1. If you can grow food, grow food. Forget the food/fuel debate; the economics are better for food in most places in the world. The reality is that a ton of food will bring more than a ton of biomass or biofuels. Focus on marginal lands to grow non-food energy crops. Incentivize these activities—not converting corn to ethanol.

2. Close the process so that any organic waste ends up back on the land. In doing this, stay clear of fertilizers and focus on increasing the soil content naturally.

3. Focus on biomass above baseline. Establish how much mass is there and focus on the additive effect of the process. If you have to burn down a forest to plant palm trees, it’s probably not a great net effect.

From the NY Times:

The study concluded that whether a biofuel is climate-friendly or not depends largely on whether it is based on crops or production residues. Biofuels of the latter category were generally considered beneficial for the environment, and generating electricity locally from waste materials was found — in mast cases — to be more energy efficient than converting biomass to liquid fuels.

Read More

From Yahoo:

Burning bioenergy and fossil energy release comparable quantities of carbon dioxide.

But in a key difference, bioenergy has been seen as preferable for combating climate change because overall emissions are — in theory — reduced, because biomass results from additional plant growth.

“This is because plants grown specifically for bioenergy absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and this offsets the emissions from the eventual burning of the biomass for energy,” said the study, adding that in contrast, burning forests releases stored carbon in the same way as burning oil.

However, both the studies note, the positive effect of biofuels on carbon emissions would necessarily be negated if land used to produce them had been cleared of forests to do so.

Melillo’s study also predicts the increased use of fertilizer in biofuels production will cause nitrous oxide emissions to become even more important than carbon losses in terms of potential for warming by the end of the century.

Read More

“Bolson claims that Coskata’s process will be the cheapest in the industry, in part because its yield of ethanol per ton of biomass is high. Its process begins with the gasification of feedstock materials using existing technology. The product of the gasification–a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide called syngas–is then fed into bioreactors, where proprietary strains of Clostridium bacteria convert it to ethanol. Other approaches typically use catalysts to convert syngas into ethanol, or they use enzymes to break biomass down into sugars that are then fermented by yeast to make ethanol. Using gasification allows Coskata to use a wider variety of feedstocks; enzyme methods are tailored to work with only particular types of biomass. The process could even use tires and other garbage. And since it doesn’t use catalysts, which require high temperatures and pressures, it can use cheaper equipment.”

Full Article

The Colorado State professor, Bryan Willson, who teaches mechanical engineering and is a co-founder of the three-year-old company Solix Biofuels, said working with the Southern Utes on their land afforded his company advantages that would have been impossible in mainstream corporate America. The tribe contributed almost one-third of the $20 million in capital raised by Solix, free use of land and more than $1 million in equipment.

“If you’re going with strict venture capital, they’re looking for a blistering return on capital in three to five years,” Dr. Willson said. “The Utes have a very long economic view. They’re making decisions now for future generations as opposed to the next quarter, and that is just fundamentally different.”

Full Article

From Science:

In the United States, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 mandates the production of 16 billion gallons per year of cellulosic (plant-derived) biofuels by 2022. Along with 15 billion gallons/year of corn ethanol and 5 billion gallons/year of other renewable biofuels such as biodiesel, the goal is to replace 20% of current crude oil use in the United States in 15 years.

Hydrocarbons derived from biomass are attractive because of their high energy density and compatibility with existing energy infrastructure. If recent technological innovations result in competitive production costs, hydrocarbons rather than ethanol will likely be the dominant biofuel.

Full Article