Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Agency, Opinions, Policy, Sustainability »

(Environmental Protection Agency)  This report is the second of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) triennial reports to Congress required under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). EISA Section 204 calls for EPA to report to Congress on the environmental and resource conservation impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, specifically air and water quality, water quantity, ecosystem health and biodiversity, soil quality, invasive species, and international environmental impacts (hereafter referred to as the Section 204 statutory impacts).
Consistent with how EPA conducted the first Section 204 report, EPA has chosen in this assessment to focus on the Section 204 statutory impacts and not to expand the scope of the report beyond the factors explicitly enumerated in the law. As a result, some environmental impacts are not discussed in this report. Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions impacts of biofuel use, for example, are addressed as part of the RFS program and are not included in this report. Furthermore, this report does not include a comparative assessment of the impact of biofuels on the environment relative to the impacts of other transportation fuels or energy sources, including fossil fuels, for every environmental endpoint. For example, the environmental impacts of growing corn, refining ethanol from that corn, and burning that ethanol in an internal combustion engine has a different environmental impact than drilling for oil, refining gasoline, and burning that in an internal combustion engine. EPA recognizes that a fully comprehensive assessment of the benefits and impacts of biofuel production and use would be broader than what is represented by this report, but conducting such an evaluation is beyond the scope of this study.

This report updates the findings of the first Report to Congress, published in 2011, with respect to environmental and resource conservation impacts, and, together, the two reports are intended to address the Section 204 statutory impacts since the passage of the EISA. The primary conclusions of the 2011 Report included the following two findings: (1) the environmental and resource conservation impacts of biofuel production and use as delineated in Section 204 of EISA were, on balance, negative; and (2) EISA’s goals could be achieved with relatively minimal adverse environmental impacts if existing conservation and best management practices were widely employed, concurrent with advances in technologies that facilitate the use of second-generation feedstocks. The 2018 Report reaffirms the findings of the 2011 Report and reflects the current understanding about biofuel production using data gathered through May 2017. The 2018 Report also reviews data on U.S. land use and the scientific literature through April 2017.

Major Findings
• Data from observations made since the 2011 Report indicate that the biofuel production and use conditions that led to the conclusions of that report have not materially changed.
• Substantial volumes of cellulosic and advanced biofuels have not been produced as anticipated by EISA. The Section 204 statutory impacts anticipated as a consequence of large-scale use of feedstocks other than corn and soybeans have therefore not occurred.
• Corn grain and soybeans remain by far the dominant feedstocks for biofuel production. Biofuel production associated with large-scale cultivation of corn and soybeans contributes to the adverse environmental and resource conservation impacts of the type listed in EISA Section 204, though we caution that this report does not evaluate the net effects of displacing petroleum or other energy sources with biofuels.
• There has been an observed increase in acreage planted with soybeans and corn between the decade leading up to enactment of EISA and the decade following enactment. Evidence from observations of land use change suggests that some of this increase in acreage and crop use is a consequence of increased biofuel production mandates.
• It is likely that the Section 204 impacts associated with land use change are, at least in part, due to increased biofuel production and use associated with the RFS. However, at this time we cannot quantify with precision the amount of land with increased intensity of cultivation nor confidently estimate the portion of crop land expansion that is due to the market for biofuels.

Likely Future Impacts
Section 204 of EISA also requires that the triennial report identify likely future impacts. We interpret the requirement to address “likely futures” as encompassing near-term future impacts presuming current technologies and rates of market penetration, and current policy and market dynamics. Thus, where this report discusses likely future impacts, it is addressing anticipated changes over the next three to five years. This report finds that there are some indications of growth in cellulosic ethanol production, primarily from corn stover, but that large-scale production at levels approaching the original EISA targets is not likely to be reached in the next few years. Available data suggest that current trends using corn starch and soybeans as primary biofuel feedstocks, with associated environmental and resource conservation impacts, will continue in the near term. READ MORE

EESI Statement: EPA Report on Biofuels’ Environmental Impacts Misses the Forest for the Trees (Environmental and Energy Study Institute)

