The Wildfuels Alternative

I have previously blogged about the probable negative effects of the Renewable Fuel Standards. Now UPI is reporting that there may be delays in implementing the standard:

EPA delaying biofuels rule, experts say

At first glance, the delay seems like good news for the environment. The report, however, points out some interesting subtleties of what the delay might mean. Some experts who are not big ethanol producers have some concerns. The article does tend to perpetuate the myth that 'all is fine and dandy with cellulosic ethanol'.

David Malakoff wrote a strong article on the potential adverse effects of biofuels on biodiversity for Conservation Magazine. Here, it is excerpted in The Guardian:

Could we end up trampling biodiversity in the name of biofuels?

The Union of Concerned Scientists has posted the text of the open letter on Biofuels and indirect land use change. The letter can be viewed here, along with its signatories.

An Open Letter from Leading Scientists and Economists

This letter was apparently decisive in having indirect effects of biofuels considered.

Despite all of the interest in cellulosic biofuels, biomethane seems to be sorely neglected. A new study from Ireland stresses the benefits of using biomethane from established stands of grass:

Murphy, J. D. and N. M. Power (2009). "An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland." Biomass & Bioenergy 33(3): 504-512.

The Biofuels Directive proposes 5.75% of transport fuel (by energy) to be replaced by biofuel in the year 2010. This equates to 11.3 PJ in Ireland, which equates to 538 million litres of ethanol or 323 million litres of biodiesel. However, if using biodiesel produced through bioesterification of rapeseed oil, then 6.3% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Furthermore this equates to 70% of arable land. Using ethanol produced from wheat, 3.9% of Irish agricultural land is required to produce 5.75% of transport fuel. Ethanol produces less energy from a crop, than the energy in the biogas generated when the crop is digested. The ethanol production process uses up to 60% of the produced energy in the final ethanol product. It is shown for compressed biomethane generated from silage that the total parasitic demand of the process is of the order of 25%. Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland. The 2010 biofuels target can be met with 1.6% of agricultural land; this is four times less land than required using rapeseed. A conservative economic analysis would suggest a lower cost than ethanol produced from wheat. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

With very few changes in words, the following passage can hold for much of North America. Just replace "Irish" with "American", and change the numbers accordingly.

" Grass/silage is a crop that Irish farmers are familiar with, over 90% of Irish agricultural land is under grass. Grass does not require rotation, it does not require annual ploughing (releasing NO.), and it sequesters carbon into the soil. Digesting silage, scrubbing the biogas to biomethane, and compressing and utilizing it as a transport fuel, is suggested to be the optimum biofuel for Ireland."

The Biodiesel alliance has issued a set of principles for sustainability of biodiesel.

Guiding Principles for Biodiesel Sustainability

The principles follow:

1. Biodiesel production shall follow all applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which it is produced.

2. Biodiesel projects shall be developed and operated under appropriate, transparent, and participatory processes that involve all relevant stakeholders.

3. Biodiesel shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Producers shall strive to continuously improve that reduction.

4. Biodiesel production shall support human rights and labor rights, and shall ensure safe and decent working conditions.

5. Biodiesel production shall contribute to the social and economic development of local communities.

6. Biodiesel production shall strive to improve food security.

7. Throughout the supply chain, the biodiesel industry shall implement management systems that maintain and strive to improve biodiversity, areas of High Conservation Value, and the quality of natural resources such as soil, air, and water.

8. Biodiesel production shall respect natural resource rights, such as land and water rights.

9. All participants throughout biodiesel supply chain shall be dedicated to the ideal of continuous improvement. Members shall, through ongoing efforts, make advancements in the economic, social and environmental performance of the industry.

The principles are a set of 'ideals', and not described as standards or goals. So far, there is no clear indication that the group has been very 'idealistic'. In particular, I have not seen any movement or discussion on principle #7.

--Mike Palmer

A new report in Science indicates the large effect biomass (largely biofuel) burning has, relative to fossil fuels, in generating the 'brown cloud' problem of carbonaceous aerosols in southeast Asia:

Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion?
Örjan Gustafsson,Martin Kruså,Zdenek Zencak,Rebecca J. Sheesley,Lennart Granat, Erik Engström, P. S. Praveen, P. S. P. Rao, Caroline Leck, Henning Rodhe

An interesting coalition of nonprofit groups is expressing concern about cellulosic biofuels. This is, to my knowledge, the first time cellulosic fuels (which the press has viewed as the ideal solution to agrofuels woes, once the technological problems are solved) are specifically targetted:

2nd Gen Biofuels are a Dangerous "Green" Bubble

An advertisement by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) claiming that biofuels were sustainable has been banned from publication in the Guardian:

Biofuels ad banned by ASA after George Monbiot complaint

Apparently, the RFA is using what is now a familiar tactic of using a purely economic, and not environmental, definition of sustainability - yet of passing it off as if it was an environmental definition. Guardian columnist George Monbiot called them on the deception, and the result is the banning of the advertisement.

Note that the blog now has a new name, in order to avoid the confusion over HILD vs. LIHD. Of course, the blog will continue to discuss that distinction. But the purpose of the blog is to highlight the concerns over destruction of native habitats for the purpose of planting agrofuels, and to point out alternatives to the conventional thinking that agribusiness knows best.

I have found that the distinction between HILD and LIHD fuels does not capture many of the most important points that need to be made concerning biofuel alternatives. For example, it has been my premise that wild, low-diversity grasslands systems can serve as a promising low-input feedstock with numerous environmental benefits. Similarly, I have heard a number of people promoting genetic modification of multiple species creating a'dream combination' high-yielding polyculture plantations. Also, the HILD vs. LIHD dichotomy implies that diversity promotes productivity - an interesting ecological premise does not promise to be universally applicable.

