Domestic Fuel

It has been more than two years since the California Air Resources Board (CARB) committed to revise indirect land use change (ILUC) penalties assessed against certain biofuels as part of its Low Carbon Fuels Standard (LCFS). Since it went into effect, a federal district judge has ruled the LCFS unconstitutional; however, CARB was able to move forward with the law while litigation continues.

Since ILUC came to forefront, many peer-reviewed studies have been published that show CARB, along with other entities, have overstated the overall carbon intensity of corn ethanol. Despite the growing number of more accurate studies, CARB has yet to make any changes to the LCFS program’s indirect land use change estimates or direct carbon intensity values for corn ethanol. In response to the lack of action, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) sent a letter to Mary Nichols, CARB Chairwoman.

“I am writing to again encourage CARB to honor its commitments to expeditiously revise the ILUC penalty factor assessed against corn ethanol and to utilize the ‘best available science’ when determining direct [carbon intensity, or CI] values,” wrote RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “Revising the direct and indirect CI values for corn ethanol would be much more than a mere academic exercise; rather, a continued failure to update these CI values will jeopardize the ability of regulated parties to reasonably comply with the LCFS program’s increasingly rigid CI standards in 2013, 2014 and beyond.”

Dinneen’s letter cites a number of reports and studies published in the past several years that demonstrate CARB’s corn ethanol carbon intensity estimates are “unjustifiably inflated.” The most recent study, conducted by GREET model creator Michael Wang at Argonne National Laboratory and published in Environmental Research Letters, found the carbon intensity of average corn ethanol to be 62 grams of CO2-equivalent per megajoule (g/MJ), including possible emissions from ILUC. That’s 38 percent lower than CARB’s current estimate of 99.4 g/MJ for average Midwest corn ethanol.
Read the rest of this post…

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) is calling for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update their lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses of corn and sugarcane ethanol for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The association made the request in a letter sent to the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen wrote, “There have been literally dozens of new studies and modeling improvements since EPA finalized the RFS2 almost three years ago. Overwhelmingly, these new reports and data show that the corn ethanol process is far less carbon intensive than assumed by EPA. Corn ethanol is offering real and significant GHG savings today. Meanwhile, the carbon intensity of crude oil production continues to worsen, as we drill farther and deeper than ever before and get more of our energy from marginal crude sources like tar sands.”

Also noted in the letter is that recent GHG research has shown than lifecycle GHG emissions associated with Brazilian sugarcane ethanol production are worse than originally estimated by EPA. The letter cites since 2006, harvested sugarcane in Brazil has expanded 55 percent with at least 70 percent of the land formerly pasture land. However, when the lifecycle analysis was originally conducted, little land use change emissions were factored in to the data.

While RFA says the EPA underestimated land use change emissions for sugarcane, they also say the EPA overestimated ethanol plant energy use, corn farming energy use and land use change emissions for other forms of ethanol, primarily ethanol produced from corn.

Recent modeling and data improvements were presented in a peer-reviewed paper by researchers at Purdue University and the Department of Energy. According to the research, corn ethanol, on average, reduces GHG emissions today by at least 24 percent compared to gasoline even with speculative LUC emissions included. GHG reductions for ethanol from dry mill plants are even larger. Dinneen concluded that it is imperative that EPA recognizes this new science and data.

Click here to read the letter in full along with supporting charts and sources.

Dr. Jesper Hedal Kløverpris and Dr. Steffen Mueller have proposed a new approach to measuring the climate impact of biofuels related land-use changes (ILUC) as opposed to other land use changes: “Baseline Time Accounting Concept” and believe it should become an integrated part of future ILUC studies. According to the researchers, this model incorporates baseline time accounting into ILUC models, leading to a more accurate assessment of global warming impact. The peer reviewed study was published in the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

Jesper and Mueller explain that climate impact estimates are more precise when indirect land use emissions from the conversion of land at the agricultural frontier are compared with emissions resulting from the baseline conversion the same land. Historically, ILUC models assume a static land baseline although land use trend regionally differ.

“As many others, I have always been uncomfortable with the annualization method applied for time accounting in most previous ILUC studies because it is basically arbitrary,” said Kløverpris. “A more sophisticated approach was required to assess the actual climate impact of indirect land use change. Baseline time accounting is our proposal for a more scientifically rigorous way of dealing with the time issue in ILUC studies as the science is refined.”

