Awake at the Wheel

Biodiesel and Marine Use: Boats, Shipping, & Ferries.  Learn what boaters need to know about using biodiesel.  What’s happening with the ferries using biodiesel again?  What’s the scoop on biodiesel use in cruise ships and commercial shipping? Why is biodiesel use especially important on our waters?  Speakers include Barbara Cole with the Port of Seattle and Paul Brodeur with Washington State Ferries.  Get your questions answered!  7:00 pm to 9:00 pm, Seattle Phinney Center, 6532 Phinney Ave. N, Seattle WA 98103. Cost is Free.  Information at www.nwbiodiesel.org/.

Are you a CleanDrive member? If so, you are at the forefront of a movement towards tracking and monitoring you carbon footprint. A recent New York Times article discusses how visibility into our carbon output will become a part of our lives, and influence behavior for the better. From thermostat price monitors, to eco-mood jewelry – the article outlines several ways carbon savings, or lack thereof, will be worn on our sleeve. Have a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25tier.html?ex=1207108800&en=30d6236cc4c256da&ei=5070&emc=eta1

So if you haven’t already, register for CleanDrive and be at the head of the carbon tracking revolution. Review you report with your family, or show your customers. It’s a powerful thing to see how your choice to use biodiesel is making a change for the better. Combined the Propel community has saved nearly 1 million pounds of CO2. Now that’s powerful.

Register for CleanDrive: http://propelbiofuels.com/content/cleandrive/

Check your CleanDrive account: https://www.propelbiofuels.com/site/clean/login.htm

Michael Wang of Argonne’s Transportation Technology R&D Center and Zia Haq of the Department of Energy’s Office of Biomass respond to the article by Searchinger et al. in the February 7, 2008, Sciencexpress, “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change”

______________________________

Letter to Science

Michael Wang

Center for Transportation Research

Argonne National Laboratory

Zia Haq

Office of Biomass Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy

The article by Searchinger et al. in Sciencexpress (”Use of U.S.

Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change,” February 7, 200 provides a timely discussion of fuel ethanol’s effects on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when taking into account GHG emissions from potential land use changes induced by ethanol production.

Land use change issues associated with biofuels were explored in life-cycle analyses beginning in early 1990s (Delucchi 1991). In general, the land use changes that occur as a result of biofuel production can be separated into two categories: direct and indirect.

Direct land use changes involve direct displacement of land for farming of the feedstocks needed for biofuel production. Indirect land use changes are those made to accommodate farming of food commodities in other places in order to maintain the global food supply and demand balance.

Searchinger et al. used the GREET model developed by one of us at Argonne National Laboratory in their study (see Wang 1999). They correctly stated that the GREET model includes GHG emissions from direct land use changes associated with corn ethanol production; the emissions estimates in GREET are based on land use changes modeled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1999 for an annual production of 4 billion gallons of corn ethanol in the United States by 2010. Needless to say, the ethanol production level simulated by USDA in 1999 has been far exceeded by actual ethanol production - about 6 billion gallons in

2007 (Renewable Fuels Association 2008). Thus, the resultant GHG emissions from land use changes provided in the current GREET version need to be updated. Argonne, and several other organizations, recently began to address both direct and indirect land use changes associated with future, much-expanded U.S. biofuel production. Such an effort requires expansion and use of general equilibrium models at the global scale.

Many critical factors determine GHG emission outcomes of land use changes. First, we need to clearly define a baseline for global food supply and demand and cropland availability without the U.S. biofuel program. It is not clear to us what baseline Searchinger et al. defined in their modeling study.

Searchinger et al. modeled a case in which U.S. corn ethanol production increased from 15 billion gallons a year to 30 billion gallons a year by 2015. However, in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress established an annual corn ethanol production cap of 15 billion gallons by 2015. Congress established the cap - based on its awareness of the resource limitations for corn ethanol production - to help prevent dramatic land use changes. Thus, Searchinger et al. examined a corn ethanol production case that is not directly relevant to U.S. corn ethanol production in the next seven years.

Corn yield per acre is a key factor in determining the total amount of land needed for a given level of corn ethanol production. It is worth noting that U.S. corn yield per acre has steadily increased - nearly 800% in the past 100 years (Perlack et al. 2005). Between 1980 (the beginning of the U.S. corn ethanol program) and 2006, per-acre corn yield in the United States has increased at an annual rate of 1.6% (Wang et al. 2007). Seed companies are developing better corn seeds that resist drought and pests and use nitrogen more efficiently. Corn yield could increase at an annual rate of 2% between now and 2020 and beyond (Korves 2007). Despite these trends, Searchinger et al. used a constant corn yield, assuming that low yields from corn fields converted from marginal land would offset increased yields in existing corn fields. A more accurate approach would be to use the increased yields in existing corn fields, determine how much additional land was required for corn farming in the United States, and then use the corresponding yield of the new corn fields (some of which could be converted from marginal land). Searchinger et al. further assumed constant corn yield in other countries, many of which have lower corn yields and, consequently, greater potential for increased yields.