Thus, I propose a new dichotomy: wildfuels vs. agrofuels. Agrofuels are almost everthing we have been hearing about in the media: maize, switchgrass, oilpalms, etc.: Things that are intentionally planted for the sake of being harvested. Wildfuels (I do not know whether I am hereby coining term) consists of spontaneously growing vegetation (it may or may not be diverse; it may or may not be native) which can be harvested. It can consist of oldfields, native meadows, successional forests, roadsides, etc. Its harvest is not necessarily benign (e.g. you would not want to level a redwood forest) but I posit, as readers of this blog know, that there will be numerous systems which would benefit tremendously from such harvest (especially systems that have evolved under regimes of chronic biomass removal).

So let us give wildfuels serious consideration!

--Mike

Tom Philpott has a commentary that is contrary to what most of the media is reporting about the 'environmental friendliness' of the nomination of Steven Chu for Secretary of Energy:

Chu-ing the fat of the land?
New energy chief's enthusiasm for cellulosic ethanol makes me uncomfortable

Even many of the corn ethanol supporters view corn as a transitional crop, so Philpott seems right on the mark. He does fall into the common thinking "cellulosic ethanol good, corn ethanol bad". My critique of Chu goes deeper: there is no clear evidence that he is considering the full environmental impacts of cellulosic biofuels. We need an energy strategy from our leaders, not a runaway energy bandwagon.

--Mike Palmer

A new paper in Biological Conservation provides an almost-comprehensive review of the impacts of biofuels on biodiversity and society:

Koh, L. P. and J. Ghazoul (2008). "Biofuels, biodiversity, and people: Understanding the conflicts and finding opportunities." Biological Conservation 141(10): 2450-2460.

Why did I say "almost comprehensive"? Because the paper is somewhat short-cited with respect to the possibility that biofuels could actually help maintain biodiversity. The closest the paper gets to describing the effects of harvests on grasslands is here:

"On the other land, the development of more efficient biomass conversion pathways may make it economically feasible to harvest large swathes of savannah grassland or provide additional economic incentives to clear natural forest..."
lands.

The idea that mowing can help restore the biodiversity of degraded grasslands is not discussed.
--Mike Palmer

Here is yet another study on the benefits of DIVERSE prairie restorations on roadsides. In most locations in North America, prairies will not remain prairies unless the biomass is regularly removed. Thus, this represents an ideal win-win-win-win-win (etc.) situation for biofuels. The benefits include plant diversity, net carbon sequestration, pollinators for agriculture, roadside beautification, runoff control, ease of harvest and transport, no conflict of food vs. fuel, no clearing of native forests and grasslands, energy independence, etc. Such an option should be considered first, not last.

Hopwood, J. L. (2008). "The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation." Biological Conservation 141(10): 2632-2640.
Marginal habitats such as hedgerows or roadsides become especially important for the conservation of biodiversity in highly modified landscapes. With concerns of a global pollination crisis, there is a need for improving pollinator habitat. Roadsides restored to native prairie vegetation may provide valuable habitat to bees, the most important group of pollinators. Such roadsides support a variety of pollen and nectar sources and unlike agricultural fields, are unplowed, and therefore can provide potential nesting sites for ground-nesting bees. To examine potential effects of roadside restoration, bee communities were sampled via aerial netting and pan trapping along roadside prairie restorations as well as roadsides dominated by non-native plants. Management of roadside vegetation via the planting of native species profoundly affected bee communities. Restored roadsides supported significantly greater bee abundances as well as higher species richness compared to weedy roadsides. Floral species richness, floral abundance, and percentage of bare ground were the factors that led to greater bee abundance and bee species richness along restored roadsides. Traffic and width of roadside did not significantly influence bees, suggesting that even relatively narrow verges near heavy traffic could provide valuable habitat to bees. Restored and weedy roadside bee communities were similar to the prairie remnant, but the prairie remnant was more similar in bee richness and abundance to restored roadsides. Restoring additional roadsides to native vegetation could benefit pollinator conservation efforts by improving habitat on the millions of acres of land devoted to roadsides worldwide, land that is already set aside from further development

Bruce Dale has written an opinion piece for the Washington Times, sharply critizing (without even naming!) the controversial Fargione et al. paper (Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky and P. Hawthorne (2008). "Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt." Science: 1152747.)

DALE: Sound policy needs sound science

The Fargione et al. paper describes potential unintended climatic consequences of agricultural expansion due to biofuels feedstock production. Dale's comment states that the paper should not be used to set scientific policy. He implied that the specific results of Fargione et al. were all suspect, and should be ignored. But I was impressed by what Dale did NOT say: he did not argue that land use changes should not be considered in a regulatory framework. He did not argue that we should ignore data on unintended consequences (though he implied that we should not slow down biofuels development while waiting for better numbers).

Dale states:

Indirect land use change makes U.S. farmers and biofuel producers potentially responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions of their competitors around the world, a burden no other domestic industry bears.

The obvious response is that all domestic industries should be held responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is no doubt that a mandated increase in biofuels production will cause rapid and widespread transformation of landscapes worldwide. We are already seeing a huge increase in North American sodbusting, and pressures being exerted on CRP lands. The irony here is that biofuels are touted as a solution to the greenhouse effect, not a cause of it. Thus, it is completely fair and appropriate that biofuels be placed under very close scrutiny when it comes to climatic effects.

Yes, we need more science. But we need the right kind of science. If we continue to spend most of the biofuels research dollars on genetic modification of crops, cellulosic processes, engineering, and biofuels PR, and almost none on the environmental impacts, we will not get the kind of data we need.

We need much more research like this:

Pestering milfoil to be studied as a potential biofuel

As mentioned before, 'vegetation management' (i.e. removing unwanted biomass) is a major activity worldwide. It does not make any sense to ignore this as a potential source of biofuels, especially at a time when we are plowing up native vegetation for biofuels monoculture crops.

I have previously posted about the ESA workshop on biofuels. It has now yielded its first fruit, in the form of a policy paper in Science.