More specifically, the approach incorporates two agricultural land use dynamics that they say is missing from previous time accounting models. The first is accelerated expansion which occurs in regions such as Latin America where agriculture area is expanding. Biofuel production may move up by a year or more the ongoing conversion of land to agriculture.

Globally, explain the researchers, the agricultural area will continue to expand for some decades, so a piece of land converted as an indirect result of biofuels production today would have come into production at some point regardless. That may not continue to be the case but one of the points with baseline time accounting is to assess biofuels production under the conditions prevailing when the biofuels are produced. If global land use dynamics change, so does the climate impact of ILUC.

The second dynamic is delayed reversion 
Read the rest of this post…

A new study seems to add credibility to the arguments that high corn prices, often driven by demand for biofuels, are not increasing the actual indirect land use effects.

This press release from the Iowa Corn Promotion Board says researchers at North Carolina State University and the University of Illinois at Chicago found that as prices for corn go up or down, farmers adjust their per acre yields and that some commonly used models for indirect land use use factors at the low end of the actual range which underestimates real yield performance:

The study assessed two dimensions of this correlation known as yield-price elasticity: first, the extent to which realized yields tend to be influenced by planting-time futures prices; and second, the potential for in-season changes responding to significant price swings. The study found that not only do farmers respond to price from season to season, they also respond to price during the season in order to optimize productivity. “Based on these findings there is no question that price has an effect on yields,” stated Jay Lynch, a farmer from Humboldt, Iowa and board director for the Iowa Corn Growers Association. “And given the factors involved in achieving higher yields, such as investment in new equipment, it is likely that new, higher yields resulting from high prices are sustained even after prices drop.”

“It is a logical conclusion that when economic opportunity through greater efficiency is identified, investment occurs and results in the efficiencies that are targeted,” stated Dr. Barry K. Goodwin, study co-lead and distinguished professor, Departments of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Economics “In row crop production higher prices trigger positive changes to operations such as investments in better equipment and technology, better navigation and information systems, and so forth. The investment and changes triggered by the higher prices accelerate yield growth so that farms produce more per acre to fully capitalize on the market opportunity of higher prices. It’s a logic stream that holds up on the farm as well as other industries.”

Researchers went on to say that the new information should give people a better understanding between the real relationship between biofuels and indirect land usage.

The debate over ethanol, greenhouse gases and land use continues – and that was the topic of a panel discussion at the recent 17th annual National Ethanol Conference.

The panel, moderated by Renewable Fuels Association VP of Research and Analysis Geoff Cooper, consisted of Thomas Darlington with Air Improvement Resource, Inc.; Dr. David Zilberman with the University of California-Berkeley; and Dr. Wally Tyner with Purdue University. The three experts addressed the latest developments in GHG analysis, and the impact of regulations like the Renewable Fuel Standard and California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard on the future of the ethanol industry.

“The new thing is that we now have real world data,” Dr. Tyner said. He presented actual data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that in the last six years the world has added 105 million of crop land – mostly corn, soybeans, rice, rapeseed and wheat. “So, markets work – that’s basically the bottom line,” said Tyner.

The question is, how much of that can be attributed to biofuels? “Our estimate is that of that 105 million acres, 5.9 million is due to U.S. soybean and corn ethanol,” he said – or about 5.6%. “So, yes we’ve had a lot of land use change, and some of it’s been due to biofuels, but the lion’s share of it’s due to a lot of other things,” such as growing global population and increased income in countries such as India and China.

Tyner also presented some new estimates of carbon footprint, or land use versus biofuels production capacity for various feedstocks. “Our current estimate for corn is .18 hectares per thousand gallons of ethanol,” said Tyner. “That’s about a fifth of what the original Searchinger estimate was.” A hectare is approximately 2.5 acres.

The really good news Tyner’s research found was that using corn stover for cellulosic biofuels production showed zero land use change. “So in terms of greenhouse gasses, global warming, all of that, it’s golden,” he said, adding that miscanthus also shows great promise with .06 hectares per thousand gallons, but switchgrass did not show up much better than corn at .15.

Tyner is the first to admit that all of this can change and every economic is uncertain, so the debate over land use change could continue “forever.”

Listen to or download an interview with Dr. Tyner here: Dr. Wally Tyner

2012 National Ethanol Conference Photo Album

Europe’s $13 billion biodiesel industry could be in jeopardy according to an article published by Reuters that claims that the European Union (EU) plans to tackle unwanted side effects of biofuel production. The turn-about in support of biodiesel has been in part spurred by fear over climate change and several recent papers leaked from the European Commission that purport that biodiesel’s indirect impacts cancel out the majority of its benefits.

