While biodiesel and ethanol use is expanding in Northeast states, biomass electric generation has been decreasing. Why, at a time when state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are being established to promote renewable energy growth, has biomass power declined and what can be done to reverse the trend?

The Northeastern states - New England , New York , New Jersey , Pennsylvania , Maryland , and Delaware - are covered by more than 73 million acres of forests. Northeast forests serve a multitude of purposes including: habitat for animals, recreation, watershed protection, wood products, energy, fiber products, landscapes, and carbon storage. Our Northeastern forests have increased in size since the late 1800s, primarily due to the decrease of farming and the decline in the use of forests for energy and wood products. Following the oil embargo in 1973, interest in our natural forest as a source of energy was renewed. Biomass power generation technologies were encouraged because of their energy security benefits, encouragement of rural economic development, and diversification of electric resources. Biomass was one of the qualifying resources under the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978.

In the 1980s, with the expectation of rising oil prices and an expanding economy requiring more electricity, the Northeast, and the nation, increased its capacity of biomass power. At its peak in about 1994, nearly 60,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity were generated from biomass in the United States . Nearly 10 percent of all electricity used in New Hampshire , and 25 percent in Maine came from biomass. Since that time biomass electric generation has declined. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) slightly over 7,000 GWh of electricity were generated from biomass in the eleven Northeastern states in 2000.

Given the extensive forest base, the history of biomass power, and the renewable portfolio standards in several Northeast states, one might expect that the Northeast would be expanding its generation of electricity from biomass power. However, in today's competitive electric markets, and with the demise of PURPA, traditional biomass power generators have difficulty surviving, due to their high cost and relatively higher emissions over other types of renewable resources. Despite this trend, more and more state energy officials and renewable energy advocates in the Northeast believe biomass power generation is currently undervalued. For one reason, its negative impacts, oxides of nitrogen and particulate emissions, may, for some, overshadow the benefits biomass power provides in energy diversity, economic development, and greenhouse gas reductions. In addition, development of new biomass technology, especially technology that works well with distributed energy and combined heat and power applications, needs to be promoted. Reaching out to and educating key state policy officials including state air quality and economic development specialists, as well as facilitating the development of networks that will help to introduce new technologies, are two of the primary tasks of the Northeast Regional Biomass Partnership.

Energy Diversity and Security

Twenty years ago the Northeast, especially New England , had an over reliance on petroleum for electric generation. In the past twenty years New England has achieved a reasonable mix of fuels for electric power generation including oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas, and renewables (mostly hydro and biomass); however, the pendulum may be shifting. According to ISO New England, power plants totaling more than 6,700 MW are under construction throughout New England , all using natural gas as the primary fuel source. Within the next five years, gas‑fired generation could account for more than 40 percent of New England ’s generation. There is no expectation that biomass can make deep cuts into this over-reliance on natural gas, but biomass is the best near-term renewable option for the region, and even small contributions to the generation mix will help energy security and diversity.

Distributed energy and combined heat and power (CHP) are also valued in the Northeast for their potential to improve overall efficiency, reduce emissions, and improve energy security. Biomass CHP has significant benefits beyond fossil energy and is the only renewable fuel that can be combined with CHP. According to analysis done on CHP and distributed generation potential in the Northeast conducted by the Northeast Midwest Institute, CHP for less than 1 MW in size has had a successful track record in Europe in a wide range of building applications, which is currently the smallest CHP sector in the United States . Sites with a large hot water demand, such as hospitals, hotels, and some restaurants, appear to be the most attractive potential markets.

Economic Development

Northeast states spend between $75 and $100 billion dollars annually on primary energy. Much of that is for imports. Looking at the life cycle cost of producing electricity, fossil energy systems spend more on fuel and less on equipment than renewable energy systems. Since most of the fossil fuels used in the region are imported, dollars spent on these imported fuels leave the regional economy quickly. For renewable systems the opposite is true. Locally produced fuels and locally built and maintained renewable energy systems, like biomass, circulate longer in the region’s economy. Development of new biomass power technology as part of the region’s development of renewable energy will have a significant impact on the economy and job creation. A 2004 study by Black and Veatch for the State of Pennsylvania found that the State’s RPS would result in $10 billion more in gross state output over 20 years than the “business as usual” portfolio. The Pennsylvania study predicted the RPS would generate 85,000 new jobs, as part of a “build it here - use it here” strategy. New advanced biomass power generation will be a valuable economic stimulus.

Greenhouse gas reductions

One of the clear benefits of biomass power generation is its contribution to greenhouse gas reductions. It is generally accepted that sustainable managed biomass power contributes little or no net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Fossil generation removes carbon that has been sequestered deep in the earth and converts that carbon to carbon dioxide during combustion. Biomass plants release carbon that has been pulled from the air; plants then reabsorb the carbon during new growth. The biomass carbon is therefore recycled

For example, in 1997 the mid-Atlantic electric utility CONECTIV reported that its power generation contributed a system average 0.96 - 0.84 metric tons of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. (Carbon Dioxide 1997 CONECTIV average emission factor fuel reported from the Delaware Climate Change Action Plan, page 90). One hundred megawatts of biomass power in the CONECTIV service territory could potentially remove 672,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (based on a capacity factor of 80 percent for the biomass plant.) Even offsetting the lowest carbon emitter, natural gas (0.46 mtCO2 per MWh) biomass would offset over 320,000 mtCO2 per MWh.

