"Power Plays" Book Review

Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil by Robert Rapier (Paperback - March 28, 2012)

Robert Rapier's "Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil" is an important book to read for anyone who wants to engage in informed discussions on renewable energy and, more specifically, fuel alternatives to oil. It is an easy read, albeit focused on the facts without much embellishment.

The book provides an overview of the current energy paradigm and the salient factors for scientifically comparing various energy options. It doesn't trace the chronological history of oil the way Yergins' "The Prize" does but it gives a sober SWOT (strengths weaknesses opportunities threats) view of energy alternatives. The author uses this background to help explain his interpretation of energy policies that would enhance energy security.

Robert is best at explaining concepts that receive short shrift from journalists in the media. His explanation of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI), for instance, helps clarify what it is and why it is important.

He is one of my most reliable touchstones for determining what technologies are likely to provide sustainable alternatives to oil. There are many reasons for this. The first postings I read from his R-squared blogs (about six years ago) was a debate with Vinod Khosla challenging the state of the art of conversion technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol. Like many biofuels supporters I didn't want to read that they might not be ready for prime time. Robert was certainly right to suspect Khosla of overhype about the Range Fuels project. Regrettably, it didn't survive commissioning after hundreds of millions of dollars in private and public investment.

While I have been reluctant to cede Robert's point of view on occasions, I have to admit that he has the credentials to challenge some base assumptions about the sustainability and the energy efficiency of many biofuels projects. He is one of the most respected writers on The Oil Drum community blog and Consumer Energy Report. His bio reports "he has 20 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries, and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, natural gas production, synthetic fuels, ethanol production, butanol production, and various biomass to energy projects." He has a MS in Chemical Engineering and was a Process Engineering Team Leader for ConocoPhillips in Aberdeen, Scotland for six years.

He is occasionally accused of being stubborn and "brusque" but in the midst of overt hype about alternative fuel technologies, it is worthwhile submitting technologies to a skeptical eye - particularly if you are an investor. One of his favorite topics of discussion is promoting "due diligence" to reduce the risk of investment. It merits a full chapter in the current book and a summary list of ten indicators which should be on every analyst's "must consider" list.

His chapter on U.S. Energy Politics gives an interpretation of each of the last eight administrations' (starting with Nixon) declarations for energy independence. It is a subject about which much is promised but not much is achieved. The time is now and I hope this book get broad circulation among policymakers who might otherwise hew to the party line.

I think this book provides much needed information for planning ahead to meet an unpredictable energy future. As Robert affirms at the end, we must not take the availability of our energy resources or our energy future for granted. The longer range we plan now the better able we will be to meet the challenges ahead.

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

technorati BIOblog, BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, hydrolysis, syngas, cellulosic, legislation, gasification, security

"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

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

Roadmap for bioenergy & biobased products in the U.S.

At last year's Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology & Bioenergy I met Dr. Larry Walker for the first time. I had heard of him because one of his responsibilities is managing the prestigious Sun Grant Initiative budget for the Northeast Region at Cornell University.

It wasn't until I had seen him at a couple of other events that I realized that he was also Co-editor in chief of the quarterly Industrial Biotechnology Journal of the biobased industries. Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. the Journal is a terrific source of peer reviewed information about this emerging industry. It also provides a segmented recap of new stories from the preceding quarter and a lengthy calendar of upcoming events.

In the latest issue is a special Industry Report that documents research strategies that will help achieve the goals established by the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee's Vision for Bioenergy and Biobased Products in the United States. As stated in the Roadmap's executive summary:

The updated Roadmap for bioenergy & biobased products in the U.S. will continue to be used as a reference document for industry, academia, and policy makers to implement the steps necessary to achieving the Vision goals. The Roadmap identifies a concrete strategy of research and policy measures for decision makers. It identifies measures needed to advance biomass technologies and enable an economically viable, sustainable and economically desirable biobased industry.

Biomass conversion technologies have the potential not only to decentralize energy security while revitalizing local economies, to mitigate climate impacts of fossil carbon accumulation in the atmosphere, to shift from fossil-based products to biobased ones, but also to reduce waste and pollution accumulations throughout the world. This roadmap should be required reading for federal, state, and local policymakers who hope to help their constituencies move to a cleaner, more environmentally sustainable future in an economically sustainable way.

----------------
technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol,syngas, cellulosic, policy, gasification, decentralization, security

Bioenergy's "Top Five" List.

From a speech delivered at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington DC on November 28, 2007.