Some press releases:

Experts agree: Environmental standards needed for biofuels

Oklahoma researchers support biodiversity in biofuels production

Mandate For Biofuels Production Requires Science-Based Policy

The article is here, though you might need a subscription to read it:

Sustainable Biofuels Redux

It is truly amazing that 23 scientists can agree on anything. This document (expertly crafted by lead author Phil Robertson) emphasizes that we are ignoring some of the most important issues with respect to the sustainability of biofuels.

---Mike

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?"

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.

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.

Conference on the Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels
Washington DC
March 10, 2008

These are some highlights from the conference on the Ecological Dimensions of Biofuels, which took place yesterday.

After a few brief introductory talks and acknowledgments we heard from John Sheehan of LiveFuels, Incorporated. While he was at first dismissive of ‘feel good’ concepts of sustainability, he stressed the importance of life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuels. He is to be applauded for his call for dialogue between industry, policy makers, and scientists. He stated,

“I am personally disappointed by the reaction of the biofuels industry to the two Science papers”

(meaning the recent Fargione et al. paper and the Searchinger et al. paper as previously discussed in this blog). It was refreshing to hear that, given the degree of vilification these papers have enticed. He stressed that the papers should be an opportunity to engage the parties. My quick reaction to that is the difficulty of engaging ecologists: when there is such a flood of funding for biofuels science yet a tiny trickle for the ecological aspects, the ecologists response that ‘we have no data’ is not likely to be very engaging.

Robin Jenkins of Dupont reported on that company’s integration of LCA into the planning process and project development was enlightening. She stressed the importance of collaboration with sustainability experts early in the planning process. I have seen many industry presentations before, and this is one of the few ones that really seemed 100% sincere. She made a convincing case that sustainability should be an organizing principle, and is indeed what her company is currently based on.

Catherine Kling, an economist from Iowa State University, reported on some of the water quality impacts of converting row crop acreage to switchgrass in the upper Mississippi valley. Her models showed that there were only modest improvements in nitrogen pollution, but she stressed the sensitivity of the models to scientific assumptions. The model exercise, she stated, was largely a framework for learning how to ask the right questions.

Philip Robertson of Michigan State University spoke on the Biogeochemistry of bioenergy landscapes. He started immediately by stressing the difference between cellulosic and noncellulosic fuels:

“Let me not mince any words: grain-based biofuels are an ecological train wreck”.

His promotion of cellulosic ethanol did not mention that we do not yet have a demonstrated capacity. With only a few pilot plants out there, we do not even know whether cellulosic production is feasible. The feasibility is based on projections and modelling.

Robertson reported that mid-successional systems have the most to offer with respect to ecosystem services and biofuel feedstocks. It is unclear whether repeated harvests of such systems will continue to have positive benefits from the greenhouse gas perspective.

One of Roberston’s surprising findings (surprising to me – but not to biogeochemists who have known it for a long time) is that forests have a very high methane oxidation potential. This means they are actively able to reduce the amount of a nasty greenhouse gas. Therefore, clearing forests for other biofuels is not likely to be very good for GHG emissions.

Virginia Dale of Oak Ridge National Laboratory stressed the complexity of the land use change issue, and argued that ecologists were being very simplistic. Although this talk was well-organized, and given by a well-respected landscape ecologist, the message was deeply frustrating. It sounded like “the system is too complex to possibly understand. What may seem like a good idea might actually be a bad idea, and vice versa”. Thus, it almost seemed like a call for inaction.

Jose Goldemberg of the Universidade do Sao Paulo gave the lunchtime keynote address, stressing the positive effects of sugar cane ethanol. He argued that “the problems with biofuels do not compare with those of fossil fuels” but later used harsh words against clearing the Amazon for soy biodiesel, and even harsher words against palm oil. He implied that the food vs. fuel debate was not a serious issue in Brazil.

John Wiens of The Nature Conservancy gave an excellent talk on the potential biodiversity consequences of biofuels developments. His organizing principle was that “land use is local but the economic drivers are global”. He placed landscapes on a scale of land use intensity (related to productivity), in which the most conserved (undisturbed) landscapes were at one end of the continuum, and the most productive (disturbed) at the other end. A high valuation of conservation will expand protection towards the productive end, yet a high valuation of agricultural products (including biofuels) will facilitate conversion of wildlands (such as CRP lands) or the infamous ‘marginal lands’ to production. Implicit to this model is the idea of a monotonic decline of conservation value as a function of intensity of land use. I found this a useful framework, though a bit misleading in certain circumstances. In particular, there are landscapes in which an intermediate intensity of management might actually be good for conservation. I think this is one area where John and I will agree to disagree.

Wally Wilhelm of USDA prepared a talk on biofuels on ‘marginal’ lands, but could not present due to illness. Rob Mitchell spoke in his stead. This talk implied that switchgrass could go a long way towards supplying domestic needs for ethanol, but pointed out potential problems exist.

Linda Wallace of the University of Oklahoma discussed perennial grassland systems, and presented data on a warming experiment implying that diverse systems, through the insurance effect, are far more resilient and resistant to disturbance than are monocultures. She stressed the importance of head-to-head comparison of LIHD vs. HILD systems, and lamented the fact that most current ‘comparisons’ are not truly comparable, and that we are relying far too much on modeled results and so little on actual data.

Marilyn Buford of the USDA Forest Service presented an optimistic view of biofuels from forest land. The talk was high on generalities but low on data. Thus, it is difficult to summarize here.

Donna Perla of US EPA pled with the audience to consider Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as a prime potential feedstock. I think there was widespread support for this idea, but this talk was also low on specifics. The audience got no sense for what the major limiting technological factors were preventing the conversion of MSW into fuel. But the case that the resource could be significant was convincing.

Jerry Melillo of the Ecosystems Center presented a very pessimistic 50-year global model for the implications of biofuel development. To quote him,

“There will be almost certainly be massive biodiversity losses as biomass crops replace natural vegetation”

Other environmental and human impacts were also discussed. Nevertheless, Melillo stated some positive roles biofuels could play.