Searchinger et al. also assumed that distillers’ grains and solubles

(DGS) from corn ethanol plants would displace corn on a pound-for-pound basis. The one-to-one displacement ratio between DGS and corn fails to recognize that the protein content of DGS is much higher than that of corn (28% vs. 9%). The actual displacement value of DGS is estimated to be at least 23% higher than that assumed by Searchinger et al.

(Klopfenstein et al. 2008).

Searchinger et al. estimated that U.S. corn ethanol production (between

15 billion and 30 billion gallons) would result in an additional 10.8 million hectares of crop land worldwide: 2.8 million hectares in Brazil, 2.3 million hectares in China and India, and 2.2 million hectares in the United States, and the remaining hectares in other countries. The researchers maintain that the United States has already experienced a 62% reduction in corn exports. Actually, U.S. corn exports have fluctuated around the 2-billion-bushel-a-year level since 1980. In 2007, when U.S. corn ethanol production increased dramatically, its corn exports increased to 2.45 billion bushels - a 14% increase from the 2006 level. This increase was accompanied by a significant increase in DGS exports by the United States - from 0.6 million metric tons in 1997 to 3 million metric tons in 2007.

Searchinger et al. had to decide what land use changes would be needed in Brazil, the United States, China, and India to meet their simulated requirement for 10.8 million hectares of new crop land. With no data or modeling, Searchinger et al. used the historical land use changes that occurred in the 1990s in individual countries to predict future land use changes in those countries (2015 and beyond). This assumption is seriously flawed by predicting deforestation in the Amazon and conversion of grassland into crop land in China, India, and the United States. The fact is, deforestation rates have already declined through legislation in Brazil and elsewhere. In China, contrary to the Searchinger et al. assumptions, efforts have been made in the past ten years to convert marginal crop land into grassland and forest land in order to prevent soil erosion and other environmental problems.

In estimating the GHG emissions payback period for corn ethanol, Searchinger et al. relied on the 20% reduction in GHG emissions that is provided in the GREET model for the current ethanol industry. Future corn ethanol plants could improve their energy efficiency by avoiding DGS drying (in some ethanol plants) or switching to energy sources other than natural gas or coal, either of which would result in greater GHG emissions reductions for corn ethanol (Wang et al. 2007). Searchinger et al. failed to address this potential for increased efficiency in ethanol production.

In one of the sensitivity cases, Searchinger et al. examined cellulosic ethanol production from switchgrass grown on land converted from corn farms. Cellulosic biomass feedstocks for ethanol production could come from a variety of sources. Oak Ridge National Laboratory completed an extensive assessment of biomass feedstock availability for biofuel production (Perlack et al. 2005). With no conversion of crop land in the United States, the study concludes that more than 1 billion tons of biomass resources are available each year from forest growth and by-products, crop residues, and perennial energy crops on marginal land.

In fact, in the same issue of Sciencexpress as the Searchinger et al.

study is published, Fargione et al. (200 show beneficial GHG results for cellulosic ethanol.

On the basis of our own analyses, production of corn-based ethanol in the United States so far results in moderate GHG emissions reductions.

There has also been no indication that U.S. corn ethanol production has so far caused indirect land use changes in other countries because U.S. corn exports have been maintained at about 2 billion bushels a year and because U.S. DGS exports have steadily increased in the past ten years.

U.S. corn ethanol production is expected to expand rapidly over the next few years - to 15 billion gallons a year by 2015. It remains to be seen whether and how much direct and indirect land use changes will occur as a result of U.S. corn ethanol production.

The Searchinger et al. study demonstrated that indirect land use changes are much more difficult to model than direct land use changes. To do so adequately, researchers must use general equilibrium models that take into account the supply and demand of agricultural commodities, land use patterns, and land availability (all at the global scale), among many other factors. Efforts have only recently begun to address both direct and indirect land use changes (see Birur et al. 2007). At this time, it is not clear what land use changes could occur globally as a result of U.S. corn ethanol production. While scientific assessment of land use change issues is urgently needed in order to design policies that prevent unintended consequences from biofuel production, conclusions regarding the GHG emissions effects of biofuels based on speculative, limited land use change modeling may misguide biofuel policy development.