Besides writing blogs, I am a Communications Director* of the Biomass Coordinating Council (BCC) of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). ACORE is a Washington-based advocacy association that promotes all renewable energy forms. The BCC, led by the intrepid Bill Holmberg, focuses attention on bioenergy technology, as well as environmental and economic sustainability issues.

America is still the “Can do” leader of the world. It is heartening to travel to recent national and international conferences, expos, and workshops to sense the excitement and see the vision that researchers, government agencies, technologists, and investors are proposing as we face the daunting challenges of the new millennium.

It is time to assess bioenergy’s attributes to see how they fit into the renewable energy paradigm shift sweeping the nation.

We need to help American business, community, educational, state, and federal leaders to understand the opportunities these attributes represent. Doing so will not only raise awareness of bioenergy, but also help persuade policy makers to ACT NOW to support our critically important research, development, and deployment with new policies, loan guarantees, and incentives.

The five key messages are:
1. Bioenergy can convert solar energy into liquid fuel.
2. Bioenergy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Bioenergy can remediate ecological disasters.
4. Bioenergy can revive depressed economies.
5. Bioenergy can expand energy freedom of choice.

Each message above is linked to article that briefly outlines how bioenergy is able to accomplish these socially beneficial actions. They are at the heart of what motivates leaders from all walks of life to get involved in the most significant paradigm shift of our time.

*In the interest of full disclosure, I am also a Marketing Consultant for Price BIOstock Services - the logistics support company responsible for procuring, delivering, and preparing woody biomass to paper and pulp mills and biorefineries – like Range Fuels’ landmark cellulosic ethanol biorefinery in Georgia.

technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, legislation

L.A. Times editorial against ethanol

Following the lead of the Rolling Stone diatribe against ethanol (see my response to The Ethanol Scam), the Los Angeles Times decided to devote their full August 20th editorial to an attack titled Drunk on ethanol. Such slanted media lobbying to the general public seems misplaced to me when it concerns such a multi-faceted issue as energy subsidies.

Unfortunately, I have used up my quota of letters to their editor (I wrote a published letter about illegal immigration two months ago) and I couldn't figure out how to comment online at the Times. But Treehugger helped me out by lauding the Times piece. Below is the comment I wrote in response to Bait and Switchgrass, a "bird dog" referral submitted by Lloyd Alter on the Science & Technology section of the Treehugger site.

--------------------
Having attended about a dozen technological conferences this year where research labs, experts, policy makers, and developers have been sincerely exploring ALL the ethanol issues I have to say that I find the public spinning of these issues in major media a bit disconcerting.

At least the Times didn't call it an "Ethanol Scam" as Rolling Stone did. The writers apparently have no idea how global the effort to find several viable biofuel alternatives to gasoline really is.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. But to hinge one's arguments on a few studies that are singularly slanted at best (Pimental's, for instance, and Jacobson's) shows that these publications' agenda come first, science second. The bias creating public press is the last place these issues should be lobbied. Would it, for instance, surprise anyone to learn that oil companies might be pushing these arguments forward? Not that they have a vested interest or anything.

The fact is $16 billion is being spent on U.S. oil subsidies with nothing to show for it but strategic resource wars, cultural genocide, lopsided trade deficits, and ceilingless prices. Should we be shocked that knowledgeable people would like to see domestic investment to advance sciences that will make all countries self-reliant, reduce international cultural friction, and provide the best insurance against price gouging - consumer choice at the pump?

A robust, decentralized renewable energy paradigm including many kinds of biofuels for a range of applications would not only benefit and quite literally save developing countries without oil resources but would also give us a self-funding way to solve a broad range of nagging environmental issues - global warming, forest mega-fires, wildlife diversity, forest stewardship, landfills, toxic waste disposal, etc.

The broader the range of biomass feedstock that can be converted - the great majority that are non-food - the more waste problems that can be mitigated.

One place Treehugger can start is the investigation of ways to manage stewardship of our forests to reduce the amount of fire-producing undergrowth and tree density that is creating massive beetle infestations and mega-fires 10 times greater than any we have ever experienced before. There is a plume 180 miles long stretching from Ojai to Yosemite that started July 4th and is not yet contained. How much global warming is that? That certainly accounts for much of Gore's hockey stick. And we are worried about ethanol being worse that gasoline in vehicles that haven't even been designed to run efficiently on it?

Energy production of ethanol and electricity from woody biomass "tinder" can fund the vital stewardship programs of public lands we need to expand.

