"Freedom" Film promotes Choices at the Pump

It has been thirty months since Josh Tickell and Rebecca Harrell premiered their award-winning biofuels documentary "Fuel." That film tracked down alternative fuels that can help wean the U.S. from its "addiction" to oil (see my interview and reviews). After traveling the U.S. in his Veggie Van, Josh took a position that there were biofuels winners (biodiesel, algae, cellulosic ethanol, plug-in hybrids) and losers (corn ethanol). Launching the film included tours at conferences, schools, and statehouses all over the country in an effort to stimulate discussion about what a sustainable transportation energy future might look like.

The best way to learn is through experience and re-evaluation. Now married some thirty months later, with considerable pro- and con- feedback from their tour and a trip to the oil spill ravaged Gulf, they realized that they had some "'splain'n to do." The feedback that stung most was from the farmers and promoters of corn ethanol. While the drivers for change had gotten more urgent - energy independence, community building, human health, economics, the environment, and sustainability - the practical truth about the best way to achieve the desired paradigm shift had to be re-evaluated before all the momentum was lost.

Most of the new film "Freedom" is a series of interviews with farmers and biofuels innovators, economic and energy security experts, engaged government policymakers, and the occasional false prophets of inertia (Searchinger and Pimental). It treats its audience to an unblemished look at where we are and why public support now is so important to the well-being of future generations.

It is very difficult for new markets to emerge in the midst of a entrenched, hundred year monopoly. The biodiesel industry was not stable enough to survive an interruption of government subsidies and it shrank from scores of domestic producers to just a handful. The rest of the biofuels industry RD&D also had to withstand the considerable blowback from entrenched fossil fuel interests, a devastating recession, and a steep drop in oil prices. Algae, hydrogen, and battery technology are certainly promising trends - but they face a gradual 25-years transition away from alternatives that feed into the current infrastructure and vehicles.

In spite of the challenges, corn ethanol has remained the U.S. cornerstone of a sustainable biofuels future. To their credit, Josh and Rebecca reexamined their stance on this first generation biofuel and admitted that (like many others in the sustainability culture) they had been hoodwinked by those who sought to protect the status quo. Upon further investigation controversial issues of energy balance, food vs. fuel, and indirect land use change had suspicious origins and backing - not to mention that they were based on highly speculative theories and a slanted interpretation of data. And why hasn't fossil fuels ever been evaluated and compared using the same metrics?

The Tickells realized that inertia is not an option and "perfection can't be allowed to be the enemy of the good." In a very real way, by attacking the only biofuels that worked at scale, well intentioned NGOs were further reinforcing the nation's oil addiction! To develop more commercial-scale alternatives, we should design policies that build and enable what works (good first generation solutions) rather than obstruct it in favor of unproven and unscaled solutions. Besides, any new technologies will require more flexible pumps at filling stations and vehicles that are able to run on alternatives. We don't have the thirty years it took Brazil to provide their population with a flexible fuel infrastructure based on gasoline and ethanol.

It gets down to the central theme that runs the length of the film. We can't be free if we don't have choices. We need to develop not only new technologies but new markets, vehicles, and infrastructure. Ending the addiction will take time, but during the Q&A session after the screening it was clear that a dread, helpless feeling was being lifted from the audience. There are alternatives and action we can take today to secure a sustainable future for our children. We shouldn't elect policymakers that limit our consumer votes at the pump.

----------------

Visit http://thefreedomfilm.com/ to view the movie trailer, buy the DVD, or maybe book a screening. The initial tour screening dates are available online so let your friends know what's coming. This screening sold out and is sure to generate great word-of-mouth.



----------------

technorati BIOblog, BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, decentralization, security

Dirty oil's direct land change impact

Photograph by Peter Essick for National Geographic magazine.

Once considered too expensive, as well as too damaging to the land, exploitation of Alberta's oil sands is now a gamble worth billions.

So intones an article in this month's issue of National Geographic magazine titled "The Canadian Oil Boom: Scraping Bottom." Its opening shot shows how arbitrary standards that attribute direct and indirect land use change factors can be when comparing fossil fuels vs. biofuels created from cultivated crops.

Corn and energy crops are being held to a high standard in new Low Carbon Fuel Standard legislation passing through California's legislature. This standard is reflected in U.S. EPA presentations which assign an arbitrarily high factor in assessing the indirect (aka "international") land change impact of producing the fuel (shown in bright green in the graph above). Without the assessment, even the worst case scenario for producing ethanol (dry mill using coal for heat) including the GHG tailpipe emissions passes the standard set by gasoline tailpipe emissions alone.

But there is no attribution for direct land use change from gasoline production even though this article provides clear evidence that there is for mining Canadian tar sands. This is the kind of arbitrary comparative accounting that has biofuel producers claiming that the standard that applies land use factors is, at best, artbitrary and, at worst, biased.

As a native Californian, I too think that CARB is being incredibly arbitrary on defining indirect effects. What if, in addition to indirect land use change (iLUC) CARB considered a new factor – “indirect cultural abuse change” (iCAC). If they did, the oil benchmark would be pushed up off the chart.

The argument would be that our addiction to oil wreaks cultural abuse worldwide – including military manufacturing and logistics expenditures, war damage to existing utility infrastructure, pollution from sabotaged wells during conflict, and the transfer of wealth from democracies to tyrannies – who exploit natural resources and have much less stringent environmental and workplace controls than most democraciees do. Surely these add carbon to the atmosphere (not to mention carnage, health, environmental, and human rights abuse).

Bottomline – until we deploy emerging technologies and a progressive infrastructure path to distribute alternative products we should build upon what already gives us options and makes us more self-reliant. Otherwise we have no choice at the pump and we remain pawns to those who profit from and control the status quo.

----------------
technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, decentralization, security

Bias in California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard

California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is a good initiative but it is flawed in its current form. Consider:

Ethanol is an alcohol with a fairly simple, universal formula regardless of how it is made. The great thing about all ethanol is that it is miscible in gasoline, oxygenates gasoline so that it burns more cleanly, and it is a renewable fuel whose carbon comes from the atmosphere, not from subterranean fossil deposits - so it is at least carbon neutral or "low carbon" compared with "high carbon" petroleum products.

When people talk about advanced biofuels like "cellulosic ethanol" they are not talking about the alcohol product, they are talking about the feedstock used to produce the ethanol and, to some extent, the process of its cultivation, harvest, and manufacture. Cellulose is the raw material but the product is the same.

The public doesn't discriminate a difference because neither do most reporters and their editors (see "Everyone Hates Ethanol?"). When "Ethanol" is painted as a "racket" in the Wall Street Journal it impacts all ethanol - "advanced" or not. Whether policy-makers understand the difference is irrelevant if they are unduly influenced by negative public opinion spawned by a misled press.

The indirect land use change (iLUC) issue is an example of a unscientifically proven theory that can kill a nascent industry before it starts to grow. The press and public opinion can sway policy-makers without regard for the truth. Investors and politicians become unwilling to stick their necks out. And then only the government or established energy giants can control the outcome.

Even though most "advanced biofuels" process developers think they are immune to the iLUC issue - because 1) they may not use corn or other cultivated crops as feedstock or 2) they may not need tilled soil to get feedstock - they should think again. The brush being used to paint "ethanol" is very broad and, by the way, the most successful independent ethanol investors have come from the corn ethanol industry.

