Why Biomass Is Important -- the Role of the USDA Forest Service in Managing and Using Biomass for Energy and Other Uses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Biorefining National Program
Biorefining National Program 5-Year Action Plan 2014-2019 1 How This Action Plan Was Developed The goal of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Biorefining National Program (NP 213) is to conduct research that enables new, commercially-viable technologies for the conversion of agricultural materials into fuels, value-added co-products, and biobased products. To achieve this goal, this Action Plan was designed to meet the following criteria: 1. Maximize the long-term economic impact of ARS biorefining research 2. Emphasize ARS’ unique capabilities and avoid overlap with research at other institutions 3. Maximize returns to agricultural stakeholders from ARS investment of public funds By developing commercially viable technologies for the production of biobased industrial products, ARS biorefining research increases the demand for agricultural products and therefore benefits both agricultural producers and rural communities. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. demand for gasoline is forecasted to drop over the next 10 years; this drop will reduce demand for blendstock ethanol, which is roughly 10 percent of the gasoline demand (Figure 1). The 10 percent “blend wall” is a result of government regulations and limitations imposed by the Nation’s gasoline distribution infrastructure, and although demand for E85 and E15 will rise, those volumes are relatively low. As a consequence, industry production capacity is expected to exceed demand for fuel ethanol sometime in the 2013 2014 time frame. 2013-2014: E10 Blend Wall Billion Gallons Gallons Per Billion Year Figure 1. Forecasted demand for ethanol blendstock vs. RFS2 targets 1 Chart courtesy of Dr. -
The Role of Reforestation in Carbon Sequestration
New Forests (2019) 50:115–137 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-018-9655-3 The role of reforestation in carbon sequestration L. E. Nave1,2 · B. F. Walters3 · K. L. Hofmeister4 · C. H. Perry3 · U. Mishra5 · G. M. Domke3 · C. W. Swanston6 Received: 12 October 2017 / Accepted: 24 June 2018 / Published online: 9 July 2018 © Springer Nature B.V. 2018 Abstract In the United States (U.S.), the maintenance of forest cover is a legal mandate for federally managed forest lands. More broadly, reforestation following harvesting, recent or historic disturbances can enhance numerous carbon (C)-based ecosystem services and functions. These include production of woody biomass for forest products, and mitigation of atmos- pheric CO2 pollution and climate change by sequestering C into ecosystem pools where it can be stored for long timescales. Nonetheless, a range of assessments and analyses indicate that reforestation in the U.S. lags behind its potential, with the continuation of ecosystem services and functions at risk if reforestation is not increased. In this context, there is need for multiple independent analyses that quantify the role of reforestation in C sequestration, from ecosystems up to regional and national levels. Here, we describe the methods and report the fndings of a large-scale data synthesis aimed at four objectives: (1) estimate C storage in major ecosystem pools in forest and other land cover types; (2) quan- tify sources of variation in ecosystem C pools; (3) compare the impacts of reforestation and aforestation on C pools; (4) assess whether these results hold or diverge across ecore- gions. -
Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Network of Conservation Educators & Practitioners Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity Author(s): Nathaniel P. Hitt, Lisa K. Bonneau, Kunjuraman V. Jayachandran, and Michael P. Marchetti Source: Lessons in Conservation, Vol. 5, pp. 5-16 Published by: Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History Stable URL: ncep.amnh.org/linc/ This article is featured in Lessons in Conservation, the official journal of the Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners (NCEP). NCEP is a collaborative project of the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC) and a number of institutions and individuals around the world. Lessons in Conservation is designed to introduce NCEP teaching and learning resources (or “modules”) to a broad audience. NCEP modules are designed for undergraduate and professional level education. These modules—and many more on a variety of conservation topics—are available for free download at our website, ncep.amnh.org. To learn more about NCEP, visit our website: ncep.amnh.org. All reproduction or distribution must provide full citation of the original work and provide a copyright notice as follows: “Copyright 2015, by the authors of the material and the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the American Museum of Natural History. All rights reserved.” Illustrations obtained from the American Museum of Natural History’s library: images.library.amnh.org/digital/ SYNTHESIS 5 Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity Nathaniel P. Hitt1, Lisa K. Bonneau2, Kunjuraman V. Jayachandran3, and Michael P. Marchetti4 1U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center, USA, 2Metropolitan Community College-Blue River, USA, 3Kerala Agricultural University, India, 4School of Science, St. -
