Let's look at two rather authoritative sources:

1. James Hansen.

2. For those who know the debate in Europe, let's look at the wedges presented in the Bellona Foundation's most recent report on mitigating climate change.
   

James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, James C. Zachos, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?", March 2008.
========

Now let's look at the Bellona Foundation, which aims for an 80% reduction of carbon emissions by 2050.

The Bellona Foundation, so far, is the only organisation taking bio-CCS and bio-CCCS into account. Thus it can be easily considered to be the most up to date on the technologies.

These are its wedges (roughly sketched, more details in the link):

1. Carbon-negative biofuels: 22%
   
2. All other renewables combined: 10%
   
3. CCS: 10%
   
4. Land use change: 8%

========

Obviously, biofuels are "the" most important technology to mitigate climate change.

There is basically no discussion about this, is there? The numbers speak for themselves: biofuels are the single biggest wedge of the future.  (+100tonCO2/GWh versus -1000tonCO2/GWh... add Hansen...).

But apparently, the news still has to cross the pond. If there's anything else we can help our American friends with, let us know!

That's the question.

In my view, the answer is: no, they are not. They are excessively costly, not very efficient from an energy point of view (no baseloads, no peakloads, reliance on coal and natural gas, etc...). And worse of all: they don't mitigate climate change all that much.

There's a big new synthesis report out. You can find it over at IEA Bioenergy Task 40 (Copernicus Institute authors, reports used by the very FAO for its new framework on food and bioenergy, etc.).

The problem (for Mr Fromm and others) is that it is rather optimistic.

But then, these are scientists. They try to be objective. They're not bloggers.

IEA Bioenergy Task 40.

June 2008
Biomass Assessment: Assessment of global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy - Main Report [2.653 KB]
Authors: Veronika Dornburg, André Faaij, Hans Langeveld, Gerrie van de Ven, Flip Wester, Herman van Keulen, Kees van Diepen, Jan Ros, Detlef van Vuuren, Gert Jan van den Born , Mark van Oorschot, Fleur Smout, Harry Aiking, Marc Londo, Hamid Mozaffarian, Koen Smekens, Marieke Meeusen, Martin Banse, Erik Lysen, Sander van Egmond. Study performed by Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University, MNP, LEI, WUR-PPS, ECN, IVM and the Utrecht Centre for Energy Research, within the framework of the Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate Change. Reportno: WAB 500102012, January 2008. Pp. 85 + Appendices.

Biomass Assessment: Assessment of global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy - Supporting Document. [11.086 KB]
Authors: Veronika Dornburg, André Faaij, Hans Langeveld, Gerrie van de Ven, Flip Wester, Herman van Keulen, Kees van Diepen, Jan Ros, Detlef van Vuuren, Gert Jan van den Born , Mark van Oorschot, Fleur Smout, Harry Aiking, Marc Londo, Hamid Mozaffarian, Koen Smekens, Marieke Meeusen, Martin Banse, Erik Lysen, Sander van Egmond, , Study performed by Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University, MNP, LEI, WUR-PPS, ECN, IVM and the Utrecht Centre for Energy Research, within the framework of the Netherlands Research Programme on Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis for Climate Change. Reportno: WAB 500102014, January 2008. Pp. 202.

But won't you have to first prove CCS viability before you can make claims about the efficacy of biofuels? If capture and sequestration can be shown to be effective (cost and physically) then I'm ready to listen.

The land availability argument also would seem to have a large number of hidden assumptions.

Thanks.

George


George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

1. CCS is viable
   
2. Carbon fixation for meaningful periods of times MUST involve burning the carbon you're trying to keep from entering the atmosphere.
   
3. That there's even enough biomass to go around
   
4. That most biofuels reduce emissions at all, once you factor in their land use change "carbon debt", and N2O emissions.

Anyways Joseph,
You missed a few things.

One, Algae has problems.  At the moment it'd cost about $1200 a barrel to create it.
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4

There's also the problem to do with phosphorus fertilizers, and in general that "raw biomass" which so many people assume we can just burn.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/13/64820/6921
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/16/112158/855

Lastly, you forgot to mention that due to the scarcity of biomass (especially climate beneficial biomass), and the nonscarcity of coal.
It's kind of a freaky assumption to make that building a gigantic infrastructure of 30-year-finance-schedule gasification solids-to-liquids plants worldwide. And then very likely not having enough solids to feed them.

Given the inherent will to survive of institutions, you would end up with a gigantic Coal-to-Liquids infrastructure, built on back of a message of "Clean and Green" Fuels.
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png

For instance, as Coskata's CEO mentions quite bluntly, "Will this process ever be used to make fuel from coal?  I hope so, it would be stupid not to."
(Start from timemark 2:20, I should probably shorten this myself)
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/cellulosics.pdf

And as James Hansen mentions we CAN NOT shift to liquid coal if we want to have a prayer of dealing with this climate crisis.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/29/81931/9476

-David Ahlport

There are places where agriculture and forestry already produce sizable amounts of "waste" biomass.  This biomass decomposes, and about 90% of the carbon is returned to the atmosphere within a few decades.  If this same biomass were subjected to pyrolysis on a regional scale, then about 50% of the carbon could be sequestered in soil in the form of charcoal for thousands of years (compared to 10%, above - charcoal is very recalcitrant), another 25% would be returned to the atmosphere right away during pyrolysis, and another 25% would be returned after syngas and bio oil is used to fuel additional work (heating, electricity, transportation).

Given that these "wastes" already exist and are decomposing as we write, you can figure that pyrolysis and biofuel production from these materials will not drive additional greenhouse gas emissions through land use change.  Indeed, the application of charcoal to soils has been shown to increase crop yields when soils are low in organic carbon to begin with.  This increase in crop yields could theoretically slow down current land conversion for food production.