Exciting innovations for producing biofuels will come from the first generation ethanol producers to create "advanced biofuels" - increases in yield per acre, no-till and advanced agronomic practices, reduction of fossil energy inputs, and the expanded use of cellulose residuals (starting with cobs and corn stover, and moving on to other crops). Unless, of course, bad policy saps or limits investment resources.

Growth Energy sent out an email appeal for fairness that appears to be lacking in a process that rewards scientific speculation and is biased against first generation success. If we start handicapping success, who will assume the considerable risks that come with this very expensive paradigm shift? How does that make us more economically independent and globally secure? And how does that speed us toward alternatives to the status quo?

Here is the action that Growth Energy solicited on the same day that CARB passed the LCFS:

---------------------------
WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Below are some stories that have been published recently that we would like you to respond to. We need you to reinforce the message that ethanol is a clean, green renewable fuel that is available today to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Please refer to the talking points below for additional messaging on this issue.

Fuels must clean up act, The Sacramento Bee
Air Resources Board moves to cut carbon use, The San Francisco Chronicle
California Fuel Move Angers Ethanol Makers, The New York Times
General Wesley Clark goes to battle for ethanol industry, Chicago Tribune
Editorial: California air board makes good decision to move away from corn-based ethanol, Contra Costa Times

Talking Points:

• Growth Energy supports efforts to move to a low carbon environment. Ethanol is a low carbon fuel and its inclusion in our nation's energy mix will help reduce green house gases. The latest research shows that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 59 percent compared to gasoline.

• While Growth Energy supports the concept of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), it objects the California Air Resources Board's (ARB) staff report, which proposes unfair standards in calculating the carbon intensity of fuels. It would penalize ethanol by adding an "indirect land use change" penalty to biofuels.

• The theory of ILUC is built on the idea that American grain exports will plummet because of corn used for ethanol. One model estimates that corn exports will decrease by 62 percent and that soy exports will decline by 28 percent. Those assumptions have been proven to be false as you can read in our policy paper.

• The ARB only applies ILUC penalties to biofuels for land use, but doesn't take into account the indirect carbon effects of petroleum, including the protection our oil supply in the Middle East, or the increased carbon intensity from the characterization, storage, transport, and disposal of oil production waste products.

• The adoption of ILUC models in GHG measurements will slow advancements in second-generation biofuels and discourage corn-based ethanol producers from investing resources to reduce their carbon footprint.

• Not only will implementing ILUC theory not reduce carbon emissions, but it could lead to other calls for indirect market effects included in carbon calculations. For example, China has already called for the nations who buy its exports to pay for the carbon emissions related to the production of those exports. Such an arrangement would not be sustainable in any sort of cap and trade system.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation

Join ACORE's Biomass Coordinating Council

The Biomass Coordinating Council of the American Council of Renewable Energy is an ever-present resource and meeting place for biomass professionals - or anyone who wishes to be engaged in the issues at the heart of emerging biomass renewable energy industries. At the helm of the council is the renowned Bill Holmberg. Below is his recent appeal for members that explains the scope and objectives of this group for 2009. I highly recommend attendance at their events where you can meet many of the most respected movers and shakers of this industry.

The Biomass Coordinating Council (BCC) is formed under the auspices of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE), a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. BCC is working to accelerate the adoption of renewable biofuels, biopower, and biobased products into mainstream American society through work in policy initiatives, convening, networking, and communications. BCC's goals include reducing America's dependence on oil, creating a cleaner environment, and expanding markets for rural America.

Scope

BCC promotes all renewable and sustainable uses of biomass. BCC supports sustainability measures such as water conservation and soil enhancement, and the use of all biomass feedstocks including waste streams.

----------------
Biomass Coordinating Council (BCC)

In 2007 and 2008 biofuels and biopower represented about half of the renewable energy produced in the United States. It is certain biomass will play a fundamental role in “Renewing America” in 2009. However, we must unite biomass stakeholders to ensure biomass sustainability through optimized land use, vitalized soil and water management.

To do this we need to properly enhance and sustain the 6Fs of the Biomass Wheel, in addition to four major spokes; Project Development and Finance, Advanced Fuel Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids with multi-fuel engines and Land Use Management. To do this, the BCC intends to engage its members - working collaboratively in advancing all involved individuals, businesses and pertinent organizations in developing informational and political support systems.

The BCC understands the importance in integrating this effort to unify and organize members of the BCC and other biomass stakeholders.

To strengthen this integrated effort, the BCC has set the following goals for 2009:

• Establish co-chairs representing biomass stakeholders corresponding to the 6Fs of the Biomass Wheel; food, feed, fuel, fiber, fertilizer and feedstock for chemicals, Project Development and Finance, Advanced Fuel Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids with multi-fuel engines and Land Use Management
• Hold monthly webinars similar to the American Bar Association
• Submit foundation grants to expand the capacity of the BCC program
• Continue to support the formation of additional Councils throughout the world on Renewable Energy, with a focus in developing countries
• Continue to expand and enhance bioenergywiki.org
• Continue to support the Admiral Thomas H. Moorer Forum on Energy Security
• Advance the concept of uniting Veterans in support of the “Green Revolution” as articulated by Thomas Friedman
• Launch a Biomass Power and Thermal Energy Committee under the BCC
• Support the launch and development of an ACORE National/Energy Security Committee
• Fully support ALL of ACORE’s contingences
• Double the membership of the BCC
• Overall, enhance membership, functions and opportunities of the BCC

Accomplishments in 2008

The BCC met twice in 2008–both at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC) in March 2008 and at the Phase II Policy Conference on Capitol Hill in December 2008. The topics of both meetings featured the development of the great need for more integrated biomass industries. It was also decided to proceed with a committee structure as outlined in the Goals for 2009.

Made extensive efforts to counter the GMA/ADI funded PR attacks on the ethanol industry. Today, the issue is less volatile due rising fuel costs and the hard work of a number of our members, but it is far from resolved.

On December 9th 2008, we helped host the Thomas H. Moorer Military Energy Security Forum at the National Defense University which determined the need for continued advancement of Renewable Energy and energy efficiency in the Department of Defense and the military services at home and abroad.

We continued our tradition of helping small non-profits get off the ground, contributing our support and time to the Latin American and Caribbean Council On Renewable Energy, Renew the Earth, Remineralize the Earth, International Biochar Institute, and others.

The BCC provided extensive support for ACORE’s Washington’s International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC), Wall Street Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF-Wall Street), Renewable Finance Conference in Seattle (REFF-West) and Phase II on Capitol Hill.

We also continued the support of the bioenergywiki.org and a series of Biomass Committees under the BCC.

BCC Membership increased by 48% in 2008.

How to Join the Biomass Coordinating Council: To Join this committee contact Taylor Marshall at marshall@acore.org.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, legislation, decentralization, security

Economic Impacts of Biofuel Development

The impact of biofuel development should be significant to the economy of any nation that successfully deploys it. By becoming more energy self-sufficient, the balance of trade of otherwise energy-dependent nations should improve dramatically - as it has in Brazil.

