Biomass Energy & Carbon Accounting (Part 3)

As we've discussed in prior blog posts, the EPA in its proposed "Tailoring Rules" does not consider a mass balance (inputs and outputs) approach to greenhouse gases -- only focusing on air emissions and not the source of the fuel feedstock (biomass versus fossil fuels).

It is unclear whether the EPA will change its earlier decision not to exempt biomass from its recently adopted “Tailoring Rules” which prescribe Clean Air Act permitting requirements for GHG emission sources beginning January 2, 2010.  As written, the “Tailoring Rules” treat emissions from burning biomass the same as emissions from burning coal or other fossil fuels.  Congress is expected to vote on proposals to block or delay these rules and litigation opposing the rules is currently underway.  But some states may very well find themselves scrambling to revise their State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”).  In September, the EPA released a proposed determination that 13 states’ SIPs are “substantially inadequate” and a second rule that allows the EPA to assume responsibility for the permitting of GHG emissions for those states that do not timely submit compliant SIPs.

The below data of stoker and fluid bed biomass energy technology systems comes from Babcock Power Report, while gasification technology data for carbon capture comes from previously discussed NREL (50%)and our own estimate (30%).


While we join others in the Biomass Energy Industry to disagree with the EPA proposed position -- if these rules are implemented, is there a fall-back argument to "carbon cycle neutrality" for biomass power (electricity, combined heat and power)?

The answer is yes, through the combination of (1) gasification technology; (2) biochar; and (3) below ground carbon sequestration of growing dedicated energy crops:

Biomass Energy & Carbon Accounting (Part 2)

In our last post on "Biomass Energy & Carbon Accounting" we cited an engineering science reference from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) that ~50% of carbon emissions can be captured through oxygen starved biomass gasification technology.

In our extensive experience with biomass gasification, we feel uncomfortable with the NETL estimate -- concerned that the carbon capture percentage may be too high. Our "educated guess" is the percentage would be closer to a +30% carbon capture for commercially available biomass gasifiers (i.e., up-draft gasifier) -- which is reflected in below amended chart.



While we could be wrong (overly conservative) so could NETL.

The problem in getting a handle on the issue of carbon capture is the lack of commercially operating biomass gasifiers (providing much needed engineering data). On the topic of carbon capture (biochar), the majority of engineering science work has been either at lab scale or with small gasifiers (i.e., stoves). It should be remembered that while biochar has always been a waste product of biomass gasification, only recently has it become a critical issue. Critical in the sense of the very viability of biomass power, recognizing current questions on carbon neutrality (i.e., the EPA's Tailoring Rule").

Biomass Energy & Carbon Accounting (Part 1)

During the past year, biomass energy has come under the microscope with numerous environmental groups questioning the carbon cycle neutrality argument and also the EPA's "Tailoring Rule". Our understanding of these concerns center on when the accounting cycle should start (called a carbon debt). The below chart illustrates the concept of carbon debt using the logarithm function of tree growth:


Should the accounting period begin as the biomass source is originally created, or should the accounting period begin at harvest and fuel use? For example, there is a big difference between (1) harvesting an old growth forest versus (2) growing energy crop trees on marginal lands that only had weeds before tree planting.

While the topic of life-cycle carbon accounting is complex, two key carbon capture components that we rarely see in this discussion are (1) below ground carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions (primarily, NOx); (2) biochar created through biomass gasification technology.

Through our field work in Florida (i.e., growing energy crop trees on marginal mined lands) our collaborative work with the University of Florida and Oak Ridge National Lab documented that in accumulating total carbon:
(A.) 62% was contained above ground (harvestable trees) and,
(B.) 38% was below ground (i.e., root systems).

Also, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's NETL, approximately 50% of the biomass harvested feedstock (i.e., the 62%) could be captured in biochar (31% of the total biomass) through gasification pyrolysis.

Clearly, biochar has the potential to be a "major player" in carbon cycle accounting ranging from the gasification process to its ability to capture NOx emissions from soils. The problem is that so little empirical data exists outside of laboratory study (the need for commercial scale field documentation).