Why New Technology is Needed

State RPS is helping to retain some of the current biomass production plants in the Northeast. The RPS programs in Massachusetts and Connecticut have allowed some existing biomass power plants to be included in their respective portfolios as long as the plants can demonstrate improvements in efficiency and meet emissions standards set by the programs. These plants provide renewable generation, greenhouse gas reductions, and help to sustain important jobs in parts of the region. However, this is not the long term answer: an underlying intent of the renewable portfolio standards was to advance technology and to improve air quality. Older existing biomass plants, while able to meet state permitting for air quality, do little to advance new technology. Also, new smaller units that are more appropriately sized for distributed energy and CHP applications are needed. It is necessary to move forward with a new generation of biomass power technologies that will deliver all the benefits of energy security/diversity, economic benefits, and greenhouse gas reductions while increasing efficiency and lowering emissions of NOx and particulates. There are many potential technologies but two stand out as holding promise and have passed the “first cut” due diligence of biomass experts from the region and across the United States biomass gasification and bio-oil.

Fast Pyrolysis and Bio-oil?

Fast pyrolysis of biomass is a thermal process that rapidly heats biomass (in the absence of air) to a carefully controlled temperature, then quickly cools the volatile products. The products of fast pyrolysis are bio-oil, combustible gases, and char. Several companies currently have commercial fast pyrolysis technologies that maximize the bio-oil production while minimizing gas and char. Up to 70 percent of the output of a reactor can be bio-oil with gases and char at approximately 15 percent each. Bio-oil has about one-half the heating value of distillate oil, or between 72,000 to 80,000 Btu per gallon. One of the biggest advantages of fast pyrolysis and bio-oil production is that it can be decoupled from electric power generation. This allows the bio-oil production facility to be located in remote locations and the product bio-oil to be shipped to the generation site. The technology also allows for mobile processing of biomass. Bio-oil’s low fuel-bound nitrogen may be a benefit in reducing NOx emissions in power production. Studies conducted in Canada have shown emission profiles of bio-oil fired in a combustion turbine to be similar to natural gas.

Biomass Gasification

Gasification is a technology that has been around for some time, in fact as early as 1790 there were processes called gasification. According to the Gasification Technologies Council, 163 gasification plants will be on-line by 2006, representing 37,000 MW of thermal capacity. Most of the gasification technology exists at refineries where the fuel is petcoke and coal. The gasification of biomass is a technology that is less mature. Biomass gasification is being developed for large gasifiers (greater than 10 MW) with a primary market in the pulp and paper industry. A number of small biomass gasification technologies (less than 1 MW) exist around the world. These technologies are little known and in many cases are not acceptable for the U.S. market, because they are not fully automated and therefore would be very expensive to operate due to very high labor costs. Another critical hurdle is coupling a gasifier with an engine or gas turbine to produce electricity. Nearly all gasifiers produce a substance called “tar” that must be removed from the gas stream before it can be fed to an engine or turbine for electricity production. The gas clean-up process is expensive and can reduce efficiency of the entire system.

Gasification differs from pyrolysis in that it must be close-coupled with the generator; this means that the gasification of the wood and the generation of electricity must occur at the same site. This could occur at a commercial or institutional facility such as a school or a hospital. The advantage is that there is no plant associated with the fuel production; the gasifier takes the place of a boiler. The gas that is produced by a biomass gasifier is called synthetic gas or “syngas”. The gas is lower in energy content and different in composition than natural gas but is sufficient to be combusted in a boiler or to power an engine to produce electricity.

The Advantages

The advantages of these two technologies are that they are small and can be used in CHP and distributed energy applications. Distributed generation is considered to have a higher value than grid-distributed electricity, especially when it is in a CHP configuration. The scale of distributed generation ranges from the household at 10-50 kWe to as much as 5 MWe in institutional and industrial settings. This is a niche that is well suited to biomass. Schools in Vermont already use boilers with gasifiers at the 3-5 MWth level to generate hot water for space heating; configured as a CHP unit, these could co-produce between 500 kWe and 2 MWe. Biomass gasification and bio-oil also open the possibility of a higher efficiency integrated combustion turbine combined cycle operation. This concept of using hot gases from a gasifier or bio-oil to power a turbine and then use the hot exhaust to produce steam in a steam boiler or a steam turbine can significantly increase the overall efficiency of the biomass system.

The Challenges

These systems however need to be fully automated, reliable, economic (with available incentives) and demonstrate an environmental performance equivalent to CHP systems using fossil energy. Current biomass combustion technology in the same size range for distributed generation and CHP can’t meet the same emission levels as large (10 MW and larger) biomass power plants because emission control technology such as electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) are too expensive. Both gasification and bio-oil are expected to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates. For example, a wood fired boiler in Massachusetts in the 500 kWe and 2 MWe range was permitted with the following maximum emission levels:

Particulates           0.10 lb/MMBtu
            NOx                        0.30 lb/MMBtu
            CO                          0.27 lb/MMBtu

A biomass gasifier in a CHP application, using a modified IC engine and catalytic converter for CO reduction, is expected to have significantly lower emissions. The estimated emissions from a 500 KW gasifier proposed in Massachusetts in 2003 had the following estimated emission levels:

Particulates     0.00127 lb/MMBtu
            NOx                        0.093 lb/MMBtu
            CO                          0.031 lb/MMBtu

These emission levels are similar to the “low emission” levels for biomass power allowable in the Massachusetts and Connecticut RPS. Using these technologies with combustion turbines is expected to lower the emissions even more.

