Bioenergy Accounting Challenges

Bioenergy Accounting Challenges

by Jeffrey Frost

Bioenergy is like the little engine that could.  Given the fixed land supply and the imperative to produce our food, feed, fiber and bioenergy feedstocks, astute observers have long noticed that even under optimistic biomass supply estimates, bioenergy can only fulfill one piece of our low carbon renewable energy future.  And while solar, wind, and hydro will ultimately, by necessity, be forced to absorb an increasing share of the total renewable energy resource demand, today’s available bioenergy – in the form of liquid biofuels, and electrical and thermal biopower – can help to reduce fossil fuel consumption before the forces of climate change create unimaginable dislocations to 21^st century life.

Models versus Common Sense

By Jeffrey Frost

When the models we use generate answers which violate common sense, it is time to check the prevailing assumptions within.  The Manomet study for Massachusetts, “Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study”, essentially concludes that global warming will be exacerbated by substituting forest biomass energy for fossil fuels for the production of electricity.  I do not have to think very hard or long to conclude that digging up ancient carbon from coal, oil, and natural gas is unlikely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to growing renewable biomass in our forests and harvesting it for energy use.  Yet, this is exactly what the Manomet study tells us, wrapped in massive amounts of very sophisticated analysis.

I have no wish to invalidate the strong work product produced by a stellar team regarding an analysis of prime importance:  Will renewable forest biomass or fossil fuels best serve our needs for a low-carbon energy future[1]?  I do suggest a need to examine the logic behind some of the prevailing assumptions – explicit and inherent – in this extensive analysis.  Here then are the questions which need to be answered:

1. How do you choose the point in the growth and harvest cycle for forest biomass at which to begin the analysis?  Manomet chose to begin the life cycle analysis with the day of harvest.  If they had taken the other extreme and started the analysis the day after harvest (the first day of sequestration), the results would have flipped entirely and showed the huge benefits of biomass over fossil fuels instead of the reverse finding.  Intuitively, the biomass must be grown and the carbon sequestered before it can be combusted anyway.  The most defensible answer is probably to begin the analysis midway between harvests which will improve the relative status of biomass substantially.

Corn Grain Ethanol: Yesterday’s news or a forgotten asset?

By Simon Bird

Listening to the headlines swirling around the energy world it’s easy to forget that corn grain ethanol constitutes our nation’s largest supply of biofuel. Almost all of the biofuel news is dominated with discussions of the newest breakthroughs in enzymes for cellulosic biofuels and advances in yield and recovery of oils from algae. But, by and large, all of these new technologies are still in the developmental stage, and many have been struggling to find the capital needed to ramp up their production from the lab to full commercial-scale facilities. In the mean time, corn grain ethanol has been left out of the equation, battered by dramatic shifts in the price for gasoline, corn and energy, and government policy for transportation fuels.

Why is this important? Is this just a sign that corn grain ethanol is old news? Though the production of corn grain ethanol does have greater potential for environmental degradation then the waste-product feedstocks used in advanced biofuels, there is much room for improvement in the current processes and sufficient low-hanging fruit that, with the right incentives, the industry could continue to show dramatic improvement. Additionally, it is widely estimated that the future of transportation fuels will be a dynamic mixture of alternative fuel sources, not one dominated by a single fuel as gasoline has for more than a century. Corn grain ethanol, as the only widely available alternative fuel source, provides a vital bridge to this future. Therefore, it is essential that all value-chain members of corn grain ethanol have methods that provide clear and effective incentives to improve their practices, and reduce their CO₂e emissions. However, as environmental accountants, we are consistently frustrated by the lack of tangible current opportunities for corn grain ethanol producers.

The Limitations of the EPA’s RFS2 program

By Simon Bird

The US national policy for biofuels has been advancing at a fast and furious pace. Every day new research fights for our attention, heralding technological advances or new impact assessments. A successful national biofuel promotion program would be fluid, allowing for the incorporation of this new research and would promote the development of increasingly sustainable technologies and practices. However, the EPA’s RFS2 program is a static being that will not allow for changes to be incorporated easily, whether great technological leaps or incremental improvement in feedstock production. The program additionally flattens the playing field among the diverse range of fuels, removing any incentive for fuel producers to reduce impacts or move to less environmentally-damaging feedstocks or processes.