Just let it happen

Just use methane

I like it warm Just invade Iran
do polar bears? Just invaded Somalia

Alternative Energy
Nuclear
Justin Borevitz 1/10/07
More corn for ethanol
Just drill in the Artic
I like to eat corn anyhow
Just gasify coal
Just buy a hybrid
Just put CO2 underground “I’m done”
 The Energy Problem
• How will society meet
growing energy
demands in a
sustainable manner?
• Fossil-fuels currently
supply ~80% of world
energy demand.
Are Biofuels the Answer?...
 Biofuels as an Alternative
• Biofuels are not THE answer to
sustainable energy, but biofuels may be
part of the answer
• Biofuels may offer advantages over fossil
fuels, but the magnitude of these
advantages depends on how a biofuel
crop is grown and converted into a usable
fuel
 Analysis of Alternative Biofuels
• “First generation” biofuels: food-based
biofuels that are currently commercially
available:
– Corn-grain ethanol
– Soy Biodiesel
• “Second generation” biofuels: cellulosic
biofuels of the future
– Diverse prairie biomass
 Biofuels.. Renewable/sustainable?
• Fossil fuel subsidy?
• Soil fertility subsidy?
• Water subsidy?
• Land use subsidy?
• Biodiversity/ecological subsidy?
• Farmer subsidy?
• Civil/ social subsidy?
 Biofuels.. Carbon neutral?
• Fossil fuel subsidy?
– Fertilizer, pesticide, plant, harvest, process
• Soil fertility source or sink?
• Land use
– from conservation (eg rainforest), CO2 sinks
– from food production
• Carbon cost processing
• Investment in time
• Investment in $$
 Biofuels saves us
• Corn based ethanol subsidized at $0.51
on the dollar
• Corn for corn $0.50 on the dollar
• $500M DOE research funding
• All arable US land to ethanol, 1/3 of
foreign oil. Food?
• Iowa $1B in 4 ethanol distillers
 Evolution of Ecosystems
• Niche colonization, spatial temporal
• Synergistic interactions among kingdoms
• Local and regional adaptation, within and
between species
 Prairie disturbance
• Large herbivores
• Early Man/woman’s fire
• Colonial man’s plow,
• Now industrial man’s intensive agriculture
• Next post industrial man/woman’s harvest
of biomass?
 C4 and C3 grasses
• Plant Physiology
• How would both help?
– cool season warm season
 How Much Do They Supply?
• Corn grain ethanol (2005):
– 14.3% of the US corn harvest was used to
produce 1.48x1010 L of ethanol annually
– Energetically equivalent to 1.72% of US
gasoline use
• Soy biodiesel (2005)
– 1.5% of the US soybean harvest produced
2.56x108 L of biodiesel annually
– 0.09% of US diesel use
But How Much Could They Supply?
• Devoting all US corn and soybean
production to biodiesel and ethanol would
generate:
– 12% of US gasoline consumption
– 6% of US diesel consumption
• In terms of net energy gain:
– 2.4% of US gasoline consumption
– 2.9% of US diesel consumption
Food vs. Fuel: Impact on Corn Prices
Average corn grain yield and NO3-N concentration in soil water at 7.5 feet in Nov.
1992 as influenced by nitrogen rates from 1987-91 for corn in Olmsted Co.
(From Randall et al.).

1987-91 rate 1987-91 Avg. NO3-N Concentration

(lb N/A per yr) Grain Yield (bu/A) in soil water at 7.5 feet (ppm)
0 82 2
75 141 4
150 168 17
225 164 32
 Ethanol Demand and Corn Prices
• Large increase in demand for corn for
ethanol production
– Production capacity over 5 billion gallons
– Projected to increase to over 9 billion gallons
with current plants under construction
• Corn prices in January 2007 topped
$4/bushel
• Price has doubled since early 2006
 Are Biofuels Cost Competitive?
• In 2005, neither biofuel was cost-competitive with
petroleum – but as petroleum prices increased the gap
closed
• Ethanol:
– Estimated ethanol production cost in 2005 was $0.46 per
gasoline energy equivalent L
– Wholesale gasoline prices averaged $0.44/L in 2005
• Soy biodiesel
– Estimated soybean biodiesel production cost in 2005 was $0.55
per diesel EEL,
– Diesel wholesale prices averaged $0.46/L in 2005
• Recent price effects unfavorable for biofuels:
– Lower fossil-fuel prices
– Higher corn prices
 Summary
• Corn grain ethanol and soy biodiesel can
make up only a small portion of fuel supply
• Subsidize environmentally friendly biofuels
– Subsidy for corn grain ethanol does not
appear justified
– Subsidy for soy biodiesel may be justified
• Should look to other sources
 Second Generation Biofuels:
Cellulosic Feedstock…