Work is underway

Through the Northeast Regional Biomass Partnership, and its network of state biomass working groups, Northeast states are working to:

· Support the retention of existing biomass power plants by allowing the plants to participate in state RPS as long as plants can demonstrate improved efficiency and lower emissions;

· Support multi-state RD&D projects for small modular biomass gasification and bio-oil CHP and distributed generation and leverage state resources including SBF (System Benefit Funds) with federal resources;

· Conduct outreach and education at the state and regional level on the positive attributes of biomass power including: economic development, energy diversity and security, and greenhouse gas benefits. Through the state working groups, the Partnership has supported broader inclusion of biomass power in state RPS and in state greenhouse gas mitigation plans; and

· Finally, the Partnership is helping to facilitate greater regional coordination. Regional coordination is important in helping to mitigate any potential for disparity among state programs or policies that could thwart biomass development. The regional programs are also working to encourage comparative emission research and compatibility of RPS and SBF programs and policies.

Much work remains to be done in both outreach and education on the value of existing biomass plants and on the need to improve efficiency and lower emissions. In addition, RD&D on new advanced technology biomass, especially biomass gasification and bio-oil, needs to be completed. The Northeast Regional Biomass Partnership is playing an important role in making this happen for eleven Northeast states. Through extensive outreach and education and the nurturing of state biomass networks, the Partnership is helping to build support for expanded biomass development.

FEATURE ARTICLE

Soybean Rust, Consequences for Soybean Production?

As yet, the US Dept. of Agriculture is not ready to provide too many negative projections regarding future production or economic losses due to the newly arrived soybean pest, Phakospora pachyrhizi, otherwise referred to as soybean rust. According to the American Soybean Association (ASA), soybean rust is a fungal disease that attacks the plant’s foliage, causing premature defoliation, reduction in seed pod viability, and production losses of up to 80 percent. No existing U.S. cultivars have resistance to the Asian-originating pest, but at least three fungicides available in the continental United States are approved for use, with seven additional chemicals undergoing EPA review.

The pathogen is spread via air-borne spores, which experts hypothesize were blown into the southeastern states by the four horrendous hurricanes that struck Florida this fall. The growing consensus is that resident spores in the Caribbean and South America were the ready conduits for this highly infective parasite during the mammoth winds. In November 2004, nine southern states had confirmed cases of soybean rust, with the danger ever present for the disease to spread along the Soybean Belt into the Midwest and Upper Midwest during subsequent growing seasons.

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have been performing significant research on the fungus for over a year, but are as yet loath to make too many definitive statements. ARS is unsure, but feels that considering the obligate nature of the parasite (i.e. its survival requirement for living host tissue) and the often bitterly cold winters of the Upper Midwest , it is willing to predict that the rust would not be able to survive from fall to spring growing seasons. Unfortunately, that will not be the case for the Southeast, which also suffers from an extreme kudzu infestation (another host plant for the rust.) While no one would complain if the nation’s resident kudzu population would suddenly disappear from this highly infectious blight, experts caution that it may act more as a resident reserve host population for the disease and maintain infection rates in Southeastern soybean fields.

In Atlantic City , New Jersey , USDA’s Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs William Hawks offered an upbeat summation of the infestation. In his words, “if soybean rust had to come to the United States , the timing of the disease’s late 2004 arrival was nearly perfect.” At least now, he interjects, USDA and the U.S. soybean producers have plenty of time for “educational efforts to take place this winter, to let farmers make the appropriate decisions in the south, and there may be some that switch to other crops rather than do the soybeans because of the potential cost associated with controlling the soybean rust.”

Well, the ‘potential costs’ are rather disturbing and uncertain at best. Initial estimations for preemptive fungicides sprayings range from $10-19 /acre, with a potential necessity of 2-3 applications. This would be a significant dent in already razor thin profit margins. Not to mention, that general perception of these fungicide success rates are pessimistic at best. Again ASA states, “The disease has the potential to very negatively affect the U.S. soybean industry. With possible yield losses of up to 80 percent or more, doing all that can be done to prevent the introduction of soybean rust into the United States…is one of the most pressing issues facing farmers this year.”

It is not yet clear what farmers’ decisions will be this planting cycle. Many are considering planting corn on top of corn rotations, while others may be considering looking to alternative oilseed crops, rather than face potentially drastic production losses. Whatever the case, a large degree of public outreach and farmer education will be needed. As Rick Bennett of ARS asserted, “last year only 1 percent of soybean producers applied any fungicides on their crop.” What this rust will mean for soymeal, soy-based biodiesel, soy-based inks, and soy protein production is not yet clear, but the current projections appear rather grim.

Sources:
http://www.soygrowers.com/rust/default.htm
Moreland, Jeff. USDA’s Hawks addresses soybean rust, avian influenza. The Delmarva Farmer February 1, 2005

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

Renewable Energy Legislation Important for Bioenergy Abounds in the 109^th Congress

While the controversial comprehensive energy bill of past Congresses has been reintroduced in the House, numerous Representatives and Senators are offering their own stand-alone Renewable Portfolio Standards, Renewable Fuel Standards, Net Metering Standards, etc. It remains uncertain what action House Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) will take on the energy bill. Although both are committed to moving the Energy Bill this spring, it may be interesting to note what bills other Members of Congress have introduced during the 109^th.

Thus far, three bills to establish a Renewable Portfolio Standard have been introduced:

· H.R. 737 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Act (REEA) Introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) on February 9, with a goal of 20 percent of U.S. power production to come from non-hydro renewables by 2020. This bill would also authorize $12.3 billion over the next 5 years toward R&D of renewable energy technologies and their commercialization. It has been referred to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy.