As the EU looks to increase current biodiesel use from 3 percent to 10 percent by 2020, they are also concerned that such a move would increase environmental damage rather than reduce environmental concerns. Their own analysis concludes that a 10 percent biodiesel mandate could lead to “an indirect one-off release of around 1,000 megatonnes of carbon dioxide — more than twice the annual emissions of Germany.” In addition, one report concludes that more use of biofuels could “squeeze food supplies and increase global hunger.”

The studies to which Reuters is referring have not been released by the European Commission and the authors surmise it is because it would “have significant implications for the existing EU biodiesel industry.”

These negative impacts could include a reduction of investments in plants and infrastructure. It could also cause a reduction of biodiesel use, rather than what the country has been aiming for since 2003, an increase in biodiesel use.
Read the rest of this post…

FAO has released a new report that contains methodology designed to aid policymakers assess the pros and cons of investing in the bioenergy industry. The “Bioenergy and Food Security (BEFS) Analytical Framework” was written to help governments evaluate the potential of bioenergy as well as assess its possible food security impacts. The framework was developed over a three-year time frame and cites development and field tests that took place in Peru, Tanzania and Thailand.

The report is comprised of a series of step-by-step evaluations that seek to answer critical questions regarding the feasibility of bioenergy development and the impacts on food availability and household food security. In addition, social and environmental dimensions are also considered. The paper also serves as a platform for bringing key ministries and institutions together so they can work on the same page.

“Our goal is to help policy-makers take informed decisions regarding whether bioenergy development is a viable option and, if so, identify policies that will maximize benefits and minimize risks,” explains Heiner Thofern, who heads FAO’s Bioenergy and Food Security (BEFS) project.

The drive to biofuels have been driven by both worries over greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels as well as high oil prices and energy security concerns. FAO believes that one important benefit of investments into the bioenergy sector is that it could spark much-needed investment in agricultural and transport infrastructure in rural areas. This would create jobs and boost household income. These benefits could lesson both poverty and food security concerns. FAO has also conducted separate studies that show small-scale bioenergy projects not designed for export markets can improve food security and help boost rural economies.

“FAO has been saying for years that under-investment in agriculture is a problem that seriously handicaps food production in the developing world, and that this, coupled with rural poverty, is a key driver of world hunger,” says Thofern. “Done properly and when appropriate, bioenergy development offers a chance to drive investment and jobs into areas that are literally starving for them.”

Yet while there are major potential benefits to bioenergy production, FAO warns there are also potential negatives. They write that large-scale biofuel production could come at the expense of food production, leading to less food available, and higher food prices. In addition, deforestation is also a concern. Therefore, potential risks and benefits need to be weighed.

In a new study released today by Michigan State University (MSU), biofuel production in the United States through 2007, “probably has not induced any indirect land use change.” The report was conducted by Seungdo Kim and Bruce Dale, both MSU scientists, and the results will be published in the next issue of the Journal of Biomass and Bioenergy. ILUC is the theory that any acre used in the production of feedstocks for biofuels in the U.S. results in a new acre coming into food or feed production somewhere else in the world.

Dale and Kim empirically tested whether indirect land use change (ILUC) occurred through 2007 as a result of the expansion of the U.S. biofuels industry, spurred in part by the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) that calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended in fuel supplies by 2022. The researcher’s derived their conclusion after studying historical data on U.S. croplands, commodity grain exports to specific regions and land use trends in these geographical regions.

The authors write, “Biofuel production in the United States up through the end of 2007 in all probability has not induced indirect land use change. There are two feasible dependent conclusions that might be drawn from this interpretation: 1) crop intensification may have absorbed the effects of expanding US biofuel production or 2) the effects of US biofuel production expansion may be simply negligible, and not resolvable within the accuracy of the data.”

In response to the study, Renewable Fuels President and CEO Bob Dinneen stated, “Solving America’s energy crisis must rely on the best available science. Since its inception, the notion indirect land use change has been deeply flawed and repeatedly disputed. It is refreshing to see academia using real-world data and actual market behaviors to challenge the hypothetical results and ‘what if’ scenarios that have so far dominated the ILUC discussion.”