References

Birur, D.K., T.W. Hertel, and W.E. Tyner, 2007, The Biofuel Boom: The Implications for the World Food Markets, presented at the Food Economy Conference, the Hague, the Netherlands, Oct. 18-19.

Delucchi, M.A., 1991, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity, ANL/ESD/TM-22, Volume 1, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., Nov.

Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne, 2008, “Land Cleaning and Biofuel Carbon Debt,” Sciencexpress, available at www.sciencexpress.org, Feb. 7.

Klopfenstein, T. J., G.E. Erickson, and V.R. Bremer, 2008, “Use of Distillers’ By-Products in the Beef Cattle Feeding Industry,”

forthcoming in Journal of Animal Science.

Korves, R., 2007, The Potential Role of Corn Ethanol in Meeting the Energy Needs of the United States in 2016-2030, prepared for the Illinois Corn Marketing Board, Pro-Exporter Network, Dec.

Perlack, R.D., L.L. Wright, A. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B. Stokes, and D.C. Urbach, 2005, Biomass as Feedstock for Bioenergy and Bioproducts

Industry: the Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ORNL/TM-2005/66, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., April.

RFA (Renewable Fuels Association), 2008, Industry Statistics, available at http://www. ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/, accessed Feb. 13, 2008.

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J.

Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, and T.H. Yu, 2008, “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change,” Sciencexpress, available at www.sciencexpress.org, Feb. 7.

Wang, M., 1999, GREET 1.5 - Transportation Fuel-Cycle Model, Volume 1:

Methodology, Development, Use, and Results, ANL/ESD-39, Volume 1, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., Aug.

Wang, M, M. Wu, and H. Hong, 2007, “Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Different Corn Ethanol Plant Types,” Environmental Research Letter, 2: 024001 (13 pages).

This week articles in Science and Scientific American blasted the use of crops as biofuel feedstocks. The studies question the environmental benefits of ethanol, forecasting gloomy scenarios based on corn-ethanol  farming technologies as they exists today. They do so by effectively changing the way the carbon footprint of the fuel is calculated by directly linking global forest and land depletion to biofuels.

However, the real driver of forest depletion is not biofuels, its people. Population growth across the globe is increasing demand for agricultural land for food, clothing, etc. If biofuels production stopped altogether, the deforestation outlined in the study would not change. It’s erroneous to link agriculture expansion solely to biofuels, when all agriculture products make up the demand for land. Past studies have singled out organic farming practices, animal feed, and coffee – to name a few. This study has opted to ignore all other agricultural sectors, see here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate

Propel is providing access to the cleanest low carbon fuels available. Fuels that solve the problem, not add to it. Our feedstocks come from sustainable sources that do not deplete our essential forest lands. The world’s current fuel, petroleum – is not sustainable. And while a few scientists focus on calculating worst case scenarios, there are scientists and businesses actively working on second generation, low impact feedstocks, like algae, that have huge potential to provide truly sustainable biofuels.

So what are other experts saying? Here’s a sample…

NRDC
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/biofuels_not_quite_dead_yet_th.html
There are no easy solutions to a low-carbon transportation sector that do not require a significant contribution from biofuels. The challenges facing vehicle efficiency, electrification, VMT reductions, smart growth are different from those facing biofuels (they lessen the benefits we can get instead of risking costs), but for me, they do mean that the just-say-no approach to biofuels is irresponsible.

25x’25 Responds to Media Coverage of Studies Published in Science Magazine

http://www.25×25.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=379&Itemid=57

Studies recently detailed in Science magazine address the possible consequences of a faulty approach to utilizing lands to produce biofuel feedstocks. Unfortunately, mainstream media coverage of the studies failed to report that they also identified ways to avoid these problems and insure that future biofuels give us both a new renewable energy source and greatly reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Comment from Tim Raphael of Pac Ethanol

from Grist article: http://www.grist.org/news/2008/02/08/biofu/index.html

Land Use Impacts Analysis Flawed
Why should US-based corn ethanol, other crop-based biofuels, or advanced cellulosic fuels take a carbon hit for international land use changes for food or housing or other non-fuel related production?  By that logic:
*    Any US farmland not growing food crops is creating a carbon debt by increasing demand for international food production–What are the “secondary land use impacts” of US grass seed farmers? Or tobacco farmers?  Or nursery owners? Or cotton, tomatoes grapes and a myriad of other non-food related agricultural acreage in the US?
*    Every new subdivision and greenfield commercial, industrial or residential development creates a carbon debt by taking potential food-producing land out of production and shifting that demand to sensitive, international native ecosystems; and
*    Any effort in the US to protect ancient forests or native ecosystems creates a carbon debt by increasing demand for international sources of wood products.