· H.R. 983 was introduced February 17 by Rep. Udall (D-NM) and Rep. Leach (R-IA). HR. 983 mimics the bill from last session’s efforts, which had received bipartisan support from 68 co-sponsors. Currently, Rep. Leach (R-IA) and Rep. Udall (D-NM) are joined by Rep. Udall (D-CO), Rep. Pallone (D-NJ), Rep. Waxman (D-CA), Rep. Shays (R-CT), and Rep. Platts (R-PA). It would establish an RPS for retail sellers of electricity of 10 percent by 2017 and 20 percent by 2027, again municipally or publicly owned utilities as well as rural electric cooperatives would be exempted.

· S. 427 Renewable Energy Investment Act of 2005, was introduced February 17 as well by Sen. Jeffords (I-VT), Sen. Collins (R-ME), Sen. Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. Cantwell (D-WA), Sen. Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Reed (D-RI), Sen. Kerry (D-MA), Sen. Dodd (D-CT), Sen. Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and would establish an RPS of 5 percent by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020. It is directed toward electric utilities, and unlike the House bill, does apply for municipal and publicly-owned utilities. The bill would establish a credit trading system allowing triple credits for distributed generation and solar energy.

Sen. Jeffords (I-VT), with Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Cantwell (D-WA), also offered the Electric Reliability Security Act of 2005 (S. 426) to address security issues surrounding national electricity transmission lines as well as ensuring efficient, reliable, and affordable energy. The proposed legislation would provide $10 billion in loan guarantees to invest in and modernize existing transmission and distribution systems; and establish national standards for net-metering.

Specifically for biofuels, Rep. Marcy Kaptur has introduced the Biofuels Energy Independence Act of 2005 (H.R. 388). This bill would mandate the creation of a Biofuels Feedstock Reserve, capable of meeting one year’s worth of demand for biofuel production as well as authorize USDA to make and guarantee loans for the production, distribution, development, and storage of biofuels. In a related measure, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced H.R. 36 to amend the existing ethanol and biodiesel tax credits to redefine eligible small-ethanol producers, from producing levels of 30 million gal/yr. to 60 million gal/yr., and increase the credit by 10¢/gal for small agri-biodiesel producers.

As for research and development of new technologies, Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Judy Biggert (R-IL) recently introduced the Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2005 (H.R. 610). This bill authorizes gradually increasing financial support for R&D of a number of energy technologies, including: energy efficiency in vehicles ($200 million), buildings ($100 million), and industry ($100 million); renewable energy technologies such as, solar ($100 million), bioenergy ($200 million) plus a biorefinery demonstration program ($100 million); wind ($55 million), geothermal ($30 million), nuclear energy ($442 million + $150 million Next Generation Nuclear Plant Program); fossil energy ($783 million); hydrogen ($273.5 million); advanced vehicles ($300 million); and a Clean Coal Power Initiative ($200 million).

Discussions for an updated Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) have been taking place among a number of Congressional offices as well as within other interested groups like the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition. The previously proposed RFS provided for 5 billion gallons of biofuels to be used domestically by 2012. With ethanol production in 2004 close to 3.4 billion gallons, an aggressive and significantly increased national goal will be needed to effectively sustain significant growth in biofuel production, particularly as there is also significant growth in the fledgling biodiesel industry. Senators Thune (R-SD), Bond (R-MO), Inhofe (R-OK), and Voinovich (R-OH) introduced S. 606 The Reliable Fuels Act on Friday, March 11. This bill will be considered during the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup of the Transportation Equity Act of 2005. According to some sources, the proposed RFS of the Reliable Fuels Act would increase the previously proposed goal by only 1 billion gallons, to 6 billion gallons by 2012. This proposal will not accomplish a broad expansion of the biofuel industry, which some suggest is already starting to see a glut in the market. The current production levels are causing ethanol to be sold to refiners at 40 cents below gasoline, which helps to stabilize fuel markets as oil prices have soared. However, Senator Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Harkin (D-IA) have been meeting with a number of Senate and House offices to discuss possible targets for a stand alone RFS bill to be introduced this month, which is likely to set a higher goal than Sen. Thune’s proposal.

While this is certainly not an inclusive list of pending federal legislation, it is useful to note the regions involved in this nationwide and bipartisan effort to adopt clean, renewable energy. Be it geared toward aiding biofuel producers, scientific researchers, or our changing climate, efforts are underway to address our burgeoning energy problems. Significant political capital may need to be spent to see these initiatives come to fruition but once the ball gets rolling; there is no telling what American ingenuity will be capable of accomplishing!

USDA Releases NOSA for Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG)

March 7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) published a Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Development Investment Act (P.L. 107-171) Section 6401 VAPG Program. RBS announced approximately $14.3 million in competitive grant funds to be made available for FY05 applicants. Grants will be awarded to independent producers, agricultural producer groups, farmer or rancher cooperatives, and majority-controlled producer-based business ventures for either planning activities or working capital to operate a value-added business venture. Maximum award amounts will be $100,000 for planning grants and $150,000 for working capital grants (down from the $500,000 grant ceiling in previous years.) RBS estimates it will have the funds to award roughly 117 grants, with requirements of at least 50 percent matching funds provided by the applicant. Preference will be given to applicants who present projects that are innovative and technologically feasible, sustainable, provide benefits for the local rural community, and involve a number of participants. Smaller-scale projects with higher cost shares will be awarded extra points during the evaluation process, including an additional 5 points awarded for projects that meet the criterion for the Presidential initiative of bio-energy. Final applications are due May 5, 2005. For more information visit http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm.

