Low-Input, High-Diversity Biofuels

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has released a report on the climatic consequences of transportation biofuels:

Biofuels for Transportation: A Climate Perspective

The conclusion of the report follows:

Biofuels have the potential to satisfy a portion of U.S. on-road fuel needs, assist in addressing climate change, augment and diversify rural income, and enhance energy security. However, reaching this potential at a meaningful scale will require significant investment both in biofuels and passenger vehicles. A new generation of biofuels is needed—with significantly lower GHG profiles and costs, made from feedstocks that put less pressure on agricultural and recreational lands, potable water supplies, and habitat. Wide deployment of passenger vehicles able to go substantially further for each unit of energy in the fuel is also essential. Policy makers will need to balance competing interests, including:
• Users of transportation fuels versus producers of feedstocks and biofuel manufacturers;
• Agricultural producers versus consumers of agricultural products;
• Biofuels versus other transportation fuel options; and
• Use of lands for biofuels versus use of land for other purposes.
Policymakers will also need to assess interactions between biofuel policies, the wide array of existing policies that affect land use—particularly crop supports and trade policies—and land-use components of climate agreements. To the extent that biofuel policies are intended to contribute to the achievement of climate change goals, support for biofuels should be linked to their GHG profiles. Development of methodologies acceptable to a large range of stakeholders will be a critical step in enabling and implementing any such policies.

Few would argue with this rather bland statement. The report only briefly mentions nitrous oxide emissions, and very indirectly mentions the role of soil respiration in GHG balance. Still, it is important that an increasing number of high-profile reports are not merely reasserting that biofuels are good for the environment.

Research and Markets, a major markets research organization, has just come out with a comprehensive (and expensive) report on the climatic impacts of biofuels:

Biofuels & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Energy Business Reports, June 2008, Pages: 51

A striking quote; not what I expect from market researchers:

"Today, biofuels provide about 1% of global transport fuel. Already, they are causing serious harm to the climate, to communities, food sovereignty and food security and to biodiversity. Most biofuels are agrofuels – made from crops and trees grown specifically for that purpose, such as sugar cane, palm oil, soya, jatropha or maize. Agrofuel expansion means more intensive agriculture and thus more agro-chemicals (including synthetic fertilizers). It also means more destruction of natural ecosystems, which play a vital role in regulating the climate, and the displacement of millions of small farmers, pastoralists and indigenous peoples."

The table of contents follows:

Executive Summary

What are Biofuels?
Introduction to Biofuels
Background
What are the Major Biofuels?
Utilization of Biofuels
Analysis of Ethanol
Analysis of Biodiesel
Advantages and Disadvantages of Biofuels
What the Future Holds for Biofuels

What are Greenhouse Gases?
Overview
Greenhouse Effect
Natural and Anthropogenic Sources of GHGs
Role of Water Vapor
GHG Emissions
Are Biofuels Environmentally Friendly?

How are Biofuels a Threat to Global Warming?
Introduction
Deforestation and Peat Destruction
Impact on Climate System
Biodiversity
Industrial Agriculture
Second-Generation Agrofuels

How Biofuels are Undermining Climate Justice?
Majority of Biofuels Being Grown in the Southern Part of the World
Impact on Food Security and Food Sovereignty
Land Grab and Rise in Refugees
Government Policies
Ecological Destruction

How Biofuels Enable a Sustainable Reduction in GHG Emissions?
Introduction
Biofuels are Renewable
Positive Energy Balance of Biofuels
Biofuels are Carbon Neutral
Biofuels are the Future for Transportation

Analysis of Biomass Fuel Energy Budgets
Biomass Fuel Energy Budgets
Mitigating GHG through Biofuels
GHG Budget for Ethanol from Corn
GHG Budget for Other Biofuels
Conclusion

Even British Royalty is getting involved with this concern:

Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, joined the debate saying: “We need to be more careful in food production and mindful that there are things we can do that harm production. For example, Brazil is displacing livestock into the rainforest, and that means the rainforest is coming down, and that means less rain on the plains so they are not able to grow the bioethanol. It’s a balance we have to think very carefully about. One suggestion offered at the WEF was for governments to agree a list of crops that were appropriate for use as fuel while banning the use of food crops.

From http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article3964943.ece

The Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) has just released a Briefing document on potentially invasive biofuels crops:

GISP briefing documents

BBC has a short article on the GISP's concerns about biofuels:

Fuel crops 'pose invasion risk'
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
Nations should avoid planting biofuel crops that have a high risk of becoming invasive species, a report warns.

Oklahoma to seed over 1,000 acres to switchgrass

The majority of these acres will be in Guymon, in the most arid region of Oklahoma. Switchgrass does not naturally occur there in abundance. Also, switchgrass never occurs in nature in such high abundance over such large areas. Where it does occur, it is in diverse tallgrass communities and in highly genetically diverse populations.