For a nice summary of the potential of biomass pyrolysis, see this article:
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/100/1/178

The 1/6 of global cropland area is available however, in the ocean.  And algae grows in salt water.  And doing it that way won't increase GHG like growing it on crop land would.

So if the powers that be, favoring gas guzzling in ICEs want to continue onward, let them float their algae/fuel farms.

Of course renewable electricity in plugin hybrids and electric mass transit  will always be much cheaper.  Free markets?  Well I guess the traditional free marketeers who keep us all guzzling oil only believe in free markets when those markets indicate that their favorite solutions are the correct ones.

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

Amazingdrx, GreyFlcn and a few other characters here will never budge on the issue of the viability of cellulosic ethanol to positively impact climate and energy issues... and that's OK. Because their naive positions in the face of volumes of contrary evidence will not, FOR ONE SECOND, stop the dramatic increase in the use of sustainably-produced biomass for energy.

These folks have not demonstrated any actual experience in working with biomass. They simply have agendas to promote other renewables that, from their limited perspectives, cannot co-exist with potentially competing options. But this won't stop a thing.

In the 2nd quarter, venture capitalists poured funds into cellulosic ethanol development at a rate faster than was put into Internet tech or genetic research companies (http://www.altassets.com/news/arc/2008/nz13769.php).

New CE facilities are being built at an increasingly faster pace to demonstrate both advancements in the technology, as well as commercial viability (http://www.thecesite.com).

Results on the viability of growing switchgrass continue to be more favorable (http://scienceblogs.com/energy/2008/07/life_as_we_know_it ...).

Articles describing the potential of CE in the US show clearly how big a contributor CE can be (http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=462).

This train won't be stopped. And that's a good thing, because anyone who has ever worked in the sustainable forestry and farming sectors knows the potential for growing and using biomass in harmony with the Earth.

In the 2nd quarter, venture capitalists poured funds into cellulosic ethanol development at a rate faster than was put into Internet tech or genetic research companies. New CE facilities are being built at an increasingly faster pace to demonstrate both advancements in the technology, as well as commercial viability

That's all fine and dandy. But there is something missing from RD Miller's note: economics.

The fact is, government grants, loans and loan guarantees have played a big role in stimulating the investments in cellulosic ethanol so far, as have the mandated volumes (federal, as well as in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts), the expectations of continued protection from imports and, above all, blending and production subsidies -- federal and state.

Let's look at the case of Range Fuels -- Vinod Khosla's much-trumpeted project -- for example.

Range Fuels (formerly Kergy Inc.) of Broomfield, Colorado, will be granted up to $76 million by the federal government for their plant being constructed in Soperton (Treutlen County), Georgia. So a large amount of the capital cost of the plant ($1.55 per annual gallon, based on the original proposal for 40 million gallons of ethanol per year and 9 million gallons per year of methanol) will have been underwritten by the federal government.

In addition, according to an article in the Atlanta Constitution, Treutlen County offered tax abatements and a 97-acre tract in its industrial park worth $350,000. And the state's OneGeorgia Authority, which uses tobacco settlement money for rural economic development, was (in February 2007) likely to approve a $6 million grant for Treutlen County to help Range Fuels buy production equipment. The company has also benefited from a 4 percent sales tax exemption for materials and equipment used to construct biofuel facilities.

Now, let's look at the economic viability of the plant once it is operating. To start off, at the time of his investment, Mr. Khosla knew that the plant would benefit from the federal volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC), which at the time was 51¢ per gallon. In addition, because during Phase I the plant will produce only about 20 million gallons of ethanol and methanol per year, it will qualify for the additional 10¢ per gallon small ethanol producer tax credit on the first 15 million gallons a year it produces.

Whether at the time he committed to his investment Mr. Khosla knew about plans by Congress to provide an additional 50¢ per gallon tax credit for each gallon of qualified cellulosic fuel production is anybody's guess. But in the latest Farm Bill, that additional subsidy was included, bringing the total volumetric subsidy for cellulosic ethanol to $1.01 per gallon (or $1.50 per gallon of gasoline equivalent).

(The creation of this additional incentive itself begs the question as to why an even larger subsidy was needed when, at the time the grant for the Range Fuels plant was made, in February 2007, when crude oil was selling for $50/barrel less than it was at the time that the Farm Bill was passed. That is to say, if the plant was expecting to make money when the the price of crude was much lower than it is today, why was a doubling of the volumetric subsidy needed?)

The industry wants it both ways: they boast about how production costs for cellulosic ethanol will soon be below $1.00 per gallon, and at the same time push for -- and obtain -- subsidies that suggest that the real cost will be much, much higher. Could it be that the investors know something we don't -- e.g., that assumptions about bountiful, cheap supplies of cellulosic feedstock could have been wrong?

No, Mr. Miller, people are not sceptics of cellulosic ethanol simply because they fear the competition, but because past, exaggerated claims about biofuels have made people justifiably wary. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

These are only my personal opinions.

I can appreciate that some wariness exists because of exaggerated or unrealized claims regarding biofuels and many other hoped-for alternative energy solutions.

I certainly can't say for certain that cellulosic ethanol will become a viable reality. No one knows for sure, though the mounting evidence is favorable. But there are a few things we do know about biomass and its potential as an energy source.

First, there is a large volume of available biomass that can be readily accessed immediately, as is noted in the posting here: http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=462

Second, ongoing developments in the area of dedicated energy plantations show us a path forward to produce very large volumes of new biomass. The question is not whether this will work (we know how to grow trees in large volumes at low cost), but rather just how high the potential tonnage per acre per year figures can go and what the cost will be of this harvested feedstock.

Third, we know what today's prices are for delivered biomass feedstock, because millions of tons (annually) of wood chips and logs are being delivered regularly throughout the US. This material, when compared to oil, for example, can provide energy at less than 20% the cost of oil... far below solar or wind. The feedstock itself will not increase in value very much in the foreseeable future simply because the supply far exceeds demand. What this means for cellulosic ethanol pricing is not entirely clear, but it's certainly a positive sign.