In related news, USDA will be publishing a Notice of Funds Available for the Section 9006 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Improvements Grant Program this week. Look for further information on EESI’s web-site at www.eesi.org.

RECENT STUDIES

Climate Change, Can Agriculture Escape?

The realities of climate change are beginning to be seen on a variety of economic and environmental sectors, bringing the realization that we as a society will need to adapt and quickly. Agriculture, being an industry heavily dependent on the weather and regional climatic factors, is no exception. Hence the importance of Washington State University ’s (WSU) project, Climate Friendly Farming (CFF). In September 2003, a 5-year project of WSU’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources (CSANR) was awarded a $3.75 million grant from the Paul G. Allen Charitable Foundation. The grant was the foundation’s largest to WSU and the first to support agricultural research.

Climate change is predicted to take a serious toll on agriculture in a number of regions. In a recent study, Katharine Hayhoe et al applied the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scenarios to California , and found the results worrisome. Predicted effects for California include increased demand for irrigation as rising temperature will cause more evaporation; restrictions on the water supply due to changes in precipitation; and greater incidence of pests. Higher temperatures may lead “to degraded quality and marginal/impaired conditions” for much of the state. The authors noted that while the effects will be most evident by the end of the century, some could be “apparent before mid-century.” At the same time climate projections are predicting severe droughts. Though this year’s torrential precipitation has also been wreaking havoc on some of California ’s $27.8 billion agricultural harvest, namely its almond, strawberry, and dairy industries.

California ’s agriculture sector is not the only one that will be suffering from growing water availability constraints. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests that parts of the country already feel the burn. The Washington Post reported in February that some Arizonans blame climate change for their ten-year drought—and they could be right. Many ranchers and farmers have not been able to handle the mounting pressure a decade-long drought has put on their livelihoods. Reese Woodling, a former rancher, was forced to sell off his ranch when he found himself asking, “How do you respond when the grass is dying? You hope to hell it starts to rain next year.” He has not been alone, skepticism regarding climate change has been receding in these areas. According to Greg Garfin, who has done assessments on the Southwest for the federal government, “When we used to talk about climate, eyes would glaze over…Then the drought came. The phone started ringing off the hook.” The story cited a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): “regions suffering from serious drought more than doubled” from the 1970s to the early 2000s, and an article in Science, “concluded that higher temperatures could cause serious long-term drought over western North America .” The CFF investigation into ways to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to help agriculture comes at a time when its need is becoming felt.

Since agriculture produces 7 percent of the United States ’ greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), the CFF interdisciplinary team looks for techniques to turn that around, and make farms into carbon “sinks.” Team member Chris Feise states, “the U.S. could sequester around 300 million metric tons of carbon if farms across the country used available conservation techniques.” CFF also looks for other ways to reduce release of atmospheric GHG from agriculture.

One element the CFF team studies is dryland agriculture. Nitrous oxide—reportedly 296 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO₂—and carbon dioxide are both released by practices of tilling the soil and poor fertilizer management. The research team is exploring the best use of techniques such as crop rotation and “direct seed organic production” to lower emissions and absorb, or sequester, carbon. The team also wants to test these techniques on irrigated farming, which can sequester more carbon through encouraging plant growth, but can also lead to greater releases of nitrous oxide.

Another source of GHG comes from dairy farm waste. One solution, anaerobic digesters, currently costs roughly $500 per cow. The digesters conserve nutrients and trap methane—a GHG about 23 times more potent than CO₂—as an energy source. In addition to developing an affordable digester, the team wants to find ways to make the byproducts marketable as fertilizer and as a replacement for peat moss. In September 2004, those efforts to develop digester byproducts into consumables received a $683,000 grant from the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Innovation Grant program, authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. The Office of Rural Development’s Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program (Sec. 9006) also helped Darryl Vander Haak establish the first commercial anaerobic digester for dairy waste in Washington State . Working with local industry and CFF, Vander Haak will make the digester available for demonstrations.

Chad Kruger explains that the team hopes for “rapid adoption of project findings.” To achieve this, one of CFF’s key elements is education, through their web page, <http://cff.wsu.edu>; scientific and popular papers; demonstrations; and other forms of outreach. Hayhoe et al observe that although global warming’s effects will be felt “mainly in the second half of the century, they are strongly dependent on emissions from preceding decades”—that is, now. The results of CFF’s research and their prompt implementation demonstrate the positive role the agriculture sector can play in mitigating future climate change.

Sources:
“Allen Foundation Awards $375 Million…” Press release 7 Nov 2003, <http://csanr.wsu.edu/InfoSources/AllenFoundationAwardsCSANR.htm> (6 Feb 2005).
Brenda Congdon, “Change is in the Air,” Connections, WSU Alumni magazine Fall 2004: 14- 20, <www.cahealumni.wsu.edu/alumnidev/pdf/ConnFall2004.pdf> (6 Feb 2005).
Chad Kruger, “Climate Friendly Farming: Moving from Source to Sink,” Sustaining the Pacific Northwest : Food, Farm, & Natural Resource Systems 2, no. 3: Sept 2004: 4-5, <http://csanr.wsu.edu/whatsnew/PNW-v2-3.pdf#page=4> (11 Feb 2005).
“Groundbreaking and news conference for State’s First Commercial Dairy Anaerobic Digester,” Press release 16 June 2004, <http://cff.wsu.edu/News/press.html#digester> (17 Feb 2005).
Juliet Eilperin, “Arid Arizona Points to Global Warming as Culprit,” Washington Post 6 Feb 2005, <http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=38680> (18 Feb 2005).
Katharine Hayhoe, et al. “Emissions Pathways, Climate Change, and Impacts on California .” PNAS 101, no. 34, 24 Aug 2004: 12422-12427.