Otto Doering of Purdue University concluded the conference with a captivating talk, with no audiovisual aids except for the microphone. His entertaining style was almost uplifting – until we finally realized what his message was: many of the past policies that were good for conservation were implemented for reasons totally unrelated to conservation, and science has rarely been effectively integrated into policy. External drivers, rather than policy, has played the dominant role in land use change, whether in a positive or negative direction. While Doering did mention a few cases where ecologists (if they pose the argument appropriately) can make a difference, there was a strong implication that factors other than logic or values will continue to determine policy and its effects.

In addition to the talks, there were a number of posters, ranging from theory and modelling to experiments. Two posters (one by Hank Stevens, and one by Gregory Houseman) dealt directly with LIHD. Both ended up supporting the concept. The Stevens poster dealt more deeply with ecological theory, and the Houseman poster presented the results of an experiment. Interestingly, the Houseman poster backed up the famous Cedar Creek (Minnesota) results, but on a Kansas system: diverse systems can do remarkably well in unfertilized systems, comparably to low diversity fertilized systems.

Today (March 11) and tomorrow a select group (why I got selected is beyond me – perhaps this blog has something to do with it) is continuing with a workshop, to assess what is known and what needs to be known about the ecological consequences of biofuels. We expect to produce a number of print (and electronic) products, both specialized and not, related to the outcome of the workshop. It is too early to report on those, but I will blog about them when they become available! One thing is striking though: several of the ecologists in attendance say that this is the first workshop they have been to in which biofuels are being considered as having a possible role in a sustainable future. In contrast, I am from a geographic area (and institution) where few people question the beneficence of biofuels. I was surprised by the stark regional differences in attitudes towards biofuels (I suspected they existed but were more subtle).

The cart is getting even further ahead of the horse. The USDA and the DOE have announced spending $18.5 Million on biofuels research and demonstration - but not a cent of this seems to be going towards understanding the impacts of biofuels on the climate or biodiversity, nor for the sustainability of the biomass crop itself.

USDA investing in biomass research

Perhaps King is Corn, but Queen Soy is also flexing her muscles:

U biofuels study has farmers upset
Two soybean growers' groups decided to suspend grants to the U to protest research that found growing biofuels could actually worsen global warming.

See also:

Biofuels study upsets farmers
Results showed that some biofuels added to global warming, and did not benefit the environment.

Does it make feedstock production more sustainable if you stifle research on biofuels sustainability?

There is so much that is good about the system of Land-Grant Universities in the US. However, the system is so beholden to the growers' groups, who understandably are concerned when their crops are criticized. Ideally, it is experts in the Land-Grant Universities who should lead the way with respect to sustainability research. But who will support such research? It is not coming from the feds, nor the states (at least not in a big way). Conservation groups do not have the necessary financial clout. The universities themselves do have some discretionary budget, but (I know from experience at OSU) there is little interest in a topic that could threaten to slow acceleration of the biofuels industry (which means much to the State's economy in the short term, but could be disastrous in the long term).

The major funding will likely come after the ecological damage occurs.

Can someone help rescue me from this pessimism?

--Mike

The food vs. fuel debate is coming to a head on many continents:

Africans unite in calling for immediate moratorium on switch from food to fuel

The two recent articles in Science on climatic consequences of biofuels have sparked quite a bit of negative reaction from industry, and I will not repeat any of that here. However, I do note a recent misleading article in Biofuels Digest:

Biofuels emissions authors say biofuels OK if made from waste, perennials, or abandoned land

The article states:

"The University of Minnesota researchers who started a global controversy over biofuels emissions, with an article in Science magazine that has been reprinted and discussed around the globe, said that biofuels would be OK as practiced in….Minnesota."

Since when has Minnesota been using prairie for biofuels? There is a tiny set of experimental plots at Cedar Creek, and there is a small bioheat facility in the University of Minnesota - Morris. But other than that, Minnesota is not currently harvesting vast quantities of prairie, perennials, or waste for biofuels. Other locations are taking the lead.

Nor is Minnesota necessarily the best place for prairie biomass. Prairie Hay yields are greater in the southern part of the Great Plains. Land values of 'abandoned agricultural land' are probably more favorable elsewhere. The UM paper is clearly not an attempt to maximize the flow of Money to the University of Minnesota or the State of Minnesota.

On the other hand, it is not hard to find papers arguing for the benefits of fuel from canola, soy, maize, jatropha, sugarcane, switchgrass, sorghum, etc. I have yet to see Biofuels Digest raise the proverbial eyebrow at the institutions employing the authors of such papers.

From down under we have a very promising new development: Biocrude

Bio-crude turns cheap waste into valuable fuel

Since this development is the result of a technology that will (probably) soon be patented, it is not likely that we will learn very much about its efficiency or environmental effects. Nevertheless, the ability to produce an extremely energy-dense fuel out of lignocellulosic material helps in many regards: transportation, utility of a wide range of materials (including LIHD and the waste stream), the ability to take advantage of perennial systems, etc.

From a fuel perspective, crude oil is more versatile and stable than ethanol. Whether the EROEI is better than for cellulosic remains to be seen. Such answers will be hard to obtain.

Susanne Retka Schill wrote an article on last November's debate at the Agronomy Society of America. It appeared in the March edition of Ethanol Producer Magazine:

Feedstock Face-Off

A new paper is out on switchgrass genetics:

Bouton, J. H. (2007). "Molecular breeding of switchgrass for use as a biofuel crop." Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 17(6): 553-558.

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) is projected to become one of the main herbaceous, biofuel crops in United States. This status was the result of several years of research; much it sponsored by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). Literature documenting fundamental aspects of switchgrass taxonomy, genetics, breeding, management, physiology, and use is now available and form the basis for protocols to establish and manage the crop, as well as efforts to develop improved cultivars. Future improvement will include production of high yielding hybrids and the use of genomic and transgenic biotechnologies to enhance both productivity and chemical composition. Reducing bioconversion recalcitrance via reduction of lignin content is an example of projected future research in this area.