However, the impact on the economy of the region producing the biofuels is even more impressive. Iowa was one of the most energy dependent states in the Union. Now, because of corn ethanol, it is one of the most energy independent. The state's economy has improved, schools are better, and land prices are higher - not because of ethanol subsidies, but because of the invigorating impact of the formation of new business ventures and the production of a valuable product to export.

Now a new report from researchers from North Dakota State University, published on the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center website, measures the statewide impact of the corn ethanol industry in North Dakota and projects the economic impact of cellulosic ethanol production on the Midwest and Great Plains states. Of course, the feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol are not only to be found in this region. It is not too much of a stretch to believe that these impacts could be duplicated, if not surpassed, in other regions of the country (and the world) where feedstocks are abundant and the need is greatest.

Summary findings from their report are excerpted below...

----------------------------
Economic Impacts of Biofuel Development

by Nancy M. Hodur, Research Scientist and Larry Leistritz, Professor of North Dakota State University

In recent years, the most prevalent type of new agricultural processing ventures in the Midwest and Great Plains states has been corn ethanol plants. Like other types of agricultural processing, these biofuel ventures have generally received widespread support, and numerous studies have addressed their contributions to local or regional economies. The rapid growth of the corn-based ethanol industry shows the potential for biofuels. However for biofuels to make a substantial contribution to the domestic liquid fuel supply, the industry must expand beyond corn-based ethanol. Accordingly, substantial resources have been devoted in both the public and private sector to the research and development of cellulosic biomass conversion. Much work has focused on technical issues, and several studies have examined potential biomass feedstock supplies. However, one aspect of biomass conversion to liquid fuels that has received very little attention is its potential as an economic development stimulus for rural areas with high biomass production potential and how that potential compares to the economic impact of corn based ethanol.

. . .

North Dakota and other “biomass belt” states are particularly well placed to capture the economic impact of an emerging biomass industry as plants will undoubtedly be located near the feedstock source. The potential economic development contributions of an emerging biofuels industry are particularly significant because many of the areas where such an industry could concentrate have in the not-distant-past faced adverse economic and demographic trends. The rural, agricultural counties of the western Corn Belt and northern Great Plains have experienced long term trends of farm consolidation, leading to fewer and larger farms. In the absence of major nonfarm employers, many counties have experienced substantial out-migration and population losses.

Farm households have also become more dependent on off-farm employment. In North Dakota, during the period 1993-2007, off-farm wages and salaries of farm households more than doubled, growing from $6,847 in 1993 to over $16,000 in 2007. An emerging biofuels industry could offer new jobs that would help to support rural communities and farm households and provide the kind of economic stimulus many agriculturally dependent areas have been seeking. Further, the sheer scope of the potential development, with capital cost of $34 billion and annual regional operational expenditures of over $10 billion, suggests that a biofuels industry could also substantively change the economic and demographic makeup of some Midwest and Great Plains counties.

Click here for the full story.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, decentralization

Everyone Hates Ethanol?

It is a sad day when even the Wall Street Journal takes a page from the petroleum industry playbook and chop blocks the only national defense that makes a dent in their monopoly on supplying fuel to Americans (accounting for less than 5% of transportation fuels sold here). Offensive foul - intentional roughing.

The cheapest shot is the indiscriminant use of the term "ethanol." Ethanol, while chemically varying very little from batch to batch, comes from many feedstocks using a variety of very distinguishable processes. Those knowledgeable in the field are careful to specify whether they are talking about 1st generation ethanol (sugar and starch fermentation) or 2nd generation (converting cellulose using enzymes or Fischer-Tropsch process); the sugar feedstock (corn vs. sugar) or the cellulosic feedstock (i.e., woodchips, cultivated energy crops, switchgrass, MSW, algae, etc.); the cultivation method (if any); and the process fuel input. Each combination can vary dramatically for energy return on investment, lifecycle impacts, process emissions, feedstock cultivation, land and water use, economic return, and other factors.

The tiresome target for the smear here is where it traditionally aimed - against the American corn ethanol industry that only uses corn kernels, fossil fuel for process heat, and petroleum-fertilized land that has been tilled. However, by being indiscriminant, this editorial (from one of America's few trusted journalistic brands remaining) paints the entire multi-faceted industry with the same "gotcha" brush. Not even biorefineries within a single company can be painted with the same brush, and there over 150 biorefineries in operation.

Shouldn't the WSJ use more judgment than Rolling Stone which did their own hatchet job titled "The Ethanol Scam." It is hard for this reader to see a difference.

Here is a suggested followup opinion piece for the editors to ponder - what alternative to fossil transportation fuels do you support? It should be remembered that even the former "oil" President of U.S. - leader of the "Drill Baby Drill" Republican Party - lamented that "America is addicted to oil." Is there some "methadone" that does warrant support? Or is it your opinion that the country remain hooked?

Below is a response to the article on a point by point basis.

--------------------
Everyone Hates Ethanol
March 16, 2009, Wall Street Journal opinion piece

These days, it's routine for businesses to fail, get rescued by the government, and then continue to fail. But ethanol, which survives only because of its iron lung of subsidies and mandates, is a special case. Naturally, the industry is demanding even more government life support.

Wrong. The industry expects a level playing field and the chance to provide a viable alternative product to those foisted on a disenfranchised consumer by a monopolistic industry that has been subsidized and protected for over 100 years. We need cleaner, more sustainable alternatives at the pump.

Corn ethanol producers -- led by Wesley Clark, the retired general turned chairman of a new biofuels lobbying outfit called Growth Energy -- want the Obama Administration to make their guaranteed market even larger. Recall that the 2007 energy bill requires refiners to mix 36 billion gallons into the gasoline supply by 2022. The quotas, which ratchet up each year, are arbitrary, but evidently no one in Congress wondered what might happen if the economy didn't cooperate.

What happened to the world economy is, in great measure, a result of the spike in the price of oil and the national security subsidies we pay to defend this country against predatory speculators, producers, and regimes. It is fitting that a distinguished General (joined by ex-CIA Director Jim Woolsey and others) would step into the breech to defend their country. It is a motivating conviction shared by most in the emerging industry.

Now the recession is hammering demand for gas. The Energy Information Administration notes that U.S. consumption fell nearly 7% in 2008 and expects another 2.2% drop this year. That comes as great news for President Obama, who is achieving his carbon-reduction goals even without a new carbon tax, but the irony is that the ethanol industry is part of the wider collateral damage.

Damage to the broader industry sure to be exacerbated by opinion pieces such as this one.

Americans are unlikely to use enough gas next year to absorb the 13 billion gallons of ethanol that Congress mandated, because current regulations limit the ethanol content in each gallon of gas at 10%. The industry is asking that this cap be lifted to 15% or even 20%. That way, more ethanol can be mixed with less gas, and producers won't end up with a glut that the government does not require anyone to buy.

The ethanol boosters aren't troubled that only a fraction of the 240 million cars and trucks on the road today can run with ethanol blends higher than 10%.

To the contrary, many in the industry strongly believe that all cars should be flex-fuel compatible. This is the cheapest way to implement change to a multi-fuel distribution infrastructure. Even a third world power, Brazil, found it to be easily achievable.

It can damage engines and corrode automotive pipes, as well as impair some safety features, especially in older vehicles. It can also overwhelm pollution control systems like catalytic converters. The malfunctions multiply in other products that use gas, such as boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.