Switchgrass Wheat Straw Hybrid Poplar Corn Stalks

 University of Minnesota Initiative for
Renewable Energy and the
Environment

Renewable Energy & the Environment

Research Clusters Demonstration Clusters

e.g. Morris project

Hydrogen Bio-based Ecosystems Conservation Economic Policy

Materials analysis
 Fermentor:
The workhorse
• Bio-based methods
for
– Materials
– Energy
 The Next Generation of Biofuels:
Greenhouse-Neutral Biofuels from
High-Diversity Low-Input
Prairie Ecosystems
by
David Tilman
University of Minnesota
 Learning from Current Biofuels:
Ethanol from Corn and Biodiesel from Soybeans
 legumes
• Symbiotic relationship with rhizobium
bacteria to fix nitrogen,
– even Word knows this “a soil bacterium that
forms nodules on the roots of legumes such
as beans and clover and takes up nitrogen
from the atmosphere. Genus: Rhizobium”
• Species Functional type
• Lupinis perennis Legume
• Andropogon gerardi C4 grass
•
•
Schizachyrium scoparium C4 grass
Sorghastrum nutans C4 grass
Low
•
•
Solidago rigida Forb
Amorpha canescens Woody legume
Input
•
•
Lespedeza capitata Legume
Poa pratensis C3 grass
High
• Petalostemum purpureum Legume Diversity
• Monarda fistulosa Forb
• Achillea millefolium Forb
• Panicum virgatum switchgrass! C4 grass
• Liatris aspera Forb
• Quercus macrocarpa Woody
• Koeleria cristata C3 grass
• Quercus elipsoidalis Woody
• Elymus canadensis C3 grass
• Agropyron smithii C3 grass
 Experimental Design
• Been running since 1994
• 168 - 9m x 9m plots, in 1 location in Minnesota
• 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 perennial grassland/ savanna species.
• from a set of 18 perennials: 4 C4, 4 C3 grasses, 3
herbaceous and 1 woody/shrubby legume, 4 non-legume
herbaceous forbs, and 2 oak species
• Watered initially, weeded 3-4 times (to maintain low
diversity, like a crop), burned each Spring (which killed
the woody species, or plots were left (152 plots) out as
not measures of annual biomass)
 Net Energy Balance of Corn
Ethanol and Soybean Biodiesel
 Environmental effects…
• Fertilizer use • Pesticide application
 Environmental effects of
ethanol and biodiesel

Greenhouse
gasses
reduced by both
relative to
gasoline and
diesel
combustion
 Current and Maximal Potential
Production of Food-Based Biofuels:
Current US Biofuel Devoting entire US
crop production to
Production (2005) biofuel

12.0% of gasoline usage

1.7% of gasoline usage
Corn grain ethanol 100% of corn harvest
14% of corn harvest
2.4% Net Energy Gain

6.0% of diesel usage

0.1% of diesel usage 100% of soybean
Soybean biodiesel
1.5% of soybean harvest harvest
2.9% Net Energy Gain
 Toward better biofuels:
1) Biomass feedstock producible with low
inputs (e.g., fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides)

2) Producible on land with low agricultural

value

3) Conversion of feedstock into biofuels

should require low net energy inputs
The Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment

Established to study the fundamental impacts

of biological diversity on ecosystem
functioning

352 Plots
9mx9m
Random Compositions
1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 Species
Plus, 70 Plots with 32
Species
(1994-Present)
 High Diversity Grasslands Produce
238%
More Biofuel Each Year Than
Monocultures