Any analysis that shifts away from a life cycle analysis of the carbon potential for a single product or fuel and attempts to distribute carbon potential to “secondary” or “tertiary” impacts will create a dead-end, through-the-looking-glass scenario that is inaccurate and unworkable.

The real implication of accepting “secondary land use impacts” is an on-going dependence on CO2 intensive, polluting, imported fossil fuels.  Inclusion of secondary impacts is the wrong approach–each product should stand on its own.

It’s Not Acre for Acre - Productivity Gains Means We Get More From Less

The analyses of land use impacts assume that for every acre of land dedicated to renewable energy feedstocks, another acre of land must be put into production elsewhere in the world.  This assumption is flawed for several reasons:

*    It fails to account for advances in seed and processing technology that are providing greater yields for each acre of feedstock.
*  Corn acreage in the US peaked in 1917 with 116 million acres planted, compared to 93 million acres in 2007.  During that period yields have increased by more than 1 bushel/acre/year, from 29 bushels/acre to 200 bushels/acre.  This year the US will harvest more than 10 billion bushels of corn, and exports are rising, so certainly US corn ethanol production is not causing a need for increased grain production in the world.

*    It ignores the value of the feed co-products that are produced at today’s biorefineries.
*    The food value of corn is not lost in ethanol production–distillers grain is a high protein, high nutrient co-product that is sold back into the food market.

*    It inappropriately assigns all of the impact to growth in renewable fuels, ignoring the effects of a growing world economy, increased demand for food, and urban sprawl.

The Environmental Impacts of Fossil Fuels are Increasing
The reports fail to account for the fact that every gallon of biofuel produced today requires less land, requires less water and is less energy intensive than a decade ago, while the opposite is true for oil production.  Every new gallon of oil produced is more energy intensive and requires much more water than before. 

The “easy” sources of oil have been found and are being depleted.  What is left are more remote, costlier and more environmentally damaging nontraditional sources like Canadian tar sands or Rocky Mountain oil shale.  By failing to capitalize on the opportunity renewable fuels offer to begin breaking our adherence to the oil standard, the world would be forced to develop these nontraditional sources of oil that carry significant environmental price tags.

Even traditional sources of oil have steep environmental costs that are not accounted for in the land use reports.  Where is the accounting for oil drilling in the Amazon?  Oil spills in San Francisco Bay?  Or asthma deaths from air pollution?

A comprehensive independent peer reviewed study of Canadian canola for biodiesel has determined the emission reductions to be even more compelling than previously known.

Link to PDF 

New Report from Worldwatch Institute…

“Decades of declining agricultural prices have been reversed thanks to the growing use of biofuels,” says Christopher Flavin, president of the Institute. “Farmers in some of the poorest nations have been decimated by U.S. and European subsidies to crops such as corn, cotton, and sugar. Today’s higher prices may allow them to sell their crops at a decent price, but major agriculture reforms and infrastructure development will be needed to ensure that the increased benefits go to the world’s 800 million undernourished people, most of whom live in rural areas.”

Biofuels for Transport, undertaken with support from the German Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection, assesses the range of “sustainability” issues the biofuels industry will present in the years ahead, ranging from implications for the global climate and water resources to biological diversity and the world’s poor. The book finds that rising food prices are a hardship for some urban poor, who will need increased assistance from the World Food Programme and other relief efforts. However, it notes that the central cause of food scarcity is poverty, and seeking food security by driving agricultural prices ever lower will hurt more people than it helps.

Growth in biofuels production may have unexpected economic benefits, according to the experts who contributed to the report. Of the 47 poorest countries, 38 are net importers of oil and 25 import all of their oil; for these nations, the tripling in oil prices has been an economic disaster. But nations that develop domestic biofuels industries will be able to purchase fuel from their own farmers rather than spending scarce foreign exchange on imported oil.

 From The Economist Via AutoBlogGreen

Domestic Fuel Reports:

US Agriculture Secretary points to petroleum and weather, not agricultural energy crops, as the causes behind the small rise in some food prices.

Ethanol continues to get more than its fair share of blame for higher food prices, but Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns urges people to look at the whole picture.Speaking to farm broadcasters in Washington D.C. recently, Johanns said that he hates to pick out one item in the food chain and start blaming it for rising costs. “Look at how much diesel fuel has gone up recently,” he said. “What’s a significant piece of the food chain? It’s moving that commodity from farm to table.”

