produce the biomass, would otherwise sequester carbon, the plants growing there removing CO2 from the atmosphere. By burning the biomass, that removal of CO2 is prevented.

Excuses like, oh we will use depleted land that is not now storing carbon by extracting CO2 to produce biofuel, will not cut it. Depleted land should be restored as carbon sink, not continuing to be part of the GHG balance problem.

The carbon stripped from the depleted soil, with chemical agriculture, continues to add to the GHG problem as long as it is not restored to carbon sink activity. And it amounts to millenia of carbon in the case of prairie, wetlands, and forests. This is a largely unnoticed cause of gHG climate disaster, the advent of chemical agriculture.

One way that biofuel would not take carbon sink potential out of the atmospheric GHG balance equation, is by producing that fuel from algae in solar collectors on rooftops or over parking lots and highways, on land already devestated for human use.

Another way would be to recycle waste, manure and biomass waste, using biogas digestion, with the remainder of the biodigestor products returned as soil amenment and fertilizer to the soil. This allows for food production and the use of organic farming to maintain land and soil as a carbon sink even as fiood energy and biogas energy is extracted.

The increase in the efficiency of solar energy conversion with this method of organic farming would make up for the energy extracted and GHG given off by human and animal respiration.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 10:21 AM on 26 Jan 2008

The Carbon Cycle

If carbon is sequestered in below ground plant material before harvest, harvesting the above ground crop does not break the cycle. This is the nature of miscanthus.

by morrotom at 7:07 PM on 26 Jan 2008

Alchemy redux

I have a guaranteed process to turn lead into gold. No really. All I need is unlimited financial support for the next ten years or so from the ~~King~~ Government so I can work out the details.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 6:14 AM on 27 Jan 2008

Serious good point there Spaceshaper

Here's another reality check. If miscanthus grows wild without chemicals and irrigation, where are the vast rolling fields of wild miscanthus that only need to be harvested year in and year out in an environmentally benign manner?

Like other crops, it turns out to grow better if you water and feed genetically modified versions of it, which is exactly what farmers wanting to increase yields will do. Locust will have to be controlled with aerial spraying and on and on. Wild fields of grass will become carefully groomed lawns.

If this fuel moves from the being hypothetical we will in all likleyhood put the very last of our land under industrial cultivation. There won't be a wild space left.

The question in the back of most people's minds is "But what will we burn in our machines?" The answer to that is "much, much less of something not worse than oil."

We don't know what that is yet but we do already know how to double and triple gas mileage.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:11 AM on 27 Jan 2008

Oh sure

One could harvest say one third of prairie grass in a rotational strip manner that would substitue for natural prairie fire. Then use the celllulose to make fuel. liquid ethanol to guzzle in a flex fuel SUV.

Or you could use that biomass to produce biogas and organic fertilizer and soil amendment. The carbon not converted to methane would go back into the soil with the organic fertilizer embedded in it.

The biogas could backup a solar, wind, water powered distributed smart grid that would strategically charge plugin hybrids.

Which is the better plan?

Either way, natural prairie grass from a natural ecosystem, a system that sequesters 1.8 tons of cO2 per acre per year out of the atmosphere is the way to go. Forget chemical ag crops, they burn the soil and stop carbon sink activity.

Biodiversity on true conservation land. Land that can host huge wind farms. That's where to get some biomass for energy. But only harvest what nature would harvest with fire. Atmospheric balance can be restored.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:25 AM on 27 Jan 2008

I guess it boils down to this:

There are those who believe it's a smart idea to base our nation's energy policies for the next twenty years or so on a yet-undiscovered technology which involves an untested plan to cover millions of acres of biologically important and ecologically diverse "marginal" land with mass plantings of a non-native species that may just turn out to be the next kudzu.

And those that think ... that this is some of the dumbest sh*t they ever heard.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 11:12 AM on 27 Jan 2008

A cheaper sustainable U.S. fuel source matters.

1.3 billion dry tons of biomass in the U.S. (most of our biomass needs) and still be able to meet all food, feed, and export demands. This would be an alternative scenario to get biomass without energy crops.

Might guess is that It will matter to the working poor in rural areas as a potential ray of hope.

Growing 20 ft. tall sorghum sounds like heaven to me. Planting trees in that same field also sounds nice.

I planted 3 nice little trees just the other day along the 300 ft. fence line back to the creek. Need to plant about 200 more. Takes a while to dig the holes with a good shovel as the dirt is hard, but as I understand, this is a good time, as it allows the roots recovery in order to then soak up the spring rain.

They say this will all be re-zoned commerical soon, however my guess is the trees i plant will be allowed to stay. I will need to keep the horses off of them until they have a chance to grow up. I believe that any good green manager of the land can make it better. Tree planting is a very important part of that effort. Paying the loans off is another. I recommend it to anyone who loves the land.

Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor.

by 1Eco at 7:33 AM on 28 Jan 2008

Miscanthus carbon negative

Hi Vinod

You have written an excellent article. Additionally growing Miscanthus will usually increase carbon storage in the soil, and its use can be genuinely carbon negative. Thus EU researchers are claiming that it will be possible to generate electricity from Miscanthus and at the same time significantly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
This crop will soon be widely commercially available in USA and Canada, as it is already in the EU.
Best Wishes for your brave ventures in cellulosic conversions, I am particularly impressed by the potential from Range Fuels and other gasification based conversions, and would be interested to learn more about these.
It looks like some of your ventures will soon be very profitable.
Those of us commercially developing Miscanthus would like you batting on our side, this last sentence includes a cricketing term but I guess you can cope with that

Jonathan Harvey

Jonathan Harvey

by JONHATKENN at 11:03 AM on 29 Jan 2008

What does have scientists have to say?

I have been following this three-part series of exchanges between Vinod Khosla and his (mostly) critical commenters. Not being an environmental scientist, I will not dare assess Mr. Khosla's initiatives. I do however, have a question for him and his detractors. What does environmental science have to say, regarding the validity of his enterprises? My takeaway from the discussions, is that Mr. Khosla has not done his homework, and is funding ventures that may, in the long run, create more problems than solutions. Is that true?

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com

marguerite manteau-rao http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com 'It's All About Green Psychology'

by lamarguerite at 1:04 PM on 01 Feb 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.