Switchgrass
Current and future biofuels
 Herbicides,
Pesticides

Irrigation Production Energy

Fertilizer (Diesel, Electricity, etc.)
(N, P, K)

Seed Erosion

Soil Impacts
Nutrient
Depletion
Farming Corn
Methods
Production Contamination
Water Impacts
Sedimentation
Producer Household
Nutrient
Energy Consumption
Loading

Land Use
(Opportunity Cost) Recreation,
Aesthetics
Production Inputs
(Enzymes, Yeast, Distillers
Ammonia, Urea, Sulfuric Ethanol Dry Grain
Acid, Water, etc.) Production
Air Emissions
(VOx, particulates)
Wastewater
Aesthetic Costs
Energy Inputs (odor, etc.)
(Electricity, Natural
Gas, Steam, etc.)
Gas
(5% by volume)
Co-generation
(Steam, Heat)
Storage and
Distribution
CO2 Capture

Combustion
Ethanol Emissions

Full cost accounting for Corn EtOH

 Use of full cost accounting
• To compare alternative energy sources,
we should consider the full costs not just
the direct costs
• Energy sources that have lowest full cost
to produce a unit of energy are the most
desirable (i.e., greatest net benefit)
• Challenge: estimating major external
costs for alternative sources of energy
 Importance of inclusion of
external costs
• Including external costs makes any
particular energy source look less attractive
• What is of importance is not cost estimate
of any particular source, but the
comparison across sources
• Not including external costs unfairly
penalizes renewable sources of energy
because of the generally high external
costs of fossil-fuel use
 Diverse Prairies
Remove & Store Carbon
Diverse plots store C in Roots
Diverse plots store more C in
Soil
 High-Diversity
Prairie Biofuels
Are Carbon
Negative