These are facts that are driving the continued high level of funding by VC's into cellulosic ethanol. Whether CE is the best end use for biomass is still uncertain. One needs to take into account not just the obvious economics, but the potential to displace imported oil and all the benefits that provides (in addition to perhaps tens of thousands of new jobs in rural communities). Add to this the potential for a carbon negative contribution and the case looks more and more compelling.

But won't you have to first prove CCS viability before you can make claims about the efficacy of biofuels?

- Well in the case of CCS not really, because you are working with carbon-neutral, biogenic CO2 (in contrast to the CO2 when derived from fossil fuels).

So any leakage does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

CCS is in a more advanced stage than CSP, for example.

There are now at least 4 working CCS sites. One of them has been working for over a decade.

- In the case of CCCS, there's not much to prove, we have the archaeological record: carbon from more than 5000 years old stored in soils.

I admit that the estimates of the potential for CCCS differ widely. Lehmann and others think that we can take all CO2 added yearly back out of the atmosphere via CCCS. Others see a smaller potential.

But the mitigation potential of CCCS is far bigger than that of all renewables combined.

The land availability argument also would seem to have a large number of hidden assumptions.

Such as?

I think you mean that the land availability studies by the leading scientists all take into account different scenarios (because several factors, like population growth, can not be predicted exactly; hence, they use projections.)

But this is true for all assessments of the future of technologies.

For example, if it is true that rare earth elements like gallium and indium will be depleted by 2017, then the entire PV industry is doomed. Some say 2017, others don't take it that far.

But even the very low range estimates of the land availability, still show there are several hundred EJ worth producing, under the strict sustainability parameters lined out earlier (no deforestation, 10% conservation, meeting all fiber, fodder, forest products and food needs of growing populations).

Jonas,
Would you please quit assuming that

   1. CCS is viable
   2. Carbon fixation for meaningful periods of times MUST involve burning the carbon you're trying to keep from entering the atmosphere.
   3. That there's even enough biomass to go around
   4. That most biofuels reduce emissions at all, once you factor in their land use change "carbon debt", and N2O emissions.

Greyfalcon, not to be annoying, but from what you write, you show, once again, that you have not understood the basics of carbon-negative bioenergy.

I've been with you over this several times. I'm not going to do the effort again. Please check the earlier comments in which I try to explain the kernel of the concept to you.

Carbon negative bioenergy comes in many forms. Combustion is the single least useful one - and in fact, in many carbon-negative energy concepts, it can't be used at all, because it would precisely ruin the carbon capture option. So clearly, you haven't grasped what we are talking about.

There are many other bioconversion forms.

Google for: "bioconversion".

As far as N2O emissions are concerned: biochar has been shown to lower N2O emissions by 5 to 10 fold in Australian highly weathered oxisols. That's why its being increasingly recognized as a key to sustainable agriculture.

All carbon-negative biofuels obviously take CO2 out of the atmosphere, else they wouldn't be called that way. No biggie, I think. If you (as in CCCS) sequester 50% of the C of a biomass feedstock, and use the other half to replace fossil fuels, you obviously go negative. In CCS you can use entirely decarbonized fuels and sequester all the C, that is 100%.

Solar, wind, hydro etc... all remain carbon positive. They add CO2 to the atmosphere.

The advantage of CCCS is that not only the 'carbon debt' is cancelled out, it also cancels out the carbon debt of non-energy farming.

But anyways, it seems like the concept remains too complex for you, because you still assume, entirely wrongly, that combustion is the core of carbon-negative energy, while the exact opposite is true.

Biochar doesn't work for sequestration.  A new study found that the carbon does not stay in the soil.  It is released as CO2.

Wow, this is news. I think the biochar researchers would be highly interested in seeing this study.

Would you care for a link?

I will forward it at once to the biochar research community, who will be, obviously, shocked if this were to be true.

Thanks.

The fact is, government grants, loans and loan guarantees have played a big role in stimulating the investments in cellulosic ethanol so far.

Yes Ron, and we all appreciate your work on this.

But when will your study on the subsidies for wind and solar appear?

These subsidies and support measures in Europe (and I'm sure in the US too), have been at least as high as those for bioenergy, if not higher.

In Germany, the leading green in the EU, subsidies for wind are 35% higher than those for biomass; subsidies for solar are 100% higher than those for biomass.

When will your report on these subsidies appear?

Why single out biofuels?

I think I must agree with RDMiller: there are fundamentalists out there, who refuse to be tech-neutral. They either have stocks in solar companies, or they are being paid by the oil industry to do everything to boycott biomass, knowing that biofuels are the biggest threat to oil.

Seriously, the selective rage against biofuels sometimes looks pathological.

-I expect a study on the subsidies for wind and solar, as compared to those for biomass

-I expect a study on the sustainability of wind and solar, including the social sustainability and the indirect social costs of mining key minerals (which would point to the 5 million dead people in Congo, which have fallen for these industries - but this is kept under the carpet, perhaps because these are mere French-speaking black people.)

-I expect a full study showing how the reliance on wind has been pushing up coal use because wind doesn't provide baseloads (there are small studies about this, I now demand a full study, including one covering China, where this link would be very apparent)

That would be most welcome.

We are not even talking about indirect subsidies, which are once again much, much higher for wind and solar, simply because electricity from these technologies is much much costlier.

The cost of a GWh of electricity from solar PV is still 10 to 20 times higher than a GWh from biomass.

The cost of a GW of heat from wind electricity is up to 10 times higher than a GW from direct biomass heating.

But Ron knows the difference between direct and indirect subsidies better than me, so I'll leave him to work on this.

Looking forward to it.