I agree with this 'projection'. There is a huge amount of current research on recalcitrance, partially because plant scientists are so interested in the structure of cell walls.

Here is my own 'projection': geneticists will be successful in reducing bioconversion recalcitrance. Provided that the seed is not too expensive, huge acreages of modified switchgrass will be planted. Lacking sufficient lignin, the crops will lodge easily in rainstorms and other bad weather. Furthermore, fungal and bacterial pathogens will have an easier time attaching plants with low recalcitrance. The cellulosic biofuels industry will suffer, and fuel prices will climb. The industry will sour with respect to prairie grasses, and King Corn will maintain its regime.

I hope that time will prove me wrong!

--Mike

Three cheers for Vinod Khosla, with respect to his leadership on biofuels feedstock standards. Here is a recent posting on Gristmill; I encourage you to read the whole text:

Where will biofuels and biomass feedstocks come from?

In this essay, Khosla advocates a certification program similar to LEED, which he calls CLAW:

We think a good fuel has to meet the CLAW requirements:

C -- COST below gasoline
L -- low to no additional LAND use; benefits for using degraded land to restore biodiversity and organic material
A -- AIR quality improvements, i.e. low carbon emissions
W -- limited WATER use.

Khosla argues "Cellulosic ethanol (and cellulosic biofuels at large) can meet these requirements." Time will tell. And also, the devil is in the details with respect to how CLAW might be implemented. For example, carbon gains in "A" are not so meaningful if other greenhouse gases (e.g. N2O) are not considered. And the biodiversity aspects of "L" are far from simple. Scientists definitely need to be involved. But this is a start. A very good start.

--Mike Palmer

The message in the following story is 'listen to the ecologists before it is too late.'

EU rethinks biofuels guidelines by Roger Harrabin
Environment Analyst, BBC News
Europe's environment chief has admitted that the EU did not foresee the problems raised by its policy to get 10% of Europe's road fuels from plants.

At least policy makers are now listening in Europe.
--Mike

Although most of the biofuels feedstocks research is devoted towards dedicated monocultures, on rare occasion you will find a serious report on species mixtures. Here is one.

Mulkey, V. R., V. N. Owens and D. K. Lee (2008). "Management of warm-season grass mixtures for biomass production in South Dakota USA." Bioresource Technology 99(3): 609-617.

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman), and indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash) are native warm-season grasses commonly used for pasture, hay, and conservation. More recently switchgrass has also been identified as a potential biomass energy crop, but management of mixtures of these species for biomass is not well documented. Therefore, the objectives of our study were to: (1) determine the effects of harvest timing and N rate on yield and biomass characteristics of established warm-season grass stands containing a mixture of switchgrass, big bluestem, and indiangrass, and (2) evaluate the impact of harvest management on species composition. Five N rates (0, 56, 112, and 224 kg ha I applied annually in spring and 224 kg ha(-1) evenly split between spring and fall) and two harvest timings (anthesis and killing frost) were applied to plots at two South Dakota USA locations from 2001 to 2003. Harvesting once a year shortly after a killing frost produced the greatest yields with high concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) along with lower concentrations of total nitrogen (TN) and ash. This harvest timing also allowed for the greatest percentage of desirable species while maintaining low grass weed percentages. While N rates of 56 and 112 kg ha-1 tended to increase total biomass without promoting severe invasion of grass and broadleaf weed species, N application did not always result in significant increases in biomass production. Based on these results, mixtures of switchgrass and big bluestem were well suited for sustainable biomass energy production. Furthermore, N requirements of these mixtures were relatively low thus reducing production input costs. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

At long last, and much overdue, the Ecological Society of America as issued a position statement on the sustainability of biofuels:

Policy Statements » Statements: Biofuel Sustainability

Overall, the statement is quite strong. Indeed, one section seems to deal primarily with LIHD systems:

2. CONSERVATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES. A focus on ecosystem services will provide the foundation necessary for win-win scenarios. It is easy to design systems for maximum crop yields; over a century of agronomic research has shown that this can be done very successfully. Managing for other ecosystem services also provided by agricultural landscapes is less common but equally necessary. Lower yields from an unfertilized native prairie, for example, may be acceptable in light of the other benefits provided by native plants in an agricultural landscape. These include:

* A complete and closed cycling of nutrients;
* Minimized flooding and increased groundwater recharge;
* Enhanced carbon sequestration in the soil because tilling would be unnecessary;
* Fewer pests because habitat for insects and birds that prey on them is left intact;
* Genetic diversity;
* Reduced nitrogen and phosphorus runoff because no fertilizer is needed;
* Reduced soil erosion due to continuous soil cover;
* Reduced nitrous oxide production; and
* Pollinator habitat and resources.

These benefits, in turn, would help ensure ecosystem services such as better water and air quality, crop pollination, flood mitigation, runoff reduction, and food and fiber production.

One minor quibble is that some would (and do) defend monocultures of 'improved' switchgrass as "native plants in an agricultural landscape", and yet switchgrass monocultures will not yield the benefits listed above. Nevertheless, I think ESA members, and supporters of LIHD, can be confident in standing behind the statement.

I hope this statement will be widely publicized, and will lead to sound policy.
Regrettably, it comes after much of the damage has been done - but let us hope that it will play some role in preventing future sodbusting, carbon imbalances, nitrous oxide releases, and offshore dead zones.

Congratulations to the ESA.

----Mike Palmer

Biopact has a concise summary of the potential environmental benefits of biofuels, if done properly:

Bioenergy, conservation and wildlife protection can boost each other
(Biopact) - Discussions about biofuels and bioenergy often focus on their potential impacts on biodiversity and on risks like deforestation. However, these legitimate concerns should not veil the fact that energy crops can just as well contribute to strengthening ecosystem services, to conservation, to the fight against desertification and erosion, and to the restoration of wildlife habitats.