3.3 t/ha C Storage

0.3 t/ha Fossil C

Net Storage of
3.0 t/ha of CO2

Less CO2 in
Atmosphere
After Fuel Growth
And Use than Before
 LIHD: Potential Global Effects?
May Meet 15% to 20% of
Global Electricity & Trans. Fuel Demand
Greenhouse Gas Impact per Hectare:
2.3 t ha yr-1 of C net displacement of fossil fuel by biomass
+ 1.1 t ha yr-1 of C sequestration in soil and roots
= 3.4 t ha yr-1 total net reduction in atmosphere C loading
Degraded Land Base:
(51.0 x 108 ha globally of agricultural land)
0.7 x 108 ha abandoned - US
+ 1.2 x 108 ha abandoned - other OEDC nations
+ 3.0 x 108 in non-OEDC nations
= 4.9 x 108 current total agric degraded land
3.4 t ha yr-1 x 4.9 x 108 ha = 1.7 x 109 t/yr reduction in C (as
CO2) input into atmosphere
Potential of a 24% Reduction in CO2 Emissions
 Low-Input High-Diversity Biofuels
• Can be produced on degraded
agricultural lands, sparing native
ecosystems & food production
• Negative net CO2 emissions (carbon
sinks)
• Highly sustainable and stable fuel supply
• Cleaner rivers and groundwater
• More energy per acre than food-based
biofuels
 Fig. 1. Effects of plant diversity on biomass energy yield and CO2 sequestration for low-input perennial grasslands. ( A) Gross
energy content of harvested above ground biomass (2003–2005 plot averages) increases with plant species number. ( B) Ratio of
mean biomass energy production of 16-species (LIHD) treatment to means of each lower diversity treatment. Diverse plots became
increasingly more productive over time. (C) Annual net increase in soil organic carbon (expressed as mass of CO2 sequestered in
upper 60 cm of soil) increases with plant diversity as does (D) annual net sequestration of atmospheric carbon (as mass of CO2) in
roots of perennial plant species. Solid curved lines are log fits; dashed curved lines give 95% confidence intervals for these fits.
[View Larger Version of this Image (156K JPEG file)]
Fig. 2. NEB for two food-based biofuels (current biofuels) grown on fertile soils and for LIHD
biofuels from agriculturally degraded soil. NEB is the sum of all energy outputs (including
coproducts) minus the sum of fossil energy inputs. NEB ratio is the sum of energy outputs divided
by the sum of fossil energy inputs. Estimates for corn grain ethanol and soybean biodiesel are from
(14).
Fig. 3. Environmental effects of
bioenergy sources. (A) GHG
reduction for complete life cycles
from biofuel production through
combustion, representing
reduction relative to emissions
from combustion of fossil fuels
for which a biofuel substitutes.
(B) Fertilizer and (C) pesticide
application rates are U.S.
averages for corn and soybeans
(29). For LIHD biomass,
application rates are based on
analyses of table S2 (10).
* We assume that producing seed for planting prairies requires twice the energy used to produce prairie biomass, and that two or three hectares can be planted from the seeds
harvested from each hectare of degraded or fertile prairie, respectively. We divide this total energy input over an assumed 30 year life of the prairie. † We assume 30.5 L ha-1
of diesel are used in the first year for spraying, disking, planting, and mowing (S16), and that diesel releases 36.6 MJ L-1. We distribute this total energy input over a 30 year life
of the prairie. Annual fuel use for mowing, baling, an`d fertilizing is 13.8 L ha-1.
‡
We estimate the weight of equipment used in production (i.e., boom sprayer, tandem disk, notill drill, rotary mower/conditioner, hay merger, large rectangular baler, 75 hp
tractor, 130 hptractor, pull spreader, loader, and bale spike) to be 3.6 × 104 kg. We assume for purposes of calculating the embodied energy of each piece of machinery that it
consist entirely of steel and that it takes 25 MJ kg-1 to produce steel (S17, S18) with an additional 50% for assembly (S19).
We distribute this over a 30 year life of the prairie and a 240 ha size of the farm.
§
We assume a first year 2.24 kg ha-1 application rate of glyphosate, which requires 475 MJ/kg to produce and distribute (S20). We divide this energy input over an assumed 30
year life of theprairie. We assume phosphorus fertilizer, which takes 9.2 MJ/kg to produce and transport (S21), is applied every three years at a rate of 7.4 kg ha-1 yr-1 on
degraded prairie and 12.0 kgha-1 yr-1 on fertile prairie to replace phosphorus removed in harvested biomass. || The 2004 U.S. per capita energy use was 3.58 × 105 MJ (S22,
S23). We assume household size of 2.5 people (S24), 50% of farm household labor devoted to farming (S25), and a 240 ha farm.
¶ We estimate 24 and 38 L ha-1 of diesel is used to move bales onto and off of tractor trailers for degraded and fertile prairies, respectively (S16). We assume bales weigh 680
kg, each tractor trailer can haul 27 bales, and bales are transported an average of 40 km to their point of end use. With an average fleet efficiency of 2.2 km/L (S26), 36.4 L of
diesel are used in a single round trip to haul the bales produced on 4.9 ha of degraded prairie or 3.0 ha of fertile prairie.
* Although we have data on biomass production on fertile soils for prairie, we do not have comparable data
on LIHD carbon storage in such soils, and thus do not present this case in this table.
† Values are from (S27).
‡ This includes diesel used for producing prairie seed, planting and harvesting, and transporting bales.
Diesel life cycle GHG emissions are 3.01 × 103 g CO2 eq. L-1 (S28). We also include GHG release in
pesticide production, sustaining farm households, and producing farm capital and machinery by assuming
they require use of an amount of diesel equivalent to the energy expenditure of these inputs.

§This value is the amount of fossil fuels each use of biomass displaces (energy equivalent) multiplied by
the life cycle GHG emissions of the displaced fossil fuels. We assume ethanol displaces gasoline (life cycle
GHG emission = 96.9 g CO2 eq. MJ-1) (S28), biomass-generated electricity displaces coal-generated
electricity (life cycle GHG emission = 289.5 g CO2 eq. MJ-1) (S29), and synfuel displaces 38% gasoline
and 62% diesel (life cycle GHG emission = 82.3 g CO2 eq. MJ-1) (S14, S28).
Burgeoning real estate market in
Greenland
 Final Thought
• “Agriculturalists are the de facto managers
of the most productive lands on Earth.
Sustainable agriculture will require that
society appropriately rewards ranchers,
farmers and other agriculturalists for the
production of both food and ecosystem
services.” (Tilman et al. Nature 2003)