There are many horror stories out there about rainforest destruction, old-growth logging, clearing forests for biofuels and such. This has created a certain justifiable wariness about utilizing wood and similar feedstocks for energy. But it says nothing about the potential to utilize biomass on a sustainable basis (something being done every day by countless companies around the world).

As I said, though, it's harder to understand the mechanisms, costs and issues involved in biomass production than solar or wind, so too many simply grab onto any of the horror stories and use those as a basis to form a negative opinion about biomass. But this is not "truth"... it's simply becoming comfortable with ignorance and playing it safe. This serves no one.

As someone who has spent years in the field producing biomass sustainably, I know it can be done and I know what the costs are. I know how vast the resource is and I know how much larger it can become.

When folks have an agenda, they'll take a position on something that they have no direct experience with, rather than saying "I just don't know how to evaluate this." I encourage GreyFln, Amazingdrx and others here to consider this.

Regarding subsidies for renewable electricity, my understanding is that your assertion that "These subsidies and support measures [for solar- and wind-based electricity] in Europe (and I'm sure in the US too), have been at least as high as those for bioenergy, if not higher", is true when comparing electricity and heat from biomass, but not liquid fuels from biomass (which is what Joseph Romm is talking about here). Doug Koplow at Earth Track has run these on a per GJ basis.

Why look at subsidies to biofuels? First, because they have become an alternative way for governments to support agriculture. And when there are multilateral trade negotiations going on at the WTO, knowing the size and scope of those subsidies is important.

Second, the subsidies are open-ended, and could balloon to tens of billions of dollars per year in the USA and Europe within a few short years. They are already helping to add tens of billions of dollars to the prices of grains, oilseeds and livestock prices, through competition with food and feed uses.

Third, unlike (or at least to a lesser extent than) solar and wind energy, the subsidies to biofuels are easily capitalized into the value of land. In Iowa, for example, the average price of farmland increased 22% between 2006 and 2007. When that happens, the ability of policy-makers to change course in the light of new information becomes much harder.

Fourth, the way that subsidies to biofuels are being provided largely insulates consumers of those biofuels from the true cost of producing them. That means that, all else equal, drivers do not face the price signals that should be telling them that they need to consume less.

Finally, Jonas, it does not help your arguments to make unfounded claims like the following:

... there are fundamentalists out there, who refuse to be tech-neutral. They either have stocks in solar companies, or they are being paid by the oil industry to do everything to boycott biomass, knowing that biofuels are the biggest threat to oil.

For the record, all my stocks are in mutual funds, and I am not receiving money from the oil industry (or any other industry). I don't see people around here intimating that you own stocks in ADM, Monsanto or Khosla Ventures. So just quit this nonsense, OK?

And, sorry, but biofuels are not "the biggest threat to oil". We have been over this before. Gasoline distributors, for good reason (because the special equipment ethanol requires is expensive) do not particularly like ethanol, at least without a subsidy. But oil companies do like biofuels (and many, like BP and Shell, have invested in them heavily). Since even under the most optimistic assumption, biofuels are going to remain complements to oil for the next several decades, biofuels ensure the maintenance of the status quo: transport based on the internal combustion engine.

No, what makes oil companies break into a sweat is the prospect of electric cars.

These are only my personal opinions.

Also, it is not just production costs that matters, but the opportunity costs of the factors used in production. Studies at Iowa State University have shown that cost of growing switchgrass in the corn belt is low. But, as they convincingly argue, farmers in that region will never grow switchgrass if they can grow corn, because the net returns are higher -- i.e., growing corn and soybeans is the highest-value use of that land.

Similarly, it may be cheap to grow trees and turn them into woodchips. But there is a growing demand on wood resources, including for wood-fired electricity, and only so much land available (unless you are advocating encroaching on national parks and other protected areas). I do not think it can be automatically assumed that the price of biomass today is going to remain constant no matter how large a demand is placed on those resources.

These are only my personal opinions.

Specifically it states that the char doesn't break down, but it promotes the growth of microorganisms that break down existing soil organic matter at an increased rate.  Evidently I was wrong, the char itself does persist.

Your false assumption however, that just because energy is derived from biomass it is automatically carbon negative persists too.  A much more harmfull false assumption behind the whole biofuel farming craze.

Admit your error Jonas.  Rehabilitation of your world view is only a fallacy away.

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

The natural carbon cycle is interupted when biomass, grown on land that naturally would sequester that carbon, is turned into fuel and burned.

It's just that simple.  

On the other hand, biomass that would emit methane into the atmosphere, like manure, sewage, garbage, green crop waste, and cellulose in wetlands exposed to fertilizer or manure run off, turned into biogas and organic fertilizer offsets GHG release by capturing the methane.

This is a plan that will work, you would be better off getting behind it.  Farm, garbage, sewage, biogas/fertilizer production is carbon negative.  Liquid fuel farming is not.

The biogas can be converted into methanol, a liquid fuel, with renewable electricy, but why add the extra inefficiency to the system?  Methane can now be stored with new nano tech storage media at the same denasity and pressure as gasoline.


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

I didn't say cellulosic ethanol is feasible today. I said we're rapidly heading in that direction. But until we get there, subsidies are needed to support research. There are countless examples of this in other areas of energy and elsewhere.

If, instead, we internalized the true costs of burning oil and coal (even nuclear), we probably wouldn't need those subsidies. But this level of intelligence within our government and the powers that be simply doesn't exist.

Whether farmers decide to grow switchgrass, trees or something else instead of food is yet to be seen. Any rational person would hope this doesn't happen. But that's not the point. The point is it's looking like these "crops" can be grown on millions of acres of non-farm land and be profitable. It is this that would be a significant part of the basis for the cellulosic ethanol sector.