Actually, it is the "10%" number that is arbitrary. New research is being conducted which supports contentions that much higher blends are viable in conventional internal combustion engines.

That possible policy train wreck is uniting almost every other Washington lobby -- and talk about strange bedfellows. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Motorcycle Industry Council and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, among others, are opposed, since raising the blend limit will ruin their products. The left-leaning American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists are opposed too, since it will increase auto emissions. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club agree, on top of growing scientific evidence that corn ethanol provides little or no net reduction in CO2 over the gasoline it displaces.

Low level blends are always available to small engine machines - which, incidentally are very polluting no matter what they run on. The Sierra Club, in partnership with Worldwatch Institute, just published a report titled "Smart Choices for Biofuels" in strong support of development of 2nd generation ethanol... an important distinction.

The biggest losers in this scheme are U.S. oil refiners. Liability for any problems arising from ethanol blending rests with them, because Congress refused to grant legal immunity for selling a product that complies with the mandates that it ordered. The refiners are also set to pay stiff fines for not fulfilling Congress's mandates for second-generation cellulosic ethanol. But the cellulosic ethanol makers themselves already concede that they won't be able to churn out enough of the stuff -- 100 million gallons next year, 250 million gallons in 2011 -- to meet the targets that Congress wrote two years ago.

Cellulosic ethanol technology is being fast-tracked to satisfy a mandate that developers would be all too happy to satisfy. It takes time to launch new commercial-scale biorefineries. Meanwhile, the demand for ethanol needed to replace toxic MTBE oxygenates needs to be filled by existing production facilities. Unless you want to import it, that would be the corn ethanol industry.

So successful but politically unpopular businesses will be punished for not buying a product that does not exist -- from companies that haven't yet found a way to succeed despite generous political and taxpayer advantages. The next step is to use cap and trade to make green alternatives look artificially good by comparison. Even then they'll probably still be bottomless money pits.

Fossil industries are not guilty for selling fossil products - rather for engaging in fossil thinking. Who knows better than they that U.S. production of oil has been on the decline for thirty years. If they had admitted to themselves the longterm folly of only offering one source of fuel over which they have dwindling authority, they could have lead the development and commercialization of alternative fuels technology. Instead they have yet to build a new refinery of any kind in thirty years while the ethanol industry has built over a hundred.

To recap: Congress and the ethanol lobby argue that if some outcome would be politically nice, it should be mandated (details to follow). Then a new round of market interventions is necessary to fix the economic harm resulting from the previous requirements, while creating more damage in the process. Ethanol is one of the most shameless energy rackets going, in a field with no shortage of competitors.

A final chop block. Let's cripple the only longterm alternatives to fossil fuels, be indiscriminate in the smear piece, and paint everyone even tangentially associated as a racketeer. Is there to be no alternative fuel available at the pump?

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, security

The Impact on Renewable Energy from Obama's Nominations

"Who ARE those guys?"

The bad news is that the economic crisis threatens to suspend deployment of renewable energy facilities. Coupled with the meteoric drop in fossil fuel prices - one of the key drivers for developing alternative fuels - and it would not be surprising to see a new administration lose focus on renewable energy.

The good news is that the incoming Obama administration's choices for Cabinet and key positions are very encouraging to those in the emerging renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. Below is the full "Special Report" analysis on each nominee as reported by 25x'25 dated 12/31/08.

The one disappointment is the loss of Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico who was nominated to be Secretary of Commerce. Just yesterday he opted out of confirmation because of government investigation of some alleged "pay for play" campaign contributions.

----------------
Obama Nominations Expected to Drive Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency Policy

President-elect Barack Obama has moved quickly to fill his Cabinet and most key positions in an administration set to take control of the White House in three weeks, and a significant number of the nominees or appointees bring with them serious renewable energy and energy efficiency credentials. Obama's selection of scientific, energy and environmental experts to his administration underscore his campaign pledge to address the faltering economy and climate change with programs that will use green technology and infrastructure improvements to create jobs and boost markets.

The diversity and bipartisan nature of the new administration team mirror the similarly wide-ranging composition of the National 25x'25 Renewable Energy Alliance, whose member organizations come from the agriculture, forestry, energy, environmental, business, labor, civic and government sectors. Five of the 14 Cabinet nominees have over the past two years formally endorsed the 25x'25 Vision for a renewable energy future. Obama was an original co-sponsor of the 25x'25 resolution adopted by Congress in 2007 as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act signed into law a year ago. Members of the bipartisan team that Obama has picked include what some analysts have deemed to be "superstars" in their fields.

Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004 and a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, represents a key appointment for renewable energy interests with his nomination to head the Department of Energy. Chu is a champion of second-generation biofuels and solar technologies, focusing the Berkeley lab's scientific resources on energy security and global climate change, in particular the production of new fuels and electricity from sunlight through non-food plant materials and artificial photosynthesis. The lab director, who has shared his research at a 25x'25 roundtable in California in 2007 and at the National 25x'25 Summit in Omaha in March, has also spearheaded significant work at Berkeley on energy-efficient technologies.

Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa and another champion of land-based renewable energy development, is Obama's nominee for Secretary of Agriculture. One of the early endorser's of the 25x'25 Vision, the two-term governor vigorously campaigned for Obama, promoting their common ideas on renewable energy and rural growth. "As governor of one of our most abundant farm states, he led with vision, fostering an agricultural economy of the future that not only grows the food we eat but the energy we use," Obama said in nominating Vilsack. The former chairman of the Governors' Biofuels Coalition has pushed for further development of cellulosic ethanol, in which products such as woodchips and switchgrass are used as feedstocks, and promoted wind energy as an alternative source of electricity.

Sen. Ken Salazar, an original co-sponsor of the 25x'25 resolution adopted by Congress, is the nominee to head the Interior Department. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the second-term senator from Colorado says he "will do all I can to help reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil" and work with Obama "as we take the moon shot on energy independence. That energy imperative will create jobs here in America, protect our national security, and confront the dangers of global warming." Salazar also said he wants to help "build our clean energy economy, modernize our interstate electrical grid, and ensure that we are making wise use of our conventional natural resources, including coal, oil, and natural gas."

Rep. Ray LaHood, a supporter of mass transit, is set to lead the Transportation Department in the new administration. As a co-sponsor in the House of the 25x'25 resolution ultimately enacted into the 2007 Energy Act, the Illinois lawmaker voted for legislation that would have eliminated tax breaks for oil and gas companies and diverted them to the development of renewable fuels. LaHood also voted for an amendment to the National Science Foundation funding bill that created a K-12 curriculum on global warming, climate change, and the actions people can take to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The six-term congressman Ray LaHood was recently honored for his work in promoting Illinois' 25x25 Renewable Energy Alliance during a special ceremony in Peoria last month. Former U.S. and Illinois House Representative Tom Ewing, a member of the National 25x'25 Steering committee and coordinator of Illinois' 25x25 efforts, joined other Illinois 25x'25 alliance members in presenting an award of appreciation to LaHood. "Ray LaHood has been a real champion of the 25x25 movement since we started it in 2004," said Ewing, speaking at the Illinois Commodity Classic conference in Bloomington. "He was a supporter of our independent resolution in Congress recognizing our goal of producing 25 percent of the nation's energy from renewable sources - including agricultural sources - by the year 2525."