---

Notes:
(1) Per UF/ORNL field measurements of eucalyptus tree plantation (62% + 38% = 100% total tree mass).
(2) Per NETL estimates of 50% biochar carbon capture through gasification.
(3) Assumes biogas would be scrubbed downstream from the gasifier through a Wet ESP (electrostatic precipitator), emitting almost no greenhouse gas nitrous oxide emissions (and also no sulfur emissions).
(4) Lehmann (Cornell) research that biochar may capture ~80% of NOx and ~100% of methane (CH4).
(5) Current Proxy of ~10% using Life Cycle Assessment developed by University of Michigan, SUNY (Heller, Keoleian, Volk, July, 2002)

Biomass Energy Agriculture Sustainability - Focus on Water Quality.

When we hear the term "sustainability" for biomass energy feedstocks being discussed or debated, often we really don't know what "specifics" are being proposed. Most of the time it just seems that (1) Project developers' concept of "green" only involves making money; (2) the agenda of many environmental groups (like the Sierra Club) is to kill projects and not find solutions; (3) Legislators don't have a clue on science.

In our collaborative work with the University of Florida and industry scientists, "Advanced Cropping Systems" are being developed, tested, and implemented integrating disciplines of (1) soil science; (2) plant science, (3) engineering science through biomass gasification to create biochar (a stable component of soil organic carbon), and (4) water science.

In today's blog, we will give a brief "science based" discussion on how growing energy crops can integrate into improving and sustaining water quality through a 3 Zone nutrient capture approach.


For example, the concept schematic below illustrates the activity occurring in the yellow Soil Filtration Zone (above). Here, water is filtered through alternating aerobic and anaerobic conditions. This is because certain chemical constituents like N and large carbon-chain molecules such as organic chemicals are broken down under anaerobic conditions initially (nitrate and nitrite are blown off as elemental N in gaseous state; thus they don’t continue in a dissolved state to impact downstream waters). Large carbon-chain molecules are broken down in anaerobic conditions enabling aerobic bacteria to further decompose them. Thus, by running stormwater runoff with P from ag lands through aerobic and anaerobic cycles, more and more of the P and other nutrients are stripped out of the water with each cycle.

In our approach to sustainable agriculture, wood chips, peat and biochar are used to provide the growing media for the bacteria and soil fungi that will aid in the supporting the decomposition and adsorption of constituents. Thus, the system contains the constituents on-site so they don’t leave the biofilter and enter downstream water bodies.

CO2 Benefits of Biomass Energy Vs. Solar and Wind Energy (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the importance of viewing renewable energy technology options (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass) on a "big picture" (macro) basis using the integrated resource grid. The key concept under this view is that not all renewable energy options have the same impact in displacing fossil fuel use for electricity generation:

Typically, solar power and many wind power resources are considered "peaking units", which displace natural gas and oil fired generation.

Conversely, biomass and geothermal resources are often dispatched as base load units which would typically (especially in the Southeastern and Mid-Western U.S.) displace coal fired generation.

Today in Part 2 of our series, we will address the question: Is Biomass Energy Really Carbon Cycle Neutral? Hopefully, some pictures of our sustainable biomass energy efforts here in Florida will be better than a thousand words in answering this question.

The first picture below reflects what our land sources looked like before planting energy crops -- unused mining lands dominated by an invasive species plant of cogongrass.

The next two pictures reflect what our sites look like 1 to 2 years after planting energy crops (e.g., fast growing trees, sorghum):

As the above pictures reflect, our sustainable energy crop efforts CREATED a carbon bank that we then used for energy production.

In addition, when biomass energy resources are developed in a environmentally responsible and sustainable way -- biomass energy can exceed the CO2 benefits of other renewable energy sources and be "Carbon Cycle Negative":

Sequestering carbon below ground through energy crop root systems.

Incorporating a stable component of carbon (biochar, a waste product of biomass gasification) into soils.

Incorporating advanced recycling and composting methods for soil building using crop waste streams (e.g., sorghum bagasse).

Biomass Energy Is a Whole Lot More Than Just About Global Warming.

This past week the EPA issued notification that it is reviewing
water quality standards in Florida. This issue of water quality and management brings up a key agricultural talking point of biomass energy and energy crops that's not discussed in the main stream media.

