Bioeconomy Was Like an Old Truck Stuck in the Mud. The Tow Truck Has Arrived

Agriculture (USDA)Alcohol/Ethanol/Isobutanol Aviation Fuel/Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)BioChemicals/Renewable Chemicals BioRefineries/Renewable Fuel Production Biorefinery/Fuel Production Infrastructure Business News/Analysis Carbon Capture/Storage/Use Environmental Protection Agency Farming/Growing Federal Agency/Executive Branch Federal Regulation Feedstocks Field/Orchard/Plantation Crops/Residues Forestry/Wood/Residues/Waste Funding/Financing/Investing Infrastructure Marketing/Market Forces and Sales Opinions Original Writing, Opinions Advanced Biofuels USA Other Conferences/Events Policy Presentations Sustainability White House

November 16, 2021

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Joanne Ivancic* (Advanced Biofuels USA) One of the speakers on the second day of the Alternative Fuels & Chemicals Coalition’s Global Biobased Economy Conference & Exhibit, noted that 5 years ago the bioeconomy was like an old truck stuck in the mud. The driver could get out and try to push but the truck just kept spinning its wheels. Now, the speaker noted, the tow truck has arrived in the guise of Environmental, Social and Governance criteria tied to corporate officials’ compensation and other stockholder, investor and public pressure to institute sustainability programs.

This sentiment was reinforced during the luncheon plenary session when high level representatives of Neste, Praj Industries, Clariant, and DSM confirmed that pressure on company officials. It was also evidenced by the increase in attendance by younger people, people new to the biofuels/biochemicals community and people investigating investment or financing opportunities.

Inside the Bioeconomy

The second day presented a firehose stream of inside bioeconomy information from sustainable aviation fuels to the latest in biobased, biodegradable and recyclable plastics; from examination of carbon intensity amplifying value, environmental benefits and consumer adoption to making renewable chemicals and biomaterials from bioethanol.

These presentations made clear that achieving governmental, corporate and personal sustainability goals will depend on chemicals and materials, not just fuel.

Paul Zorner of Bluejaune Advisors took that a step further, convinced that beyond carbon neutrality we need carbon drawdown; that we can do that by taking advantage of carbon in the air and converting it using agriculture.

Karen O’Brien of Gevo reinforced the idea of plants gathering that carbon so that it can be taken from field to carbon markets. She reminded the conference that this offered opportunities to capture carbon in durable consumer goods as well as in soil.

Regulatory Tweeks and Updated Interpretations Needed to Bring RFS and Other Rules Up to Date

This panel also noted a quick fix in regulatory-related practices that should better reflect the realities of soil carbon sequestration. Glenn Johnston of Nuseed described the 2 ½ to 3 feet deep roots characteristic of carinata and the common practice of measuring soil carbon only in the top few inches of soil. This misses much of the part of the soil where deep-rooted crops like carinata deposit carbon captured from the atmosphere and carried into the dirt. This practice would also tend to miss carbon storage by other deep-rooted crops like energy beets.

Johnston was also concerned about the intensive schedule for testing of carbon soil related to carbon sequestration and carbon credit markets noting the heavy expense to farmers and the lack of adequate testing facilities that may together preclude participation in these programs. He suggests baseline testing followed by additional testing in 5 or 10 years to confirm results predicted by appropriate modeling.

This panel also discussed another handicap to biofuel production related to an outdated interpretation of regulations. For some reason growers can’t get credit for planting cover crops if the crop is harvested. The crop can be taken off the field and used for bedding and that is not considered “harvesting”. It can be used for foraging animals and still be considered a cover crop. But, if winter crops that are planted to serve as cover crops to improve soil condition, reduce water runoff and wind erosion, if those crops have oil seeds that are gathered for use for biofuel or biochemical feedstock and animal feed co-product, they are no longer considered cover crops. This negatively impacts farmers’ incentives to invest in this beneficial, climate smart, regenerative agriculture practice.

Overall, Johnston urged new modeling for carbon intensity and replacement of the current EPA Renewable Identification Number (RINs) pathway determination system. He noted that Nuseed works with growers in South America to sell carinata to the European Union market because their system of feedstock approval.

O’Brien brought up the role that blockchain can play in validating supply chain and carbon credit application. She acknowledged the high energy draw used by blockchain systems and suggested that there could be ways to make that less carbon intensive.