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

Motivating U.S. energy growth with "carrots" and "sticks"

Before breaking for summer the U.S. 110th Congress made strides on defining energy policies through passage of the 2007 Farm Bill (July 27th) and Energy Bills (August 4th). Analysis of these measures shows how the House seeks to achieve its goals by luring development with the "carrots" of incentives while threatening corporations with the "sticks" of taxes and regulatory standards.

In comparison to deliberations on the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) - passed prior to Bush's alarm-sounding "addicted to oil" State of the Union message and the oil price hikes of 2006 - both sides of the aisle seem to be tripping over themselves to prove to their constituencies that they "get" voter concern about the impact of U.S. oil dependency on the war in Iraq, the steep increases in the price of gasoline, carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and the overall need for more self-reliance for both electric and fuel energy production.

As a result, the Farm Bill and Energy Bill includes provisions that strongly support renewable energy development in general and biofuels development in particular.

So what are in these bills? While various news outlets carry detailed comparisons of the House and Senate versions of each, suffice it to say that the main issues break down between those usually held by pro-business Republicans vs. pro-environmentalist Democrats.

Carrots
"Carrots" are incentives that enable private enterprise to reduce the risk of investment in new research, development, & deployment (RD&D). Reliance is placed on American business acumen, the power of profit-motive, and the social benefit of good jobs to spur innovation and positive action. They tend to favor a cap and trade system used in Europe to reward progress implementing carbon emission reduction and energy efficient technologies.

The carrots the House Energy Bill contains -
• New tax credits for consumers to buy plug-in electric hybrids and fuel-cell vehicles as well as low-interest loans and grants for consumers to buy energy efficient appliances and install solar panels and geothermal pumps at their homes.
• Incentives to build biomass factories and for research into cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel.
• Bonds to be used by cities and counties for energy conservation.
• Tax credits for installing E-85 pumps.
• Tax breaks, subsidies for research into better batteries for plug-in hybrid cars and up to $4,000 tax credit for purchasing such cars.
• Funds for an assessment of areas for underground carbon dioxide storage and calls for developing large-scale storage demonstration projects.

The 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) includes some other carrots -
• Funding to invest in rural communities nationwide, including economic development programs and access to broadband telecommunication services.
• New investments in popular conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, Farm and Ranchland Protection Program
• New investments in renewable energy research, development and production in rural America. Rebalancing loan rates and target prices among commodities, achieving greater regional equity.
• Additional funding aimed at protecting and sustaining our nation’s forest resources.

How would these carrots be paid for, besides growth in tax revenues from development of new industries? The House voted to repeal $16 billion in tax breaks given to the oil and gas industry, shifting the money into programs to boost biofuels, renewable energy and efficiency programs.

Sticks
"Sticks" are regulations and punitive taxes that would increase government oversight of the process of energy technology deployment. Sticks would retard those technological development that could possibly threaten the environment, institute mandates on renewable energy purchases, set high standards on vehicle mileage and emissions reduction, and tax companies that fail to implement emissions improvements.

Some sticks create business opportunities. State Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are an example. These mechanisms require utilities to purchase a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. This tends to create market opportunities that encourage investment in chiefly solar and wind energy systems. California and Florida utilities are embracing these standards, in part because of other carrots and sticks. The Global Warming Act and similar California legislation that puts a cap on the use of coal to produce electricity threaten utility access to these mainstay sources of generation. However, the renewable energy sources can result in electricity that is more costly and more seasonal than current modes of generation, consequently they result in higher costs which are usually passed on to the consumer.

Another factor involved with RPS is that access to these wind and solar energy are regional. For this reason, Southern utilities are bristling at the attempt of Congress to pass a national RPS . They don't have much access to wind and solar energy. Biomass energy could rectify the imbalance because the Southeast is the wood basket of America and wood waste is actually a good source of bioenergy, but biofuel conversion technologies have yet to be employed commercial-scale and are at an early adopter stage of marketing.

The sticks the House Energy Bill contains include:
• Requirements that electric utilities produce 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources.
• New efficiency standards for appliances, lighting and building

The Farm Bill also contains -
• Strengthening payment limits for farm subsidies to ensure that people making more than $1 million a year (adjusted gross income) can’t collect conservation and farm program payments.
• Provisions that close loopholes that allow people to avoid payment limits by receiving subsidies through multiple business units.