Senator from New York and former Obama political adversary Hillary Clinton was nominated by the president-elect as Secretary of State. Sen. Clinton is a member of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works and a co-sponsor of the 25x'25 resolution. She was a strong supporter of renewable energy provisions in the 2007 Energy Act. Her advocacy of measures that would stem climate change is expected to be carried into the international arena. Also expected to play a part in Clinton's approach to her role as Secretary of State is her support as a senator of policies to diversify energy supplies by investing in renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar, and her promotion of the environmentally responsible recovery of oil and gas resources. She also championed energy-efficiency in cars, homes, and offices.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, one of the first national political leaders to embrace the 25x'25 Vision when the campaign was launched in 2006, was nominated to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. The secretary-designate has long promoted the clean air benefits of renewable energy and is expected to tout the health advantages inherent to improved air quality as the Obama administration develops energy policies that reduce polluting emissions. With more than 25 years of service in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and 10 years as Senate Democratic Leader, Daschle has played an instrumental role in the development of U.S. legislative and regulatory policy. He brings to the incoming administration extensive Washington experience and high odds for quick Senate confirmation. The former South Dakota senator, who lost his bid for re-election in 2004, has been serving as a member of the Energy Future Coalition national Steering Committee and a ''special public policy adviser'' with the Washington law and lobbying firm of Alston & Bird. His portfolio there includes health care and renewable energy.

Rep. Hilda L. Solis, a green jobs advocate and author of clean energy job training legislation included in the 2007 energy bill, has been nominated to head the Labor Department. Her legislation authorizes up to $125 million in funding to establish national and state job training programs, administered by the Department of Labor, to help address job shortages that are impairing growth in green industries, such as energy efficient buildings and construction, renewable electric power, energy efficient vehicles, and biofuels development. H.R. 2847 was included in the Energy Independence and Security Act adopted by Congress and signed into law in December, 2007.

Other key members of the incoming administration announced by Obama that are expected to have significant impact on renewable energy and energy efficiency policies include:

• Lisa Jackson, who is set to head the EPA. The agency regulates the nation's renewable fuel standard, which determines how much ethanol, biodiesel and eventually other biofuels get used each year. Rules currently under formulation would determine the extent to which land use and the effect of biofuel production on climate change are to be considered in setting the RFS. Jackson was the director of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection before being tapped to head Obama's energy and environment transition team. She had previously served as DEP Deputy Commissioner. Her past experience includes management responsibilities at the EPA's regional office in New York; for enforcement programs at both EPA and DEP; and for New Jersey's Land Use Management Program. Jackson helped create the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and also served as vice president of the RGGI's executive board. She is a professional engineer.

• Carol M. Browner, who has been named to the new position of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Her position has been coined as "climate czar" and Obama says she will coordinate environmental, energy, climate and related matters for the federal government. The former chief at EPA during the Clinton administration, Browner is a founding member of the Albright Group, a "global strategy group" headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. As a principal in the firm, Browner assists businesses and other organizations with the challenges of operating internationally, including the challenges of complying with environmental regulations and climate change.

• Nancy Sutley, who will chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality. She has instituted a number of energy saving programs in Los Angeles where she currently serves as the Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment. She has previously served as a gubernatorial energy advisor and the Deputy Secretary for Policy and Intergovernmental Relations within the California Environmental Protection Agency. During the Clinton administration, Sutley was a Senior Policy Advisor to the Regional Administrator for EPA, Region 9 in San Francisco and a Special Assistant to the Administrator at the Federal EPA in Washington, DC. Sutley has also served as the Policy Director for the National Independent Energy Producers and as an Industry Economist for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

• John P. Holdren, who was named Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. A Harvard professor of environmental policy, Holdren led major studies for the Clinton administration's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology on U.S. energy research and development strategy. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Since 2002, he has been Co-Chair of the independent, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, and from 2004 to the present he has served as a coordinating lead author of the Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development, reporting to the U.N.'s Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the Commission on Sustainable Development.

National 25x'25 Alliance leaders say stronger support for renewable energy within the incoming administration will help mobilize the 25x'25 base in 2009 and expand grassroots support for the policies needed to create a clean and green U.S. energy future. An alliance plan of action for next year notes that over the past four years, the 25x'25 Alliance has evolved into a strong coalition that now serves as providers of solid, credible information on the role renewable energy can and will play in a revived economy. "We believe that in 2009, the new administration, in concert with the incoming 111th Congress, will support our efforts to sustain the nation's resource base and protect the environment through renewable energy development and energy efficiency," says Project Coordinator Ernie Shea. "The Steering Committee believes our new national leadership understands the role agriculture and forestry can play in improving energy security, boosting our economy and reducing emissions that contribute to global warming."

----------------

technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, legislation, decentralization, security

Galvanizing Congress to move renewable energy forward

On December 5th, the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) hosted its annual Phase II meeting in Washington D.C. in the U.S. House of Representatives Cannon Caucus Room. Its theme this year was "The Next Presidency and Congress." Distinguished speakers addressed the state of renewable energy policy today, presented a range of policy options, and made recommendations for the new administration’s policy framework.

There was a deep sense of purpose and commitment in the room as luminary after luminary spoke of the challenges and opportunities before us. There was also a palpable sense of urgency due to the country's economic crises - as auto industry bailout talks were taking place in another room of the building.

Archived videos of the six hours of speeches are available online. Michael Eckhart (ACORE President) marked the growth in significance of this 7th annual convening of an ACORE Phase II meeting - which formed in 2001 one week before 9/11. John Geesman (former California Energy Commissioner) introduced Dan Reicher who is the Director or Climate Change and Environmental Initiatives for Google.org. Their venture makes investments and advocates policy in the areas of climate change and energy, global development, and global health. General Wesley Clark made an impromptu appearance and speech on national security and ACORE's role in effecting positive change in America's energy independence.

The keynote address was delivered by Iowa Governor Chet Culver who avered that thirty years ago Iowa was ranked 49th in energy production by state. Since that time Iowa has become a net exporter of energy thanks to the diligence and innovation of Iowa state government, academia, and farmers to build a renewable fuels industry. "If you can't get pumped about this opportunity, then you are not 'pumpable,'" he said. He gave way to Jeff Broin, President of Poet Industries - now the nation's largest ethanol producer, who talked about the technology innovations taking place at their corn plants to reduce their carbon footprint, higher per acre crop yields as a panacea for global economic malaise, and Poet's construction of the Liberty, Iowa Plant that will create cellulosic ethanol using corn cobs as feedstock.

Senator Tom Daschle gave a detailed analysis of biomass conversion technologies - the allied food, fiber, fertilizer, and fuel impacts and the nine policies that should be pursued by Capitol Hill and the administration to advance them. He was followed by former Director of the CIA Jim Woolsey who talked about coupling biofuels production with the development of flex-fuel, plug-in hybrids like the experimental car he drives. In tandem, these two technology sectors can deflate the strategic value of oil - which is effecting the largest transfer of wealth in human history while making the U.S. and freedom-loving people more and more vulnerable.

N.Y. Times columnist Thomas Friedman then made a memorable address that was a walkthrough of his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" urging Congress to help launch and enable a Energy Technology revolution. His conclusion was that it wasn't the government's job to bailout a sick and ailing economy. It was their job to set the price points - whether through carbon taxes or cap and trade or other mechanisms - that make clean, renewable technologies economically viable.