NEWS BRIEFS

Minnesota Power Plant to be Powered by Poultry Litter

Benson , Minnesota (pop. 3,400) will be the site of a 55 MW biomass-powered, electric power plant. Fibrominn, an off-shoot of Fibrowatt, LLC, has entered into agreement with the City of Benson to build a $142 million plant that would consume 700,000 tons of turkey litter per year. Poultry litter will constitute 90 percent of the feedstock input, while the remaining ten percent will come from other forms of local agricultural/biomass waste. Permitting and all financial agreements for the plan were completed in December 2004 with a 21-year power purchase contract with Xcel Energy. This purchase agreement is part of a 125 MW biomass power purchase mandate on Xcel by the state of Minnesota . While the UK-based company, Fibrowatt, LLC, had a 79 percent stake in the Minnesota project, final numbers show they retain only a 30 percent shareholder value. The design of this project is based on three other Fibrowatt-owned projects in England: a 38.5 MW biomass-fueled power plant located in Thetford, Norfolk, a 12.7 MW plant in Eye, Suffolk (the first in the world), and a 13.5 MW plant in Glanford. The Thetford plant previously was the largest poultry litter/biomass-powered plant, consuming approximately 420,000 short tons of poultry litter annually. The ash from all three facilities has been utilized by a Fibrowatt subsidiary, Fibrophos, for the production of high quality agricultural fertilizer. Thus far, Fibrophos has proven to be a successful enterprise with 63,700 short tons of fertilizer sold between 2002 and 2003. Like Thetford, Benson is located in the heart of a turkey growing region, which has suffered from poultry litter waste management problems. This plant promises significant community benefits, such as: 30 direct skilled jobs and 150 indirect jobs, approximately $8 million spent locally annually, and capital investments of $150 million.

Sources:
http://www.eprl.co.uk/developments/fibrominn.html
http://www.fibrowattusa.com/US-Benson/index.html

California BioEnergy Association Formed

A number of biobased industries in California are joining forces under the name of BioEnergy Producers Association (BEPA). The following organizations have signed on under the leadership of BEPA’s President, Former State Senator David Roberti: BRI Energy, Onsite Power Systems, Purevision Technology, Genahol Companies, CR&R, Utility Savings & Refund, LLC, and Arkenol Fuels. Roberti said, “We want the state to establish a policy that prioritizes biobased industry growth, and furthers national biomass research and development policy objectives for energy security, pollution abatement, and rural economic development.” Roberti was one of the key state legislators championing AB 939, governing the state management of solid waste. Vice President, Kay Martin, has also been involved in the field for years through her work for Ventura County Environmental and Energy Resources Department. She is a member of the Executive Board of the California Biomass Collaborative, the Board of Directors for the New Uses Council (NUC), and on the Advisory Board for the Biobased Manufacturers’ Association (BMA).

Source:
http://www.bioenergyproducers.org/

Elements Coming Together for Ethanol Production in Texas

November 2004 saw a groundbreaking ceremony for the first ethanol production facility to be located in Texas . This project had been three years in the planning, according to Duke Pylant with Panhandle Energies of Dumas LP. The initial feasibility study, performed in 2003 by the Central Texas Ag Development (CTAD) was partially funded by a USDA matching grant. It was found that an ethanol plant would generate $1.29 million dollars in sales tax revenue, bring 30-35 jobs to the local area, and generate $41 million of revenue for the local economy. Construction of this facility may begin as early as February or March 2005, depending on weather conditions. The chief feedstock for this $40 million, 30-36 million gallon/year plant will be corn, provided at one million bushels a month by the Dumas Co-op. Current corn production levels will not be able to meet the demand of roughly 13 million bushels a year; as a result some feedstock will need to be railed to the facility. The planned site is located on a railroad with direct access to Midwestern corn, should supplies run too tight. There is also significant sorghum production in Texas , which may prove to be another prominent feedstock for future ethanol production facilities. Sorghum interests have been following ethanol development closely. In June 2003, the Texas Grain Sorghum Board (TGSB) was heavily engaged in statewide ethanol excise tax exemption legislation, SB. 275, which passed the Texas State Legislature that month. This law applies to all ethanol production within the state beginning in 2005, awarding 20 cents per gallon for all ethanol produced. An established Texas ethanol industry could prove to be a windfall for the state, considering its considerable cattle and dairy industry creating demand for ethanol’s co-product, dried distiller’s grain (DDG), as cattle feed as well as its nationwide ranking as 12^th in corn production and 2^nd for milo production.