“Biofuels like ethanol offered unparalleled environmental benefits as a renewable alternative to gasoline. Hiding behind the faux science of ILUC, some have attempted to stall and thwart the sustainable growth of biofuels across the globe and especially in the U.S. This work from MSU, coming on the heels of other recent scientific analyses, has demonstrated that ILUC as a matter of science and fact is wrong,” continued Dinneen.

This report comes on the heels of report from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory that concluded ILUC resulting from corn ethanol expansion over the past decade has likely been “minimal to zero.”

Kim and Dale noted in the report that “prior ILUC studies have failed to compare their predictions to past global historical data.” Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have used highly controversial ILUC modeling tools. The report concludes, “No arable land increases from the 1990s are observed in the United States. Furthermore, no declines in natural ecosystem lands in the United States have been observed since 1998.” In addition, the analysis suggests cropland expansion in foreign countries is not well correlated to U.S. biofuels demand for certain feedstocks.

According to a new report, “Making Integrated Food-Energy Systems (IFES) Work for People and Climate – An Overview,” the simultaneous production of food and fuel by farmers can help to reduce poverty in countries such as Africa, Asia and Latin America. This according to FAO who published the report this week.

“Farming systems that combine food and energy crops present numerous benefits to poor rural communities,” said Alexander Müller, FAO Assistant Director-General for Natural Resources. “For example, poor farmers can use leftovers from rice crops to produce bioenergy, or in an agroforestry system can use debris of trees used to grow crops like fruits, coconuts or coffee beans for cooking.”

Müller noted that other types of food and energy systems use byproducts from livestock or biogas production and with this type of integrated systems, farmers can save money – they don’t have to buy expensive fossil fuel or chemical fertilizers. Rather, than can use the slurry from biogas production, a more sustainable, less costly alternative.

“They can then use the savings to buy necessary inputs to increase agricultural productivity, such as seeds adapted to changing climatic conditions — an important factor given that a significant increase in food production in the next decades will have to be carried out under conditions of climate change. All this increases their resilience, hence their capacity to adapt to climate change,” said Müller.

IFES are also beneficial to women as they can eliminate the need to leave their crops to go in search of firewood. In addition, the report concludes that IFES farming can help to mitigate climate change, especially emissions stemming from land use change, because there is less chance land will need to be converted.

In conclusion, Olivier Dubois, an FAO energy expert said, “Promoting the advantages of IFES and improving the policy and institutional environment for such systems should become a priority. FAO is well placed to coordinate these efforts by providing knowledge and technical support for IFES implementation.”

According to a new paper published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, “Land Availability for Biofuel Production,” authored by researchers from the University of Illinois, using detailed land analysis, biofuel crops cultivated on available land could produce up to half of the world’s current fuel consumption. This could be done, the researchers say, without negatively affecting food crops or pastureland.

The study was led by civil and environmental engineering professor Ximing Cai who identified land around the globe available to produce grass crops for biofuels, with minimal impact on agriculture or the environment. Cai noted going into the study that prior research concentrated on biofuel crop viability focused on biomass yield or how productive a crop could be regionally; yet, there was little research on land availability, a key constraint of biofuel development. He also noted that there is major concern as to whether, on a global scale, biofuels can meet fuel demand without compromising food production.

“The questions we’re trying to address are, what kind of land could be used for biofuel crops? “If we have land, where is it, and what is the current land cover?” said Cai.

For this particular study, Cai’s team assessed land availability from a physical perspective – focusing on soil properties, soil quality, land slope, and regional climate. The researchers collected data on soil, topography, climate and current land use from some of the best data sources available, including remote sensing maps but the point of differentiation of this research was that the study only considered marking land for biofuel crops. By doing this, current crop land, pasture land and forests were ruled out as viable land options for biofuel production. In addition, the research team ruled out any land that must be irrigated, thus eliminating concerns over the need to divert water from agriculture crops.
Read the rest of this post…

According to CABI and Hart Energy Consulting, while there has been much attention given to the idea that biofuel development will change land use around the world, there are still many gaps in knowledge about how much and in what ways those changes will manifest. To determine where more information about land use change is needed, the two organizations worked together to author a new paper, “Biofuels and Land Use Change: A Science and Policy Review.”

The report sets forth the premise that while two goals of biofuel production are to reduce greenhouse gases and to protect natural resources, they may in fact exacerbate the problems rather than help them. Therefore the report recommends that before decisions are made, future monitoring, experimenting and modeling in different locations must take place in an effort to assess the true impact of changing land use caused by biofuel production.