The afternoon sessions focused on policies that were needed to help private industry finance Electric Power and the scale-up of renewable energy and summations by ACORE leaders advising the "Next President and Congress."

Below is an announcement from ACORE about the immediate impact of the meeting on negotiations concerning the economic stimulus bill.


----------------------
Impact of Speeches at ACORE’s Phase II National Policy Conference
December 5, 2008

Congressional sentiment about how to deal with renewable energy tax incentives as part of a national economic stimulus bill may have changed in the past 48 hours as a result of speeches that were given by financial leaders at a renewable energy policy conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday and by the continuing effort of other renewable energy leaders.

The American Council On Renewable Energy held its 7th annual national policy conference, entitled “Phase II of Renewable Energy in America: The Next Presidency and Congress” yesterday in the Cannon Caucus Room in Washington, DC. The event held a packed room of 350 policy experts and was webcast to over 4,200 others around the world.

Keynote speeches by Iowa Governor Chet Culver, former Senator and Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Retired General Wesley Clark, former Director of Intelligence Jim Woolsey, and award-winning journalist Tom Friedman ignited the conference with a sense of determination to push the policy agenda forward on renewable energy in the new Congress and Administration.

However, the highest-impact speeches seemed to come from four top-tier financiers who came to Washington to speak about the urgent and near-crisis need to amend and refine the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind power and other renewable energy generators, and for the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar power.

Prior to the conference, the word from Congressional staff was that there will be no tax provisions in the upcoming economic stimulus bill, to avoid slowdowns in tax committees. This would put the renewable electricity markets in a decline just as the nation is looking for economic growth and jobs.

But, after hearing the finance speeches, Congress may have turned around on the question, as there is reportedly talk now of getting the refinements into the stimulus package.

“It is absolutely urgent that this be done,” said John Cavalier, Managing Partner of Hudson Clean Energy Capital. He outlined a set of refinements including making the tax credits refundable, able to be carried back ten years, allowed in lease finance structures, and applicable to manufacturing equipment to support new factories for wind turbine components and solar cells.

These changes are necessitated by the financial crisis which has reduced the availability of credit, caused the number of tax equity investors to be reduced, and increased the cost of capital across the board, according to Tracy Wolstencroft, Managing Director at Goldman Sachs.

“We are not asking for any new money,” said Kevin Walsh, Managing Director at GE Energy Financial Services. ”We are asking for technical refinements of tax credit rules that will allow funds to flow that Congress has already approved. This will open up the availability of equity capital for renewable energy projects, back to what was contemplated with the tax credits were passed originally. It is vitally important that this get done immediately to protect jobs in 2009.”

The fourth finance speaker at the conference was Michael Ware, Managing Director of Good Energies, and one of the few in finance today who served in the original Federal Energy Office in the 1970s.

“Our nation needs to back up its commitment to clean energy by extending the incentives for a longer time, and by continuing to refine the incentive rules to match market conditions. Congress could not have foreseen the extent of the credit crisis when they passed the PTC and ITC in September. No one is to blame. We are using our collective expertise to suggest how the Congress can relatively easily amend the rules to keep capital flowing into the U.S. market, keep our companies producing, and keep Americans employed. And again, this requires no additional money, just refinements to how the tax credits can be used – credits that Congress has already passed.”

Reports are coming in to ACORE from the Hill this morning that, as a result of the presentations at the Phase II conference and the work of other renewable energy leaders, there is a new good-faith intention to get the renewable energy provisions into the stimulus package to protect jobs in the sector. One lobbyist reported to ACORE that: ‘The message was heard by the staff, many of whom were in the conference or watching on the webcast.”

“We are very pleased by the quality of the Phase II conference, the motivation that came form the keynote speakers, and the immediate impact that our financial speakers seem to have had on public policy thinking in Washington. ACORE’s role is educating public officials about the issues, and it seems to have been accomplished in this case," said ACORE President, Michael Eckhart.

----------------
technorati BIOconversion, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, decentralization, security

Comments on Friedman's "Hot, Flat, and Crowded"

Thomas Friedman has a terrific platform from which to interview energy experts globally, write opinion pieces that are distributed through the New York Times, and participate in the production of cable television documentaries. Occasionally he pumps out a book that coalesces all of his research and synthesizes his prescriptions for solving the energy, environment, and global warming challenges that face us.

His The World is Flat book documented the changes in demographics and economic parity that will define the global rise of the middle class. Wonderful on the face of it, the consequences of this metamorphosis could challenge America's position and security as the leading consumer nation in the world - leading to competition for resources with developed and currently under-developed countries worldwide.

Since the release of that book (in 2005) the stakes have risen with an acceleration of demand for fossil energy, heightened concern about the global warming impacts of human behavior, and the sharp spike in gas prices - not to mention the crisis on Wall Street.

This book Hot, Flat, and Crowded takes on a broader perspective and a sharper call to action. The broader perspective intends to address the dual-headed energy and environment challenge with the clean tech alternatives he particularly espouses - solar, wind, and energy efficiency. His call to action compares the energy lethargy of the fractious U.S. policymaking machine with the frantic and command structured action of the Peoples Republic of China.

My primary reservation about the book is that it has a typically urban perspective on the problems without giving rural world economies (particularly in developed countries) their due. Friedman believes that ethanol subsidies are bad policy - in spite of the fact that the ethanol producers of America reflect the most immediate example of entrepreneurism contributing and innovating new solutions. He also doesn't distinguish between corn ethanol and cellulosic regarding the value of subsidies.

And then he decries policymakers for not committing to long-term guarantees like the production tax credit for solar and wind. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander. Pulling the ethanol subsidies out from under any kind of ethanol developments would set a bad precedent impacting investor confidence.

Chapter 18

That being said, Friedman's website allows readers to contribute to the next edition of the book! A project he calls "Chapter 18" seeks reader input:

Hot, Flat, and Crowded has seventeen chapters. What's Chapter 18? Chapter 18 will be a completely new chapter that I’ll add to the next edition of the book: Version 2.0. In it I hope to include the best ideas and proposals sent in from readers: ideas about clean energy, energy efficiency, and conservation; about petropolitics and nation-building in America; about how we can help take the lead in the renewal of our country and the Earth alike by going Code Green. I am eager for your suggestions — please post them here.

So I sent in my two cents worth and I suggest you do the same. Here's what I wrote:

---------------------
Loved your new book - I recommend that all of my colleagues read it.

My only disappointment is that you almost completely left out discussion of biomass conversion technologies (CTs) - the single biggest source of renewable power in the U.S. today (more than hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal combined).

Wind and solar are carbon neutral. Plants are carbon negative and their biomass can be converted to directly replace fossil liquids for fuels and fossil solids for baseload power.

Wind and solar will not revive the decentralized rural economies of the world the way that bioenergy will (reference 25x'25 and ACORE's Biomass Coordinating Council).

I have come to the opinion that the key to sustainably sourcing biomass for CTs is finding waste streams and disaster debris that has a social cost attached to it (and very often a tipping fee or government incentive to remove it). This biowaste needs to be cleaned up before it decays into methane, CO2, and other GHGs. I include in these waste streams (1) wildfire salvage wood in CA, (2) hurricane debris and forest knockdown in the Gulf states, (3) mountain pine beetle infested wood in British Columbia and Colorado, and (4) unrecycled MSW at all the major cities. These problem accumulations of biomass are massive and will get much worse with "global weirding."