One stick sought by the Democrats that didn't get passed was a big increase in federal fuel economy standards for all cars and trucks. The auto companies, like GM, have argued that this would cripple their industries because the American public still demands gas guzzling SUVs and pick-up trucks, the most profitable vehicles they make. Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi is expected to push to include a Senate provision to raise fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon for cars and trucks by 2020 during deliberations.

What do the experts think about these Bills?
Bob Dinneen, President of the Renewable Fuels Association said this about the Energy Bill - “This bill could be to next generation cellulosic ethanol production what the 2005 energy bill was to grain-based ethanol. To achieve the ambitious goals the American people are calling for, it will require the production of ethanol from all available feedstocks, including corn, corn stover, switchgrass, wood chips and other cellulosic materials. This bill strikes the right chord by requiring that 21 billion of the 36 billion gallon requirement be met by cellulosic ethanol production."

Marchant Wentworth, a legislative representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists says "The Energy Bill saves consumers money, creates jobs and makes a down payment on reducing the threat of global warming."

Even though it satisfies the interests of most farmers, the Farm Bill looks like it might face a Bush veto. In one section Democrats added another "stick". They said they were closing a loophole and cracking down on foreign tax-dodgers, while Republicans called it a massive tax hike that would affect manufacturers that provide millions of jobs in their districts.

"This is an unprecedented move to use a farm bill as a vehicle to increase taxes," said Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 Republican. "We could have put the House imprint on the farm bill, and now it is veto bait, and that is a tragedy."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Democrats had narrowed support for farm programs by including the tax measure in the bill. "If there was ever a time when our farm programs needed friends, it is now," he said.

Both bills will now go to the Senate to be merged with their versions.

technorati bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, cellulosic, legislation, gasification, decentralization, security

Fuel Ethanol Workshop promotes vision and collaboration

The 2007 Fuel Ethanol Workshop was informative, thought provoking, and inspirational. Its scope was very broad. While enumerating the many benefits of a robust renewable energy paradigm, it also sought to promote greater collaboration between capitalism and environmentalism. It sought to stretch the range of feedstock beyond corn to cellulosic raw materials. And it provided many opportunities for attendees, embarked on a globally important quest, to meet and learn from each other how to achieve their goals.

Gateway to the Future

Symbolically, the choice of venue couldn't have more appropriate. It was held at the America's Center just west of St. Louis' inspirational Gateway Arch. Millions marvel at the futuristic elegance of its gleaming structure.

Between the vaulting legs of the arch is the underground Jefferson National Expansion Memorial - a contemporary reminder of the pioneering American spirit and its tireless urge to explore. In 1803 Thomas Jefferson oversaw the Louisiana Purchase that doubled the size of the country. He predicted it would take "a thousand years to settle." It took less than a hundred. This demonstrates that even a visionary as prodigious as Jefferson can dramatically underestimate the character and energy of his countrymen and the draw such vision represents to people around the world - many of whom immigrated to settle in the new territory. We are clearly at the gateway to a new era for emerging technologies that will transform the world energy paradigm and impact the exercise of freedom everywhere.

Building a globally important industry

The sense that biofuels companies are not just on the threshold of forming a globally important industry but also of insuring the humanitarian sustainability of future generations was highlighted during the opening session. BBI International hosts the conference and its CEO, Mike Bryan spoke eloquently to the attendees about the importance of the renewable fuels quest in global terms:

You are here to build an industry.

You represent a stronger economy - not just a stronger rural economy, but also a stronger urban economy because a rising tide raises all ships.

You also represent energy independence and energy security. Renewable energy promotes world peace. A new age in energy. When the oil wells and the oil refineries of today are nothing more than rusted relics of a past generation, renewable energy will continue to supply clean domestically produced energy not only to this country but also to countries all around the world.

We hope that soon, someday soon, we no longer will go to war over oil and that it is just simply a faded memory.

The need for both capitalism and environmentalism

Bryan was equally passionate when he spoke about the need for capitalists and environmentalists to work together:

You represent a cleaner environment. There’s been a lot of discussion over the years about capitalism and the environmentalism. They never seem to have gotten together, have they? That needs to change. We need to work with environmentalists.

You know what? Wealth creates pollution. Wealth needs to solve the pollution problem in this world. Capitalism alone is haughty, environmentalism alone is weak. But when we combine the two together we have something that can actually change the world.

It's okay to make money, it's okay to be profitable, that's a good thing. But as capitalists, as people who are in business to generate revenue and generate profit, we need to think about how we can create a better environment. We always need to be thinking about how we can collaborate with the environmental movement around the world.

