Economics of corn ethanol subsidies

The Senate just voted last week to get rid of a huge corn ethanol subsidy, which is surprising & the right thing to do. The Economist has a great story on this here. Like many things, we'll never be sure of the individual motivations for support/disapproval of a particular project, but for environmental and economic reasons--corn ethanol was clearly not a good solution to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Ideally, there will now be greater support for more promising forms of renewable cellulosic biofuel crops.

Re: agro-ecology

When I started research on crops like Miscanthus, I was immediately struck by how agriculture and energy (in terms of energy crops) are intertwined. AND there is a more responsible way to deal with growing things, whether that means food or crops for fuel. Of course there is the ever present "food vs. fuel" argument, which it turns is out more accurately termed a "animal feed vs. fuel for humans" debate (see previous blog post here).

As an example of how agricultural issues are also renewable energy issues (in terms of growing biofuel crops), a recent report by the UN points out that small scale farmers can boost yields of up to 80-116% by using ecological farming methods, or agro-ecology. Agro-ecology means using ecological principles to production of food, fuel, or fiber. Like any term, there is some debate over what exactly the term means, but my interpretation is that agro-ecology means growing things while thinking carefully about any effects your approaches have on the environment around you.

In this report, they contrast agro-ecology with conventional farming approaches, and find overwhelming support and evidence that the more sustainable agro-ecological approach is more productive for smaller farmers than the fossil fuel intensive conventional farming approach. For example, in Malawi, when chemical fertilizer subsidies were removed in favor of agro-ecological approaches, farmer yields of maize actually doubled!!

Given the impact on fertilizers and typical industrial/conventional farming practices on climate change, AND the evidence in support of moving back to the more sustainable and responsible farming approaches, there is no sense in not widely implementing agro-ecological methods. This topic is not readily discussed in the energy/biofuel world, but I think we can learn from the years of research in the agricultural world to implement the most responsible practices for all crops.

the future of agriculture: competing demands of food, biofuels, and environment

I've avoided the whole "food vs. fuel" can of worms for awhile, even though it deserves some discussion, partly because it is more complicated than it sounds, and also because I've never been entirely convinced it truly is a valid impediment for viable production of biofuels in this country. Finally, I came across a compelling study by Dale et al. on Biofuels Done Right (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es101864b) that points out a few key issues in the food vs. fuel debate.

Strikingly, they point out that 80% of our cropland in the U.S. (that's 114 million hectares out of a total of 178 million ha) is used for production of animal feed, mostly cattle. I know, I know, the vegetarians (which I used to be) have been pointing this out forever. I knew that land efficiency for feeding cattle was extremely low compared to land efficiency to grow crops for human consumption, but I still find the 80% value shocking. So in truth, this is not a "feed starving families vs. fuel" debate, it is more of a "eating steaks and hamburgers vs. clean energy" debate. According to the USDA, the average annual consumption of beef was 61.1 lbs per person, in 2009. So in a sense, this debate revolves around our priorities.

In this study on Biofuels Done Right, the authors modeled different uses of ONLY the 80% of land being used for feeding animals, leaving the actual "human food" producing land intact. On the left-hand side of the diagram below, the current agricultural practices are outlined (again only using the 80% of cropland devoted to producing animal feed).


On the right side is a different model of land use that incorporates A LOT more cellulosic crops (such as switchgrass or Miscanthus) and the resulting output shows a much more diverse and efficient use of the land, with greater ethanol production and reduction in greenhouse gases (CO2 output means reduction of CO2).

The bottom line is that without even touching the current domestic food production or exports, we could produce up to 400 billion liters of ethanol (106 billion gallons/yr, the energy equivalent to 80% of gasoline derived from imported petroleum) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 670 Tg CO2 equivalent per year (~10% reduction in what we currently produce). All of this can be done while increasing soil fertility and not even reducing the amount livestock feed we are currently producing by using land-efficient animal feed technologies (APEX & LPC), as well as double-cropping.

So people, we CAN change our priorities here, by promoting more efficient use of our land...and it wouldn't hurt to cut your beef consumption either.

Re: How sustainable are biofuel crops?

A recent article by a group of German researchers in Global Change Biology-Bioenergy

(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01088.x/pdf)

looks at the future of biofuel crop expansion with respect to environmental concerns as well as agricultural constraints.