California's AB32 - the Global Warming Solutions Act - has entrusted its Air Resources Board to devise and execute solutions to reduce GHG emissions in California. CARB has fashioned a Scoping Plan and sought comments from Californians at large. I have written an article with links to the three comments I made based on my research and travels and invite you to check them out.

One comment advocates reducing significant amounts of GHG by thinning forests to preempt unprecedented "megafires", salvage carbon laden tree remains for conversion, and replant forests to sequester CO2 anew. You should interview Sen. Feinstein about the pitifully low amount of forest management work that has been accomplished since the passage of her Healthy Forest Initiative Act of 2003. Only 77,000 acres have been treated out of 20 million acres funded. This institutional lethargy is largely because there is no forest products industry left in those forests to buy the wood which would fund the programs. (BIOstock Blog)

Another comment focuses on diverting unrecyclable wastes (40 million tons/year in CA alone) from landfills by instead using CTs to produce biopower and biofuels at the Municipal Sorting Facilities (as L.A. is planning to do with its RENEW L.A. plan). (BIOwaste Blog)

My third comment is titled Challenge the Status Quo which aligns with your BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere, Not Anytime) lament. Too much current policymaking and regulations handicap initiative for action. For instance, thermochemical CTs are hogtied with the same EIA and LCA impediments as landfills (which means that it takes 5 to 10 years to permit them). As a consequence, the status quo wins.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, legislation, decentralization, security

Pulp & Paper Industry: The "bird's nest" of bioenergy?

One prominent feature of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) is its renewable fuel standard that sets the trajectory for satisfying America's newfound thirst for alternative fuels. 36 billion gallons per year production by the year 2022. Considering that the U.S.' current annual production of biofuels is about 8 billion gallons that is a considerable amount of growth being virtually mandated by the U.S. Congress under the watchful eye of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Where is this fuel likely to come from? Can we "piggyback" any comparable industry and its existing infrastructure to help ease the transition between fossil fuels and biofuels?

The paper and pulp industry is starting to see a way to recover from its decades long fighting retreat. They are the biorefineries of the present. Their byproducts (paper and pulp) are more plentiful and valuable than the biopower and biofuels than they produce. But even so, the current combined output of heat, steam, and electricity made from combusting woody biomass and "black liquor" process residues make these mills the number one source of renewable energy in the country - more than all other alternative energy sources combined (including hydroelectric).

According to many within TAPPI (the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry) the time is ripe for retooling the more than 200 chemical paper mills operated within the country.

TAPPI held its annual 2007 TAPPI Conference in Atlanta last May. This year's event is August 27-29 in Portland. It will be interesting to see how the organizers address the latest attempts to engage the industry in what may be a renaissance of its mission and accomplishments.

Below is an excellent story by the Senior Editor of TAPPI's monthly magazine. He highlights some of the key features of this established industry that may very well piggyback the future of bioenergy.

---------------------
Pulp and Paper Industry Poised to Take Center Stage in Global Bioenergy Arena
International bioenergy conference explores new and emerging pathways, technologies, financial, legal, and operation issues.

by Ken Patrick

The pulp and paper industry is uniquely positioned to immediately produce significant amounts of biofuels, bioenergy and bioproducts. With a mature, operating infrastructure capable of delivering double-digit billions of gallons of biofuels annually, generally without adding any new fiber processing capacity, many pulp and paper mills around the world are only a one-step investment away from becoming major renewable energy producers. Especially important, paper industry capacity that can be re-aligned and re-purposed toward bioenergy co-production would be 100% cellulosic feedstock based, with no agricultural attachments at all.

Considering that there are 200 or more similar chemical pulp mills in the U.S., and at least an additional 100 in Canada, basic arithmetic shows this barrelage capacity for Fischer-Tropsch synthetic crude oil could total somewhere upwards of 420 million barrels per year, or between 15 and 20 billion gallons per year for the entire North American pulp and paper industry.

Pulp Mills as Biorefineries

Pulp mills are ideal sites for integrated biorefinery operations for four basic reasons. First, they are already set up to receive and process massive amounts of delivered roundwood and woods chips, served in this capacity by rail, truck and some also by barge operations. In the U.S. alone, pulp mills use more than 120 million dry tons of wood per year, and they have access to at least an equal amount of forest residuals and even a greater amount of agricultural wastes and energy crops if needed.

Second, these mills have basically the same existing infrastructures for warehousing and shipping out finished products around the country. Third, they have a well-established in-place administrative infrastructure and related human resources that can be extended to serve a biorefinery business without incurring significant new costs. Fourth, pulp mills have operating utility support systems for process water, electricity, steam and waste/environmental treatment that can easily be umbrella'd to support biorefinery operations without major new investments.

And possibly as a strong fifth reason, chemical pulp mills already operate as biorefineries of sorts, producing fiber used to make paper and paperboard as well as some specialized dissolving pulps used to make viscose types of "bio-plastics" and rayon materials. Bio-byproducts made from sulfate (or kraft) spent cooking liquors (black liquor) include ingredients used in making coatings, adhesives, detergents, paint, varnish, ink, lubricants, waxes, polishes, gasoline additives, agricultural products, etc. Turpentine is obtained by condensing exhaust vapors during the pulping of softwoods with the kraft process. There also is a spectrum of lignin-based byproducts produced from refinement of black liquors.

This same black liquor that, in fact, after it is thickened through evaporation and the byproduct streams removed, is currently used as a "fuel" to fire what are known as chemical recovery boilers, so named because their initial, primary purpose was to burn the hemicellulose/wood sugar content of the thickened, spent cooking liquor, resulting in a char bed deposit that can be regenerated backing into fresh cooking liquor chemicals. Heat from the combustion process is used to co-generate steam used in the process and electricity via turbo-generators. Today's mills produce on the average 60% of their power from wood residuals and spent pulping liquors.

Cellulosic Pathways to Bioenergy

Rather than burning these high volumes of spent cooking liquors directly in recovery boilers, integrated biorefineries can process them into an array of value-added cellulosic biofuels, including ethanol, various synthetic gases (syngas), synthetic crude oil and biodiesel. These fuels could be used to offset petroleum-based fuels being burned in the mill and/or to sell as transportation/motor fuels.

There are as many as 12 clearly defined pathways into integrated biofuel/bioproduct production at pulp and paper mills. These include the thermochemical approaches that generally involve gasification of either biomass and/or spent cooking liquor streams alone or in combination with advanced gas-to-liquid technologies such as Fischer-Tropsch-based systems, and various pyrolysis techniques involving fluidized bed boilers.

Other pathways involve established sugar platforms and value-prior-to-pulping (VPP) approaches, where hemicellulose content is extracted before cooking of wood chips in digesters in various ways, such as cooking in pure water to produce a "prehydrolyzate" that can be fermented to mixed alcohols or gasified to produce a syngas.

The American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) recently conducted a detailed study of the most feasible routes to integrated biofuel production at pulp and paper mills, versus stand-alone cellulosic biorefineries, as part of its Agenda 2020 program. This study is detailed in a two-part series of reports just completed in the July issue of Paper360° magazine, the official publication of TAPPI (the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry) and PIMA (the Paper Industry Management Association).