Biofuel industry criticizes US EPA’s triennial report (Biodiesel Magazine)

EPA Report Misses the Mark on Biofuels Impact (Biofuels Digest/National Biodiesel Board)

Excerpt from Environmental and Energy Study Institute:  On June 30, EPA released its second triennial report to Congress, which outlines the state of research of any potential negative environmental impacts of biofuels production, including land use change, air quality, water quality, biodiversity, soil quality and invasive species from producing biofuels for the Renewable Fuel Standard. Despite the careful consideration of these topics within the report, EPA paints an incomplete picture, at best, as they fail to draw any comparisons between biofuels and their main competitor – petroleum.  While considering potential environmental impacts of renewable energies, one must consider the alternative as well.

It is very unfortunate that EPA chose not to consider the greenhouse gas as well as other environmental and health impacts of petroleum extraction and refining in their assessment.  Despite the overwhelming evidence that fossil fuels are the main threat to our climate, as well as causing irreparable harm to our water, air, and health, EPA decided not to draw any comparisons between the two fuel choices in their literature review.

While biofuels production must absolutely be done in a way that minimizes the impact to the environment, the plain truth is that most evidence-based research finds that biofuels are still a better choice for our environment, health, and air quality as compared to fossil fuels. Additionally, farmers are leading the charge to implement conservation practices and better manage land in the face of increasing demand for food, feed, fiber and biobased compounds, including biofuels.

While petroleum products continue to get dirtier and worse for the climate, the biofuels industry has continually improved the greenhouse gas footprint of conventional ethanol, which is capped at 15 billion gallons under the RFS. Additionally, cellulosic fuels, such as those sourced from crop residues, food wastes, and manures, have the potential to greatly reduce wastes and deal with methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas with as much as 36 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.  The volumes produced of these cellulosic fuels continue to grow year-over-year and represent a tremendous success of the RFS.  READ MORE

Excerpt from Biodiesel Magazine:  Representatives of the biofuels industry criticized the EPA’s report for failing to compare the lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of biofuel use with those of fossil fuels.

Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, pointed out that all forms of power result in some “negative” environmental impact, from solar arrays to minerals used in batteries. “Without an accurate scientific assessment, this study looks more like something the oil industry would draft than a federal report. Farmers would be insulted, if they weren’t already outraged by the EPA’s actions to undermine ethanol use,” she said.

“The EPA went out of its way to avoid citing data on the negative environmental impact of petroleum, leaving no way to deliver an apples-to-apples comparison showing the vast environmental benefits of American-made biofuels,” Skor continued. “Amazingly, the agency completely side-stepped carbon emissions, where the latest federal science from the USDA demonstrates that ethanol delivers a 43 percent benefit over fossil fuels—with a carbon reduction rising to 50 percent by 2022. At the same time, advanced and cellulosic biofuels can curb emissions by 100 percent or more, according to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory. EPA even suggested that biofuels could be blamed for land use without any hard data, which would have shown that America’s farmers are producing more food and energy than ever before, and they are doing it on less cropland than was under cultivation in the 1930s. You cannot attribute a rise in land use to biofuels when land use isn’t rising.

“Thankfully, there are still accurate sources for environmental information, including the USDA, the Department of Energy, and clean energy leaders who have reported that ethanol helps keep our air free of volatile organic compounds, cancer-causing chemicals like benzene, and smog-forming pollutants,” Skor said. “Even the EPA admitted that while they offered ‘insufficient evidence to support a conclusion on the overall direction or magnitude,’ it’s fairly clear that America’s environmental goals under the Renewable Fuel Standard ‘could be achieved with minimal environmental impacts if best practices were used and if technologies advanced,’ just as the industry is doing today.”

Johannes Escudero, CEO of the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, noted that the renewable natural gas (RNG) industry currently provides more than 95 percent of the cellulosic biofuel used under the RFs and stressed the environmental benefits of RNG.

