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

1

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

Cropland

Grazing LandFishing

ForestBuilt-up

Energy

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96Year

Bill

ion

glo

ba

l he

ctar

es

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Nu

mb

er

of

Ea

rth

s

Wackernagel et al., 2002

PopulationAssumedFootprint

Numberof Earths

1995 1995 1.31995 India 0.291995 Denmark 2.41995 USA 3.72 x 1995 Denmark 4.8

Wackernagel & Rees, 1996

2

The first industrial revolution

The second industrial revolutionResources scarce, people plentifulContext

Context Resources plentiful, people scarceResponse

Dramatic increases in

Resource consumption per capitaFraction of energy supply from non-sustainable sources (~0 to 80% higher)

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

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

Population

Response

Dramatic increases inResource productivity (service/resource invested)Fraction of energy supply from sustainable resources

Population stabilization (appears to be happening)

The Next Industrial Revolution?*

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

3 Sole Supply

SustainableResources

Sunlight

Wind

Ocean/hydro

Geothermal

Nuclear

Minerals

Food

HumanNeeds

EnergyMotors/Lights

Heat

Transport.

Materials

Organic

Inorganic

Primary Intermediates

Biomass

Electricity

Secondary Intermediates

Hydrogen

Animals

OrganicFuels

Batteries

Choices

Imagining a Sustainable World

The Environment

Water Soil Wildlife habitat/biodiversity

Air ClimateNutrientcycles

4

Hazard of driving with the low beams on

5

Prospects for Achieving Large Sustainability & Security Benefits via Biomass-Based Processes

Workshop on the Economic and EnvironmentalImpacts of Bio-Based Production

Chicago, IllinoisJune 8, 2004

Lee Lynd

Thayer School of EngineeringDartmouth College

• 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

6

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

Sponsors• Department of Energy • The Energy Foundation• National Commission on Energy Policy

ObjectivesIdentify & evaluate paths by which biomass can make a large contributionto future demand for energy services.

Determine what can be done to accelerate biomass energy use and in whattimeframe associated benefits can be realized.

7

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

Task Task 1. Biomass production a. Technology analysis b. Environmental evaluationTasks 2&3. Biomass power & biofuels a. Technology analysis b. Mobility chains c. Environmental evaluationTask 4. Coproduct analysis a. Technology analysis b. Environmental evaluationTask 5. Biomass Resource Sufficiency a. Sufficiency analysis b. Environmental evaluation

Task 6. Transition DynamicsTask 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

8

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

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

Diversity of participants

• 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.

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

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

9

Life Cycle Issues

€

Net Benefits (+or−) = BenefitsUnit Utilized

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎟ ×Units Utilized⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠

• Net fossil fuel displacement (kg FFE displaced/kg product)

< 0: no benefit

> 1: large benefits

One figure of merit

• Seek to develop a product non-specificframework to glean general insights

Whether large (per unit)fossil fuel displacement can be achieved

Upon what this depends

10

BiomassProduction

Process

PrimaryProduct

Coproducts& TreatedEffluents

Activation(wet milling,pretreatment,hydrolysis,gasification)

BiologicalConversion

ProductRecovery

Utilities & ResidueProcessing

EnergySupply

LCA Framework for analysis of biologically-based processes

A CPA PF PPR

D

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

11

Utility of DP* (benefits of approximation)

Gain general insights into the importance of feedstock & process features

Fossil fuel displacement: The whole story

€

D P = ηD - 1

YP/FC

A + PA - CYFC/B

+ PF + PPR

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠ ⎟ = ηD -

NYP/FC

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)

Fossil fuel displacement: Most of the story

€

D P* = 1 -

1YP/FC

A + PA - CYFC/B

+ PF

⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠ ⎟ = 1 -

N -PR

YP/FC

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

Screen processes in the absence of product-specific information

Rapidly incorporate product-specific information into an existing rubric

12

Summary of Scenarios and Corresponding Parameter Values

Scenario

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

A PA PF C N-PR

Corn 1. Aerobic, no residue utilization 0.0648 0.0943 0.238 0.0308 0.403 (0% stover used) 2. Aerobic, current rotation 0.0648 0.0943 0.238 0.119 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. Aerobic, advanced 0.0190 0 0.192 0.114 0.0613 3. Anaerobic, base case 0.0190 0 0.0071 0.0849 -0.107

Lynd & Wang (JIE 04).