A committee of Agenda 2020 CTO's, representing 90%-plus percent of chemical pulp producers in the U.S., evaluated four general pathways that appear to be most likely for chemical pulp and paper mills based on existing infrastructures and operations. This study focuses basically on thermochemical approaches as being the most feasible, and looks generally at four related pathways.

The business case discussed in the AF&PA report is based on a post-2010 gasification biorefinery operation at a kraft pulp and paper mill as described in a recent report by Princeton University. The reference mill is in the Southeastern U.S. and produces 1,580 dry tpd of kraft pulp using a 65/35 mix of hardwood and softwood.

Compelling Payoff Potential

The main economic benefits of biorefining in the cases outlined by AF&PA for this reference mill include additional revenues from sale of synthetic fuels (511 tpd of dimethyl ether to be used as an LPG (propane) blend stock, or 2,362 barrels per day of petroleum equivalent or 4,757 barrels per day petroleum equivalent of Fischer-Tropsch synthetic crude oil for refining to diesel and gasoline blendstocks at petroleum refineries), as well as a savings of 226 tons per day of pulpwood due to increased pulp yield, and slightly overall lower steam use.

Considering that there are 200 or more similar chemical pulp mills in the U.S., and at least an additional 100 in Canada, basic arithmetic shows this barrelage capacity for Fischer-Tropsch synthetic crude oil could total somewhere upwards of 420 million barrels per year, or between 15 and 20 billion gallons per year for the entire North American pulp and paper industry, based on existing infrastructure and operations only, without adding any new capacity.

This is a very significant potential considering that the President's 2007 renewable fuel standard (RFS) is 36 billion gal/yr by 2022, and that at least 21 billion gallons of this are to be obtained from cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels. This clearly indicates that the forest products industry, and pulp and paper mills in particular, are in a very unique position to help meet this critical national challenge.

TAPPI Bioenergy Conference

These issues, and specifically the AF&PA position paper study, will be explored in considerable detail at the TAPPI International Bioenergy and Bioproducts Conference (IBBC) to be held in late August in Portland, Oregon.

The 2008 Technical Conference Program features 14 sessions that will take attendees through an in-depth analysis of where the industry currently is on the biorefinery front to where it will be in the next five years and beyond. A key issue underlying all sessions is the immediate need to attract investment community involvement on an on-going basis. The intensive program explores not only the latest biorefinery technologies, but also developing markets and the legal-legislative-investment sides of the bioenergy/bioproducts equation

The IBBC program includes several sessions that examine biorefinery approaches already in commercial operation, with from-the-field updates by those "already doing it." Systems technologies being reported in these sessions cover pyrolysis, gasification/gas-to-liquid, acid hydrolysis, enzymatic, and other fermentation-based approaches.

Ken Patrick is Senior Editor for TAPPI and PIMA's Paper360° magazine.

----------------
technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic

BlueFire Ethanol to build in California

BlueFire Ethanol Fuels Inc. received a conditional use permit from the County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning, for the operation of a new biorefinery it will build on a 10 acre lot near a Lancaster, CA landfill. For anyone aware of the slow rate of permitting new facilities for waste conversion in the region, that is a major achievement.

This is NOT the commercial-scale project for which BlueFire received a U.S. Department of Energy EPAct 932 matching grant of $40 million. That plant is being for deployment in Mecca, CA and will require roughly 900 tons per day of biomass when fully operational. The DOE considers 700 tpd to be the benchmark for a commercial scale biorefinery.

For Arnold Klann, President of BlueFire, it was a long time coming but worth the wait. With key drivers being the need for alternative fuels, oil prices, landfill diversion, and global climate change things have been happening fast the last few years for this publicly traded company.

On hand to support the action were Coby Skye of the Los Angeles Department of Public Works and Mike Mohajer, a leader of Solid Waste management in Los Angeles for decades. Necy Sumait, Senior Vice President, and William Davis, VP of Project Management, who made the final presentation to the Commission were there as well.

The county Department of Public Works has launched a pilot project to build other trash-conversion facilities near other landfills in the region.

"Instead of shipping the trash long distances for disposal, we want to develop these new conversion technologies and manage the trash right there on site," said Coby J. Skye, associate civil engineer in the Environmental Programs Division for public works. "What that does is it eliminates truck trips, converts otherwise useless material into usable products and energy and offsets fossil-fuel emissions."

In the past month, two of Los Angeles County’s largest cities have passed resolutions endorsing the County’s conversion technology program. The city councils of Long Beach and Lancaster, which together account for nearly 650,000 residents, each asked the County to keep their city in mind for future conversion technology projects. These join existing resolutions adopted by the cities of Glendale and Calabasas.

------------------

BlueFire Ethanol Awarded Final Permits to Construct the Nation's First Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Production Plant

BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, Inc. (OTC: BFRE.OB), a leader in cellulosic ethanol production technology, was granted a conditional-use permit ("CUP") from the County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning, to permit the construction of the nation's first commercial facility to convert biowaste into ethanol.

The Los Angeles County Planning Commission approved the use permit for operation of the plant on 10 undeveloped acres near Lancaster, California, in the Antelope Valley. BlueFire plans to initiate commercial operation of the plant in late 2009.

"We are thrilled to receive this permit," said Arnold Klann, president and CEO of BlueFire Ethanol, "and we see this construction of our first cellulosic ethanol the United States plant as a catalyst for the advancement of cellulosic fuel production throughout our nation."

The new facility will use BlueFire's commercially-ready, patented and proven Concentrated Acid Hydrolysis Technology Process. This will allow the profitable conversion of cellulosic waste ("Green Waste") into as much as 3.2 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. Derived from non-foodstock urban, forestry and agricultural residues, this form of ethanol is a completely renewable and highly-economical alternative to gasoline and other types of ethanol.

BlueFire Ethanol selected the Lancaster location because an estimated 170 tons of biowaste material, including woodchips, grass cuttings and other organic waste, already passes by the property every day. The plant is also designed to use reclaimed water and lignin, a byproduct of the production process, in order to produce its own electricity and steam.

"By locating biorefineries directly in the markets with the highest demand for ethanol, our technology can also help surrounding cities manage landfill waste, solving two problems for the price of one," added Klann.

As part of a strategy to control costs and accelerate production at the Lancaster facility, BlueFire Ethanol has already implemented production of pre-assembled modules which will comprise the Lancaster biorefinery.

"Prefabrication and modular construction has proven itself to be the best method for maintaining quality, controlling costs and creating the fastest to-market time for the deployment of complex facilities," said Klann. "Plus, the size of our Lancaster facility is consistent with the feedstock-gathering capabilities in developing countries where aggregation of large quantities of useable feedstock is not as practical. As such, this approach also allows us to set a standard with a manufactured product and export our facilities as a turn-key product around the world."

BlueFire Ethanol is also one of six ethanol companies awarded $40 million funding from the U.S. Department of Energy for its construction a larger ethanol production facility using cellulosic wastes diverted from landfills in Southern California. The facility will produce approximately 17 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year from green waste, wood waste and other cellulosic urban wastes.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, hydrolysis, cellulosic