Detailed Recommendations For Biomass Energy

1. Develop Local Production Capacities

Local production capacity is a key to the net energy balance of biofuels. Transport distances must be kept low. Department of Energy statistics imply that 50 miles is the maximum efficient transport distance. We would be more supportive of a decentralized system of localized energy generation at small scales. One of the problems with ethanol is that the current technologies are largely centralized and under the control of large corporations. I don’t have a strong sense of where most ethanol plants are located, but farming corn in Iowa, processing the ethanol in Indiana and using it in California wouldn’t seem to make sense under our guiding principles.

Until recently, small-scale electricity generation suffered from distinctly lowered efficiency. That has changed with the development of gasifiers and combined-cycle systems, which deliver efficiency at a comparable level with large coal-fired steam turbine electricity plants. These are the types of projects that should be subsidized, at the community level in rural areas.

2. Utilize Agricultural Wastes that Would Otherwise Be Landfilled

The American Bioenergy Association estimates that 350 million tons of agriculture waste are landfilled every year. Utilization of that biomass alone could raise U.S. biomass electricity generation from 1% (present level) to 10% of total U.S. electricity capacity. Rule of thumb: materials that would be disposed (post-harvest and processing wastes, such as rice hulls, corn stover, sugar cane residue) are acceptable as biomass fuel; materials that would have remained in place for soil holding or composting/ nutrient return must not be used as biomass fuel. Utilization of agriculture waste biomass should occur close to the location where it is generated, be that at the farm, cooperative, or processing company scale. Farm or cooperative level usage would lend itself to local electricity firing, processor scale might lend itself to cellulosic ethanol production or municipal electricity generation. Policies to further this should include subsidies of appropriate level generation capacity, and the utility company should compensate farmers for the cost of the waste biomass.

3. Utilize Non-Toxic Municipal Wastes

There are currently 135 municipal solid waste incinerators in this country, generating 2.969 million kW annually. We should oppose the burning of medical waste, batteries, hazardous waste and other forms of municipal solid waste that can release dioxin or other dangerous pollutants. However, the current definition of MSW includes yard wasters, which can probably be co-fired or biomass fired /gasified without adverse air or water quality impacts. We would support efforts to separately collect and use for energy production: residential lawn clippings, residential raked leaves, lawn trimmings from golf courses, universities, and other large properties, commercial and municipal lawn service clippings, median strip mowings, residues collected from physical removal of invasive species (eg, kudzu). Facilitating the collection and conversion of non-toxic biomass might reduce the pressure to incinerate hazardous materials.

4. Bioenergy Crops Should Not Replace Native Habitat or Marginal Lands

Replacing currently row cropped acreage with biomass crops (switchgrass, poplar, etc) yields net environmental gains and is therefore acceptable; removing native habitat to plant biomass crops results in net environmental losses and is not acceptable. Moreover, removal of Conservation Reserve Program lands from conservation plantings is not acceptable because even if these lands do not contain native habitat, they are important for many native wildlife species, as well as for reducing erosion. Information compiled by Cook and Bayea indicates that compared to intensive row cropping, cultivation of perennial biomass crops increases soil carbon, reduces fertilizer use (fertilizer production is fossil-energy intensive) and reduces pesticide use. Runoff from biomass crops is equivalent to row crops in the first year, but decreases once the biomass crops have established. However, soil carbon storage, runoff, etc are all better in native habitat than in biomass crop acreage.

Research also suggests that woody biomass crops are better for forest birds than row crops and that switchgrass crops are better for grassland birds than row crops. These crops may help "plug the gaps" between fragmented patches of native habitat in agricultural landscapes. Comparisons of the wildlife habitat value of energy crops versus CRP lands are currently underway.

Other appropriate acreages for biomass crops may include road median strips and mine tailings (switchgrass + legume). Marginal lands, stream buffers, and CRP enrolled lands should be planted in native habitat vegetation, not monoculture biomass vegetation.

5. Timber Residues and Fire Suppression

Timber residues are currently the biggest component of biomass energy (8.034kW per year). Most of this capacity is at timber and paper companies that have by-products on hand. Logging should not be increased to fuel cellulosic ethanol or biomass firing/ cofiring operations. Timber removal for fire suppression, etc, should fall within the 50-mile radius limitation for carbon balance efficiency. Subsidies for transport of materials removed for fire management should only go to existing biomass facilities, so as not to encourage new facilities that would require a continual source of fuels. No roads should be built in National Forests for the purpose of removing biomass fuel, nor should any road closures be postponed or cancelled to maintain biomass sources. Priority for fire removal subsides should be at the "urban-wildland" interface where forest fires are most likely to cause property damage.

6. Animal Waste Materials

Biomass energy programs must not provide financial incentives for CAFOs or increase their ability to drive their neighbors out of business or expand at the expense of local communities, water and air quality, or land values. Manure management systems that digest manure might help improve water quality, but large producers should pay for these improvements themselves, since it is their responsibility to comply with the law, and they will benefit by using or selling the end products of these processes. USDA should provide technical assistance under EQIP or other appropriate program for those wanting to undertake manure to energy systems. Another feasible option might be a loan program for implementing these technologies.

7. Landfill Biogas

Capturing methane from landfills has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Methane has more "greenhouse power" than CO2, so it is more beneficial burn the gas than to let it escape into the atmosphere.

8. Biotechnology

Cellulosic ethanol processes relying on biotechnology is acceptable because it occurs in a closed environment. The genetically modified organism in that process ferments xylose sugar into alcohol in an anaerobic process. Widespread planting of GM feedstock crops is a potential problem however. Defenders is more supportive of research and development of traditional hybrids of poplars, willow, switchgrass, etc. for optimal growth and survival in localized climatic and growing conditions.

9. Improving Air Quality

Transportation

There is concern that ethanol at the currently utilized fractions (ie,10% in gasahol) are worse for air quality than straight petroleum fuel. Higher concentrations of ethanol (>22%) are better for air quality but rely on Flexible Fuel Vehicle technology and fueling capacity. Flexible Fuel Vehicles are now widely available, but higher concentration ethanol is not.

Electricity

Currently, only six coal-fired plants in the U.S. are engaged in co-firing, which is cheaper than straight-coal firing and reduces emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides ( According to the Department of Energy, "Another ten plants have successfully tested cofiring over the last decade, and at least six more plants are now conducting or planning tests. According to a recent report prepared for the Department of Energy by five National Laboratories, domestic biomass generation capacity could reach 20-30 GW by the year 2020 by cofiring at existing U.S. coal-fired power plants." This is probably the lowest-cost means of expanding biofuel capacity, since new technology and capital investment are minimal. Caveats related to transport distance, etc. would have to be maintained.

10. Job Creation

17,000 jobs are created per billion gallons of ethanol produced. According to the Environmental Law and Policy Center, there are currently 66,000 jobs in biomass energy, and full development of this technology could result in 283,000 jobs by 2010.

11. Rural Economy

Biomass proposals should be structured to help the rural economy, as opposed to large corporations. This is best accomplished through development of small-scale, community level biomass enterprises. For instance, Defenders would support measures that pay farmers for the energy value of agricultural and processing waste products (rice hulls, sugar cane, corn stover, etc.). Such a program would have to be structured so as not to provide incentives for removing soil-holding field stubble. Communities could also benefit from programs that fund the construction of small-scale biomass gasifiers and encourage local farmers to convert 10% of their row crop acreage to energy crops that can be processes locally. Defenders also supports net metering, whereby on-farm energy is sold back to the main grid.