4. Anaerobic, advanced 0.0190 0 0.0071 0.114 -0.124

13

1. Aerobic, no stover utilization (0%)

2. Aerobic, current rotation (13%)

3. Aerobic, high recovery (46%)

4. Anaerobic, no stover utilization (0%)

5. Anaerobic, current rotation (13%)

6. Anaerobic, high recovery (46%)

1. Aerobic, base case 2. Aerobic, advanced

3. Anaerobic, base case

4. Anaerobic, advanced

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Dp*

or

Dp

(kg

FF

E/k

g p

rod

uct

)

12

3

4

5

6

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1YP/FC

1

4

3

2

PHA, D = 1, withproduct recovery

Corn Cellulosic

EtOH, D = 0.78, with product recovery

YP/FC

Numbers in parenthesis refer to % corn stover utilized

14

Fossil Fuel Displacement via Biologically-Based Processes (kg fossil fuel/kg product)

Fostered byFeedstock

Cellulosic

Corn with residue recovery and compatible harvest methods

Process

High product yield

Anaerobic rather than aerobic processing

Reasonable energy requirements for product recovery

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

15

Resource Issues

€

Net Benefits (+or−) = BenefitsUnit Utilized

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎟ ×Units Utilized⎛

⎝ ⎜ ⎞

⎠

• How big a role couldbiomass play in meeting these challenges?

Matching the scale of challenges & solutions

• Origin of sustainability & security challenges

What do we need to impact?

16

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0

Ann

ual U

.S. C

onsu

mpt

ion

(mil

lion

s of

sho

rt to

ns)

(Qua

dril

lion

BT

U/y

r)

Fos

sil F

uel f

or E

lect

rici

ty1,

081

27

Ani

mal

Fee

d50

5

8 347

6L

umbe

r, P

ulp,

and

Ply

woo

d

68 2O

rgan

ic C

hem

ical

s an

d P

olym

ers

35 1A

nnua

l Gro

wth

in F

ossi

l Fue

ls

Market Sizes for Categories of Products Potentially Derived from Biomass

Fos

sil F

uel f

orE

lect

rici

ty +

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

1,74

7

51

Energy (MM Short Ton)Energy (Quad BTU)

Non-Energy (MM Short Ton)Non-Energy (Quad BTU)

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 shippingAnnual fossil fuel growth = average from 1992 to 2002Animal feed mass expressed in units of corn equivalents; corn kernel LHV ≈ 8,000 BTU/lbTimber products LHV ≈ 8,000 BTU/lbOrganic chemicals LHV (ave) ≈ 18,000 BTU/lbPrimary organics include ethylene, propylene, methanol, benzene, toluene, 1,3-butadiene, and o-xylenePrimary organic chemicals used as polymer feedstock ≈ 46 MM ton/yr (assumes stoichiometric yields)

Sources:Fossil fuels: 2002 data, EIATransportation fuels: 2001 data, BTSAnimal feed: 2002 data, USDA-NASSTimber products: 2002 data, USDA-NASSOrganic Chemicals: 2000 data, C&EN, CMRPolymers: 2003 data, APC

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fue

ls66

6 [4

59 L

DV

; 207

oth

er]

23 [1

6 L

DV

; 7 o

ther

]

Net

Pet

role

um I

mpo

rts

570 20

17

Biomass - A Credible Solution to Mega Challenges?

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

If this were to changeWould provide a rationale for shifting into a new gear.

18

Approaches to Energy Planning & Analysis

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.

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

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

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

19

How big a contribution could biomass make?

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

• 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).

• 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).

Key variables impacting availability of biomass for non-food uses

Biomass productivity (tons/acre*yr)

Vehicle efficiency (miles/gallon)

Land use

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

• 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).

Food production efficiency (calories, protein/acre)

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

20

Pro

duct

ivit

y (t

ons/

acre

*yr) P

roductivity (Mg/ha*yr)

22

11

2

4

6

8

10

12

Cellulosic biomass (Pimentel group)

Corn kernels, US ave.

Corn - above-ground, US ave.

Switchgrass or short rotation forestry, simulated commercial ave., now

Switchgrass, projected 20-30 yr ave.

Biomass Productivity

Future productivity important for evaluating feasibility of large-scale bioenergy

Relatively little effort put into development of high-productivity crops, cropping systemsfor cellulosic biomass

If increasing the BTU productivity of cellulosic energy crops received an effortcomparable to that invested in increasing the productivity of corn kernels, what would be reasonable to expect?

Switchgrass, mature

21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6

Vehicle Efficiency Multiplier

Land Area (Millions of Acres)

Without Residue Utilization

With Residue Utilization

Idled by federal programs, mid 80s-mid 90s

CRP

Land used for animal feed

•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

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

22

Scenario High efficiency vehicles compensate for…

Difficult to imagine a sustainable transportation sector without it

Biomass/fuel (several) Otherwise large land requirement

Renewable power/batteries Otherwise low travel radius

Renewable power/H2 Otherwise low travel radius

High Vehicle EfficiencyPossible (2020 estimates from Friedman, 2003)

Today: ‘04 Prius (mid-size), 56 mpg

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

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

Fleet average: 50 to 60 mpg.