Bacterial Production and Respiration
Organic matter production % 0 Dissolved Particulate 5 > Organic Organic Matter Matter Heterotrophic Bacterial Grazing Growth ~1-10% of net organic DOM does not matter What happens to the 90-99% of sink, but can be production is physically exported to organic matter production that does deep sea not get exported as particles? transported Export •Labile DOC turnover over time scales of hours to days. •Semi-labile DOC turnover on time scales of weeks to months. •Refractory DOC cycles over on time scales ranging from decadal to multi- decadal…perhaps longer •So what consumes labile and semi-labile DOC? How much carbon passes through the microbial loop? Phytoplankton Heterotrophic bacteria ?? Dissolved organic Herbivores ?? matter Higher trophic levels Protozoa (zooplankton, fish, etc.) ?? • Very difficult to directly measure the flux of carbon from primary producers into the microbial loop. – The microbial loop is mostly run on labile (recently produced organic matter) - - very low concentrations (nM) turning over rapidly against a high background pool (µM). – Unclear exactly which types of organic compounds support bacterial growth. Bacterial Production •Step 1: Determine how much carbon is consumed by bacteria for production of new biomass. •Bacterial production (BP) is the rate that bacterial biomass is created. It represents the amount of Heterotrophic material that is transformed from a nonliving pool bacteria (DOC) to a living pool (bacterial biomass). •Mathematically P = µB ?? µ = specific growth rate (time-1) B = bacterial biomass (mg C L-1) P= bacterial production (mg C L-1 d-1) Dissolved organic •Note that µ = P/B matter •Thus, P has units of mg C L-1 d-1 Bacterial production provides one measurement of carbon flow into the microbial loop How doe we measure bacterial production? Production (∆ biomass/time) (mg C L-1 d-1) • 3H-thymidine • 3H or 14C-leucine Note: these are NOT direct measures of biomass production (i.e. -
1 Estimating Profitability of Two Biochar Production Scenarios
Estimating Profitability of Two Biochar Production Scenarios: Slow Pyrolysis vs. Fast Pyrolysis Tristan R. Brown1 *, Mark M. Wright2, 3, and Robert C. Brown2, 3 Iowa State University 1Biobased Industry Center 2Department of Mechanical Engineering 3Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies * [email protected] Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011 Tel: (515) 460-0183 Fax: (515) 294-6336 ABSTRACT We estimate the profitability of producing biochar from crop residue (corn stover) for two scenarios. The first employs slow pyrolysis to generate biochar and pyrolysis gas and has the advantage of high yields of char (as much as 40 wt-%) but the disadvantage of producing a relatively low-value energy product (pyrolysis gas of modest heating value). The second scenario employs fast pyrolysis to maximize production of bio-oil with biochar and pyrolysis gas as lower-yielding co-products. The fast pyrolysis scenario produces a substantially higher value energy product than slow pyrolysis but at the cost of higher capital investment. We calculate the internal rate of return (IRR) for each scenario as functions of cost of feedstock and projected revenues for the pyrolysis facility. The assumed price range for delivered biomass feedstock is $0 to $83 per metric ton. The assumed carbon offset value for biochar ranges from $20 per metric ton of biochar in 2015 to $60 in 2030. The slow pyrolysis scenario in 2015 is not profitable at an assumed feedstock cost of $83 per metric ton. The fast pyrolysis scenario in 2015 yields 15% IRR with the same feedstock cost because gasoline refined from the bio-oil provides revenues of $2.96 per gallon gasoline equivalent. -
Biomass Basics: the Facts About Bioenergy 1 We Rely on Energy Every Day
Biomass Basics: The Facts About Bioenergy 1 We Rely on Energy Every Day Energy is essential in our daily lives. We use it to fuel our cars, grow our food, heat our homes, and run our businesses. Most of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels like petroleum, coal, and natural gas. These fuels provide the energy that we need today, but there are several reasons why we are developing sustainable alternatives. 2 We are running out of fossil fuels Fossil fuels take millions of years to form within the Earth. Once we use up our reserves of fossil fuels, we will be out in the cold - literally - unless we find other fuel sources. Bioenergy, or energy derived from biomass, is a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels because it can be produced from renewable sources, such as plants and waste, that can be continuously replenished. Fossil fuels, such as petroleum, need to be imported from other countries Some fossil fuels are found in the United States but not enough to meet all of our energy needs. In 2014, 27% of the petroleum consumed in the United States was imported from other countries, leaving the nation’s supply of oil vulnerable to global trends. When it is hard to buy enough oil, the price can increase significantly and reduce our supply of gasoline – affecting our national security. Because energy is extremely important to our economy, it is better to produce energy in the United States so that it will always be available when we need it. Use of fossil fuels can be harmful to humans and the environment When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere. -