“It’s worth noting that EPA acknowledges it did not consider lifecycle greenhouse gas emission impacts of biofuel for this report, which is incongruous considering that a biofuel’s eligibility for the RFS is evaluated by considering its lifecycle GHG benefits,” he said.  “EPA’s lifecycle analysis distinguishes renewable natural gas transportation fuel from all sources as among the biofuels with the most environmental benefit.”

“RNG production facilities capture methane emissions that would otherwise be flared or escape into the atmosphere from waste streams at landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and anaerobic digesters and convert the methane into a fuel that is interchangeable with conventional natural gas,” Escudero said. “RNG is transported inter- and intra- state using existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure, and is used to fuel natural gas vehicles, such as municipal bus fleets and waste haulers.

“The production and utilization of RNG as a transportation fuel not only helps mitigate methane emissions, it also helps sequester carbon from certain sources,” he continued. “Replacing diesel engines with natural gas engines fueled by RNG achieves an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. RNG is already accepted in the marketplace and is a win-win if you are advocating for both a clean environment and clean economy today.”  READ MORE

Excerpts from Biofuels Digest/National Biodiesel Board:  EPA’s recently published Second Triennial Report to Congress on Biofuels and the Environment provides no meaningful conclusion on the net environmental benefits of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). What EPA’s report unfortunately does provide, however, is fodder for political pundits wishing to attack the program through selective quotes and perpetuation of myths.

As EPA acknowledges, the report does not include a comparative assessment of biofuels and the environmental impacts of other transportation fuels, including fossil fuels. Nor does the report address lifecycle GHG benefits that were previously quantified by EPA.

A significant failure of the report is that EPA cannot separate impacts due to the RFS or biofuels from the impacts of other policy and market drivers. Those other drivers are stronger than the RFS, so it is inappropriate to report causality only to the RFS.

EPA also fails to recognize real trends in agriculture that have the opposite impact on conservation and biodiversity. For instance, the real trend in agricultural land use is that farmers are doing more with less, producing more food on fewer acres.

In 2015, USDA determined that the total area of managed farmland in the US had declined by 23 million acres compared to 2007. This parallels global trends where farmers worldwide were managing 60 million less acres in 2011 compared to 2004. During the same period, 19 million acres of previously unforested land returned or were converted to forests. Farmers are farming less land. This means more land is available for wildlife habitat if conservation policies are in place to recognize this opportunity. 

EPA fails to recognize this net decrease in agricultural land. Instead, EPA focuses only on the increase in acres of cropland. These trends are related, but not necessarily due to biofuels. Farmers are optimizing their production to produce more protein per acre. Protein is the limiting factor in our food supply. While we have developed biofuels to utilize the excess fats and carbohydrate byproducts of protein production, all of the protein that farmers produce goes into the food supply. Crops produce more protein per acre than grass.

…

Congress has also de-funded conservation programs. The number of acres mandatorily disenrolled from the Conservation Reserve Program exceeds any increase in acres needed to satisfy RFS volumes.

…

Without considering these factors, which are far more influential than biofuels markets, EPA cannot correctly summarize the true trends in agricultural production.

…

When measured on a per-unit-of-food basis, one will find that modern agriculture has significant environmental benefits over past practices. With this realization, we can appreciate biofuels as a bonus benefit. When farmers grow protein to feed the world, they harvest more fats and carbohydrates than we can eat. These fats and carbs contain carbon-neutral solar energy. We will reap economic and environmental benefits when we use the solar energy in biofuels to supplement the fossil fuels needed to drive our economy.  READ MORE

Aviation Fuel, QUOTE OF THE WEEK »

“The sooner we can get moving on new technologies like SAJF (Sustainable Alternative Jetfuel), the sooner we can move off carbon offsetting,” explained Ed Bolen, President of the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) as quoted in a recent GreenAir Online article.  READ MORE

Awards, BioChemicals/Renewable Chemicals, BioRefineries, Business News/Analysis, Canada, Co-Products, Energy, Estonia, Federal Agency, Feedstock, Feedstocks, Field/Orchard/Plantation Crops/Residues, Florida, Forestry/Wood, Funding/Financing/Investing, Georgia, Green Jobs, Marketing/Markets and Sales, New Mexico, Not Agriculture, Process, R & D Focus, Sugars, Sweden, Tennessee, Texas, UK (United Kingdom) »

by Jim Lane (Biofuels Digest)  … Lignin has developed into a sustainable and very satisfactory alternative to fossil fuels.