A prediction: Within the next three years, there will be loss of switchgrass yields due to emergent diseases (perhaps caused by pathogens that are currently not even known). If the years are wet, there will be widespread lodging and fungal infections. If the years are dry, there will be crop failure due to lack of water, or (if the crop is irrigated) there will be a huge (and perhaps ugly) debate over proper use of water resources in the Oklahoma Panhandle.

Another prediction: The key players involved will express surprise, call the problems 'unanticipated' and will attribute failures to the quirky weather. They will propose quick fixes in the form of new genotypes, fungicides, and irrigation systems.

Please post comments if you agree or disagree with these predictions!

---Mike

Redamazon has a strong commentary on the effects of biofuels on indigenous peoples worldwide:

Biofuels: New Threat for Indigenous People

There is a perceptive column in the Washington Post on the environmental and social impact of biofuels by Lester Brown (Earth Policy Institute) and Jonathan Lewis (Clean Air Task Force). This is a good quick read for those wishing to update themselves on the current concerns.

Ethanol's Failed Promise

There are no details yet, but the San Francisco Business Times reports that some (though fewer than half) of the recently-announced research grants from the BP-supported Energy BioSciences Institute will cover the "social, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels production". Whether or not this is a case of greenwashing remains to be seen.

Energy Biosciences Institute makes first 49 biofuel grants

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has issued a fact sheet indicating its policy on sustainability for biofuels:

Sustainable biomass land reserves for a sustainable future

Reinvest in Minnesota - Clean Energy (RIM-CE) has issued a short document promoting use of prairie grasses for biofuels:

http://www.cleanenergyminnesota.org/fuels.pdf

Citing environmental concerns, the European Environment Agency's Science Committee has called for backing out of the EU's biofuels target:

Suspend 10% biofuels target, says EEA`s scientific advisory body
Source: European Environment Agency (EEA)
Published Apr. 10, 2008

A news item by Jeff Tollefson in the latest issue of Nature describes the potential for the US biofuels mandates to do quite a bit of environmental harm. This article also points to a crucial future role for the EPA in minimizing damage.

Advanced biofuels face an uncertain future
Aggressive US mandate may do more harm than good.

The New York Times reports on the conversion of CRP lands to crops.

As Prices Rise, Farmers Spurn Conservation

This brief article outlines the dramatic scope of the problem, along with the effects on conservation and wildlife. However, it does not mention the climatic consequences of carbon loss and greenhouse gas emissions, plus the reintroduction of biocides and groundwater pollution. This issue is not merely a concern of wildlife enthusiasts and hunters in the Great Plains; the effects on global biogeochemistry are likely to be immense.

The High Plains Journal recently reported on a talk I gave to the Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management here on the Oklahoma State University campus:

Ecology, water and biodiversity enter ethanol debate

Recently, the United Nation's Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has warned about political instability and weakening food security caused by massive land conversion for biofuels feedstocks. He calls for a review, but not a moratorium on biofuels.

UN chief calls for review of biofuels policy

Dennis Avery, Director of the Center for Global Food Issues, has written a strong critique of biofuels:

The worst moment in history to demand biofuels

A quote from the commentary:

"Corn ethanol is showing itself to be a massive error. Now how will the governments get out of the mandate before world wildlife disappears for all time?"

According to a report in the Guardian, the Tana River delta in Kenya, a site of great value to wildlife, is threatened by new sugar refineries designed to meet British biofuels demand:

UK biofuel needs 'threaten delta'
Hundreds of bird species are in danger from plans to plant sugar cane and build a refinery in Kenya

Here is a brand new review of the use of grasslands for biofuels:

Ceotto, E. (2008). "Grasslands for bioenergy production. A review." Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28(1): 47-55.
The promise of low-input high-diversity prairies to provide sustainable bioenergy production has recently been emphasized. This review article presents a critical discussion of some controversial points of using grasslands to produce bioenergy. The following issues are addressed: proteins versus biofuels; reactive nitrogen emissions; biodiversity; and effective land use. Two major disadvantages in deriving bioenergy from grasslands are identified: (i) marginal lands are displaced from their fundamental role of producing meat and milk foods, in contrast with the rising worldwide demand for high-quality food; and (ii) the combustion of N-rich grassland biomass, or by-products, results in emission of reactive N into the atmosphere and dramatically reduces the residence time of biologically-fixed nitrogen in the ecosystems. Nitrogen oxides, released during atmospheric combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, have a detrimental effect on global warming. Since intensively managed crops on fertile soils need to be cultivated to fulfil the dietary needs of populations, the potential role of inedible cereal crop residues in providing bioenergy merits consideration. This might spare more marginal land area for forage production or even for full natural use, in order to sustain high levels of biodiversity. Owing to the complexity of terrestrial systems, and the complexity of interactions, a modeling effort is needed in order to predict and quantify outcomes of specific combination of land use at higher integration levels.