One of their main points is that, not surprisingly, devoting more of our ever-precious land for new (albeit promising) uses is not straightforward. There are already major land constraints globally (see figure above) where it is recognized that we should not devote further land for new uses. These reasons are colored in the figure above: the land is already protected, it is part of a sensitive wetland, it includes designated wilderness or has been identified as has having high biodiversity, carbon losses on conversion of the land would not be regained within a period of 10 years (LUC emissions), or these areas are already agricultural lands deemed necessary for food production.

While the authors estimate that bioenergy crops can account for a substantial amount (15-25%) of world energy demand by 2050, there are potential caveats, such as putting pressure on delicate ecosystems and fragmenting land. All of these issues are likely to have negative effects on biodiversity and threatened and endangered species.

My take-home message from reading this article:
It is imperative to be thinking long-term and focusing on renewable energy technology, yet we should definitely keep in mind the long-term and short-term sustainability of how biofuels affect our precious land.

Re: BiofuelsWatch

I stumbled upon an interesting blog with lots of info on biofuels, renewable energy, and climate change, in general.

http://www.biofuelswatch.com/

Though brief and not very technical, there is a nice overview on how biofuels (both ethanol & biodiesel) are made:

http://www.biofuelswatch.com/how-are-biofuels-made/

Also, a blurb on what is biofuel energy?

http://www.biofuelswatch.com/what-is-biofuel-energy/

And I particularly liked this one (though it is hardly thorough) on the good & bad of biofuels:

http://www.biofuelswatch.com/are-biofuels-good-or-bad/

Re: great editorial on plant research...or lack of

I just came across this article in Science that points out how so little of our public research dollars go towards basic plant (agricultural) research. They claim that 2% of federal spending on research R&D goes to agricultural research. I am reminded of the general public bias out there which I noticed beginning as a graduate student when I decided to work on plants rather than animals or fungi or microbes. I've also been told by several faculty that their postdocs do quite well in a plant-specific search, but usually lose out to equivalent job candidates who study animals. Once I gave a talk and one of the faculty members afterwards mentioned that hearing my talk was the first time he actually found anything having to do with plants interesting. I was obviously flattered, but also appalled that so many people are so uninterested in plants.

Hey! Where does your food come from?? Ultimately, the answer is almost always plants. Who gobbles up CO2 and spits out oxygen for us to breathe?? Uh, plants. Does anyone wear cotton or linen anymore? They also come from plants. And your house is also likely made with wood (plants). Yep, plants make it possible for us to survive and thrive.

I know we are pretty animal focused (being animals ourselves), but I hope we can develop a better appreciation and understanding of plants. I know everyone wants a cure for cancer, but I would argue that funding basic research in plant biology is also crucial for our survival and health.

A new focus on Plant Science by McCormick & Tijian
Science 19 November 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6007 p. 1021
DOI: 10.1126/science.1198153
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6007/1021.full.pdf

Re: biofuel crops as habitat?

Just ran across this article in a new pub, Global Change Biology (GBC) Bioenergy which looked at how perennial feedstocks impact animal biodiversity. Perennial biomass feedstocks enhance avian diversity by Robertson et al. 2010 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01080.x). [Note: sorry I will try to find "open" articles, but this is tough!! Please let me know if you want me to send pdf]

The authors looked at bird (and bird food=bugs) diversity and abundance in 3 kinds of habitat:
1) corn monoculture
2) switchgrass plot
3) mixed-grass prairie

This included surveying 20 sites of each type above, but just in the upper mid-west (Michigan).

The clear expectation is that corn (annual plant) would support the lowest bird diversity (this has already been shown). We also already know that mixed-grass prairie, which is largely what the midwest once was before modern agriculture, supports very high bird diversity and abundance. The big question is, what would the perennial switchgrass plot (switchgrass is native to N. America and is one of the mixed prairie grasses) be like in terms of supporting bird diversity and habitat?

It turns out that there was a greater diversity of birds with a larger patch (plot) size for both switchgrass & prairie, but not for corn. Also, the perennials (not corn) supported more arthropods (mainly insects), a key component in many birds' diets. Even though there was greater bird diversity overall in the mixed prairie habitat, the switchgrass plot was also pretty good.

Overall, this suggests that at least for some locations and for one species of cellulosic feedstock (switchgrass)--growing perennial energy crops can be managed to maintain habitat for native grassland birds.