To emphasize the importance of the environmental message, the keynote address was presented by Karen Coshof from Stonehaven Productions, Executive Producer of The Great Warming, a documentary about the threat of global warming and the need for "enlightened corporations, religious institutions, environmental and political leaders to recognize our moral responsibility to be stewards of the Earth today and for future generations."

Our time to stabilize global climate is shrinking fast. You are all working to move the world to a new and, I hope, a more sustainable energy paradigm. When you make your decisions and talk to each other over the next few days, factor in your children's future because failure is not an option.

Expanding the role of renewable biofuels

Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association reflected on the immense change that has taken place over the last few years when he said:

50% of the nation's fuel is blended with ethanol. Every single gallon of gasoline sold in New York and California is blended with ethanol. Every single gallon of gasoline sold in Houston, Texas - where big oil executives have to drive to work each day on your fuel - is testament to how far we have come. But we surely have a long way to go.

We have to remind people that technology is not stagnant – that we are going to get greater and greater yields from an acre of corn. That technology is going to allow us to satisfy demand for grain used in feed, fuel, and fiber throughout this country.

We need to get the message out that... the price of gasoline has a far greater impact on consumer food prices than does a bushel of corn.

A recent poll that was done revealed that more than three out of every four Americans believe we need to be doing much more. We need to be maximizing production and use of renewable fuels like ethanol.

Congress has got that message. Congress saw what the Renewable Fuel Standard has done for our industry.

Diversifying ethanol feedstock

One way to maximize production of renewable fuels is to incorporate the use of a greater range of biomass feedstock. Poet President Jeff Broin announced a new project that will use corn cobs and corn fiber as the feedstock for their commercial cellulosic ethanol production facility that will be jointly funded with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Numerous workshops shed light on advancements in cellulosic biomass conversion into ethanol. Of the six D.O.E. "Section 932" award winners, four made presentations about their processes including Abengoa, Poet, Alico (and their technology partner, BRI), and BlueFire. However, other workshops dealt with issues that were important to all ethanol production processes.

Workshop 3 dealt with logistics and the transportation grid that currently exists to service the growing industry. Sandra Dearden, President of Highroad Consulting, Ltd. made a strong point during her presentation on "Integrating Transportation: Planning for Future Growth" that rail service is not on a trajectory that will adequately service the anticipated needs of the ethanol industry. When asked about future volume capacity, Sandra responded:

The thing that scares me the most is that the freight volume is likely to double within the next 14 years. It takes two years for a railroad to receive an ordered locomotive. It takes about ten months to get someone trained to be on a crew to be on a locomotive. And, at the same time, we don't have the infrastructure capacity. The railroads have gone to the House (of Representatives) and asked for assistance for funding additional railroad infrastructure.

The current status of Carbon Credits

Workshop 7 was titled "Greenhouse Gases: Capitalizing on Carbon Credits." Should a cap and trade mechanism be fully implemented nationwide, the value of GHG emissions is estimated to represent $50-$300 billion dollars by 2020 (US Congressional Budget Office). Keeping abreast of the carbon credit systems that are developed may spell the difference between survival and bankrupcy for many developers.

How can we use carbon credits to provide incentives for responsible industry behavior without undermining the financial stability of existing leveraged corporations? If a carbon credit system is used, what input will be taken into account? The answers will tend to be regionalized state-by-state. In the meantime, experts are developing tools to calculate the value of carbon credits based on a complex set of data input. Once of these is the BEACCON model, implemented in Excel®. which is free to download from http://lifecycleassociates.com/beaccon.php.

The BEACCON (Biofuels Emissions and Cost Connection) model allows ethanol producers to evaluate the potential impacts on production costs of the global warming intensity (GWI) of different biofuel production pathways. Version 1.0 of the model focuses on ethanol plants with a capacity range between 50 and 100 million gallons per year.

Another computational model is being developed by the University of Nebraska called the Biofuel Energy Systems Simulator (BESS). It will be released July 20th for free download.

The Biofuel Energy Systems Simulator (BESS) model provides a holistic “cradle-to-grave” analysis of energy use and net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the entire biofuel production cycle—including crop production, ethanol conversion, and by-product use and waste disposal via associated cattle feedlots and anaerobic biodigestion systems. The model estimates the net energy efficiency and net GHG emissions for each component of the biofuel production life cycle and also for the integrated system as a whole.