The International Association for Vegetation Science, the leading scientific organization for scholars of the ecology of plant communities, has recently released a resolution on biofuels - largely supporting the idea for research into alternatives to HILD:

International Association for Vegetation Science
Resolution on Biofuels

Whereas:

• Over the past few years, concern about global climate change and energy security has dramatically increased interest in biomass-derived energy,
• Almost all attention on biomass-derived energy has been focused on High-Input, Low-Diversity (HILD) systems, which have questionable sustainability and are susceptible to disease and crop failure,
• Low-Input, High-Diversity (LIHD) systems have not been explored as a source of biomass for energy, despite their possible advantages for global carbon balance,
• In some regions, LIHD systems have potential additional value for sustainability, plant and animal biodiversity, nature conservation, honey production, aesthetics, erosion control, and other benefits,
• Vegetation scientists have particular expertise on the productivity and sustainability of vegetation- derived biomass, and are thus especially qualified for addressing fundamental issues associated with biofuel production,
• Expenditures for Scientific Research on biofuels have expanded dramatically, but not for vegetation science,
• Increased production of HILD crops is threatening natural vegetation worldwide, and much of this vegetation is of high conservation value or provides valuable ecosystem services,

Therefore be it resolved that:

• We, the International Association for Vegetation Science, call upon scientific funding agencies to increase funding for basic and applied vegetation science,
• We call upon industry, government, and other institutions to avoid a strictly crop‐based approach, and to consider LIHD production where appropriate,
• We call upon our own membership to remain mindful and vigilant that many of the natural communities we value and study may come under threat from strong pressure for HILD developments,
• We call upon our own membership to consider how its expertise can be used and mobilized to contribute to a global research program, in which alternatives to HILD are explored,
• And we call upon our own membership to communicate a balanced view of biomass-based fuels with stakeholders, including threats and opportunities associated with leading opportunities.

Biomass Magazine described a new report by consulting company Context Network. Despite all the hype about cellulosic technology as the savior for biofuels, this report is sharply critical about its prospects:

Study: Cellulosic ethanol a long shot

Biomass Magazine described a new report by consulting company Context Network. Despite all the hype about cellulosic technology as the savior for biofuels, this report is sharply critical about its prospects:

Study: Cellulosic ethanol a long shot

A recent posting in Biofuels Digest describes numerous ventures related to production of biocrude via fast pyrolysis. The Australian team (discussed previously on this blog) is only one of many.

A recent article in PNAS highlights the effects of nitrogen loading, caused by corn ethanol production:

Donner, S. D. and C. J. Kucharik (2008). "Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(11): 4513-4518.
Corn cultivation in the United States is expected to increase to meet demand for ethanol. Nitrogen leaching from fertilized corn fields to the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River system is a primary cause of the bottom-water hypoxia that develops on the continental shelf of the northern Gulf of Mexico each summer. In this study, we combine agricultural land use scenarios with physically based models of terrestrial and aquatic nitrogen to examine the effect of present and future expansion of corn-based ethanol production on nitrogen export by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers to the Gulf of Mexico. The results show that the increase in corn cultivation required to meet the goal of 1536 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022 suggested by a recent U.S. Senate energy policy would increase the annual average flux of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) export by the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers by 1034%. Generating 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol by the year 2022 will increase the odds that annual DIN export exceeds the target set for reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico to >95%. Examination of extreme mitigation options shows that expanding corn-based ethanol production would make the already difficult challenges of reducing nitrogen export to the Gulf of Mexico and the extent of hypoxia practically impossible without large shifts in food production and agricultural management.

The American Bakers Association is calling on the Secretary of Agriculture to "increase the flexibility" of land use on Conservation Reserve Program lands, to allow the planting of grains. Plowing CRP lands will have immediate effects with respect to soil respiration and N2O respiration, thus accelerating climate change.

ABA Band of Bakers March on Washington, D.C. Announce Action Plan for Wheat Crisis

Farm groups and ethanol groups, according to biofuels digest, are also "shouting" for the "release" of CRP lands. I thought that the purpose of CRP was to release the lands from environmental abuse...

Rhett Butler from Mongabay reports on a recent scholarly paper by Dr. Donald Sawyer, an associate professor at the Center for Sustainable Development at the University of Brasilia. This paper stresses that land clearance for cellulosic crops may prove disastrous for the Amazon:

Cellulosic energy may trigger dramatic collapse in the Amazon

We know that many tropical systems are very vulnerable to land conversion. However, we also know that at moderate disturbance intensities, tropical systems are remarkably resilient. Why not a more modest approach (still bad, but not catastrophic): instead of simply replacing rainforests with monocultures, allow natural succession to replace rainforests with rainforests? Let the rainforest itself be the crop. Secondary forests have some conservation value, and are ideally maintained in landscapes with primary forests present.

Of course, woody plants are not as 'nice' as custom cellulosic crops - but the industry is working on conversion technologies.

The environmental impact of using diverse forests is likely to be orders of magnitude smaller than for crops.