1
Jeff Skeer, Office of Policy and International AffairsU.S. Department of Energy
German Marshall FundWashington, DC, 22 February 2008
Policies for Sustainable Biofuels Development in the United States
Renewable Fuels Standard Enacted: Focus on 2d Generation Feedstocks
Year Billions of Gallons of Fuel Per Year 20 in 10 Proposal Enacted 12/2007
(Alternative Fuels) (Biofuels Only) 2010 10 12 2011 11 12.6 2012 12 13.2 2013 14 13.8 2014 17 14.4 2015 22 15 2016 28 18 3 2017 35 21 6 2018 24 9 2019 27 12 2020 30 15 2021 33 18 2022 36 21
Of Which Non Starch Ethanol Biofuels:
Comparison of Biofuel Scenarios
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
EIA No-Policy-Change Projections
History
Annual Energy Outlook 2007
Corn Ethanol
Cellulosic Ethanol
Enacted December
2007l
Biofuels
Twenty in Ten Proposal
Biofuels &Alternative
Fuels
Year Advanced Biofuel Details Total Renewable
FuelBiomass-
Based DieselCellulosic
BiofuelTotal
Advanced Biofuel
2008 9.0
2009 0.5 0.6 11.1
2010 0.65 0.1 0.95 12.95
2011 0.80 0.25 1.35 13.95
2012 1.0 0.5 2.0 15.2
2013 1.0 1.0 2.75 16.55
2014 1.0 1.75 3.75 18.15
2015 1.0 3.0 5.5 20.5
2016 1.0 4.25 7.25 22.25
2017 1.0 5.5 9.0 24.0
2018 1.0 7.0 11.0 26.0
2019 1.0 8.5 13.0 28.0
2020 1.0 10.5 15.0 30.0
2021 1.0 13.5 18.0 33.0
2022 1.0 16.0 21.0 36.0
The Standards are NestedShown with 2022 volumes
Renewable fuels - 36 bill gal
Mostly corn-ethanol
Also other fuels which meet GHG reduction
threshold of 20%
Advanced biofuels - 21 bill gal
Cellulosic biofuel - 16 bill gal
Mostly cellulosic ethanol
All fuels must meet GHGreduction threshold of 60%
Mostly imported ethanolSome renewable diesel
All fuels must meet GHG reduction threshold of 50%
Biomass-based diesel
1 bill gal
Biodiesel
All fuels must meet GHG reduction threshold of 50%
Our Commitment to Sustainability
DOE’s Biomass Program is committed to developing the resources, technologies, and systems needed for biofuels to grow in a way that enhances the health of our environment and protects our planet. To that end, we are working to…
• Develop diverse, non-food feedstocks thatrequire little water or fertilizer
• Foster sustainable forestry practices toenhance forest health
• Selectively harvest biomass componentswhile leaving adequate soil nutrients
• Assess life-cycle impacts of major scale-up in biofuels production, from feedstocksto vehicles, addressing:
− land use and soil health
− water use
− air quality issues
− impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Different Fuels19%
Reduction 28%Reduction
52%Reduction
86%Reduction
78%Reduction
Gasoline
NaturalGas
BiomassCurrentAverage
CellulosicEthanolCorn Ethanol
BiomassPetroleum
Sources: Wang et al, Environ. Research Letters, May 2007; Wang et al, Life-Cycle Energy Use and GHG Implications of Brazilian Sugarcane Ethanol Simulated with GREET Model, Dec. 2007.
SugarcaneEthanol
Biomass
Overcoming Barriers to Commercial 2d Generation BIofuels
Barriers
• Enzymatic conversion costs
• C5 sugars conversion
• Low Syngas-to-Fuel Yields
• Commercial-scale integration of process components
• Inadequate feedstock and distribution infrastructure
Solutions
• R&D to improve effectiveness and reduce costs of enzymatic conversion
• R&D on advanced micro-organismsfor fermentation of sugars
• R&D to improve syngas clean-up and catalyst for alcohol/fuel synthesis
• Fund loan guarantees, commercial biorefinery demonstrations, and 10% scale validation projects
• Fundamental feedstock research, enhanced feedstock demonstrations at scale, collection & storage equipment research, development and testing
Future efforts address obstacles to biochemical and thermochemical routes to biofuels, support demonstrations, and resolve infrastructure issues.