My reading of current events is that it is highly unlikely that these more enlightened views will gain any traction in the current market. The impediments are many, including huge subsidies for corn ethanol, misinformation about LIHD, a strongly entrenched crop-based mentality in the industry, and academic ecologists' lack of will to enter the debate.

--Mike Palmer

Steve Hamilton just informed me that the deadline for the following postdoctoral position will be extended until February 15.
---Mike Palmer

The new DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) has two
openings for postdoctoral research on the environmental sustainability of fuel crop ecosystems, including annual grain, perennial grass, poplar, and native prairie systems. The positions begin as soon as January 2007 and are located at Michigan State University's W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (www.kbs.msu.edu), Michigan's largest agricultural experiment station and host of the NSF LTER site in row crop agriculture (www.kbs.msu.edu/lter). One position involves field measurement and evaluation of greenhouse gas exchanges. Practical knowledge of soil biogeochemistry and gas flux measurement methods is required, as is a PhD in soil microbiology, biogeochemistry, ecosystem ecology, or a related field. The other position focuses on soil water and nutrient fluxes, and requires a PhD and experience with field and lab measurements in hydrology or aquatic biogeochemistry. KBS is located in SW Michigan midway between Detroit and Chicago, about 60 miles from the MSU main campus in East Lansing.

Applications should be submitted as a single pdf file and include a statement of interest, vitae, and names and contact information for 3 professional references. For further information contact Dr. Phil Robertson (gas exchange) or Dr. Steve Hamilton (hydrology/nutrients; see KBS web site for emails). Application review will begin December 12, 2007; apply to biofuel@kbs.msu.edu. More information about the GLBRC can be found at www.greatlakesbioenergy.org/.

According to a report from Reuters, Robert Watson (former chief scientist of the World Bank and current chief scientist of the British agency overseeing environmental and rural issues) has come out strongly against current ethanol policies:

Scientist sees few benefits from biofuels

Watson stresses the need for paying farmers for environmental services. Clearly, the agricultural sector can no longer be considered as a mere producer of commodities.

--Mike Palmer

The latest issue of Science has a succinct article on the environmental impact of biofuels relative to gasoline:

Scharlemann, J. P. W., and W. F. Laurance. 2008. How Green Are Biofuels? Science 319:43-44.

Most of the issues raised will be familiar to readers of this blog.

The basic summary is that most HILD crops perform poorly, and waste products as feestock sources perform well.

Not surprisingly, corn is subject to strong condemnation in this report:

"Governments should be far more selective about which biofuel crops they support through subsidies and tax benefits. For example, multibillion-dollar subsidies for U.S. corn production appear to be a perverse incentive from a rational cost-benefit perspective."

--Mike Palmer

I am continually surprised when I hear people talk about biofuels starting to have an effect on the landscape sometime in the indefinite future. Dramatic changes are happening right now, and in almost all inhabited countries.

For example, we now have word that the vast Pampas grasslands are being plowed up for biofuels, or for soybeans displaced by biofuels:

Argentine Farmers Give Up Beef Business

Not only is this causing a cultural change, it is undoubtedly accompanied by a burst in soil respiration and N20 release (both leading to global warming).

A December 14 Conference at Cornell University appears to have been much more balanced than the typical biofuels conference (although I have been to a number of conferences and symposia on the subject, I missed this one).

Symposium looks at developing biofuel research

Although most conferences hype the value of biofuels for farmers, rural jobs, and plant geneticists, this conference actually seems to have addressed the concept of sustainability as well. Indeed, there was a promising statement attributed to Wolf Frommer of the Carnegie Institute of Science:

Fortunately, these concerns spread beyond academia, noted several researchers. Big businesses in the energy sector are "very much aware that if they don't have public opinion and media perception behind them ”¦ it's going to be extremely risky and very damaging for them," Rose said. "The industry is very much aware of sustainability, and I believe this is more than lip service."

While I have not yet heard this sentiment, it is encouraging to hear it expressed. If it does not become the pervasive attitude, biofuels will almost certainly lead to environmental degradation.

--Mike Palmer

Although few are willing to state it, much of the success of corn ethanol has more to do with the timing of US primary elections than with the qualities of corn itself. Now Ronald Bailey writes in the Hartford Courant,

Biofuels are commercially questionable, do not materially advance energy independence, and may not even help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Naturally, Congress wants to mandate them.
Why? Well, Iowa caucus voters win; Archer Daniels Midland wins; and special-interest contributors to political campaigns win. Bioethanol is just a subsidy boondoggle masquerading as a solution to America's energy problems. But it does help get some politicians elected.

The full text is here:

Don't Buy Into Biofuel Boondoggle
By RONALD BAILEY

A new study in Iowa aims to evaluate the viability of prairie LIHD systems. This is supported, in part, by the state of Iowa. This sort of research needs to be given the highest priority.

Tallgrass Prairie Center to study polyculture prairie hay for bio-electricity

Although the research is centered around generation of electricity (probably because corn is still king in Iowa) the development of sustainable production systems will clearly be relevant for cellulosic ethanol feedstocks.

--Mike Palmer

The Dutch have realized the importance of insuring the sustainability of biofuels feedstocks, according to the following report:

Dutch to deny palm subsidies until green levels met

Here is a job announcement for two postdoctoral positions on the sustainability of biofuels feedstock production (posted with permission). Note that native prairie grass systems are potentially considered! It is good to see this important work being planned, and I encourage bright young scientists who really want to make a difference to apply.