But applications have been needed. Firstly, applications that work, then applications that pay, then applications at scale. Let’s see how that work has been coming along.

Applications that work

Nylon, plastics, chemicals. This month we reported that researchers at the University of Portsmouth have developed a new, “promiscuous” enzyme that can convert plant waste into fuel, nylon, plastics and chemicals.

…

Nylon, plastics, muconic acid, pyrogallol. In May, we reported that researchers at Sandia National Laboratories have engineered E. coli to convert lignin into precursors for products such as nylon, plastics, and pharmaceuticals.

…

Fuel cells. In May, we reported that researchers at Linköping University’s Laboratory of Organic Electronics have developed a lignin-based fuel cell that, unlike conventional fuel cells, does not emit carbon dioxide. Professor Xavier Crispin and his team used electrodes made from the conducting polymer PEDOT:PSS and benzendiols, aromatic compounds that can be extracted from lignin. The results have been published in the scientific journal Advanced Sustainable Systems.

3D printing filament. In April, we reported that the BC Innovation Council has awarded $300,000 to Darrel Fry of Advanced BioCarbon 3D  and Jason Taylor of Selkirk College to develop biodegradable, 3D printing filament from engineering plastics and lignin-derived carbon fibers.The project was one of four winners of BC Innovation Council’s fourth Ignite Awards, which handed out just under $1 million to four BC research projects. Since the Ignite funding was launched in 2016, it has given out $3.5 million.

…

Plastics, In February, we reported that Meridian Waste Solutions, Inc. successfully completed its performance testing for lignin-based resins produced by their patent-pending lignin polymer process. 

…

Carbon fiber. Last May, we reported that waste material from the paper and pulp industry soon could be made into anything from tennis rackets to cars.

…

Applications that pay

Phenolics. In February, we reported that Stora Enso launched a new biobased lignin, called Lineo, as a renewable replacement for oil-based phenolic materials which are used in resins for plywood, oriented strand board (OSB), laminated veneer lumber (LVL), paper lamination and insulation material.

…

Process solvents. In June, we reported that a closed-loop biorefinery could dramatically lower the cost of biofuels and related products. In this approach, the refinery produces the solvents it needs, rather than “importing” them.

…

Applications at scale

Lignin production. In May, we reported that Sweetwater Energy and Europe’s largest wood pellet producer, the Tallinn, Estonia-based AS Graanul Invest, said that they will build a commercial-scale integrated biorefinery that will produce clean cellulosic sugars and highly pure lignin from 50,000 tons of local hardwood each year. In addition, the plant will allow the two companies to work with corporate partners to create and optimize innovative new products from sugar and lignin. 

…

Drop-in renewable diesel and gasoline. Also in May, we reported that Preem and RenFuel are assessing, in collaboration with Rottneros, the construction of the world’s first lignin plant for biofuels, at the pulp mill in Vallvik, Söderhamn. The plant is expected to produce an annual volume of 25,000-30,000 tons of lignin, and will be completed in 2021.  The collaboration between the companies means that Preem will be the first fuel manufacturer in Sweden to use lignin in its production. Via the company Lignolproduktion AB, which is jointly owned by Preem and RenFuel, the aim is to reach a total annual production capacity of 300,000-500,000 tons of lignin, based on the assumption that more plants similar to that in Vallvik are established in the future.  “Lignin can be refined to create both renewable diesel and renewable petrol, and used in all vehicles. Lignin, like tall oil, will help us phase out fossil fuels to an even greater extent. It is a valuable raw material in our renewable fuel efforts, and is based on by-products from the Swedish forestry industry. It is also available in large volumes,” says Petter Holland, Managing Director of Preem.  READ MORE