Microbial Loop' in Stratified Systems
MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 59: 1-17, 1990 Published January 11 Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1 A steady-state analysis of the 'microbial loop' in stratified systems Arnold H. Taylor, Ian Joint Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PLl 3DH, United Kingdom ABSTRACT. Steady state solutions are presented for a simple model of the surface mixed layer, which contains the components of the 'microbial loop', namely phytoplankton, picophytoplankton, bacterio- plankton, microzooplankton, dissolved organic carbon, detritus, nitrate and ammonia. This system is assumed to be in equilibrium with the larger grazers present at any time, which are represented as an external mortality function. The model also allows for dissolved organic nitrogen consumption by bacteria, and self-grazing and mixotrophy of the microzooplankton. The model steady states are always stable. The solution shows a number of general properties; for example, biomass of each individual component depends only on total nitrogen concentration below the mixed layer, not whether the nitrogen is in the form of nitrate or ammonia. Standing stocks and production rates from the model are compared with summer observations from the Celtic Sea and Porcupine Sea Bight. The agreement is good and suggests that the system is often not far from equilibrium. A sensitivity analysis of the model is included. The effect of varying the mixing across the pycnocline is investigated; more intense mixing results in the large phytoplankton population increasing at the expense of picophytoplankton, micro- zooplankton and DOC. The change from phytoplankton to picophytoplankton dominance at low mixing occurs even though the same physiological parameters are used for both size fractions. -
Aertos Bio-Based Economy Forward-Looking Analysis
AERTOs Bio-Based Economy Forward-Looking Analysis Jesse Fahnestock, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden Henna Sundqvist-Andberg, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland AERTOs Bio-Based Economy: Forward-Looking Analysis 1 Innehållsförteckning Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 Forward-Looking Analysis: Purpose and Approach ............................................................................. 4 The Scenario Framework ..................................................................................................................... 4 The Scenario Pathways ........................................................................................................................ 6 The World and Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 8 Europe and the Bioeconomy ......................................................................................................... 10 RTOs and the Industry ................................................................................................................... 13 Actors and Factors ............................................................................................................................. 15 Assessing the Boundaries: Quantitative Parameters of a Bio-Based Economy ................................ 17 Industrially available biomass ...................................................................................................... -
Biomass to Biochar
BIOCHAR AN ELEGANT SOLUTION FOR COMPLEX PROBLEMS THE COMPLEX PROBLEM Climate change from too much CO2 and other GHG’s in the atmosphere 1. Excess CO2 from burning fossil fuels 2. Methane (CH4) from livestock, landfills & decomposition 3. Nitrogen/phosphorous run-off and N2O off-gassing from fossil fuels converted to fertilizer 4. Temperature and moisture regime change deleterious to plant health, benefitting disease & insect life-cycles 5. Concentrations of biomass “waste” in agriculture and forestry 6. High forest density & increasing wildfire risk Climate Benefits: Carbon and More FOCUS ON BIOCHAR CHARCOAL WITH A PURPOSE Support soil biology & nutrients Protect biology from heavy metals & toxins BIOCHAR is CARBON CARBON WITH AMENITIES B x xx SUSTAINABLE OBTAINABLE SOLUTIONS 6 ? ALGAE www.prosandconsbiomassenergy.org BIOCHAR: the carbon-rich residue of heating biomass without oxygen 75% mass loss Pyrolysis 40-55% 75-90% carbon carbon 50% carbon loss BIOMASS BIOCHAR Lehmann, 2007, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 381-387 PRODUCTS OF PYROLYSIS Non-Fossil Fuel Energy • Syngas - substitute for propane • Bio-oil - bunker fuel, pre-cursor to bio-diesel • Heat - space heating, steam production, producing electricity More Climate Benefits • Biochar - carbon sequestration, soil amendment, less NPK fertilizer use, GHG capture, carbon credits • Waste – reduce by conversion • Emissions – captured and recycled FULL CIRCLE SOLUTION MINIMAL EMISSIONS Actual Emissions from University of Montana BioMax System Putting the Bio in the Char SOILS, PLANTS & ANIMALS Nutrients Habitat Water Biochar in Soil GHGs pH Carbon Texture BIOCHAR in COMPOST 10% by volume reduces CH4 and N2O off-gassing and nutrient run-off Reduces odors Retains well-distributed moisture in production piles Absorbs more radiant heat Compost charges biochar with nutrients Enhances soil fertility long-term BIOCHAR IMPROVES PLANT GROWTH 20t/ha biochar 8t/ha biochar No biochar Cornfield in Colombia Plants absorb CO2. -