Sources:
http://southwestfarmpress.com/mag/farming_state_legislation_paves/
http://www.txfb.org/TexasAgriculture/2003/020703/020703ethanol.htm
http://www.txfb.org/TexasAgriculture/2004/120304/120304ethanol.htm
‘First Texas ethanol plant breaks ground.’ Ethanol Producer Magazine, December 2004

BioWillie to Help Farmers

Willie Nelson, long a friend to family farms and the organizer of the annual Farm Aid concert series begun two decades ago, has launched a new agriculturally friendly venture. In October 2004, his partnership, Willie Nelson’s Biodiesel, began selling soybean-derived biodiesel fuel at Carl’s Corner truck stop, south of Dallas , Texas . BioWillie, a B20 blend, reduces petroleum diesel’s polluting qualities. Nelson takes his own advice by using the biofuel in his six tour buses and other cars, using 100 percent biodiesel (B100), when available. On February 9, CBS showed Nelson giving a boost to the alternative fuel by fueling up his bus with biodiesel. Nelson explains his venture: “We should all be doing our part to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and contribute to our own economy. On top of all that, biodiesel's use helps our nation's family farmers, while preserving the land for future generations.” At last year’s Farm Aid concert in September 2004, Nelson and other performers extolled the benefits of biodiesel. Said Nelson, "Biodiesel is our way to grow ourselves out of the situation we find ourselves in. ... It gives us an alternative source of energy so we don't have to go around the world jumping on oil." Nelson’s biodiesel website, <http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/products.html>, with the slogan “Family Farmers Growing Fuel for America and the World,” cites several benefits of biodiesel, including its biodegradability, reduced flammability and increased lubricity. As Nelson reports, not only will biodiesel reduce greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, it smells like popcorn or doughnuts when burned. Nelson’s group is negotiating to have BioWillie carried at 169 nationwide locations; as he points out, “There is really no need going around starting wars over oil. We have it here at home. We have the necessary product, the farmers can grow it.”

Sources:
Distribution Drive, Article 19 Willie Nelson Starts Selling Biodiesel, <http://www.distributiondrive.com/Article19.html> (10 Mar 2005)
Now Appearing On Local Stages: Willie Nelson And Austin Biofuels, January 28, 2005: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-01-28/pols_feature5.html (11 March 2005).
Willie Nelson’s Biodiesel <http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/products.html> (10 Mar 2005)
Willie Nelson’s New Gig: Biodiesel, Matt Curry, Associated Press Jan 14 2005, <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6826994/> (10 Mar 2005).

UK Biodiesel Production in the Works

As an important facet of their adherence to Kyoto targets, the UK government has made a commitment to utilize biofuels for 20 percent of transportation fuel by 2020. While a laudable goal, the economic and trade implications were not met favorably by numerous British citizens. At first glance, this initiative seemed a boon for Brazil ’s highly prolific sugar-cane ethanol industry at the expense of domestic biofuel production. According to the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), domestic biodiesel production in the UK was at 15,000 tons¹; considerably lower than Germany, at 1 million tons; France, at 502,000 tons; Italy, at 419,000 tons; Austria at 100,000 tons; Spain at 70,000 tons; and Denmark at 44,000 tons. Luckily, good news for the British biodiesel industry is coming from Argent Energy, based in Scotland . They began construction of their $28 million facility in February 2004 with full-scale production expected to begin April 2005. The Argent Energy facility will increase UK capacity production by 4- or 5-fold, primarily utilizing recycled cooking oil and animal fats to produce biodiesel. This facility alone is expected to provide 5 percent of Scotland ’s diesel supply. Biofuels Corp., another UK-based company, promises to open the largest UK biodiesel production facility with a capacity of 250,000 tons (68 million gallons) at an estimated cost of $40 to $47 million in the Northeast of England. Unlike Argent Energy, Biofuels Corp. will be looking to rapeseed and palm oil as its main feedstocks, with glycerin as a co-product. A combination of policy decisions have effectively provided encouragement for the infant UK biofuels industry, including a reduction in duties on biodiesel and the European Union’s established targets on biofuels (5.75 percent by 2010.)¹ One ton is equivalent to 274 gallons of biodiesel. Current UK production is equivalent to roughly 4.1 million gallons.

Sources:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28996/story.htm
http://www.soypower.net/calculator.asp#Biodiesel%20Conversions
http://www.argentenergy.com/
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/29076/story.htm

Ethanol Production, a Grass-roots Investment Movement

The construction and investment fervor for biofuels ripping across the nation seems to be only beginning to be noticed by the likes of Wall Street. Rural communities are organizing and putting together capital for $50-125 million ethanol production facilities to be located in their own backyards. They are hoping to bring higher paying jobs, economic development, and stable farm-based income to their long stagnating communities. A March 9, front-page article in the Wall Street Journal gave some carefully worded kudos to the ethanol fever gripping the Midwest . Reporter Scott Kilman provides a few anecdotes of 2 year-old facilities paying dividends of $2-5 million to their investors. He notes that bankers are projecting a 25 percent return on initial investments by the second year, encouraging community investment in more and more ethanol facilities. For one local banker in Bancroft , Iowa , Jim Bollig says, “By raising a bulk commodity like corn, this town had been at the lowest end of the value chain. Now we’re in the energy business.” However, this seemingly unchecked enthusiasm appears to be attracting some skepticism. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., currently the largest producer of ethanol, has voiced its concern of creating a glut in ethanol production by not planning any of their own capacity additions. Apparently Department of Energy economists are also predicting that ethanol production capacity growth at its current level will quickly outstrip demand. These projections are assuming that a proposed federal biofuels mandate will be adopted at the previously proposed level of 5 billion gallons by 2012. Nevertheless, many in the industry have noted that the projected 4 billion gallon production capacity for 2005 will more than meet the requirements for reformulated gasoline oxygenate demand, in the wake of State MTBE bans. A federal mandate to oil companies is what this quickly expanding industry will need, as the ethanol industry is in the unique position of being in competition with their customers. Regardless of what skeptics say, ethanol appears to be a big win for the nation’s rural communities as locals are taking out millions of dollars in loans to invest in their own local “money machines,” which is drawing the attention of big name financial newspapers like the Wall Street Journal.