The latest forecast for food price increases this year is between three and four percent. Beef and poultry are up already over 4.5% from last year. But the largest increases are in fresh fruits and vegetables, which are up six to eight percent over 2006. According to USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, “Part of this is due to weather damage, but also we just have seen higher production costs overall and higher costs of transportation coming into the system more fully.”

So, when it comes to reports that increased ethanol production is the cause of increased food prices, Johanns said, “Again, I would just urge people to be very cautious about this story. It tends to be an interesting story but it may not have the significance that one would argue. We need to tell the whole story.”

Markets have a way of balancing themselves, particularly when consumer demand overwhelms entrenched suppliers of goods. The US automotive market is undergoing a massive populist driven transformation. Detroit automakers are fighting for survival, can they innovate? Will Detroit compete in a market based economy, anymore? AutoBlog Green reports on India based Mahindra’s plans for diesel, and diesel-hybrid ,vehicle offerings in the US for the 08 model year.

Ottawa Reports:

 ”When the entire fleet of buses is powered by biodiesel, it will be equivalent to taking over 1,000 cars off the road annually, ” added Councillor Feltmate. “This means our air will be cleaner and we  will all breathe a little easier.”

The City’s Fleet Services Branch has been studying the use of biodiesel for two years as part of the City’s Council-approved Fleet Emissions Reduction Strategy and will continue to work towards using even higher blend ratios. With this ongoing commitment the City will further reduce GHGs emissions from the transit fleet by at least 9%, or over 9,000 tonnes a year, which will help achieve the target of a 20% GHGs reduction set in the City’s 20/20 Official Plan.

Washington Post reports on the rapidly emerging market for green autos, including diesel.

Mercedes-Benz is betting on luxury diesel sedans. Diesels emit 15 to 20 percent less carbon dioxide per mile than gas-powered vehicles, when taking into account the fuel production. Mercedes’s E320 BlueTec diesel sedan ($52,000 sticker price) gets 32 miles per gallon on the highway and 23 in the city.

Diesel models are a tricky option for the earth-conscious, however. Although they cut down on emissions of global-warming gasses, their dirty exhaust has long been a top public-health concern. Auto companies think they can overcome these challenges with better engine technology and cleaner fuel. European nations have moved to diesels to meet carbon dioxide reduction targets. Volkswagen, BMW and Honda have all pledged to expand their diesel lineups in the U.S. market.

Susan Gayle of Arlington bought an E-320 diesel in January. The 51-year-old financial services executive had promised herself that her next car would be better for the environment.

“Maybe its my age or just having a grandson,” Gayle said. “He’s almost 2. I hope the resources are there so he’s able to drive and the other natural resources are in good condition — the water and the air. I really didn’t think about it before until recently.”

Gayle says she ignored the warnings and horror stories from friends about diesels — difficulty in finding diesel pumps, the slow starts and the noise. “I’m finding it’s not hard to find the fuel,” she said. “They don’t make noise, and they start up right.”

From Green Car Gongress:

Mayors attending the 75^th Winter Meeting of The US Conference of Mayors have called for $4 billion in an Energy and Environmental Block Grant to help cities combat global warming. The mayors also launched a major campaign to create a “climate of change” in Washington.

To date, more than 372 mayors from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, have signed onto the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, led by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, where mayors have pledged to take actions to cut their emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocols. Additionally, the Conference of Mayors has held two national energy summits focused on alternative fuel sources and green buildings.

From the San Francisco Chronicle

STATE OF THE STATE
Bold move on global warming
A WORLD FIRST: Governor to order new standard to reduce carbon content of motor fuels

… Schwarzenegger contends that the new policy will help foster more investment in alternative fuels and that increased use of them, in turn, will prevent gasoline prices from rising.

“Competition from alternative fuels will have the effect of driving down gas prices. We certainly expect less volatility in the market because we won’t be reliant on a single source of fuel,” said Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, chair of the California Energy Commission, which is studying cost of alternative fuels.

California has a ways to go before ethanol-powered vehicles pose a competitive threat to gasoline.

There are four pumps that dispense E85 — a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline — in California, a state with 9,800 gas stations and 30 million vehicles.

Will carbon credits be useful, near term, to business and individuals? Would you, as a biodiesel user, appreciate accurate and timely reporting of your emissions reductions based on your biodiesel use? Even if the credits were not traded, would you still find use reporting to customers, constituencies, or just family and friends?

Treehugger explores a few radical efforts in this direction.