While your statement that there is growing demand for woody biomass as a feedstock for energy is true, this demand (today) is only the smallest fraction of supply. One could argue we haven't even dented the supply yet. Of course, it is possible, one day, demand might exceed supply. But this is so far down the road it makes no sense to discuss it now. For the foreseeable future, it is unlikely the cost of delivering energy-grade wood (whether chipped or otherwise) will increase significantly... not when supply exceeds demand by a factor of hundreds (or even thousands... I haven't done the calculation).

Stubborn as ever. Why do you continue to make silly statements that demonstrate your ignorance on specific topics you know little about? Why don't you try... just for a change... saying you're not certain and have a question?

Show me evidence that this statement of yours is true when applied to sustainable forest harvesting practiced under the guidelines of the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)?

"The natural carbon cycle is interrupted when biomass, grown on land that naturally would sequester that carbon, is turned into fuel and burned."

I mean, obviously some kind of natural cycle is interrupted, but I'm assuming you are saying that the effects of the sustainable forestry and energy production process results in a carbon positive problem. Prove this, please.

Nobody here is defending subsidies to nuclear power, coal or oil. And everybody here would agree that the externalities associated with using energy -- of all sorts -- needs to be internalized. But even if one charged, say, a carbon tax of $50 per tonne of CO2-eq on gasoline, that would add only around $0.45 per gallon. If cellulosic ethanol reduced life-cycle CO2 emissions by 85%, its carbon tax would then be around $0.07/GGE. That is a $0.38/GGE difference, not $1.50 (not counting the additional state-level subsidies).

Cellulosic ethanol already has $130 per barrel oil as a benchmark. That won't be enough?

These are only my personal opinions.

The kind of natural cycle?  It is the cycle of biomass turned into GHG, CO2, methane (21x GHG  effect of CO2), nitrous oxide (296x GHG effect of CO2 and so forth, as that biomass either breaks down slowly from biodigestion in the soil or combustion in fires.

And the uptake of these GHG by photosynthesis in plants, that makes more biomass.  In a stable climatic system, the amount of GHG produced and absorbed would be balanced.

In the climate disaster we are now experiencing, human combustion of biomass, in the form of fossil fuels and plant matter and manure, has thrown off the balance.  Furthermore, run off of fertilizer and manure caused by human farming practices has resulted in a rapid bacterial breakdown of carbon stored as biomass in soil and wetlands.

Turning biomass into fuel continues to push the imbalance to the excess GHG side.

Turning biomass, that would release GHG in the form of methane, into biogas and capturing that methane, converting it to an energy source, offsets 20 times the CO2 emission from burning that biogas.

Using organic fertilizer from the biodigestion process to replace nitrous oxide emitting, ever more costly, fossil fuel derived and mined chemical fertilizer, curtails a GHG effect equal to 2/3 of the fertilized crop's GHG uptake.

It's the only carbon negative biomass scheme.  And it's really effective.  Less than 5% of our GHG producing energy coming from biogas derived from waste, would offset the other 95%.  That's a zero carbon footprint.  

Gore's goal for 10 years hence?  It would allow the use of natural gas as a transport fuel.

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

Not nearly good enough. I'm not interested in your rantings. I'm interested in independent confirmation of your viewpoint.

Prove to me, from any scientifically validated source, that using biomass as a fuel when the biomass was harvested sustainably, is a significant contributor to GHG problems.

If you can't prove this, stop saying it.

You seem to be arguing that it's unreasonable to pay substantial subsidies to cellulosic ethanol producers when CE is commercialized and a regular, ongoing production process. I might agree with you, but we're not there yet. Everything happening with CE today is still in the R&D phase, even when we're in the stage of demonstrating that CE is commercially viable. These subsidies are completely appropriate and necessary right now. Down the road, I might well agree with you.

In a dialogue one usually reponds to the points made.  My argument does not rest on an appeal to scientific expertise.  Merely on agreement on the nature of the GHG/carbon cycle we are talking about.  You either recognize this as a correct description of the carbon cycle or you don't.

If you don't, explain where this concept is flawed in such a way as to somehow render biomass to liquid fuel conversion carbon neutral.

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

That is an incredibly weak response, indicating you choose to hold onto an opinion (which you can't back up with documentation) in the face of firm evidence to the contrary.

By DEFINITION, sustainable forestry is sustainable. If you don't understand what this means, read through the hundreds of pages of background info here: http://www.fsc.org

Put simply, if you have an acre with 50 tons of biomass on it and you harvest 10, within 10 years you have 50 tons of biomass there again (because of something called growth). In other words, no contribution of GHG's. More importantly, those who have practiced sustainable forestry know it is quite likely that you'll end up with 55 or 60 tons after ten years, because you've improved the productivity of the forest. Hence, a carbon negative scenario.

There's no argument with this by anyone familiar with sustainable forestry... which is why there's no documentation to support your position.

RDMiller,

I am interested to hear more about your work.

Please share as you might have time.

Thank you for you insightful posts. Just because there are those here who wish to RAG on BTL, does not mean others buy into their RANTS.

It simply means they have their own agenda and seem almost fearful funding might be lost for their own pet projects.

They may have reason to be afraid, as cost
effective green solutions demand meaningful
numbers as well as facts. National security
and independence is also a factor they somehow seem to MISS.

Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor.

Yes, that title (the footer to your post) says a lot. There are few options for rural communities with as much potential as increased use of biomass for energy. Unlike solar and wind (two technologies I fully embrace), biomass-based energy is labor intensive. Unlike coal, oil and natural gas, it is highly decentralized and available in the majority of States. It takes advantage of the kind of skills more common amongst rural people and provides jobs more akin to their lifestyles. It generates and keeps energy dollars local.

Because of historical reasons, the biomass we can take advantage of is already standing in our forests. No need to incur any new costs to plant it; no need to wait for it to grow. The key, though, is to make sure it is harvested sustainably... meaning, remove no more than grows back in a relatively short period of time; create the least disturbance possible; maintain or enhance wildlife and soil quality; and in the case of biomass, remove the diseased, over-crowded and deformed trees. Leave the biggest and best standing.