Genetic Strategies to Boost Crop Yields
Increase feedstock per unit of land by increasing growth rate and photosynthetic efficiency.
Increase fuel yield per ton of feedstock through better composition and structure.
Enhance disease and pest resistance.Allow germination and growth in cold weather.Use perennial, multi-year crops with efficient
nutrient use and reduced fuel input.Permit dense planting and easy harvesting.Deep roots for increased carbon sequestration,
drought tolerance and nutrient uptake.
Cellulosic Ethanol Potential and Status
Cellulosic ethanol cost competitiveness
and sustainability attributes are key to
biofuels growth potential
Historical and Projected Cellulosic Ethanol CostsHistorical and Projected Cellulosic Ethanol Costs
Major reductions in the cost of cellulosic ethanolalready achieved – much remains to be done
Enzyme Feedstock Conversion
Future goal
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
Min
imum
Eth
anol
Sel
ling
Pric
e (c
ents
/gal
)
Cost reductions
to date
NREL Modeled Cost
Modeled Ethanol Cost for “nth Plant”
DOE Leverages Partnerships to Achieve Cost Reduction Goals
Commercial-Scale Biorefineries (up to $385 million) Six cost-shared, integrated biorefinery demonstration projects to produce
130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 5 years using variety of conversion technologies and cellulosic feedstocks
10%-Scale Biorefinery Validation (currently 4 projects up to $114 million) Cost-shared, integrated biorefinery demonstrations using cellulosic
feedstocks to produce renewable fuels; one-tenth of commercial scale Four selectees announced last month for total investment of $114 million;
more selectees expected by April 2008Ethanologen Solicitation (up to $23 million)
Five selected research teams working on microorganismsEnzyme Solicitation (up to $33.8 million)
Creating highly effective, inexpensive enzyme systems forcommercial biomass hydrolysis; second phase: cellulase development with cost-sharing industry partners
Thermochemical Conversion (up to $7.75 million) Integration of gasification and catalyst development
Joint DOE-USDA Solicitation ($18 million) Biomass R&D Initiative
GHG Methodologies Task Force of Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)
GHG methodologies taskforce established by GBEP steering committee in May 2007.
Desired end result is flexible methodology for policy makers in all countries.
First taskforce meeting held October 2007.
Second meeting scheduled for March 6-7 2008 and will include solid biomass and liquid biofuels.
GHG Taskforce Work Plan
1. Review existing methodologies;
2. Develop a harmonised approach so GHG lifecycle assessments can be compared on an equivalent basis;
3 Encompass the full well-to-wheel lifecycle of transport biofuels;
4 Not indicate a preference for any particular existing methodology or feedstock, or to limit parameters; and
5 Define parameters and inputs to be considered when conducting a LCA and develop a good practice document.
Membership of GHG Taskforce
Attendance at first meeting included:
•Canada•France•Germany•Italy•Japan•United Kingdom•United States
• UNEP• UN Foundation• International Council on Clean Transportation• University of California Berkeley• Iowa State University• GBEP Secretariat
Results of First GBEP GHG Meeting
Accomplished review of existing efforts in defining methodologies
Reached broad agreement that it is possible to develop common methodology
Developed preliminary list of parameters needed for a common methodology in a “checklist”
Recognized issues needing further discussion
Development of Common Checklist
The GHGs to be covered;
The effects of direct land use change, both in terms of above and below ground carbon inventories;
The effects of the production cycle, including fertilizer production, agricultural inputs and processing energy;
Combustion of the finished biofuel and tailpipe emissions; and
Corresponding factors to facilitate comparison with the fuel replaced.
Issues Needing further Discussion
Accounting for co-product emissions;
Ensuring transparency in default values and parameters used, and assumptions made, in conducting a GHG lifecycle assessment;
Whether and how to take account of the effects of indirect land use change;
How to take account of future technologies (e.g. cellulosic) in the design of the methodology.