James Murphy of Carbon Green, LLC was on hand to provide an introduction to the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) - which trades Carbon Financial Instrument™ (CFI) contracts.

CCX members make a voluntary but legally binding commitment to meet annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. Those who reduce below the targets have surplus allowances to sell or bank; those who emit above the targets comply by purchasing CCX CFI contracts.

Notably, the U.S. Congress recently passed an appropriations bill amendment instructing the House to join the CCX - which requests that the House Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) purchase Carbon Financial Instruments from American projects through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to offset carbon produced by all House operations after renewable energy and efficiency improvements are made.


New Technologies

The new technologies addressed by FEW workshops this year included four of the six D.O.E. "Section 932" award winners mentioned earlier.

Bob Wooley, Principal Engineer from NREL/DOE gave an illuminating presentation on how his organization is helping the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plant and cultivate emerging technology development in the private sector. He talked about the dynamics and economics for expanding the fuel supply chain with a focus on two complex areas of the problem - feedstock supply and capital investment. They have developed a model called STELLA™ to understand how DOE activities might influence the ultimate ethanol deployment and explore what else (outside of DOE) might be needed to reach the desired deployment levels.

Other technologies included a DOE look at the emissions and performance characteristics of the SAAB 9-5 BioPower automobile and how the Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company is developing plans to displace over 90% of its fossil fuel usage with renewable biomass.

Hurdles to Deployment of E85

The Ethanol Promotion and Information Council (EPIC) held a special workshop on E85 during which their Director of Operations, Robert White, updated information about Underwriters Laboratories (UL) who rescinded E85 pump and pump component certification in September and October of 2006. This sent a chill through the distribution service industry for ethanol. There is now a process that is being developed to create standards for submitting equipment for certification and UL approval.

Back in February 2007 UL did complete a survey of dispensers across the country that concluded that E85 equipment has not resulted in any significant safety problems. A separate Brazil survey concluded in May 2007 rendered similar results. UL is now working inhouse to develop new standards which it hopes will be completed and published by December of 2007. It is anticipated that it will take a while to pass certification and it will not be until the fourth quarter of 2008 that there will be UL certified dispensers on the street.

The consequences have not completely curtailed deployment of pumps because some manufacturers are providing special warrants on safety and security in the absence of UL certification. However, this is an issue for the big box retailers (WalMart and others) and in Hawaii a program to install 25 E85 pumps was halted by the Fire Marshal because of the lack of UL approval.

Carl Donges from Clean Fuels USA talked about some equipment that his company represents that will have a big impact on how ethanol is dispensed now and will in the future. Texas based CleanFUEL USA has established itself as the leading global manufacturer of certified and approved alternative fuel dispensing equipment for both propane (LPG) and E85 and has expanded its role as an industry leader by providing comprehensive alternative motor fuel programs for fleet managers throughout the world.

Not only do they currently market dedicated pumps for dispensing ethanol but they also sell retrofitting kits and even pumps that blend different percentages of pure ethanol with standard gasoline at the dispensing station.

During Workshop 14 Jim Stewart of BRI made a presentation promoting the conversion of waste-to-ethanol using a thermochemical process. He used the occasion to launch a scathing attack accusing Big Oil companies of attempting to control renewable energy development so as to mitigate the possible negative impacts on their established businesses:

The public face of Big Oil appears to be committed to a transition between petroleum to alternative energy. But its private face is providing funds to educational institutions and think tanks that are generating unfavorable studies or otherwise opposing ethanol as a substitute for gasoline - and in subtle ways Big Oil is taking other steps to slow its expansion.

He then listed several high profile instances that he felt demonstrated the conflict of interest between the funding of educational institutions by Big Oil and subsequent research announcements detrimental to ethanol's image in the press. It is a touchy subject to be addressed at FEW because the oil companies, with their refineries that blend ethanol into their gasoline to meet state standards, are the primary customers of ethanol producers.


The promise of renewable fuel development will depend upon the collaboration of competing stakeholder interests (academia, business, social, environmental, and political) while correcting public misperceptions as reported in the press. The call is being raised for insightful leaders who can see and develop the common ground shared by these many sectors. Clearly, not all sectors were equally represented at FEW 2007, but the workshops stimulated multi-interest discourse and provided a forum for industry leaders to learn from each other.

For more information, see BBI's own publication for a Ethanol Producer recap

technorati BIOconversion, bioenergy, biofuels, ethanol, hydrolysis, syngas, cellulosic, legislation, gasification, decentralization, security