The volumes available are huge. The cost to extract it is low. And the technologies to use it are varied, giving us heat, electric power or (soon) a replacement for oil which can be used as a transport fuel or to create plastic and many other items typically produced from oil.

Biomass has been competitive with oil for many years... way before solar or wind. But the technology has tended to attract a different crowd of researchers, investors and environmentalists than solar and wind. But that's changing now (though apparently not so for Amazingdrx, GreyFlcn and a few other holdouts here).

I've been working in this sector for about 30 years. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you might have. I maintain a web site (www.thecesite.com) to track who is doing what in the cellulosic ethanol sector. The developments are fascinating and hold much promise.

Please try to read it again, in conjunction with what you know about biochar. You will find that this article proves the effectiveness of biochar, because it demonstrates that char mineralizes organic matter, which is precisely what we want to achieve.

So your earlier statement that biochar itself mineralizes was incorrect, I'm sure you understand that now.

The key to biochar is that it forms a recalcitrant pool of SOM in nutrient-poor soils and frees up the nutrients for plants. Since you sequester biochar in nutrient-poor soils, the stored C is larger than the mineralizable SOM, which gets freed up and made available as nutrients to crops, which is why they tend to grow so much better.

Do you understand this? The recalcitrance of biochar is undisputed (pools of over 5000 years old have been found), your article does not dispute this either.

In short, I thought you were referring to a new article. The one you point to is of key importance to the biochar community, because it confirms what the researchers in that community have painstakingly found in their field trials in nutrient-poor soils.

All my comments to this post are about biofuels in general, that is, including and most importantly, solid biofuels.

logical conclusion time.  If burning biomass is carbon negative, then if all the biomass went up in a firestorm it would actually send us into an ice age.

The more biomass you burn the less CO2 there is in the air, right?  Funny material!!

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

That's why, theoretically, it is not always good to use reforestation as a carbon sink. Because the trees can go up in flames or fall down and rot, becoming CO2 and methane.

It is better to grow biomass, pyrolyse and/or gasify it, decarbonize it, sequester the C, and use the available energy (hydrogen) as a fuel.

Now it is clear that you need some help in understanding carbon-negative bioenergy. Because you like biogas, let's illustrate it with biogas.

Mind you, this is not an optimal route, only for illustrative purposes:

-you know that biogas has a 40 to 30% CO2 content, right? The rest is methane.

-now suppose you were to capture the CO2 so that you only keep pure methane - a 100% methane fuel, made from biomass.

-you capture and sequester the CO2 from the biogas into a geosequestration site.

-so you now have 100% renewable methane to use as fuel, and your carbon has disappeared under the ground.

-you don't have a carbon-negative fuel yet, because you only sequestered 30 to 40% of the fuel as CO2. And when you combust the pure methane, you still release CO2, but this is taken back up by the new crops you have planted. By burning the renewable methane, you displace the CO2 from non-renewable fuels (fossil fuels), so you take that into the balance.

-now if you were to increase the CO2 content of the biogas to 50% or more, and sequester all that CO2, then you come close to a carbon-negative fuel.

Now since methane always contains C, you can not get a strongly carbon-negative fuel.

That's why we only talk about carbon-negative fuels or energy, when the actual fuel used is very hydrogen-rich: either pure hydrogen, as is obtained when biomass is gasified in IGCCs, or biohydrogen made directly via fermentation, or hydrogen-rich syngas that makes up less than 50% of the energy contained in a given biomass feed, with the remainder pyrolysed into C which is then sequestered into soils in a recalcitrant form. An alternative is post-combustion capture of CO2 in traditional biomass fired power plants.

In all these cases, you get a purely carbon-negative fuel (hydrogen) or electricity. And the more you use of it, the more CO2 you remove from the atmosphere.

-Solar, wind, hydro, etc... all add CO2 to the atmosphere over their lifecycle (small amounts in the case of hydro - around 30gKWh; large amounts in the case of solar PV - around 100 to 150 gKWh). Carbon-negative bioenergy can take away up to 1000gKWh. That is: you put a "minus" sign in front of it - "negative emissions".

That's why carbon-negative bioenergy is so radical. It allows you to power societies while at the same time cleaning up the atmosphere.

That's why James Hansen thinks its so important (and he's not an amateur, is he?)

I hope this helps a bit. But if you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

As you say: just burning biomass (as would be the case in forest fires) obviously contributes massive amounts of CO2.

Maybe the following short list of papers can help you understand the concept better:

James S. Rhodes and David W. Keith, "Biomass with capture: negative emissions within social and environmental constraints: an editorial comment" [open access], Climatic Change, Volume 87, Numbers 3-4 / April, 2008, page 321-328, doi: 10.1007/s10584-007-9387-4.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f14824w8v6757nv6/full ...

Peter Read. "Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an editorial essay", Climatic Change, Volume 87, Numbers 3-4 / April, 2008, page 305-320, doi: 10.1007/s10584-007-9356-y.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt798740226381q8/?p=a ...

H. Audus and P. Freund, "Climate Change Mitigation by Biomass Gasificiation Combined with CO2 Capture and Storage", IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme.

http://uregina.ca/ghgt7/PDF/papers/peer/440.pdf

James S. Rhodesa and David W. Keithb, "Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage", Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 29, Issue 6, December 2005, Pages 440-450.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ ...

Noim Uddin and Leonardo Barreto, "Biomass-fired cogeneration systems with CO2 capture and storage", Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 6, May 2007, Pages 1006-1019, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2006.04.009

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_ ...