“There is a need to establish standard methodologies to evaluate the wide range of effects, direct and indirect, that ensue from the growing global biofuels market. This would enable much greater confidence when comparing future studies and enable decision-makers to make more informed judgments,” said Tammy Klein, Assistant Vice President of Hart Energy Consulting.

According to the report, “marginal, abandoned, degraded and unused lands” are really the only possible sources of significant land for biofuel expansion. Yet the report continues, it is these very lands that are rarely quantified and so the report asks how much of this type of land is available and what problems would need to be overcome to bring these lands into production.

In conclusion, the report calls for the establishment of effective land-use management and best agriculture practice policies for biofuels feedstock crops.

“The switch away from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives will have unforeseen consequences, especially for highly populated resource-poor countries,” said Janny Vos, Business Development Manager of CABI. “At present the role of biofuels in this process is unclear. We hope that this review goes some way towards identifying the questions that need to be asked about land use change, and the areas in which we need further research.”

Rainforest deforestation rates have reached new lows, which further challenges the theory of international land use change that has been used to penalize corn ethanol for its carbon footprint.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced today that deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon declined 14 percent from August 2009 to July 2010, reaching the lowest rates ever recorded for the second consecutive year.

Satellite images analyzed by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) show that an estimated 6,450 square kilometers of forests were cleared in the 12-month period, bringing rates to their lowest since monitoring started in 1988. The record-breaking decrease represents a major contribution to reducing Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions, as global negotiations progress at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP16), currently underway in Cancun, Mexico.

In a post on the Renewable Fuels Association E-xchange blog, Vice President of Research and Analysis Geoff Cooper says this development is yet another blow to the already roundly rejected hypothesis of international land use change (ILUC) first proposed three years ago by Environmental Defense Fund attorney Timothy Searchinger.

“Today’s announcement by Lula is just the latest exhibit in a recent barrage of evidence that is undermining the argument that ILUC is a significant concern in the context of U.S. biofuels expansion,” writes Cooper, noting that annual U.S. ethanol production stood at 3.4 billion when deforestation peaked in 2004. “In 2010, the ethanol industry will produce nearly 13 billion gallons. So, Amazon deforestation has fallen 76% since 2004, while U.S. ethanol production has increased 279% in the same period.”

Cooper adds that he hopes the news out of Brazil will be greeted warmly by the environmental community, but he doubts it. “Unfortunately, I have a feeling the response from NRDC and others may go something like this: “Well, how much lower would deforestation have been without biofuels in the U.S.?” This response, of course, dodges the real issues at hand and resorts back to hypotheticals and computer models.”

Earlier this month, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) made a positive step for ethanol by updating its indirect land use models in the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). This in effect, will reduce the ILUC penalties in half. Unfortunately, the new rule doesn’t take effect until mid-2011 although LCFS kicks in on January 1, 2011.

In light of this change, the ethanol industry is calling for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to also reevaluate its modeling of lifecycle GHG emissions as defined in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2). Recently the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) submitted a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking for this very change. In fact, EPA was represented on CARB’s LCFS Workshop and has publicly highlighted the fact that its ILUC results were similar to those originally obtained by CARB.

“The proposed changes to the California LCFS analysis are likely to result in substantially lower ILUC values, meaning EPA’s analysis for the RFS2 will be inconsistent with the latest science being adopted by CARB. Because EPA was represented by two staff members on the LCFS Expert Workgroup that recommended the changes to CARB’s LUC analysis, we are curious as to whether EPA similarly plans to revisit its LUC analysis for the RFS2 and incorporate more up-to-date assumptions and data,” wrote RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen in a letter dated November 23, 2010.

According to RFA, while EPA and CARB used different modeling approaches, some of the changes being adopted by CARB would result in lower values for ILUC in EPA’s RFS2 as well. Currently, corn-based ethanol has been given a 20 percent GHG emission reduction number in RFS2, but the industry wants to see this number much higher. Other areas that RFA would like EPA to visit again are the treatment of crop yields on newly converted land, treatment of carbon sequestration in harvested wood products and the effect of higher prices on crop yields.

The second purpose of the letter to Jackson was to respond to the EPA’s letter sent to RFA on September 29, 2010. Back in September, the RFA wrote to EPA “examining the impact of volume increases for individual biofuels in isolation of one another exaggerates the LUC impacts and misrepresents the real-world progression of the RFS2 as required by [the Energy Independence and Security Act].” They have argued, and continue to argue, that EPA’s isolation approach to calculating ILUC values for the various biofuels covered under the RFS2 ignores the dynamic relationships that exist between the fuels, the feedstocks and in the marketplace.