Source:
Kilman, Scott, “Corn-to-Fuel Plants Multiply in Rural Midwest ,” Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, March 9, 2005

RECENT EVENTS

NASEO’S 2005 Energy Outlook Conference

February 15-18, the National Association for State Energy Officials (NASEO) met in Washington , DC to listen to leading policymakers, federal officials, Congressional staff and energy issues experts. Issues covered ranged from recent appropriations developments, potentials for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, environmental considerations for energy decisions, and the role for the agricultural sector in clean energy projects. Carol Werner, Executive Director of EESI, and Charles Kubert of ELPC regarding existing federal incentives in the 2002 farm bill that support ‘clean energy’ programs. Additional information regarding the conference agenda can be found at http://www.naseo.org/events/outlook/2005/default.htm.

[Carol’s presentation is available on EESI’s web-site, www.eesi.org.]

USDA’s 2005 Agriculture Outlook Forum

February 24-25, 1400 nationwide and international participants were in Crystal City , Virginia to hear about USDA’s 2005 projections for U.S. agriculture. USDA has been organizing Outlook Forums since 1923, but this year may have broken the record for attendance according to the newly appointed Secretary Mike Johanns. This was the first Annual Outlook Forum the Secretary had addressed and he was greeted by a packed audience of standing room only. He was closely followed by a fellow Iowa native, Dr. Norman Borlaug, the famed father of the Green Revolution, offering a rather bleak outlook of international population and agriculture concerns in his keynote address. Many competing interests were present at this year’s Forum, which USDA accommodated through dozens of concurrent sessions. Prominent themes discussed included advancing agricultural science through improved research and public education, addressing the framework of the next farm bill (e.g. WTO rulings, the Conservation Programs, etc.), improving the public perception of food safety by addressing BSE concerns, analyzing the economic implications of expanding renewable energy and biofuel production in rural communities, and presenting the potential economic impacts of soybean rust. All power point presentations and webcasts of plenary panel discussions are available on the website: http://www.usda.gov/oce/forum/index.htm#speeches.

Agriculture/Energy Summit in Austin

On February 21-22, American Agriculture: Powering the Future held its first summit in Austin , Texas to present and discuss the concept of agriculture’s role in future energy generation. They are creating, with the support of the Energy Future Coalition, excitement around a target of 25 percent of all energy generated by 2025 to be derived from U.S. agriculture. Over 100 attendees from a variety of backgrounds and 28 states collected in Austin to gather momentum for this initiative. This effort hopes to engage a broad spectrum of concerned energy players; including academia, farm groups, industry, renewable energy advocates, environmentalists, etc in order to approach an energy independent United States through revitalizing the rural sector.

More information on this initiative can be found at www.agenergy.info.

GEC Holds Meeting in Washington DC

On March 1, the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition met to discuss, among other subjects, the question of higher ethanol blends. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota chairs the GEC. Talks ranged from international perspectives on higher-blend use, to regulatory issues, to environmental considerations. Speakers included: David Morris of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance; the Honorable Ruben Antonio Barbosa, Brazilian Ambassador to the United States; Per Carstedt of the BioAlcohol Fuel Foundation (http://www.baff.info); Ann Seha of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and Carol Werner of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI). Arguments in support of higher ethanol-blends included air and water pollution, crippling foreign debt due to our petroleum dependence, and climate change, climate change, climate change. Per Carstadt gave an impassioned speech on behalf of Sweden , and the rest of the world, to alert the nation’s state executives to the urgency of acting because of impending climatic shifts due to rampant CO₂ pollution, before outlining his own country’s experience with the biofuel. Carol Werner had a much more homegrown message, urging these same leaders to speak out on the benefits of ethanol for all Americans, not just the “farm states.”

[A copy of Carol’s presentation is available on EESI’s website, www.eesi.org]

Task Force Active in Ohio to Encourage Bioenergy Projects

On March 3, The Ohio Biomass Task Force organized an instructional workshop for potential grant applicants interested in establishing renewable energy projects in Ohio . According to Bill Manz of the Ohio Department of Development, the Task Force was “very pleased with the turnout and the productivity of the workshop.” The event welcomed roughly 150 interested grant applicants, technology experts, Ohio agency officials, and application facilitators. The focus of the workshop was to educate farmers and rural small businessmen about the opportunities presented through the 2002 farm bill energy title provisions. Attendees were separated into three groups according to their interest; these included energy efficiency, bioenergy (anaerobic digestion and other forms of biomass), and a solar and wind group. “The intent of the event was to facilitate meetings between farmers and experts in the field to generate a number of successful grant applications,” said Manz. The Ohio Biomass Task Force is hopeful to see the development of many clean energy programs, seen as one of multiple ways to jumpstart the State’s lagging economy, keep prime agricultural land in production, and decrease their air and water pollution.

Power-Gen 2005, Moving Into the Mainstream

On March 1-3, in Las Vegas , Nevada , Power-Gen in conjunction with the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) and the U.S. Department of Commerce held their second annual renewable energy trade show titled, “Moving into the Mainstream.” There were plenary sessions energy from biomass technologies, advancements in biofuels, as well as the role of biorefineries in the future. Also, in an adjacent hall 19 exhibitors were present in a separate Biomass Pavilion, in conjunction with a much larger exhibition of 106 exhibitors. Companies representing biobased products, biofuel production, and bioenergy were invited to participate.

For more information visit: http://pgre05.events.pennnet.com/

Upcoming Events

Date	Event	Location	Further Information
March 13-19, 2005	The Cairo 9th International Conference on Energy & Environment	Cairo, Egypt	http://ee9.sat-eng.com/