The new DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) has two openings for postdoctoral research on the environmental sustainability of fuel crop ecosystems, including annual grain, perennial grass, poplar, and native prairie systems. The positions begin as soon as January 2008 and are located at Michigan State University's W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (www.kbs.msu.edu), Michigan's largest agricultural experiment station and host of the NSF LTER site in row crop agriculture (www.kbs.msu.edu/lter). One position involves field measurement and evaluation of greenhouse gas exchanges. Practical knowledge of soil biogeochemistry and gas flux measurement methods is required, as is a PhD in soil microbiology, biogeochemistry, ecosystem ecology, or a related field. The other position focuses on soil water and nutrient fluxes, and requires a PhD and experience with field and lab measurements in hydrology or aquatic biogeochemistry. KBS is located in SW Michigan midway between Detroit and Chicago, about 60 miles from the MSU main campus in East Lansing. Applications should be submitted as a single pdf file and include a statement of interest, vitae, and names and contact information for 3 professional references. For further information contact Dr. Phil Robertson (gas exchange) or Dr. Steve Hamilton (hydrology/nutrients; see KBS web site for emails). Application review will begin December 12, 2007; apply to biofuel@kbs.msu.edu. More information about the GLBRC can be found at www.greatlakesbioenergy.org/.

When looking for ways to derive fuels from natural substances, the best approach may be to figure out how nature does it. A couple of billion years of evolution has resulted in many solutions to the problem.

Termite guts are an obvious place to look. You may have heard that termites themselves cannot digest cellulose, but they have a diverse gut biota(protozoans, yeasts, bacteria) that permits them to derive nutrition from wood.

A recent article in Science Daily describes an ambitious project to catalogue the biota associated with termite guts, with an eye towards finding efficient ways to extract biofuels from wood:

Termite Guts May Yield Novel Enzymes For Better Biofuel Production

It seems that much of 'bioprospecting' is geared towards finding the 'right' enzyme or compound to perform a function. I suspect this is not the right approach. The complexity of biological substances will necessitate a whole community of microorganisms to accomplish the degradation.

Termites tend to degrade only one source of biological material: wood (although there are termites that feed on other substances). For biofuels production, and more relevant for this list, for LIHD biofuels production, it may be more fruitful to look for places in nature where heterogeneous feedstocks are digested: in guts of generalist herbivores, or perhaps more simply, in compost piles.

Regardless of my particular recommendations, it seems to be clear that biofuels science is expanding to include not only chemistry and biochemistry, but microbiology, entomology, and phylogeny. Let us hope that when the science begins to incorporate ecology, it does not do so from scratch. There is at least a century of ecological research that has bearing on community structure and function. It would be a waste of effort to ignore this progress.

--Mike

A new review describes the potential of forests for energy.

Guo, Z., C. Sun and D. L. Grebner (2007). "Utilization of forest derived biomass for energy production in the USA: status, challenges, and public policies." International Forestry Review 9(3): 748-758.
Due to various environmental and economic benefits, renewable energy has been developed rapidly in the United States over the past several decades. In this study, the status, challenges, and public policies related to the development of bioenergy products from forest-derived woody biomass were reviewed. At present, existing utilization of forest biomass for energy purpose in the United States has been dominated by the forest products industry in generating heat and power for internal use. Proposed forest biomass utilization for energy has focused on producing motor biofuels. Key conversion technologies for woody biomass are still undergoing research and development and are not yet fully viable for commercial production. Other challenges for forest biomass utilization include high harvesting and transportation costs, overlapping demand for some forest biomass, and market promotion for new bioproducts. Since the 1970s, many laws and polices have been passed to help and guide the development of bioenergy in the United States. Woody biomass utilization has received increasing attention and assistance in recent years.

I definitely agree that forests can and should provide a larger share of the energy budget. But what if forests are increasingly seen as a solution for the energy crisis, and there is little effort on energy conservation? And what if the economics eventually make the conversion of forest products to energy cheap and easy? The end result may be new threats to forest conservation.

Imagine the current debate over ANWR. Just by way of example, here are examples from both sides:

Help Save the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
ANWR.org

Now imagine, 20 years from now, a landscape in which most of the private forests are currently under management for biofuels - and where the public is demanding more heat for their homes in the winter, more electricity to refrigerate their homes in the summer, and more gas for their hummers. The private forests are maxed out in the rate at which they can supply biomass. The National Forests are, of course, also recruited to do the same. Under the banner of energy independence, there is little effective opposition. After this, won't Wildnerness Areas and National Parks seem like attractive areas for yet more fuels? Trees are renewable, right?

If we are not careful in constructing (and following) sound forest policy, these pressures on public lands might make ANWR seem a minor distraction in the not-too-distant future.

--Mike

The biofuels push is almost exclusively focused on ethanol and biodiesel. But so much is to be gained by focusing on alternatives.

This first news item (thanks to Jason Hill for bringing it to my attention) is a case study in the use of pelletized prairie grasses for heating. The technology is not new; indeed, pelletization of biomass-derived feedstocks is used throughout much of northern Europe. If this approach was more widely adopted, it could be used as justification for prairie restoration efforts. The other plus side to this approach is that it might be optimized at small scales, allowing more energy independence of families and communities.

Switching fuels: Family-owned greenhouse to experiment with prairie pellets for heat

This second news item implies that the hydrogen-based economy may not be as far away as previously thought. The supply of hydrogen has been one of the limiting factors for the design of efficient fuel cells (which, at least hypothetically, have many environmental benefits). A wide range of biomass (including LIHD or waste stream biomass) could be utilized, and the conversion to hydrogen is at extremely high efficiencies.

Scientists Make Advances in Extracting Hydrogen

The major factor limiting widespread adoption of hydrogen-based transportation systems appears to be the necessary infrastructure. If indeed fuel cells end up being the most efficient and environmentally sound, let us hope that there is the political will and courage to make the necessary changes.

--Mike

I have written about the use of tremendous acreages of roadside vegetation (which is usually mowed anyway) as a source of biofuels feedstocks.

One point I have not yet made is that these systems are potentially self-irrigating: the impervious road surface means extra water is delivered to the roadside. As currently designed, most roadside ditches are designed to rapidly move the water away. But couldn't some sharp civil engineers redesign roadsides optimize use of the water, balancing the need to prevent flooding of the highway, and enhancing roadside productivity? Making good use of this runoff as irrigation water could allow more production in 'marginal' regions of the Great Plains.