The bottom line, says RFA, is that the science behind ILUC is constantly evolving and requires continual monitoring and updating to ensure the best available science is being utilized to make decisions.

According to a new study released this week, the European Union (EU) plans to increase its use of biofuels over the next 10 years and it will require 69,000 square kilometers of new land causing climate change to become worse. “Driving to Destruction” was commissioned by a coalition of environmental and development NGOs and the study reports that by 2020, 90 percent of the 9.5 percent of biofuels will come from food crops.

“Biofuels are not a climate-friendly solution to our energy needs. The EU plans effectively give companies a blank cheque to continue grabbing land from the world’s poor by growing biofuels that fill our cars rather than their stomachs,” said Laura Sullivan, ActionAid’s European Policy and Campaigns Manager. “Europe’s energy policies are putting millions of people in danger and threaten Africa’s fragile food security.”

The global biofuels community is not taking the report lying down. “As a matter of record, our industry has always welcomed the debate about biofuels sustainability in large part because the alternative – more oil – is by definition unsustainable,” said Bliss Baker with the Global Renewable Fuels Alliance (GRFA). “However, NGO’s that use this debate as an opportunity to stoke fears and sell memberships in their organizations do a disservice to us all.”

According to the report, an area over twice the size of Belgium will need to be converted into biofuels plantations putting poor communities in danger if European countries use industrial biofuels to meet their renewable energy targets by 2020. Even more, the report claims that when indirect land use change is taken into account, a highly contested theory, biofuels will emit an extra 27-56 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year – the equivalent to an extra 12 to 26 million cars on Europe’s roads by 2020. Lastly, the report states that under the plans, 5 countries will be responsible for three quarters of all extra emissions. The UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, and France are projected to produce the most extra greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels.

Baker continued, “The research is chalk full of allegations disguised as facts. The report repeatedly makes statements as if they are facts such as ‘…the EU plans WILL result in the conversion of up to 69,000 sq. km of land for the use of biofuels.’ Sounds ominous but for the one word “upto.” It could be 1 square kilometer that gets converted. The point is they don’t know how many kilometres will be converted (if any) and predicting it with any degree of confidence has yet to be demonstrated anywhere.”
Read the rest of this post…

In a report that will be published soon,”Decomposition Analysis of U.S. Corn Use for Ethanol Production from 2001-2008,”the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory concludes that the indirect land use change (ILUC) as a result from the expansion of corn ethanol production over the past decade has likely been “minimal to zero.” The study was requested by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has appointed several teams of expert working groups to assess the methodology and data that went into California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

In response to the news, Geoff Cooper, the Vice President for Research and Analysis for the Renewable Fuels Association remarked, “The most recent work on ILUC is showing that ethanol expansion in the U.S. simply isn’t incurring the type of land use changes that were originally hypothesized. The initial results recently presented by the Department of Energy are further proof that America can continue to meet its global responsibilities to provide food and feed, while simultaneously providing a cleaner, domestic alternative to petroleum—all without needing to bring new lands into agriculture.”

The results of the study were released during the last CARB meeting focused on ILUC held last week. The time frame reviewed was during 2001-2008, when the U.S. ethanol industry more than quadrupled. The researchers concluded, “Empirical evidence does not support significant effects on U.S. commodity exports [and] other crops or cropland expansion in the U.S.”

“This should put the stake into the heart of the bizarre ILUC scheme. Here are some of the best scientists in the country – scientists who have no stake in the game – who found that ethanol had little to no impact from ILUC,” said Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy. “We must ask why California insists on going forward with a regulation that is based not just on controversial theory, but a theory that has been disproven.”

Coinciding with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s research, a paper published in Environmental Science & Technology and authored by Bruce Dale and other researchers at Michigan State University, “Biofuels Done Right: Land Efficient Animal Feeds Enable Large Environmental and Energy Benefits,” found that significantly larger volumes of biofuels can be produced without incurring ILUC.

“Using less than 30% of total U.S. cropland, pasture, and range, 400 billion liters (106 billion gallons) of ethanol can be produced annually without decreasing domestic food production or agricultural exports. This approach also reduces U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 670 Tg CO2-equivalent per year, or over 10% of total U.S. annual emissions, while increasing soil fertility and promoting biodiversity. Thus we can replace a large fraction of U.S. petroleum consumption without indirect land use change,” the authors concluded in the paper.