DesirableDirect: Reduces GHG emissions, oil imports & depletion rate.Indirect: Increases the feasibility of alternatives to petroleum

Implicit in transportation scenarios featuring energy storage as H2

23

Food Production Efficiency: Some Observations

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.

Farmers would rethink what they plant.

However, demand for cellulosic feedstocks due to cost-competitive processing technology would very likely result in large changes in food production.

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

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

24

Integrated Production of Processing Feedstocks and Feed Protein

• 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

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

• Requires readily foreseeable processing technology to recover feed protein

Switchgrass Protein Recovery/

(& Pretreatment)

Fuels/Chemicals

Feed ProteinConcept

0.40 – 0.450.36 (bean only)1.1 – 1.3Soybeans

0.4 – 1.2.08 -0.12 (early cut)5.0 – 10 Switchgrass

Protein Productivity(tons/acre/year)

Protein (Mass Fraction)

Mass Productivity(tons/acre/year)

Crop

Composition & productivity comparison

Processing

25

The Availability of Biomass for Non-Food Uses is a Much MoreElastic Quantity Than Usually Assumed

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/distribution x nutrition/person x acres/nutrition

Driving habits,demography

1 .Vehicle Efficiency

1 .Conversion Efficiency

Allowance for residues

1 .Ag. Productivity

Sustainableland base, w/allowance for nature

Distributional losses

Calories, protein per person

1 . Nutritional Productivity

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

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

= 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

26

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

Fleet mpg

Biomass Productivity tons/acre*year [Mg/ha*yr]

IntegratedFeed/Feedstock Coproduction

Additional Land*

Million Acres [ha]

a. Status quo 5 [11] 20 No 360** [146]

Scenario

* 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)

Calibration points

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)

b. High productivity 10 [22] 20 No 180 [73] c. (b + high mileage) 10 [22] 55 No 72 [29]d. “Motivated” 10 [22] 55 Yes Near zero

27

Features of RBAEF Mature Technology Scenarios

Feedstock production

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

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

Follow-on work on other feedstocks to be proposed

Biological processing

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

28

Hazards of driving with the low beams on

29

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


30

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


while avoiding invalid comparison

31

100%

(Bio

mas

s L

HV

)

Pre

trea

tmen

t

99%

Bio

logi

cal C

onve

rsio

n

98%

Sep

arat

ion

56%Ethanol

41%Residues

Complementarity of Biological & Thermochemical Processing

13% Process Steam

3% Process Power

Ethanol Production

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

32

100%Biomass

Gas

ific

atio

n

Gas

Cle

an-U

p

DM

E S

ynth

esis

& D

isti

llat

ion

DME Production

85%

85%

25% DME

GTCCPower

25% Power

50% Waste Heat



33

100%

(Bio

mas

s L

HV

)

Pre

trea

tmen

t

99%

Bio

logi

cal C

onve

rsio

n

98%

Sep

arat

ion

56%Ethanol

41%Residues

13% Process Steam

Ethanol Production

3% Process Power

41%Residues

Gas

ific

atio

n

Gas

Cle

an-U

p

DM

E S

ynth

esis

& D

isti

llat

ion

DME Production

35%

35%

11% DME

GTCCPower

5% Power



34

Energy Input

Oil

Ref

inin

g

Energy O

utput

External Energy Input

Internal Energy Input

Energy Output

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%

% o

f F

eed

stoc

k L

HV

Energy Output:Input Ratios Increase with Maturity

Cu

rren

t C

ellu

losi

c E

than

ol

Ad

v. E

than

ol (

B)/

Ste

am d

ryin

g/F

T f

uel

s

Cor

n E

than

ol

Ad

v. E

than

ol/

H2

Ad

v. E

than

ol (

A)/

Ran

kin

e P

ower

AFEXCBP

No evaporation

Ad

v. E

than

ol (

B)/

Ran

kin

e P

ower

IHOSRDistillation

Ad

v. E

than

ol (

B)/

GT

CC

Pow

er

GTCCPower

Ad

v. E

than

ol (

B)/

Ste

am d

ryin

g/G

TC

C

Integrated SteamDrying of Residue


35

Co-Production Process Efficiencies E

nerg

y Y

ield

(%

of

feed

stoc

k L

HV

)

10%

20%

30%

40%50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ethanol

Electricity

TCF

Hydrogen

Power

50%

EtOH +Power

56%

18%

74%

FT liquids +Power

48%

4%

52%19%

EtOH +FT fuels

56%

75%

EtOH +H2

56%

24%

80%

60%

H2

Gasoline (38%)Diesel (21%)Jet Fuel (9%)Residual Fuel Oil (5%)Coke (4%)