Christian Azar, Kristian Lindgren, Eric Larson and Kenneth Möllersten, "Carbon Capture and Storage From Fossil Fuels and Biomass - Costs and Potential Role in Stabilizing the Atmosphere", Climatic Change, Volume 74, Numbers 1-3 / January, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w30h4274h130580u/

Peter Read and Jonathan Lermit, "Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage (BECS): a Sequential Decision Approach to the threat of Abrupt Climate Change", Energy, Volume 30, Issue 14, November 2005, Pages 2654-2671.

http://www.etsap.org/worksh_6_2003/2003P_read.pdf

Stefan Grönkvist, Kenneth Möllersten, Kim Pingoud, "Equal Opportunity for Biomass in Greenhouse Gas Accounting of CO2 Capture and Storage: A Step Towards More Cost-Effective Climate Change Mitigation Regimes", Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 11, Numbers 5-6 / September, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s11027-006-9034-9

http://www.springerlink.com/content/jpq486888v4767q5/

Burn, baby, burn.  Cure GHG disaster instantly!

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

The only thing amazing about you is your decision to believe only what you want to believe in the face of compelling information otherwise. Your responses continue to border on the absurd. If this is what I am to expect from Gristmill, I'll not come here often. This is amateur play and it's what gives environmentalists a bad reputation. You serve no one with your responses... especially the Earth.

When a forest burns, it combusts, and leaves behind ash, gas and 1 to 2% char. That's the nature of combustion.

Why else do you think the environmental community is so heavily against the burning of tropical rainforests? Why do you think deforestation through burning is such a big contributor to climate change (20% of all global emissions)?

Biochar exactly halts this phenomenon, because it depends not on wild combustion, but on controlled slow pyrolysis, leaving behind 50% char and gases used to replace fossil fuels.

Now please stop the embarrasing exposure of your ignorance.

-what's the 'carbon debt' of a reforestation effort?

-and should all reforestation efforts be banned?

And by using that waste stream biomass to produce biogas and organic fertilizer, more than 20 times more natural gas use can be offset.  Making a zero carbon footprint possible much sooner, maybe in the 10 year time frame Gore is proposing.

Pyrolysis does not provide fertilizer, it sends vital organic nutrients up the smoke stack to pollute the atmosphere.  It does not offset other combustion related GHG, like biogas can.  

Woodgas from pyrolysis burned to produce energy gives off GHG.  The addition of the char to soil increases organic matter conversion into GHG, canceling the purported offset activity of char.

Biogas from waste prevents methane and nitrous oxide release now occuring due to human intervention in the natural carbon cycle.  Thus offsetting over 20 times the amount of GHG it releases.

Wood gas or biogas or natural gas, it should only be used in solid oxide fuel cell/turbine cogeneration at 70%+ efficiency, that should be an eventual goal.  Replacing present ICE, turbine, and steam turbine power sources, for the grid and vehicles with these fuel cells.

Chemical ag to grow biomass to burn, directly or as fuel is a dangerous diversion from real solutions.

Another great Gore interview on "Meet the Press"!  Al says it, we have to move all our energy use to renewables and renewable electricity, electric vehicles.  

No more fakery from ethanol, biodeisel biofuel farming lobbyists and politicians, bribed by pork barrel industries.

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

But there's good news on the horizon. The 9th Circuit Court judges have made a huge public step away from "judging" the science of the Forest Service. This just might open the door for fuels reduction projects to go forward, instead of being litigated to death.

It's time to stop "denying" that our forests need hands-on management to recover, or even survive.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Are you not aware that Mr. Gore is part of two firms that continue to make substantial investments in cellulosic ethanol? Seems he thinks it's a good idea as well. But you fail to mention this.

And in answer to your question, "Is anyone still talking about liquid biofuels, really? I thought that debate was over." Hardly! For one, that is the focus of this string. Second, countries and states such as Louisiana, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are still enacting mandates for liquid biofuels. The interest groups behind these fuels are still very strong!

These are only my personal opinions.

You seem to be arguing that it's unreasonable to pay substantial subsidies to cellulosic ethanol producers when CE is commercialized and a regular, ongoing production process. I might agree with you, but we're not there yet. Everything happening with CE today is still in the R&D phase, even when we're in the stage of demonstrating that CE is commercially viable. These subsidies are completely appropriate and necessary right now. Down the road, I might well agree with you.

First of all, RD, I'm trying to get those who talk up CE to be consistent. At the beginning of this string, you spoke of "the viability of cellulosic ethanol" and about new cellulosic-ethanol facilities "being built at an increasingly faster pace to demonstrate both advancements in the technology, as well as commercial viability."

If one requires large subsidies to build a plant, and then to produce the fuel once the plant is up and running, in my book that is not "demonstrating ... commercial viability." Vinod Khosla talks about cellulosic ethanol as if it will be commercially viable by next year.

Cellulosic ethanol is no different, chemically, than corn ethanol or sugar ethanol, and needs no help from government to show that it can be used as a fuel. (That was demonstrated by Henry Ford a long time ago.) So what, other than meaning price competitive with gasoline, do you all mean by "commercially viable"?

So, basically, what will be demonstrated is that if you throw enough money at a technology, you will produce something. Gee.

I come back to my earlier question: if cellulosic ethanol was viable in February 2007 (when the DOE grants were given for most of the current demonstration plants) at $70 barrel oil and an excise tax credit of $0.51/gallon, why, only a bit more than a year later, when the price of a barrel of crude oil is $130 does it need a subsidy of $1.01/gallon?

Other countries that have provided subsidies for cellulosic ethanol, like Canada, have at least scheduled their subsidy rate to decline over time, have limited the total amount that can be provided over the life of the program, and have included a formula to reduce the per-unit subsidy rate if the price of crude oil rises.

The U.S. federal subsidy for cellulosic ethanol has none of those characteristics. So is $1.01/gallon exactly the right level, in your opinion? If the price of crude oil rises to $200 per barrel will it still be exactly the right level?

And when do you expect the subsidy will no longer be needed?

NB: corn ethanol has continued to be subsidized, without interruption, for 30 years.

These are only my personal opinions.