The suggestion that renewable fuels could provide solutions to dangers exacerbated by climate change if only regulatory interpretations dating back to a decade or more were simply updated was initially raised by Julie Tucker during the U.S. Department of Agriculture Leadership briefings on Sunday. She suggested that “biomass from areas at risk of wildfire” in Environmental Protection Agency regulations should reflect USDA maps showing areas at risk of wildfire. What a thought.

Such regulatory changes could motivate companies like Red Rock Biofuels in Oregon to use feedstock gleaned from accepted and effective forest management practices such as pre-commercial thinning on federal forest lands, and collection of slash that feeds forest fires on federal land unnecessarily.

Other issues in the Firehose

How to compensate farmers for carbon capture and storage and climate smart agriculture practices? Nuseed pays farmers a set amount additional per acre depending of extra climate smart practices they employ such as spreading manure as soil amendment rather than making them bear the cost of such practices while they wait for uncertain carbon market compensation.

With regard to carbon markets based on agricultural practices, the panel discussed how some concepts such as additionality and permanence should give way to concepts like resistance and modeling, talking about how nature wants to cycle and resists carbon going back into the atmosphere. Why punish someone for doing something for 20 years by not letting them participate in carbon markets?

Conversely, current farmers may not be on that land four or ten years from now, so they are reluctant to contract to accept responsibility for continued carbon sequestration. The question was raised, who is responsible? Often land is leased by farmers; and not infrequently from absentee landlords, including those just parking funds with US land purchases who have no concern for improving soil quality or capturing carbon.

Alex Ward of Origin Materials brought up lower carbon footprint vehicles with components such as foams, tires, and other parts of the structure presenting huge markets that store carbon in these products. There should be a demand goal with stronger US government preference in the $400 Billion procurement for nonfossil-based materials; there should more government consumer pull, trendsetters for using biobased materials.

High feedstock prices and the complaint of lack of oil-based feedstock came up. Johnston had some strong opinions starting with a concern that there is not a feedstock shortage, just multiple policy roadblocks. High prices, he noted, are the solution for high prices. Getting carbon pricing where it needs to be to get climate smart practices could be an answer.

A session on biochemicals from bioethanol noted that with some chemicals selling for $3-5,000/ton the value of ethanol increases significantly by turning it into chemicals.

Some ethanol-to-chemical producers and some fuels and biochemical producers swore that they could make products competitive with fossil-based competitors; others admitted that they expected to rely on government incentives and some hoped low carbon fuel standards might be expanded to include bio-based chemicals.

John Hannon from Vertimass got a chance in two different sessions to talk about how their bio-aeromatics process applies to chemical markets as well as to fuel markets as renewable gasoline or, in combination with other processes such as HEFA and the LanzaJet alcohol-to-jet process, to make 100% sustainable aviation fuel. They are working through the ASTM process with this fuel blend.

A few sessions got into carbon capture and sequestration of the carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. Released by fermentation and captured for underground storage as illustrated by the ADM facility in Illinois; or by storing in consumer goods such as plastics, it’s clear that this aspect of renewable fuels and chemicals production needs more exploration and public education.

The ever-present plea for consistent long-term policy instead of administration-reliant practices raised its head repeatedly.

CAAFI’s Chris Tindal raised the question for a SAF panel of whether the goals for 2030 and 2050 in the Biden Administration’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge were feasible. He noted that the US would have to double consumption of SAF every year for next 8 years to meet the 3 Billion gallons/year goal and would have to scurry to achieve the 35 billion gallon/year goal for 2050.

Participants on the panel generally agree that is good to have stretch goals. Gevo could commit to producing 1 of those billions of gallons/year by 2030. Virent and Velocys thought it was possible to meet the goals; but maybe not quite on time due to how long it might take for practical things like getting permits, financing and construction and commissioning completed.

This summary only scratches the surface of the topics covered in the three tracks and plenary sessions so far.

A final thought struck me. So much hangs on agriculture to get the economy to net zero; we should be very nice to farmers, maybe even invite some to these meetings to give their perspectives on the burden that is resting on their shoulders and what they intend to do about it.

*Joanne Ivancic serves as the executive director of Advanced Biofuels USA.