With Biomass Energy, a key focal point in the Media will always be Global Warming -- we understand this reality. However, the story of biomass energy is much more than just greenhouse gas emissions. The complete story includes what we call the catalytic pro-active environmental impacts in developing biomass energy resources involving "best management carbon management" in agriculture.


Through our work with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Lab (growing energy crops on marginal lands from phosphate mining), we achieved a dramatic increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) in the soils.

Soil Carbon Percentages Found Before &
2.5 Years After Energy Crop Planting
But our story doesn't just end with carbon sequestration, rather it is just the beginning of pro-active environmental benefits that can occur by implementing carbon management in agriculture which include:

The nature of soil carbon having multiple charges (+ and -), allowing for the "capture" of cations and especially anions of phosphorus and nitrogen that impact water quality (e.g., nutrient laden water run-off into lakes and streams).

The ability of soil carbon to hold and create "pathways" for increased hydrology in soils.

The ability of soil carbon to increase soil micro-organisms, free oxygen, and anion holding capacity (i.e., nitrogen)-- reducing the need for fertilizer inputs for crops.

The ability of Energy Crops to be an effective strategy in reducing/eliminating invasive species of plants (land and hydra-flora).

Share|

Environmental Benefits of Biomass Energy to Control Invasive Plant Species

This week is National Invasive Species Awareness Week which brings up a key environmental benefit of biomass energy that is rarely, if ever, brought up. Through our efforts in Florida, we are restoring environmentally damaged marginal lands (from mining) that have been invaded by non-native plants (e.g., Brazilian Pepper) and weeds (e.g., cogongrass) to grow energy crops for biomass energy.



Hopefully, we are creating a "global template" for sustainable energy crop development relying heavily on soil carbon management (i.e., active and also stable soil carbon fractions like biochar).

In our opinion, a major obstruction in achieving energy crop development are the "Ivory Tower Environmentalists" who most often have an attitude of "their way or the highway". The problem here is that these "ivory tower types" have little, if any, practical agriculture science technical background or field training.

For example, no-till farming does not work (at least initially) in our efforts because of the primary invasive weed of cogongrass that we are trying to control/eliminate. Cogongrass primarily spreads through its rhizomes (root system) that tilling disrupts.

YBTTRHP86RK3

The Environmental Nightmare of Wind Energy & Energy Efficiency!

Today's blog is a follow-up of our last post on the "message of fear" that continues in the media over biomass energy (e.g., the Huffington Post article -- Green Nightmare: Burning Biomass is Not Renewable Energy). To refresh everyone's memory -- the author of this article states that the development of biomass energy will lead to the destruction of forests world-wide.

The dishonesty of these types of arguments is that no approach to energy production or conservation is exempt from the need to be sustainable and environmentally pro-active -- not even wind energy or equipment that improves energy efficiency.

Now, we think that most "Greens" would agree that the practice of "mountain-top removal in coal mining" is a travesty that continues in the Appalachian Mountain region of the U.S. Click Here to see a horror video of this practice.

Today's New York Times has an article describing the environmental destruction that is occurring through the mining of "rare earths" that are used in the manufacturing of wind energy and energy efficiency equipment -- which appears to be just as bad as mountain-top removal for coal.


Unlike the Huffington Post article which states that forests world-wide WOULD be destroyed IF biomass energy is advanced, we could point to the N.Y. Times article and say -- Wind energy and energy efficiency IS ALREADY creating environmental destruction through mining practices.

Based on this fact of mining destruction, should world-wide Policymakers abandon green technologies of wind power and energy efficiency?

And the answer is -- of course not.

Sustainability -- Integrating Biomass Energy, Agriculture, and Land Use

In trying to answer the question "What does the Common Purpose Institute do?", sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

We are advancing sustainable biomass energy development, with a key focus not just on biomass technology (bio-gasification, ethanol production, etc.) and agricultural best practices (e.g., high crop yields) but land use integration as well -- with a critical emphasis on carbon management (sequestration, soil building, environmental benefits).

(click the below image to increase the scale)