It may well turn out that cellulosic ethanol is best used as a replacement for oil in the production of virtually all the products we now get from oil... plastic, in particular. It may well turn out that ultimately, solar and wind are better sources for electricity than direct burning of biomass. And certainly, it will almost never be the case that conversion of rainforests, productive farmland, or even many grasslands over to "energy plantations" is a good thing. But we're not going to get from HERE to THERE in the short term.

In the short term, CE will be used to offset transportation fuels, because it's better to use biomass for this than oil. When cars get converted to electric technology, this use for CE will end.

In the short term, biomass will be directly burned to produce electricity and space heating. When solar, wind and other sources are pervasive throughout the U.S. and can produce electric power for these applications at a cheaper cost, biomass will phase out of this application and be used otherwise.

These are realities, and if folks like Amazingdrx don't understand this, then nothing they say can be taken seriously. Short term alternatives to oil and coal are necessary. Sustainably-harvested biomass is one of those.

The issue with cellulosic ethanol right now is that there are at least 10 different approaches to producing it, and no one knows for certain which will work and which will work best. This is the primary reasons subsidies are needed. This kind of research needs to take place. Everyone will be ultimately well served by it. But it is very risky (and expensive) for investors. They won't take these risks without help from the government.

Once one or two processes are shown to work well, I believe the subsidies should be (and will be) phased out fairly quickly.

e.g.

1. The target of conserving 10% of the planet's surface as 'natural' in order to conserve wild biodiversity (a target set by some conservation organisations many years ago) is nowhere near sufficient to do that job. We need far, far more. ML Rosenzweig and others demonstrated this a long time ago. Before you carry on making asses of yourselves by saying we have enough land to produce biofuels and all the other stuff we need as well as conserve the world's wild species, do yourselves a favour and get a rudimentary understanding of island biogeography, species-area curves and so on into your heads. Hint: Start with figuring out the concept of 'zombie species'. Once you've done that, we can have a sensible discussion.

2. Have you guys even vaguely thought about the value of crop and timber 'waste' in terms of sustainable agriculture/forestry? Do you have the foggiest clue what it does to soil systems to remove all this stuff from the cycle, or change it's form before putting it back? Again, once you've demonstrated that you do - and you haven't - we can talk further.

3. Dead, bent, diseased and otherwise 'unhealthy' trees have huge and very important roles to play in just about every ecosystem, and not just because they give certain saprophytic fungi something to do. A study I've seen shows bird diversity dropping by about a third in sample plots in African savannas from which all dead wood was removed. Get beyond Pinchot - he had no real understanding of biodiversity.

4. Forests are not the only ecosystems that matter. One of the major loopholes in the EU 'sustainability standards' for biofuels is that they play into the public perceptions that ploughing up grasslands and semi-arid areas and so on is OK (unless they've been identified as being special or conserved as national parks - which in many countries will not happen) because you're not knocking down big trees. Many non-forest ecosystems are in bigger trouble than forests.

Whiskerfish

Not sure which mud hole you've been swimming in, but you do realize the positions and statements you have made are in direct opposition to those of every major environmental group in the world, including WWF, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace and others. All of these support the principles and activities of the Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org) and the concept of sustainable forestry (NOT the conventional timber industry... there's a huge difference). Either you disagree with those groups and the FSC or you just didn't read through my postings. Which is it?

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but you still have not answered my question why, in February 2007, when crude oil was selling at $70 per barrel and the tax credit was $0.51/gallon, these plants went ahaead, but in May 2008, when crude oil was selling at above $120 per barrel, Congress thought it necessary to boost that subsidy by an additional $0.50, to a total of $1.01/gallon.

That is pertinent to your comment that:

Once one or two processes are shown to work well, I believe the subsidies should be (and will be) phased out fairly quickly. [My emphasis]

Where is your evidence to provide us with any degree of confidence that will be the case?

Again, I offer as counter-evidence: corn ethanol has been subsidized for 30 years. In 2006, when the price of oil was $60/barrel, the industry was crowing that it didn't need subsidies and could in fact compete with gasoline at $40/barrel. Now we are at $130/barrel, evidence is everywhere that biofuels are a major, if not the main factor contributing to the rise in the prices of food grains and oilseeds, and at the most Congress was willing to do was reduce the subsidy (starting next year) from $0.51 to $0.46 per gallon, and then only so that it could find money to boost the subsidy for cellulosic ethanol.

With a track record like that, can you blame people for being skeptical?

These are only my personal opinions.

I hear your frustration with the subsidy situation. Government supports have been all over the place over the years regarding many alternative energy endeavors, as well as other non-energy ventures. I share a lot of your frustration and agree "fairness" and appropriateness don't seem to be part of the equation.

We'll just have to see what happens.

Rapidly escalating prices for production inputs already place corn ethanol in an economic squeeze even with the subsidies.  These prices could easily spiral out of control reducing the profitability of corn growers as well as the ethanol plants.  Many planned ethanol projects were dropped this year with the rising corn prices as well as higher prices for steel and other construction materials.  

Also, we may have dodged a bullet with the midwest floods that have lowered production somewhat.  But in the event of a major drought in the Midwest that could greatly lower production then the corn ethanol industry would basically have to shut their doors for at least a year.  I imagine Congress would foot the bill for a major bailout should something like this happen.  

Corn ethanol will continue to "farm the government" for a long time to come.  They have their hat in the ring as a transition to cellulosic and they will hang on this to the end. That giant sucking noise we hear is right out my front window (and I have to admit, in my freaking fuel tanks).  

All this crap about biofuels being a solution to global warming is just propaganda.  Re the transportation aspect of global warming, the only solution is to drive a lot less, ship a lot less, and change the remaining vehicles to electric ones that are powered by solar cells and wind generators.  This is again why I and some others have said ad nauseam that without reducing consumption, none of these ecological problems can be solved.