--Mike Palmer

Yet another industry moving towards utilizing its own waste product for production of biofuels:

Eat more chocolate and help the environment

--Mike

There is an effort in Massachusetts to promote cellulosic ethanol in the name of the environment:

Massachusetts Pushes Biofuel Standards

It is interesting that corn is specifically excluded from consideration. It is disappointing that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is not a criterion.

--Mike

Here is a list of organizations or entities that have issued statements against, or warnings about, expansion of HILD biofuels. Note that it is clearly a myth that the biofuels backlash is merely the doing of Big Oil.

Also note the diversity of entities: Libertarian thinktanks (Cato Institute), the Shadow CIA (Stratfor), economic coopoeration groups (OECD), environmental groups, scientific organizations, NGOs focussing on hunger, etc. Strange bedfellows, indeed. It will be interesting to see whether collectively, they will have enough political clout to influence the direction of biofuels developments.

• BiofuelsWatch
• CATO Institute
• Earth Justice
• Editors of Nature and Science
• Environmental Defense
• Food and Water Watch
• Food First
• Friends of the Earth
• GRAIN
• Greenpeace
• Institute for Energy and the Environment
• Invasive Species Council of Australia
• National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences
• Network for New Energy Choices
• Oregon Environmental Council
• OECD
• Oxfam
• Sierra Club
• Stratfor: Strategic Forcasting, Incorporated
• UN Special Rapporteur

A report last April by Biofuels Watch is (as far as I can ascertain) the most complete and thorough analysis of the link between biofuels feedstock production and global warming potential.

Biofuels threaten to accelerate global warming

One of the main take-home messages is that life cycle assessment of biofuels is not enough. Since nitrous oxide and methane have more warming potential than carbon dioxide (for example, a nitrous oxide molecule is almost 300 times as potent as a C02 molecule), simply accounting for energy balance will not be enough. Furthermore, life cycle analysis does not account for biodiversity costs and benefits.

--Mike Palmer

It seems that at least some in Oregon are taking sustainability seriously when it comes to biofuels:

Fueling Oregon with Sustainable Biofuels: A report by the Oregon Environmental Council, October 2007

While the report is clearly tailored to the Oregon situation, the general principles are applicable everywhere. This endeavor is clearly worth emulating elsewhere.

One minor concern with this report: biofuel feedstock production is viewed primarily as competing with nature conservation, not complementing it. At the same time, it is well recognized that the prairies of the Willamette Valley of Oregon are highly endangered, and are in need of serious restoration efforts:

Willamette Valley Prairies

Why not 'restore' seminatural prairies in a biofuels rewilding scheme?

--Mike Palmer

For a thorough summary on the key technologies, environmental and social effects, the promises and perils of bioethanol, including a deep discussion of various feedstocks, see:

THE RUSH TO ETHANOL:
NOT ALL BIOFUELS ARE CREATED EQUAL
Analysis and Recommendations for U.S. Biofuels Policy

It is authored by the Food & Water Watch and the Network for New Energy Choices in collaboration with the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School.

Highly recommended reading.

--Mike Palmer

A short news item tucked away in Agrinews, a newsletter serving Minnesota and Iowa, appears to be the first example of the use of mowing to maintain natural areas AND to provide heating fuel:

http://webstar.postbulletin.com/agrinews/333382235990859.bsp

DNR is helping with biomass project

GLENWOOD, Minn. -- Haying portions of two state wildlife management areas and three federal waterfowl production areas in Stevens County may give habitat managers a new tool that encourages native plant growth, attracts more wildlife and reduces dependence on fossil fuels, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Forty-eight acres of the 300-acre Eldorado WMA and 16 acres of the 160-acre Klason WMA will be cut as part of a biomass pilot project that includes the DNR, the University of Minnesota-Morris and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The project will examine the harvesting and use of native prairie vegetation as biofuels for an $8.9 million UM-M gasification project that will meet 80 percent of the campus' steam heating needs.

More information about this project is available here.

However, there is something a little bit uncertain about the project: this document states that about 80 percent of the heating needs will be met by corn stover as the feedstock.

My guess? The current DOE push for the use of cellulosic conversion of corn stover has pushed the price of stover so high that a university cannot afford it, and that pushed it to seek cheaper alternatives.

Do any readers know the more complete story? If so, please post a comment!

---Mike

A recent article in Science Daily entitled "Switchgrass: Bridging Bioenergy And Conservation" describes a project by Michael Casler, who documents that the genetics of most modern switchgrass cultivars tends to mirror natural variation in nature. He suggests that these cultivars might be good simultaneously for biofuels and prairie restoration.

This recommendation seems reasonable for the upper Midwest, where almost every corner of every county has experienced the plow. Planting a monoculture of switchgrass on barren, degraded land might be a reasonable start. However, I still would suggest that native legumes be added early on.

In much of the Great Plains, however, we have native stands of switchgrass, mixed with a tremendous diversity of other grasses and perennial forbs, already present in situ. However, the biofuel industry seems to demand establishment of pure stands of switchgrass. And in Oklahoma, it is the low-lignin, high yielding transgenic switch that is the lead variety. There is no clear connection between switchgrass establishment and prairie restoration. Indeed, a number of ecologists in the state fear the a correlation between switchgrass establishment and prairie destruction. Ironically, Oklahoma is a state with a heritage of sustainable yields of prairie hay - but hay meadows have declined over the past decades.

I applaud Casler's genetic sleuthing on switchgrass. But before we assume that biofuels production equals prairie restoration, we need to look at the whole agronomic picture. I still think there is room for a biofuels rewilding of America.

--Mike

One common concern expressed at the Oklahoma Biofuels Conference was the inherent conservatism (not necessarily political) of most growers. Most growers are not interested in trying something new. They know what they can grow, and how to grow it. To quote a grower, "It is how I do it, it is how my Dad did it, and it is how my Grandad did it".

This sentiment can work in really well with LIHD production systems. In the southern Great Plains, prairie hay meadows have been an incredibly important part of our landscape. Why not keep up the family traditions, AND support biofuels feedstocks?

--Mike