Bio-Based Chemicals That Sound, Socially Accepted, and Cost-Competitive Bioenergy on P.O
Further Information IEA Bioenergy Task42 Website www.iea-bioenergy.task42-biorefineries.com IEA Bioenergy is an international collaboration set-up in 1978 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to IEA Bioenergy Website improve international co-operation and information www.ieabioenergy.com exchange between national bioenergy RD&D programmes. This report, that was prepared IEA Bioenergy’s vision is to achieve a substantial Contact – IEA Bioenergy Task42 Secretariat on behalf of IEA Bioenergy – bioenergy contribution to future global energy demands Wageningen UR – Food and Bio-based Research Task42 Biorefinery, addresses the Bio-based by accelerating the production and use of environmentally Hilde Holleman – Secretary main bio-based chemicals that sound, socially accepted, and cost-competitive bioenergy on P.O. Box 17 potentially could be co-produced a sustainable basis, thus providing the increased security 6700 AA Wageningen of supply whilst reducing greenhouse gas emissions from The Netherlands with secondary energy carriers in energy use. Currently, IEA Bioenergy has 24 Members and Phone: +31 317 481165 integrated biorefinery facilities. Chemicals is operating on the basis of 12 Tasks covering all aspects of Email: [email protected] Biorefining, i.e. the sustainable the bioenergy chain, from resource to the supply of energy services to the consumer. processing of biomass into a Leader of Task42 spectrum of marketable Bio-based René van Ree Products (chemicals, materials) Wageningen UR – Food and Bio-based Research | Task 42 Biorefinery Phone: +31 317 611894 and Bioenergy (fuels, power, heat) Email: [email protected] generally is seen as the optimal IEA Bioenergy Task42 Biorefinery deals with knowledge strategy to sustainably convert building and exchange within the area of biorefining, i.e. -
Integrated Strategies to Enable Lower-Cost Biofuels
Integrated Strategies to Enable Lower-Cost Biofuels (This page intentionally left blank) ii Integrated Strategies to Enable Lower-Cost Biofuels Acknowledgments This report was prepared by Mary J. Biddy, Ryan Davis, Abhijit Dutta, Avantika Singh, Ling Tao, Eric C.D. Tan (National Renewable Energy Laboratory); Susanne B. Jones, James R. Collett, Lesley J. Snowden-Swan (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory); Erin Webb, Michael Kass, Matthew Langholtz (Oak Ridge National Laboratory); Jennifer Dunn, Cristina Negri, Shruti K. Mishra, John J. Quinn (Argonne National Laboratory); and David N. Thompson, Amber Hoover, Damon S. Hartley, Jaya Tumuluru, Jeffrey A. Lacey, Kevin L. Kenney, Leslie Ovard, Lloyd M. Griffel, Mohammad S. Roni, Neal A. Yancey, Rachel M. Emerson, Shyam K. Nair, William A. Smith, Allison Ray, Jason K. Hansen, Luke Williams, Magdalena Ramirez-Corredores, Patrick N. Bonebright, Quang A. Nguyen, Tyler Westover, Vicki S. Thompson, Lynn Wendt, and Patrick Lamers (Idaho National Laboratory). The authors would like to acknowledge Alicia Lindauer, Valerie Reed, Jonathan Male, Jim Spaeth, Kevin Craig, Michael Berube, and Zia Haq of the U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office for their support, as well as Besiki Kazaishvili, Michael Deneen, and Kathy Cisar from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Communications Office for their help in developing this report. iii Integrated Strategies to Enable Lower-Cost Biofuels List of Acronyms AD anaerobic digestion BETO Bioenergy Technologies Office BioSepCon Bioprocessing Separations -
Economic Evaluation of Large-Scale Biorefinery Deployment
sustainability Article Economic Evaluation of Large-Scale Biorefinery Deployment: A Framework Integrating Dynamic Biomass Market and Techno-Economic Models Jonas Zetterholm 1,* , Elina Bryngemark 2 , Johan Ahlström 3 , Patrik Söderholm 2 , Simon Harvey 3 and Elisabeth Wetterlund 1,4 1 Department of Energy Engineering, Division of Energy Science, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden; [email protected] 2 Economics, Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden; [email protected] (E.B.); [email protected] (P.S.) 3 Department of Space, Earth and Environment, Division of Energy Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden; [email protected] (J.A.); [email protected] (S.H.) 4 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 13 July 2020; Accepted: 28 August 2020; Published: 1 September 2020 Abstract: Biofuels and biochemicals play significant roles in the transition towards a fossil-free society. However, large-scale biorefineries are not yet cost-competitive with their fossil-fuel counterparts, and it is important to identify biorefinery concepts with high economic performance. For evaluating early-stage biorefinery concepts, one needs to consider not only the technical performance and process costs but also the economic performance of the full supply chain and the impacts on feedstock and product markets. This article presents and demonstrates a conceptual interdisciplinary framework that can constitute the basis for evaluations of the full supply-chain performance of biorefinery concepts. This framework considers the competition for biomass across sectors, assumes exogenous end-use product demand, and incorporates various geographical and technical constraints.