Still Gas (4%)Liquefied Gases (3%)Chemical Feedstocks (2%)Other (2%)

88%

PetroleumRefining

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

Petroleum product yields: API

Product energy densities: EIA


56%

11%5%

72%

EtOH +DME

DME +Power

25%

25%

50%

36

Potential for Multi-Sector ImpactP

erce

nt o

f D

eman

d D

ispl

acem

ent

(Ass

umin

g 10

0% L

DV

Dis

plac

emen

t)

10

20

30

4050

60

70

80

90

100

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]

LDF +HDF +

(FT liquids)

100%

77% (HDF, Total)

120% (HDF, Vehicular)

LDV

Electricity

HDV

EtOH (LDF) +Power

100%

45%

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


37

$500 $1,000 $1,500$0

Switchgrass (10 tpa 2-cut) $1,216

Switchgrass (10 tpa 1-cut) $936

Switchgrass (5 tpa 2-cut) $608

Switchgrass (5 tpa, 1-cut) $468

Corn + Stover $873

Corn $754

Soybeans $374

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

Corn Gluten Feed ($0.03/lb)

Corn Gluten Meal ($0.12/lb)

Ethanol ($0.10/lb)

Protein ($0.33/lb)

Electricity ($0.04/kwh)

HFCS ($0.13/lb)

Dextrose ($0.20/lb)

Corn Starch ($0.13/lb)

Product Value ($/Acre)Crop Yield

(ton/acre)Corn 4.0

Corn Stover 2.0

Soybeans 1.1

SWG (base) 4.9

SWG (advanced) 9.8

Product Value per Acre

Notes:Switchgrass protein recovery assumed to be 80%2-cut switchgrass assumes 67% of total yield harvested in early cutCorn + stover scenario assumes 50% stover collectedEthanol price assumed to be $0.64/gallon (energy equivalent of gasoline at $1.00/gallon)

Sources:Corn yield: 2002 U.S. average, USDA-NASSCorn product yields: CRAHCFS, glucose, and dextrose prices: 2003 U.S. average, Milling & Baking NewsStarch, CGF, CGM prices: 2002 average, USDA Feed Situation and Outlook Yearbook, 2003Corn oil price: 2002 average, USDA Oil Crops Situation and Outlook, 2003Soybean yield: 2002 U.S. average, USDA—NASSSoy product yields: 2002 U.S. average, USDA Oil Crops Situation and Outlook, 2003Soy oil and protein prices: March 2004, Chicago Board of Trade In-progress analysis, numbers not finalized & may change.

38

Flows are tonnes of carbon per hectare per year Soil carbon: McLaughlin et al., 2002 Processing: In-progress RBAEF analysis

Conversion5.56

Soil Carbon Reservoir

1.0

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

End Use

2.47

Photosynthesis

6.56

Atmospheric CO2

Power

3.09

Ethanol 2.05

TCF 0.42

0.43

0.19Fossil Carbon Reservoir

2.08X

X

X

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

Soil(sequestered, 27%)

TCF(avoided, 11.5%)

Ethanol(avoided, 56.3%)

Power(avoided, 5.1%)

39

Finding Common Interest with the Environmental Community

The environmental community has generally been largely ambivalentrelative to biomass energy and biobased industrial products.

Two of the largest environmental advocacy organizations are involvedNatural Resources Defense Council - Nathanael Greene

Union of Concerned Scientists - Jason Mark

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

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

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

40

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 20500

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bil

lio

ns

of

Gal

lon

s o

f G

aso

lin

e E

qu

iv.

Gasoline

Savings due to efficiency

Cellulosic ethanol

An Evolving Vision for Long-Term ImpactNathanael Greene, NRDC (Draft)

Incorporates: UCS Aggressive MPG Increase ScenarioDoes not incorporate: VMT reduction

41

Life Cycle Issues (Benefits/Unit)• Very large fossil fuel displacement can be achieved by some biomass-based products

• A product non-specific framework identifiesfeedstock, process, product features that foster this outcome

• Near zero net greenhouse gas emissions formany bioenergy scenarios

Resource Issues (Units)Challenging, even with positive per acre effects

• 100-fold less erosion

Perennial grass compared to row crops

• 7 to 10-fold less herbicides, pesticides

• 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 requirementscould be met from biomasswithin existing ag land base

• Requires innovation & change,efficient resource utilization

Crops & feedstock production

ProcessingUtilization (vehicles)

Agricultural integration

… not the path we are on butthe only sensible way to pursuea sustainable & secure future

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

Documents

biomass energy use

energy services

fraction of energy supply

biomass production

role of biomass

biomass resource sufficiency

energy policy objectives

technology analysis